Sitting of 9 March 1927

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Nar Valley Drainage Bill,
Farnham Gas and Electricity Bill,
Reading Gas Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  BRITISH PASSPORTS.
  Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of passports which have been issued or renewed in Great Britain for the three years ended to the last convenient date?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): The figures for passports issued are:

  1924

  230,701

  1925

  222,168

  1926

  237,448

  Total for the three years

  690,317

  Those for renewals are:

  1924

  177,529

  1925

  191,879

  1926

  210,108

  Total for the three years

  579,516

  CHINA.

    DIPLOMATIC BODY'S DECLARATION.
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received any notification of the declaration of warning to the leaders of the Chinese factions concerning the Shanghai opera-
    1204
    tions, which has been unanimously adopted by the diplomatic body in Peking; and can he state the exact terms of this declaration?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, Sir. The following are the terms of the declaration:
    "In the light of the military events which are at present taking place in the region of Shanghai, and which may at any moment have serious consequences for the safety of the life and property of their respective nationals, as was apparent from the bombardment of the 22nd of this month, the interested diplomatic representatives feel compelled to recall that the international settlement at Shanghai, like other concessions in China, was established in virtue of regular agreements with the Chinese Government in order to make it possible for foreigners to reside there freely and to carry on their trade.
    "In the course of party strife, of which that region has been the scene, the authorities of the international settlement have scrupulously abstained from favouring any of the conflicting parties involved, and, in spite of the difficulties of the situation, they are maintaining in that respect the strict neutrality imposed upon them by the nature of the state of affairs thus established.
    "The interested diplomatic representatives are thus warranted in expecting, on the part of the Chinese authorities, observance of the same rule of conduct, and they look to the heads of the armies involved to take all measures necessary to avoid incidents which would constrain the foreign authorities themselves to take measures indispensable for ensuring the safety of the persons and property of their nationals."
    Colonel DAY: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether a similar declaration has been made by the French Minister with regard to the French concession?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should have to have notice of that question.

    SHANGHAI.
    Mr. TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any armoured cars under the orders of the

    1205
    officer commanding the Shanghai Defence Force have been used on the roads outside the settlement; and, if so, for what purpose?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, Sir.
    Mr. TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any new roads have recently been constructed by the Shanghai municipality outside the limits of the international settlement; and, if so, whether the sanction of the Chinese authorities was obtained for the construction of such roads?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The Land Regulations of the international settlement at Shanghai give the municipal council the power to acquire land and construct roads outside settlement limits. The last occasion of which I have any knowledge when arty such roads were constructed was the winter of 1924–25.
    Mr. RILEY: Does the Treaty give the concessionnaires the right to occupy roads outside the limit?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Could the hon. Gentleman say ashen the work which was carried out in 1924 and 1925 was approved?
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Hsu Yuan, a Chinese Commissioner for Foreign Affairs at Shanghai, has protested to the senior Consul against British troops being stationed outside the concession; and what answer has been sent to this protest?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: When the Chinese authorities were informed of the pending stationing of troops on the outskirts of the international settlement at Shanghai, the Commissioner for Foreign Affairs entered a pro forms protest, but in conversation with His Majesty's Consul-General he expressed himself as satisfied with the explanations given.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any fresh Note has been received from Mr. Chen in relation to the British occupation of Shanghai; and whether any reply has been made?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, Sir. Mr. Chen and Mr. O'Malley have ex-
    1206
    changed communications on this subject, but the texts are not available. In any case the substance adds nothing to the statement made to the House by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on 21st February.
    Mr. MARDY JONESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the fact that the city of Shanghai has been successively captured by General Chang Tsung-Chang and Marshal Sun Chuan-Fang within the last few years; is he aware that the Shanghai international settlement was adequately protected on these occasions without the assistance of British troops; and will he state on what grounds similar arrangements for the security of the settlement have not been made and British armed forces employed at Shanghai during the present civil wars in China?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: When Shanghai was captured by Chang Tsung-Chang in January, 1925, it was necessary to land a large number of naval forces to assist the local volunteers in a safeguarding of the international settlement, and the despatch of troops from Hong Kong was authorised. The town was peacefully occupied by Sun Chuan-Fang in October, 1925, on the retirement of the Mukden troops. There was no fighting on this occasion, and no special precautions were found necessary. As regards the third part of his question, I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's speech in this House on 10th February.

    BRITISH CONSULAR OFFICERS (MOLESTATION).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the names of the towns in China where British Consular officers are stationer; and whether any of these gentlemen have been molested?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: For the names of British Consular posts in China I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Foreign Office List. During the last two years cases of direct molestation of His Majesty's Consular officers have been reported from Chinkiang, Swatow, Chungking, Têngyuëh, Hankow and Amoy. There have also been various instances of indirect molestation of Consular officers through boycotts and strikes.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How is it proposed to prevent these gentlemen being molested further at these inland ports and stations?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: We very much hope that they will not be molested.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I know the hon. Gentleman hopes that, but how is it proposed to prevent these gentlemen being molested? Are we, for example, entering into negotiations with the National forces to prevent them being molested?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think there is any indication at the moment that they will be molested.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Were any of the persons who were molested seriously injured?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: So far as the persons referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) are concerned, they were not seriously injured.
    Mr. MOSLEY: Were those Consular officers not told to go to places of safety at the same time as British nationals?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It is the business of His Majesty's representatives, as far as possible, to remain at the places where they have to carry on their duties.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: Will the Minister tell us under what circumstances the molestations took place?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Some of the molestations took place during strikes. Strike pickets did a certain amount of injury, and a certain number of agitators did some injury, and some of it was owing to mob violence.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: Will the Minister tell us whether we are taking any action with regard to breaking these strikes?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I should like to see that question on the Paper.

    BRITISH CONCESSIONS.
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the circumstances of all the British concessions in China from the point of view of their retrocession to
    1208
    China are similar; and, if not, will he state in detail what the differences are?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: While the circumstances of all British concessions in China are on the whole fundamentally similar, from the point of view of their retrocession to China various differences arise in respect of their locality, population, development and general importance. In view of the fact that negotiations regarding the future of the concessions are in progress, I do not consider it would be desirable to state the differences in detail.

    BRITISH NEGOTIATIONS.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. O'Malley or Sir Miles Lampson are engaged in any further negotiations with the Cantonese or any other Government in China?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Mr. O'Malley left Hankow on 2nd March to return to Peking to report to His Majesty's Minister. The Chinese Secretary of the Legation at Peking, who accompanied Mr. O'Malley to Hankow, remains there to attend to the execution of the details of the Hankow and Kiukiang concession agreements and to maintain contact with the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Nationalist Government on behalf of His Majesty's Minister. Sir M. Lampson has opened conversations with the Peking Government in regard to the proposals communicated by him to Dr. Koo on 27th January, but the discussions have not advanced beyond questions of general principle.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it be possible to have an English representative permanently stationed at Hankow with the Southern Government at the present time?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That raises racier a larger question. I imagine that certainly for some little time we shall have a representative at Hankow.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will Sir Miles Lampson be there or English deputy?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: When I said "the Chinese Secretary" he is not a Chinaman, but a member of the Legation.

    MUNITIONS.
    Mr. BECKETTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that General Sutton is now in Mukden, serving with Marshal Ohang Tso-lin; if he has satisfied himself as to whether or not this officer is transgressing Article 15 of the Chinese Order in Council, 1925; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Ilkeston on 7th March. We are still waiting for the information asked for from our Minister at Pekin.
    Mr. BECKETT: In view of the grave nature of the statements and the grave damage that this gentleman may do, cannot the Under-Secretary do something in the matter?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I believe the gentleman in question has already left, and we are not at all certain whether what he has actually done comes under this Order.

    SOUTHERN GOVERNMENT.
    Mr. MARDY JONESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the fact that the Nationalist Government of China is appointed by the central executive committee of the Kuomintang party and that the Kuomintang party consists of associations of intellectuals, of manual workers, and of peasants; and whether he will call for detailed Reports from His Majesty's consular officers in Nationalist China regarding the working of this new system of government?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: There is at the moment no Nationalist Government for the whole of China. So far as the Southern Government is concerned the position is, I believe, substantially as described in the first part of the question, though membership of the party is not, so far as I am aware, confined to the classes mentioned by the lion. Member. Reports are already being received from time to time from His Majesty's consular officers residing in territory administered by the Southern Government, and therefore I do not think it necessary to call for special information.
    Mr. JONES: May I ask whether any of these reports will be laid on the Table of the House in the course of the next few days?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I will consult my right hon. Friend when he comes back.
    Sir FRANK MEYER: Will the Under-Secretary tell us what is "an association of intellectuals"?

    SOMALILAND.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any pourparlers or negotiations have been entered into with the Government of Italy having for their object the surrendering of the mandated territory in Somaliland to Italy?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I fear the hon. Member must be under some misapprehension. British Somaliland is a protectorate and not a mandated territory. There have been no negotiations with Italy for the alteration of the protectorate's frontiers.
    Mr. MOSLEY: Was this matter discussed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his recent visit to Italy.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not know what was discussed.

    EGYPT (LEAGUE OF NATIONS).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it, is the intention of His Majesty's Government to support the application of the Egyptian Government, when made, for membership of the League of Nations; and whether a request has been received from the Egyptian Government for the support of His Majesty's Government when such application is made?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As I informed the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), on 5th July of last year, His Majesty's Government are unable to define their attitude in what is at, present a purely hypothetical contingency. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. HARRIS: Who represents the interests of Egypt on the League of Nations now?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should have to have notice of that question.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Have His Majesty's Government made up their minds not to support an application by the Egyptian Government?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: This is an entirely hypothetical question. We must wait until we see what is going to happen. The Egyptian Government have as yet taken no action.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Have His Majesty's Government any objection to the Egyptian Government making the application?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As I pointed out before, the Egyptian Government have as yet taken no action, and we must wait until we see what happens.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    SAAR (INTERNATIONAL FORCE).
    Mr. SPOORasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the voting that took place on the Saar Governing Commission, as reported to the League of Nations Council, on the question of the establishment of an international defence force to take the place of the Trench garrison?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The last paragraph of the Report to which the hon. Member refers states that one member of the Saar Governing Commission did not vote for it. The name of the member is not indicated.

    DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.
    Mr. DALTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay before the House in a White Paper the Reports of the sub-committees of the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference of the League of Nations?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The Reports are voluminous, and it was not considered that the cost of printing them would be justified. A copy of each Report can be seen in the Library of the House.

    INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS.
    Mr. DALTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what stage has been reached in the deliberations of the sub-committee of the Council of the League of Nations which is dealing with the amendment to Article XI. of the Covenant?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The committee of three members have prepared a report which will be considered by the Committee of the Council next week.

    ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
    Mr. BARRasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has supplied material to the preparation commission for the forthcoming Economic Conference; whether it is proposed, by means of documents or otherwise, to assist in the work of the said conference; and, if so, whether such material will be published?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, Sir. The British Government Departments concerned have given such help as they can, and the documentation prepared from the information available from all the various sources is being published by the League of Nations.

  RUSSIA.

    BRITISH AND RUSSIAN NOTES.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Papers will be laid containing the Note to the Soviet Republics and the reply?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am awaiting the receipt from His Majesty's representative at Moscow of the official text of the Soviet Government's reply. As soon as it reaches me, the White Paper containing the texts of the two Notes will be laid. I may add that it takes nine days for the bag to come from Moscow.
    Mr. MOSLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman also lay the last speech of Lord Birkenhead?

    M. KAMENEV'S SPEECH.
    Miss LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the date on which M. Kamanev made the speech alluded to in the Note and a, reference to any Rus-

    1213
    sian newspaper; whether the only authority, when compiling the Note, possessed by the Foreign Office was a report from Riga in the "Times" of 15th December, reproduced verbatim and extenso in the Note; and, if so, whether he will take steps to ensure that in future, where important diplomatic communications are concerned, care shall be taken to consult authoritative reports?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The exact date of the speech is not known to me. It was commented upon in the foreign Press as well as by the "Times," and the Soviet Government have not denied the accuracy of the allusion in our Note. The text of the "Times" report was not reproduced in the Note, as the hon. Lady supposes. The Note merely stated that M. Kamanev was recently reported as using the language attributed to him.
    Miss LAWRENCE: Is it the case that the Soviet Government did not discuss the authenticity of Mr. Kameneff's speech, but merely said that it was no concern of the Government?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am not aware of that.
    Miss LAWRENCE: Will the Minister be so kind as to answer the latter part of the question, whether in future when important diplomatic documents are concerned, original and not third-hand reports will be consulted?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: If the hon. Member means by authoritative reports the Russian report, I would say that it is very often the case that these Russian reports are very heavily censored, and it does not necessarily mean that because the report comes from Russia you are getting a really accurate or complete report.
    Miss LAWRENCE: The under-Secretary does not understand what I mean. What I want him to do is to disclaim in future news from Russia, from "Our Riga correspondent" and to consult Russian papers instead.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that the very important Note to Russia was partly based on foreign newspapers' reports of the speech?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: This speech was reported, and it appeared in the foreign Press. It appeared not only in our own Press, but in the Italian and other Press.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    CONSTRUCTION.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that His Majesty's Government has returned a favourable reply to President Collidge's invitation to a conference on naval armaments, it is proposed to commence the building of any new warships this year; and whether it is proposed to continue work on the 'ships now under construction at the same speed and rate of work as if no naval conference had been called and accepted?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): it is not intended to lay down any of the vessels of the 1927 quota of new construction until late in the year, by which time it is hoped that the result of the proposed conference will be known. The answer to the latter part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the First Lord consider again the point raised in the second part of my question, so that we may avoid unnecessary expenditure in the future agreements?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir.

    ADMIRALTY STAFF.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the number and annual cost of the staff at headquarters in the year 1913–14, and what are the numbers and cost for the year 1926–27; whether there has been any saving on the provision made in the Estimates for the current year; and if it is anticipated that the staff of the Admiralty will be reduced to pre-War dimensions at, an early date?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The numbers and cost of the staff employed at the Admiralty Headquarters Establishment on the 1st January, 1914, and 1st January, 1927, were 2,062 and 3,193 respectively. The annual cost of the staff at Headquarters

    1215
    during 1913–14 was £463,602. The cost for corresponding staff for the current financial year may be taken as The figure of cost for the current year £1,271,632, shows a saving of £14,500 on the provision made in the Estimates. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply of the 18th November, 1925, to the hon. Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. Bennett) [OFFICIAL REPORT, colo. 358–364], where he will find a detailed explanation why the number of civilian staff cannot be reduced to the pre-War level.

    BATTLE OF JUTLAND.
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give any information from the records of the Admiralty, such as the special signals records, as to the time at which on the night of the Battle of Jutland the "Lion" warned her consorts of her intention to turn about?
    Commander BELLAIRS: Is not the hon. Gentleman turning day into night?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I must confess that I was a little puzzled by the word "night" in the question, but I do not think it has any special significance. I must refer the hon. Member to the Admiralty Narrative of the Battle of Jutland published in 1924 which gives the chronology of all the movements in the battle as accurately as the Admiralty can fix it from the signal logs and other records.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the definite denial of this statement made publicly by Sir Euan Evans Thomas, and can he say whether the statement made by this gentleman or the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is correct?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If the hon. Gentleman will read the narrative, he will find, on page 12, that at 2.31 the "Barham" had received the signal indicating the course which the Vice-Admiral (Admiral Beatty) intended to steer. The actual executive signal is logged as having been received at 2.37 p.m. by the "Barham."
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How was that signal sent; was it by flag or searchlight?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think it, would be better to have any further questions put down on the Paper. Perhaps hon. Members who are anxious for further information will refer to the official narrative.

    GYRO-COMPASSES.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that all the gyro-compasses in the Fleet are of foreign origin; that the essential gyroscopical units were made abroad; that instructions to officers at the compass observatory and in the Admiralty manual are limited to this particular apparatus; and will he have inquiries made into this matter?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The standard gyro-compass used in the Fleet is the Sperry type (American). At the end of 1913, as a result of competitive trial, it was decided to adopt this type instead of the Anschutz (German), the only two gyro-compasses then on the market. From that time until the end of the War, as a result of the above decision, the Sperry Company, of Brooklyn, supplied the British Fleet with gyro-compasses. The scrapping policy after the armistice released a large number of these compasses; they have been reconditioned and used for further service. As this is the only type of compass in use in the Navy no object is seen in describing other types in the Admiralty manual nor in giving instruction on such types unless or until they are adopted. When it again becomes necessary for the Admiralty to purchase any considerable number of gyro-compasses they will, as in 1913, offer to firms who are willing to tender an opportunity to submit instruments for competitive tests at sea.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that there is a British-owned concern making a British compass by British labour at the present time, at a price which is half of that which this foreign concern is charging; and at the present moment that compass is in use on 16 ships of the Canadian Pacific, it is used on the Cunard ships and other vessels, and on the last and the biggest vessel built by the French nation; and will he give a chance to British labour?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The hon. Member must recollect that, in these days of stringent economy, the Admiralty, like any other Department, must work through its existing stocks, and I have definitely said that when the opportunity arises, we shall give every opportunity to British firms.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have two speeches.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been drawn to a contract given to a foreign-owned organisation to supply a number of units for completing a quantity of gyro-compasses; and, seeing that the gyro-compass was on the 25th January last included under the provisions of the Key Industries Act, will he take steps in future to make use of the British-owned and British-made product?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The foreign-owned organisation (The British Sperry Company) employs British labour and material, and any compasses manufactured by them for the Royal Navy are now made in this country. The contract in question consisted in completing a number of Sperry master compasses which had been left partially manufactured at the Armistice. The Admiralty are fully alive to the desirability of using the products of British-owned firms where suitable, and has already made exhaustive trial of one such type of compass. A further trial in one of His Majesty's ships of a gyro-compass, made by a British-owned firm, will shortly be instituted.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this so-called British concern consists of 100,000 shares, 99,997 of which are held by foreigners and only three by Englishmen—one by each English director—and will he give a chance to this British-made compass to be tested for His Majesty's Fleet?

    ROYAL INDIAN NAVY.
    Mr. AMMONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government that any naval forces and vessels raised and
    1218
    provided by the Governor-General of India in Council should be placed at his disposal to be employed otherwise than upon Indian naval defence?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Bill makes provision for the possibility that the Royal Indian Navy, after being placed at the disposal of His Majesty, may be employed for purposes other than the purely local defence of India. Circumstances may arise in which it may be desirable to take advantage of this provision.
    Mr. BECKETT: Will the Indian National Assembly be consulted before these ships are moved?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think the hon. Member will find that there are ample safeguards in the Bill down for consideration this afternoon.
    Mr. BECKETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question can be debated on the Bill.

    CRUISER CONSTRUCTION, UNITED STATES.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the names of the five cruisers building for the United States of America, as stated in the Return of Fleets (Cmd. 2809); and whether the failure of the American Congress to approve of appropriations for three cruisers this year affects these figures?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Two only of the cruisers building have been given names, namely, No. 24, "Pensacola," and No. 25, "Salt Lake City"; the names of Nos. 26, 27 and 28 have not yet been reported. As regards the second part of the question, Congress has appropriated 450,000 dollars for commencement of Nos. 29, 30 and 31, the three remaining cruisers of the 1924 programme, the Bill having been signed by the President on 2nd March, 1927.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Congress rose without appropriating for these cruisers, and will he make inquiries again of his Intelligence Department as to the accuracy of this?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will certainly make further inquiries, but should be rather glad to have a little evidence from the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: This is in the ordinary Press messages in the newspapers.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Regulations governing the administration of extended benefit have operated so as to throw a large number of unemployed on to the Poor Law relief and thus increased the local rates; and can he see his way to modify these Regulations in view of the already heavy burden of local rates?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): No, Sir.

    INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION (COST).
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Labour what is the total cost of the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Acts for the financial year ending 31st March, 1926?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The total cost was approximately £4,820,000.

    CONTRIBUTIONS.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Labour the total amounts paid by the State, employers and insured persons, respectively, under the Unemployment Insurance Acts during 1926?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The amounts paid for unemployment insurance contributions during the year ended 31st December, 1926, were approximately as follow:

    £

    By employers

    15,540,000

    By employed persons

    13,290,000

    By Exchequer

    11,800,000

    Total

    40,630,000

    RELIEF WORKS, WEDNESBURY.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Labour whether, with a view to assisting the unemployed and providing playing-fields for school children attending the elementary schools of Wednesbury,
    1220
    Tipton and Darlaston, he will recommend the Unemployment Grants Committee to provide the local authorities with funds to enable them to clear and level the pit mounds existing in these localities?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I understand that proposals of this nature have previously been considered, but that, in the absence of any definite application for a grant, no decision was reached by the Unemployment Grants Committee. If the local authorities concerned are of opinion that they can satisfy the conditions for grant now obtaining, as indicated in the Committee's Circular Letter of the 15th December, 1925, an application to the Committee would be considered.

    ROTA COMMITITES.
    Mr. BECKETTasked the Minister of Labour how many decisions of rota committees were reversed by his Department during 1926; and what number of these alterations were in favour of the appellant?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Out of 3,835,868 applications for extended unemployment benefit considered by local committees in Great Britain during the period 12th January, 1926, to 10th January, 1927, the recommendations were not accepted in 18,038 cases (rather less than 0.48 per cent.). Of this number the revision was in favour of the applicant in 1,248 cases.
    Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these men find very great difficulty in putting their cases in writing, as they have to do when the case goes to his Department, and will he not exercise very great care in revising these decisions?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Every possible care is exercised in reviewing cases.

    POOR LAW RELIEF (STATISTICS).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour whether he would be prepared, in conjunction with the Minister of Health, to supplement the monthly table relating to Poor Law relief published in the "Labour Gazette," to include a column showing the percentage of insured persons who are unemployed in each of the selected Poor Law areas to which the Poor Law relief statistics relate?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I doubt if this is practicable, but I will consider the suggestion.

    GRANTS COMMITTEE (PAYMENTS).
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the Minister of Labour the amounts paid by the Unemployment Grants Committee within each of the last six months; and the main lines upon which the money has been expended?
    Sir A. STEEL MAITLAND: In view of the number of figures to be given, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The figures asked for are as follow:

    £

    September, 1926

    393,905

    October, 1926

    127,742

    November, 1926

    459,578

    December, 1926

    213,256

    January, 1927

    131,983

    February, 1927

    293,724

    The more important groups of work are those in respect of

    (1) Sewers and Sewage Disposal.

    (2) Gas and Electricity Supply.

    (3) Cemeteries.

    (4) Parks and Recreation Grounds.

    DISMISSED GOVERNMENT EMPLOYéS.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour whether it is the policy of his Department to refuse employment to any ex-Government employé who has been dismissed for an offence against some Regulation; and, if so, how such a person would stand with regard to unemployment pay?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In general, the answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but each case is considered on its merits. In the case of established officers who do not pay unemployment insurance contributions, unemployment benefit would not be payable; other cases would be determined in accordance with the ordinary procedure.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: In the case of temporary officials who commence, and are then dismissed because of a previous alleged offence, would they be immediately entitled to unemployment pay?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Not necessarily. If the hon. Member will read my answer, he will see that as a rule they would not be, but each ease is considered on its merits. It is Impossible to give one answer that will cover all the cases.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: If the Department are unwilling to employ one of these persons after a technical offence, how does the right hon. Gentleman expect private employers to employ them, and, in case they do not, why should they not be immediately entitled to unemployment pay?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I can only say that it is not possible to give an answer of this kind as a generality, without having the individual eases. If the hon. Member has any individual case, and will communicate it to me, I will go into it.

    SEASONAL WORKERS.
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the Minister of Labour whether, when the Unemployment Act Amendment Bill is introduced, he proposes to deal with the case of seasonal workers on the lines of the Blanesburgh Report recommendations?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am afraid that I cannot anticipate the proposals of the Bill, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the recommendation of the Committee will receive the most careful consideration.

    COAL MINERS (WORKING HOURS).
    Mr. DALTONasked the Minister of Labour if he has taken legal opinion as to whether the hours now being worked by any men or boys in or about the British coal mines under any district agreement are in excess of those permitted under the Washington Hours Convention; and, if so, whether he will communicate this opinion to the House?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. DALTON: Would it not be desirable, in view of the opinions that have been expressed on the matter, to take legal opinion, so as to be quite sure that the Government are not responsible, owing to the Act that was passed last Session?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am considering the question at this moment.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it not a fact that, owing to the Eight Hours Act, the hours worked by underground workers exceed eight, and, therefore, exceed the number laid down in the Washington Convention?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member is giving me the legal opinion himself.
    Mr. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is a fact? I know that it is a fact.
    Mr. TAYLOR—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must wait, to give facts until he is on the Treasury Bench.
    Mr. JONES: A fact remains a fact, whether one is in Opposition or in the Government.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is not a matter for Question Time.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Did not the right hon. Gentleman state recently that the Miners Eight Hours Bill was not a contravention of the Washington Convention, and had he taken legal opinion before he made that statement?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I never made that statement.
    Mr. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Secretary of the International Labour Office at Geneva warned the Government and the country that the imposition of an Eight Hours Act in this country would seriously endanger the recognition of the Washington Convention?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that question.

    WEEKLY REST DAY (GENEVA CONVENTION).
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the Minister of Labour whether His Majesty's Government intends to ratify the Geneva Convention on the weekly rest day in industrial undertakings; and, if so, when they propose to introduce the necessary legislation?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The British Government delegates voted
    1224
    against this Convention at Geneva in 1921, and their action was subsequently confirmed by the decision of the Government not to ratify it. It is not proposed to reconsider that decision.

    BUILDING TRADE DISPUTE, SCOTLAND.
    Mr. N. MACLEANasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a dispute has arisen between the building trade operatives and a small section of employers over a wage reduction; that housing schemes and works of public utility are being held up; and what steps his Department are taking to bring about a settlement?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am aware of this dispute. Conferences have proceeded between the parties during the last few days, but I understand that yesterday afternoon they failed to reach agreement. I am considering what action can usefully be taken by my Department.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this dispute has arisen because of the fact that a small section of employers have broken away from a national agreement which is in existence between the Scottish Regional Council of the Employers' Federation and the trade union, and they are imposing a reduction in wages of 2d. per hour upon the labourers, and at the same time increasing the wages of the bricklayers?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot at this moment, in answer to a question, discuss the whole matter across the Floor of the House. I may be mistaken, but I am not aware that the employers in this case were parties to the national agreement with the rest of the employers in Scotland. It is not a very complicated matter, and my Department have already been in touch with them, and the parties have been in negotiation. It is really a question as to how far action, if it be taken, will be a help in order to get the parties together. We are watching it from that point of view.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether or not it is the case that his Department

    1225
    has had submitted to it proposals from the workers' side to resume work on the status quo, pending a Government inquiry into the whole of the circumstances; and whether it is the case that he has power to hold an inquiry when one side has approached him? This means 6s. 5d. a week off poor workers, while the employers have already had their contracts fixed for a long time, and are going to snake large profits.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member will put down a question in detail, I will try to answer it. A number of proposals have been made on either side. I could not commit myself forthwith to an answer on a point of detail.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that his Department has the power to hold an inquiry, and if a demand for an inquiry has been made by the employés, could he not concede it?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I certainly could not concede it as a general principle in any case. Of course, my Department have the power to set up a court of inquiry; that is well known; but it is also quite well known that to state in advance that you will set up a court of inquiry is not necessarily the course that is likely to lead to the earliest termination of the dispute. I have to use my discretion in each Case, and it would be in the exercise of my discretion that I should or should not take a decision to set up a court of inquiry.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this body of employers who are reducing the wages of the labourers have contracts for houses from the Glasgow Corporation, who have laid down a recommendation to them to pay the standard rate of 1s. 3½.?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think that further question should be put down. The Minister cannot have this in his mind without notice.
    Mr. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman has had quite a lot of information sent to his Department. They are fully aware of all these facts.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it the case that the workers have asked for an inquiry
    1226
    and are prepared to resume work in the status quo pending the inquiry?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot answer without notice. I will obtain the exact facts about that and communicate with the hon. Member or the House if he wishes at once, but as I was going to remark on the other question, I must have notice with regard to some details which it is really for the municipality itself to carry out.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter to-night on the Adjournment.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that a dispute has arisen between the building trade workers and a section of the employés in several places in Scotland over a wage reduction; if any housing schemes are affected and, if so, how many, and where; and whether the Government are taking any steps to see that the Fair Wages Clause is being observed on schemes that are being assisted with Government subsidies?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I am aware of this dispute and I am advised that certain housing schemes in Glasgow and the surrounding district are affected. As the hon. Member is aware the housing schemes are conducted by the local authorities themselves, and I am not therefore able to give the desired information without calling for a special return. With regard to the last part the responsibility there also rests primarily with the local authority, though I am in close touch with the Minister of Labour on the whole situation.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    PARACHUTES.
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for Air whether all pilots are now given a complete course of instruction in the use of the parachute; and if separate parachutes are fitted on all aeroplanes for pilots and mechanics?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second, the policy is to provide a parachute for every pilot, observer or other member of the crew of

    1227
    an aircraft while on flying duty and effect is being given, and to a large extent has already been given, to this policy throughout the Royal Air Force.
    Captain BRASS: Is it not the fact that it is not necessary to descend in a parachute to understand how it works?
    Sir S. HOARE: I think probably it would be better to make a practice descent.

    MESS REGULATIONS.
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Secretary of State for Air whether the responsibility for the due enforcement of mess regulations rests upon the officers commanding stations; and whether there is any higher supervision in this sphere?
    Sir S. HOARE: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative. The higher supervision is provided in the shape of the periodical inspections and general control of group and area commanders.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Has a committee of inquiry been inquiring into the expense of the Air Force, and what decision have they arrived at?
    Sir S. HOARE: There has been no special inquiry. As I informed the hon. and gallant Gentleman the other day, I have no reason to think the expenses are excessive.

    MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT.
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to abolish the Ministry of Transport during the coming financial year?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave on 10th February in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Heywood and Radcliffe.

    MINES DEPARTMENT.
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to abolish the Department of Mines and absorb it in the Board of Trade during the coming financial year?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Have the Government considered the question of abolishing the Board of Trade and absorbing it in the Mines Department?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the Mines Department in danger of being absorbed by the Coal Merchants' Federation?

    LEASEHOLD TENURE.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir GODFREY DALRYMPLE-WHITEasked the Prime Minister when the Government proposals on the subject of leasehold tenure will be made known?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is hoped that the Second Reading of this Bill will be taken before Easter.

  TRANSPORT.

    CO-ORDINATION OF POWERS.
    Mr. FENBYasked the Prime Minister whether he will set up a committee of inquiry into the transport system in the country with a view to co-ordinating and regulating the powers and responsibilities of local authorities, railways, and private companies, and the creation of an effective transport service to meet the industrial needs of the country?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to answer this question. The problems connected with the relations of different forms of transport are engaging my attention, and provisions in the draft Road Bill, to he published shortly, deal with the better regulation of passenger vehicles on roads.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Did the right hon. Gentleman consult with all parties interested with regard to the Bill before it was drafted?
    Colonel ASHLEY: No, but the whole object of the publication of the Bill is that there shall be consultation with interested parties.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Has there been consultation with someone before the Bill was drafted, and, if so, with whom?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have consulted with myself.
    Mr. B. SMITH: Is the Bill going to deal with the co-ordination of traffic on the lines of the question?
    Colonel ASHLEY: "The provisions in the draft Road Bill to be published shortly"—not brought before the House, but published—"deal with the better regulation of passenger vehicles on roads."
    Mr. SMITH: I am asking whether there will he co-ordination on the lines of the question.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I think the hon. Member had better wait for the Bill.

    UNCLASSIFIED ROADS.
    Mr. EVERARDasked the Minister of Transport whether the whole of the é1,300,000 allocated for the upkeep of unclassified roads (luring the current financial year has been distributed to local authorities?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Practically the whole of the £1,300,000 made available for the upkeep of unclassified roads in rural areas during the current financial year has been allocated to individual authorities, but the distribution of the final instalments must await the submission by the authorities of certificates of expenditure at the close of the financial year.
    Mr. EVERARDasked the Minister of Transport for how many miles of unclassified road has assistance been given from the Road Fund during the current financial year; what proportion that mileage bears to the total mileage of unclassified roads; and what proportion the sum allocated bears to the total expenditure by local authorities on those roads?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The moneys made available during 1926–27 for maintenance grants to rural roads have enabled me to give assistance to 34,072 miles of unclassified roads in England and Wales, representing 35 per cent. of the total mileage of unclassified roads in rural areas. In addition grants have also been made towards unclassified roads in urban areas, but I am unable to ascertain without considerable labour the mileage thus assisted, and I hope my hon. Friend will not press for the information. I am unable to answer the third part of the question as I have no information as to the total expenditure of local authorities on unclassified roads.
    Mr. EVERARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman obtain the figures of the total expense incurred by the local authorities on these roads?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I will see what can be done.

    LONDON TRAFFIC.
    Sir FREDRIC WISEasked the Minister of Transport whether, as the three traffic Reports on London and district have now been issued, he will state what he now proposes to do in connection with the problem?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Officers of my Department have been, and are still, in consultation with the railway companies concerned, with a view to effect being given to certain of the recommendations contained in the three Reports of the London Traffic Advisory Committee referred to in the question. As regards some of the major works recommended by the Committee, the companies state that they are not in a position to incur the large capital expenditure involved under the present conditions. At my request the Committee are now exploring the possibility of securing some measure of co-ordination, or co-operation, between the respective transport agencies.
    Sir F. WISE: Who are on this new Committee?
    Commander WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the approximate cost, and what is the value of these Reports if they are not used?
    Colonel ASHLEY: My hon. Friend must not assume that they are not going to be used. The last one was only published a fortnight ago.
    Sir F. WISE: Is another Report to be issued?
    Colonel ASHLEY: We have just issued one.
    Mr. B. SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what progress has been made with co-ordination as recommended?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I cannot say. I only know that close negotiations are going on, but no final decision has been reached.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in the discussions which are going on, the main line railway companies are included, or is the discussion only with the omnibus, tramway and tube undertakings?
    Colonel ASHLEY: It includes consultation with the main line railways.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Has any decision yet been arrived at in regard to the Victoria Dock Road scheme?
    Colonel ASHLEY: That does not come into this matter.

    ADEN (ADMINISTRATION).
    Viscount SANDONasked the Prime Minister whether dual control as now established at Aden is considered by the Government as desirable in principle or in practice; whether it is to be permanent or, if not, for how long; whether civil administration will be transferred to the Colonial Office; and, if not, what are the objections to such a course?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The arrangements now made are considered to be those that on the whole best meet existing requirements. I cannot say that they will be permanent; but there is no present intention of altering them. The Aden Settlement is part of British India, and the civil internal administration must therefore remain with the Government of India.

    KING'S BENCH DIVISION.
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that on the 21st February there were 759 special jury cases, 547 common jury cases and 643 non-jury cases in the list for the King's Bench Division; and what steps are being taken to expedite the hearing of these cases?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): No, Sir. The number of special jury cases standing for trial on 21st February, 1927, was S5 and not 759, as stated in the question. The number of common juries was 190 and not 547, and the number of non-juries 354 and not 643.
    Mr. BAKER: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to apologise for having been misinformed.

    JUDGES' MARSHALS.
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Attorney. General whether he will state the precise duties which are performed by a Judges' marshal?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: A Judges' marshal acts as private secretary to the Judge and also as aide-de-camp, as the Judge represents the King on Circuit. He also impanels and swears the Grand Jury; he attends and sits in Court in case the Judge requires his services, and generally renders to the Judge any service or assistance which the latter may require.
    Mr. BAKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether this is not one of the few cases where an economy can be secured? £3,000 is spent on this form of service, which could be dispensed with.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is not a matter immediately for myself to consider, but for the Lord Chancellor, Speaking for myself, think it would be regrettable if the emoluments of Judges, which are already sufficiently low, were in any way interfered with.

    LAND SETTLEMENT (ENGLAND, PALESTINE AND AUSTRALIA).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can obtain figures showing the average cost, under the headings land, buildings and equipment, of settling an unemployed settler family on an agricultural holding in Palestine. England and Australia, giving in each case the area of land held to be essential to support the family?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The cost of settling a man and his family on the land in this country varies so greatly with the character of the holding, whether the land is bought or leased, what new equipment has to be erected and similar factors, that any average figure would be very misleading. Moreover, an unemployed settler, besides being handicapped by want of knowledge, would require not only farming capital but also the means of subsistence until he could make a living off his holding, and these items of expenditure have not hitherto

    1233
    been met from public funds in this country. I am informed that similar considerations apply in Australia, where the cost of settlement varies largely with the particular State. I am unable to obtain any information in this country as to costs of settlement in Palestine.

    MOTOR SPEED LIMIT, SUTTON.
    Captain BRASSasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the number of motorists, 1,874 in 1925 and 1,546 in 1926, who have been timed to exceed the 10 miles an hour speed limit in Sutton without, in the opinion of the Metropolitan Police, driving to the danger of the public; and whether, in view of this fact, he will consider the advisability of removing this limit, which merely increases traffic congestion and does nothing to safeguard the inhabitants of the town?
    Colonel ASHLEY: My attention has been called to these figures. I anticipate a full discussion of the value of the 10-mile speed limits as a means of protecting the public as soon as the draft Road Traffic Bill is circulated. At the present time I should be reluctant to revoke any existing speed limit Regulation unless I were asked to do so by the local authority concerned.
    Captain BRASS: Has the right hon. Gentleman the power to revoke this Order?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have the power, but I should be reluctant to do so without the concurrence of the local authority.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a wide open road beyond Sutton over the railway bridge and that there is no danger there whatever?
    Colonel ASHLEY: That question should he addressed to the Home Secretary.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman repel these incitements to break the law by members of his own party?

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Health if he has consulted the Law Officers of the Crown as to the legality of the claim of widows of insured persons whose husbands died prior to 4th January, 1920, to be paid old age pensions at 65 on or after 2nd January, 1928?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The answer is in the negative. I would point out that the classes of persons entitled, under the Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, to old age pensions at 65, are clearly set out in Section 7 of the Act.

    SCHOOL TEACHERS (RURAL TRAINING).
    Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Departmental Committee which has been appointed to consider the training of teachers interested in country life and occupations contains no member who possesses intimate acquaintance with Wales and Welsh rural conditions; whether the Welsh Department of the Board of Education was consulted in regard to the composition of such Committee; and what steps he proposes to take to make the Committee representative of Wales as well as of England?
    Mr. ERNEST EVANSasked the President of the Board of Education if the Departmental Committee appointed to consider the question of establishing for teachers courses of training which will meet the special needs of country schools will include the needs of Wales within the scope of its inquiry; and, if so, if he will appoint someone having practical knowledge of the conditions obtaining in Wales to serve on the Committee?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): The answer to the first two parts of the question put by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Haydn Jones) is in the affirmative. A delegacy will, I hope, shortly be set up by the University of Wales, in consultation with the authorities of training colleges, to conduct the final examination for training college students in Wales and Monmouthshire; and I propose to ask that body to consider the

    1235
    matter so far as the special interests of Wales are affected.
    Mr. MORRIS: Will this Committee which has already been set up, consider the special conditions of Wales?
    Lord E. PERCY: It is to inquire into the general rural problem, but, after all, the recommendations are not going to be recommendations which can be enforced upon any local authority or training college which does not want to adopt them.
    Mr. MORRIS: Will the Report of this Committee affect the rural conditions in Wales?
    Lord E. PERCY: I hope that the Report of the Committee will be one which the local authorities in rural districts in Wales will very carefully consider.
    Mr. MORRIS: In that event, how is it that no one familiar with the conditions in Wales has been placed upon the Committee?
    Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member will remember that I have been asked before why I did not put on members representing other interests. I am afraid that any Committee will become excessively large if I have to put on representatives of all the possible interests that may be involved.

    SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT (CHEMICALS).
    Mr. FENBYasked the President of the Board of Trade why the exemption orders applied for since last August under Section 10 (5) of the Finance Act, 1926, in respect of phenacetin, phenazone, oxalic acid, hydroquinone, and other products liable to duty under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, have not yet been issued; and if he is aware that the effect of the undue delay in issuing the exemption orders is that users, including the textile industry, are compelled to pay at least one-third more than would otherwise be the case for these raw materials, which have to be imported as they are not made here?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): As my right hon. Friend in-
    1236
    formed the hon. Member yesterday, an Order under Section 10 (5) of the Finance Act, 1926, exempting certain articles from duty, was made by the Treasury on Monday last.

    PRISON WORKSHOPS (TALKING).
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether talking is now allowed in the workshops at His Majesty's convict and local prisons; and whether, in view of the varying practices which have prevailed in different prisons since the abolition of the silence rule, he will issue a Circular defining on what occasions talking should be permitted?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): A Circular on this subject was issued by the Prison Commissioners on the 3rd March, 1922, and was published as Appendix 10 to their Annual Report for 1921–22. The principles laid down in the Circular have been embodied also in the Standing Orders, and are the rule and practice of the Service. His Majesty's Inspectors see to it that this rule is carried out uniformly as far as possible. No fresh instructions are required.

    POLICEWOMEN, ROTHERHITHE.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the remarks made by Mr. Justice Acton in the trial of William Arthur Edward Shillibeer, of Rotherhithe, at the Central Criminal Court, for murder, to the effect that it was quite clear that he was in the first instance wantonly and gratuitously insulted and provoked by a gang of boys gathered together for such purposes, and afterwards assailed by a number of those boys, who gave every indication of an intention to act together in attacking and doing violence upon him; whether the existence of this gang was known to the police before the attack on Shillibeer; how many policewomen are on the strength of the force in that division; whether any have been or detailed for duty in the Rotherhithe district; and whether, in view of the proved existence of at least one gang of lawless children,

    1237
    he will strengthen the division of the Metropolitan police force concerned by the appointment of additional policewomen for special duty among children in this district?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am aware of the remarks made by Mr. Justice Acton, which appear to have been based on the fact that a number of schoolboys attacked the boy Shillibeer. The existence of the alleged gang was not known to the police before the attack in question; and the attack on Shillibeer is the only incident connected with the group which has come to the notice of the police. There are two women police constables attached to the Division and they do duty, when occasion requires, in Rotherhithe, and there does not appear to be any present need for additional women police in the neighbourhood nor does the case in question indicate any such need.

    TRADE FACILITIES ACT (LATVIA).
    Sir F. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any guarantee under the Trade Facilities Act has been granted to Latvia?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The answer is in the negative.
    Sir F. WISE: May I ask whether interest is being paid on this loan?
    Mr. MacNEILL: I should like to have notice of that question.

    BRITISH HONDURAS (TIMBER RESERVES).
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Governor of the Colony of British Honduras has sanctioned the farming out of the timber reserves on an enormous tract of Crown land for a period of 30 years from 1930; that this contract is worth £20,000,000; that an offer from British sources was received prior to 27th May, 1926; that this offer was declined on the ground that it was too late and that the offer of an American syndicate had already been accepted, whereas, in fact, this American offer had not been formally accepted on 14th July, 1926;
    1238
    whether he can state the present position in regard to these offers; and whether, in view of the threatened world timber shortage and the rise in prices to this country, he will take steps to safeguard our national interests in this matter?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I am unable to accept as accurate several of the statements implied in the hon. Member's question. For an account of the transaction to which he alludes, I would refer him to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir Basil Peto) on the 23rd February, of which I am sending him a copy.

    AFRICAN COLONIES (NATIVE LABOUR).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state or obtain figures showing the number of native males and females who leave the reserves or their farms to seek work elsewhere in any one year in any or all of the Colonies: Uganda, Kenya, Tanganyika, Nyasaland, and Northern Rhodesia; and what is the number of the males so seeking work who are already married?
    Mr. AMERY: The statistics referred to are not available and I think only a very rough estimate could be made by the local Governments. It is very unlikely that any information could be obtained as to whether the labourers are married or not. As regards Tanganyika Territory, Appendix III to the Report on Labour (Colonial No. 19, published last year) gives some approximate figures of the number of labourers employed at the date of the Report.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are there any statistics to show whether the natives who come from these reserves are married or single men?
    Mr. AMERY: No, Sir.

    CHESTER-LE-STREET GUARDIANS (REPORT).
    Mr. LAWSON(by Private Notice.) asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that although the Report of the

    1239
    board of guardians of Chester-le-Street was laid as a Command Paper on Monday, and is not yet available to Members of this House, what purported to be authentic extracts from the Report appeared in two newspapers on Tuesday morning; whether the Report or the information based upon it was supplied officially to these newspapers; if so, whether it is now the practice of his Department to issue documents or reveal information of this character to certain newspapers only before they are publicly issued, and if not, can he give any explanation as to how the newspapers in question obtained the information?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, to the second part in the negative, and the remainder of the question does not therefore arise.
    Mr. LAWSON: As this information could only be in the keeping of the Ministry of Health or the local guardians, may I ask whether we are to assume that it has been given away by the appointed guardians. Further, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the only two newspapers in the country to receive this information in time to write leading articles on it were the "Morning Post," a Conservative journal, and the "Newcastle Journal," another Conservative newspaper, and whether in view of these facts he does not consider it necessary to take some steps with the appointed guardians?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that another newspaper also contained this information?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it is quite clear that the information must have been in the possession of other persons besides the officials of the Ministry of Health and the guardians at Chester-le-Street. It was in print, but I am not suggesting that anybody in particular may have given this information away. All can say is that it is not safe to make such deductions as the hon. Member has suggested. With regard to the newspapers which published it, the hon. Member seems to be paying a tribute to the enterprise of certain newspapers. I can give no explanation.
    HON. MEMBERS: Move the Adjournment of the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think it is in the interests of the House that I should say—what has been said from this Chair many times before—that it is most desirable that these papers which are presented by Command to Parliament, should be in the hands of the House at least at the same time as they appear in the Press. I am saying that without any knowledge of the methods by which these papers have been obtained. There have been mistakes in times gone by by persons who have not realised their responsibilities in this matter, and the House of Commons has always been jealous of its own rights. I think it is right that I should reaffirm them.
    Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: We are all very much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. I was about to rise to put a question on that very point, but, seeing that you have intervened, may I ask the Minister of Health whether he does not consider that it is his responsibility to find out how the leakage took place, in order to prevent such a thing in future?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not see how I can find out, except by asking the editors of the papers whence they got their information. I do not think they are likely to tell me.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: As the appointed guardians were the only people with the information at their disposal, are they not the people to whom the right hon. Gentleman may apply with confidence, and are they not also the only persons who were responsible for having given this information to Conservative newspapers?
    Mr. J. HUDSON: After your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the duty regarding the publication of these Command Papers, is it right for the Minister in his place in this House to pay a compliment to the enterprise of newspapers which break the ruling that you have given?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think it was intended as a very doubtful form of compliment—what is sometimes called a back-handed compliment.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Arising out of your statement, after the opinion ex-

    1241
    pressed by you, which is welcomed, I think, on all sides of the House, is it a question of Privilege, and, if so, could these editors not be brought to the Bar of the House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: In the past it has not been treated strictly as a matter of Privilege, but, as I said, these things have occurred from time to time, and statements from the Chair have usually been effective with all persons concerned. I hope it will be so in this case.
    Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is there any reason to suppose that another day's delay in publication would have made the facts any less unpalatable?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am not concerned with the merits of the report; I am concerned only with the rights of this House.
    Mr. BATEY: Seeing that the Minister has given this testimonial to the two newspapers, has he made any effort to get to know whether the report was given by the Chester-le-Street Board or not?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  Captain EDEN: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to Migration and Settlement within the Empire, and move a Resolution.
  CHESTER-LE-STREET GUARDIANS.
  Colonel WOODCOCK: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the Administration of the Chester-le-Street Guardians, and move a Resolution.
  TAXICABS.
  Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the Price of Taxicabs, and move a Resolution.
  CO-PARTNERSHIP SCHEMES.
  Mrs. PHILIPSON Mrs. PHILIPSON: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to Co-partnership and Profit-sharing Schemes, and move a Resolution.
BILLS PRESENTED.
  SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL,
  "to amend the law of intestate succession in Scotland," presented by Mr. ROSSLYN MITCHELL; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday next, and to he printed. [Bill 74.]
  HIGHWAYS ADMINISTRATION BILL,
  "to facilitate the construction, improvement, and maintenance of roads by highway authorities; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Sir EDWARD ILIFFE; supported by Sir William Bull, Sir Frank Meyer, and Colonel Vaughan-Morgan; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 75.]
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (EXCESSES, 1925–26).
  Copy presented of Statement of the sums required to be voted in order to make good Excesses on certain Grants for Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ended 31st March, 1926 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 38.]
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1925." [Diseases of Animals Bill [Lords.]
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Forestry Bill): Secretary Sir John Gilmour and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ROYAL AND PARLIAMENTARY TITLES BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This is a very short and uncontroversial Measure. The Bill proposes to bring the title of the Sovereign and Parliament into consonance with the present constitutional position. The title of the sovereign has been altered twice during the last 60 years. At the Imperial Conference last year it was realised on all hands that the title of the Sovereign was one of the great constitutional questions in which the great Dominions had an interest as much as had this House or this Parliament. The title of the Sovereign at the present time exists under a Proclamation made under the Act of 1901, and is as follows:
  "George V, By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India."
  As the House knows, there are now two constitutional entities in Ireland. There is the Southern Government of Ireland, which is a Dominion very much on the same lines as the other great Dominions, Canada and Australia and so forth, and there 18 the North of Ireland, which is represented in this House, and for that purpose is united to Great. Britain. The members of the Imperial Conference asked permission, and His Majesty expressed his concurrence, that they should debate this, question, and submit to His Majesty such proposals as they might make for the alteration of the Royal title. They unanimously agreed, with His Majesty's concurrence, that the Royal title should be altered to:
  "George V, By the Grace of God, of 'Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India."
  4.0. p.m.
  The House will see that that is a geographical description. The word "Ireland" does not indicate either North Ireland or South Ireland. It
  1252
  does not touch the question of the United Kingdom, but it emphasises the fact that His Majesty is King of Great Britain, King of Ireland, King of the Dominions beyond the Seas, and Emperor of India. That alteration was concurred in unanimously at the Imperial Conference, and I have the authority of His Majesty to state in this House that he will in due course, by Royal Proclamation, make that change in the Royal Title, and I am sure it will be in accordance with the view of this House also. Then follows the question of the title of Parliament. It is clear that it is a misnomer to continue to talk of "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." Quite obviously, since Southern Ireland has been granted Dominion Home Rule, there is no such thing as "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland," but there is still "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Consequently, after full consultation and interviews with the representatives of Northern Ireland, with the Government of Northern Ireland, it has been decided to ask the House to alter the title of Parliament- and to make it "The Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." That, I think, brings it into consonance with the fact. The Bill is a very short one. Perhaps hon. Members may think it an unimportant Bill, but, after all, it is a Bill which brings these titles into consonance with reality. I think the whale House will agree, first, to support the act of the Imperial Conference in asking His Majesty to declare an alteration in the title of the Sovereign, and, secondly, in asking the House itself to declare an alteration in the title of Parliament by bringing the title of Parliament into consonance with what is now the fact.
  Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I rise to intervene with only one sentence to say that we heartily concur in the proposed change in the title which has been discussed and accepted by the Imperial Conference. As the Home Secretary has truly said, it is an alteration which brings descriptions and titles into accord with facts. Therefore we concur in the Bill, the Second Reading of which has just been moved.
  Mr. O'NEILL: I desire to say just a few words with regard to this Bill. The

  1253
  Home Secretary has explained the causes which have given rise to its introduction. When one comes to think of it, the extraordinary thing really is that it is now five years since the change took place which necessitates the change in the title, and that during those five years nothing has been done until to-day. It is a remarkable commentary upon the elasticity of our Constitution that for five years now Parliament should have continued, and His Majesty the King should have continued, under a title which was not strictly accurate. The fact that the proposal to change the King's title was made at an Imperial Conference is also, think, a remarkable commentary upon the development of the Empire, because on previous occasions when the King's title has been changed it has been done, so far, as I know, entirely at the instigation of the Government at home. With regard to the change in His Majesty's title, it has been agreed upon in the Imperial Conference, and I intend to say very little about it. After all, we now see, in the very Bill which is before us, that there is still a United Kingdom, and one would have hoped that the term "United Kingdom" would have been maintained in His Majesty's title. However, regarding the deliberations of the Imperial Conference, one, of course, has nothing to say, and consequently I leave it at that, with an expression of regret that it has been found necessary to alter the title.
  I have a little more to say with regard to the other part of the Bill which alters the title of Parliament. That admittedly is purely a matter of our own domestic concern, and it has nothing whatever to do with the other Dominions what we call our own Parliament here. The Home Secretary introduced his Bill in a very few words. The Leader of the Opposition spoke even fewer, and yet I think the House will agree with me when I say that this really is rather an historic occasion. The previous times when the title of Parliament has been changed have been, se far as I can ascertain, only two in number. In the year 1707, that is 220 years ago, when the Union between England and Scotland took place, the third Article of the Articles of Union with Scotland was as follows:
  "That the United Kingdom of Great Britain he represented by one and the same Parliament and be styled the Parliament of Great Britain."
  1254
  That was 220 years ago. There was no change after that until the year 1800, when the Union with Ireland took place. That is 127 years ago, and the third Article of the Articles of Union between Great Britain and Ireland was as follows:
  "The said United Kingdom be represented in one and the same Parliament and be styled the 'Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'."
  That is the -style and title of Parliament which has continued up to this day, namely, for 127 years. Therefore, I say that we are dealing with what is really rather an historic matter—the change in the title of this Parliament. I am glad, very glad, that although the term "United Kingdom" has been omitted from His Majesty's title, it is nevertheless to he retained in the title of Parliament. After all, not only we ourselves, but our fathers, indeed our grandfathers, have lived and grown up under the knowledge of the term "United Kingdom." It has been the pivotal centre of the growth of the Empire during the last 100 years, and I am extremely glad now, when it becomes necessary to alter the title of Parliament, that it is at any rate going to continue to be a "Parliament of the United Kingdom."
  There is another matter of great sentimental interest which is affected by this Bill—at least so I regard it—and that is the question of the flag. The Union Jack is a symbol which represents the British Empire. That flag attained its present form after the Union of Great Britain and Ireland in the year 1800, when, as everybody knows, the cross of Saint Patrick was added to the National Flag, in addition to the cross of St. George and St. Andrew; and I think I am right in saying that, apart from the retention of the term, "United Kingdom," and apart from the retention in this Parliament of Members from a part of Ireland, the Union Jack would have had to be changed, and the cross of St. Patrick in it would have had to disappear. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because there would have been no Legislative Union, and it is because there is still a Legislative Union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland that it is possible properly to continue the Union Jack in the form in which we have always known it.

  1255
  There is one other small point to which I should like to call the attention of the Home Secretary. During and after the discussion in the Imperial Conference, I noticed that it became the custom to talk about "His Majesty's Government in Great Britain," as opposed to "His Majesty's Government in the Dominion of Canada" or "in the Dominion of Australia." Surely now, after this Bill is passed, the proper term will not be "His Majesty's Government of Great Britain," but "His Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom," just as it used to be, and I hope in the future in official documents the term representing the Government of the United Kingdom will be "His Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom."
  The causes which have given rise to this change are, as the Home Secretary has stated, the departure from this House of representatives from the Southern portion of Ireland. Those of us who have sat here for a good many years will remember the dramatic and often heated discussions and Debates which took place in this House when those Members were here, and I think many of us regret the necessary change in the type of our Debates which has taken place since they left. But they were here always under protest. They never really joined in the work of this great assembly. They were here always with the one desire to get away, and one always felt that they were never really taking their full part—though they took more than their part in the Debates—as Members of the House, and they took no part in the government of the United Kingdom, which they had opportunities of taking many times during the century during which they were here. They have gone, and it has become thereby necessary to change the title of Parliament. We who are Members of this great assembly, the greatest deliberative and legislative assembly in the world—and to be Members of it is the greatest honour to which we can possibly attain—we who venerate this great Parliament and honour it from the bottom of our hearts are glad to retain our membership of the Imperial Parliament of the United Kingdom. Membership of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is a, priceless asset, an immensely important
  1256
  privilege, which I cannot understand anybody desiring to give up once they have got it. Is it possible to express, shall I say the hope, that there may come a time in the future, probably in the far distant future and no doubt not in the lifetime of anybody here to-day, when it will be once again possible to restore the title of Parliament which we are burying by this Bill to-day and to call it once again the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland? If that ever happens it will have to happen, of course, in circumstances quite different from those which were in existence before the constitutional change of five years ago.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is leading us into a very dangerous path if he is going to give a review of the legislation of the last five or seven years. I think we must be careful riot to go upon those lines when we are dealing merely with the consequences of what has been done during the last five years.
  Mr. O'NEILL: If I was outside the bounds of order I apologise. The suggestion I was making, and which I thought would be in order, was that the time might come when the name of Parliament might be restored to the name which we are now doing away with by this present Bill.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The reason I rose was that the right hon. Gentleman was expressing hopes, and I might have had other Members expressing other opinions on that hypothesis. This would mean the renewal of a very old debate, which I thought we had done with.
  Mr. O'NEILL: The last thing I desire to do is to go outside the bounds of order, and I think the House will bear me out that I was only going the least bit on to the verge of it. But having got so far, perhaps you will allow me, in order to complete my argument, to finish in the way I intended to finish and thus show that I intended nothing controversial. I was going to say that if such thing ever did take place it could only take place in circumstances quite different from those which existed before and it could only take place by the spontaneous wish and at the unfettered request of the representatives of that part of Ireland which is not now represented here.

  1257
  I do not of course say that they would request to be represented in the way in which they were formerly represented; but while still maintaining their separate Legislature for local matters, if they desired it, and I think it is within the bounds of possibility that they might desire it in the course of the next century or so, they might ask to send representatives here for certain purposes just as Northern Ireland does. If that ever happened, there would once again be a Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
  Major CHAWFURD: think all of those with whom I sit will associate themselves with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in introducing the Bill. From what he said the Bill is really a matter of form and, in his own words, it is intended to bring the Royal title and the style and title of Parliament into consonance with reality. I only intervene because I have same doubt as to whether the Bill will do so. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken and whose argument in the later stages of his speech I am not going to follow, referred to this as a historic occasion. If that be so, it should be our care to ensure historical accuracy. I suggest that the only possible criticism of this Bill—which is merely a matter of form—would be on the ground that it does not carry out what it purports to do. I find when the Act of Union was passed, and when there was for the first time what the Home Secretary has called the constitutional entity of Great Britain and Ireland, the title of Parliament was prescribed by Article 3, but the Parliament in which that Act was passed was known as the Eighteenth Parliament of the Kingdom of Great Britain. After the passing of the Act of Union they did not call the next Parliament the Nineteenth Parliament, but the First Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
  I raise the point now because if there is anything in the argument the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will desire to consider it before the next stage of the Bill. In the second Clause of this Bill it is laid down that the present Parliament is to be known as the Thirty-fourth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If this be the Thirty-fourth
  1258
  Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, then there should have been 33 similar Parliaments before it. As a matter of fact there have not been such Parliaments. I suppose the Thirty-fourth Parliament means the 34th since the Act of Union, but as a matter of fact this is only the Third Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and if we wish to be accurate we must call it the Third Parliament. There was, I believe, before 1921 no constitutional entity known as Northern Ireland, and although it is true that this Parliament, previous to that date and for 100 years before, had governed the territory which is now known as Northern Ireland, we are not here concerned with the territories governed by Parliament, but only with the exact title or titles of the constitutional entities which were or are comprised in the territory governed by this Parliament. I therefore throw out fibs suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman might consider with the Law Officers, between now and the Committee stage, whether the term "Thirty-fourth Parliament" ought not to be altered to "Third Parliament."
  Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: My right hon. Friend the. Home Secretary described this Bill as small, hut not unimportant. I heartily agree that it is not unimportant. Indeed, I desire to associate myself with everything which was in order said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Mr. O'Neill). He described this, I think with perfect accuracy, as an historic occasion, and there will be general assent to that proposition. Speaking as one who has been, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, rather closely associated with that portion of Ireland which is still, happily, included in the United Kingdom, and also as one among those who are most jealously proud of the history and traditions of this House, I should like to say one or two words which arise from rather mingled feelings in regard to this Bill. First of all, it is to me a matter of real satisfaction, and I will add of very considerable relief, that Northern Ireland is not to be separated, even in name—nothing could divide it in fact—from the rest of the United Kingdom. But there mingles with this feeling of satisfaction another which is

  1259
  closely akin to pain and regret. It seems to have escaped the notice of those who have preceded me in this Debate that for the first time in the long history of this House and of Parliament we are being asked to take a step which formally diminishes and constricts the jurisdiction of this House.
  For 600 years Parliament has moved steadily in one direction—in the direction of inclusion, of expansion, of comprehension. The history of this Parliament, as all hon. Members are aware, began with the representation of England in the narrowest sense, and indeed not of the whole of England. The first step towards a widening of jurisdiction and of representation came with the inclusion of the Palatine counties and of Wales. The next step, as hon. Members are even better aware, was taken at the beginning of the 18th century when, as the House has been already reminded, the personal union between the Monarchs of England and Scotland gave place to complete legislative union between the two countries. Of course it is known to every Member of this House that in the administrative sense and the judicial sense the Northern kingdom retained, and still retains, a certain measure of independence but from that time onwards the legislative union was complete. Again, the House has been reminded that 100 years later the comprehension of Scotland—in so far as we can comprehend anything which is so philosophical in character—was followed by the comprehension of Ireland and by the legislative union with Ireland. I have been warned by your ruling, Sir, and I think even if I had not been warned by your ruling, I should not have attempted on this occasion to rake up memories which are not wholly pleasant by any attempt to analyse the reasons why one of these unions was so signally successful while the other was a palpable failure. I have always thought that this country, meaning it in the narrowest sense—that this English Parliament as it still was at the time—missed one of the greatest opportunities in its long history when at the time of the Union with Scotland at the beginning of the 18th century it actually rejected a petition from Ireland for union with that country as well. Thus was a
  1260
  great opportunity missed and never recovered and my own opinion, for what it is worth, has always been that even the union accomplished with Ireland a century later might have attained a very much larger measure of success if it had really fulfilled the whole scheme of William Pitt, that is to say, if it had been accompanied at the time by a complete measure of Catholic Emancipation. Had that been the case I believe that the Irish union would have had as good a chance of success as that with Scotland.
  It may be said that all this is ancient history to-day. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear!"] I thought it would be so regarded, at any rate by some hon. Members opposite. May I suggest to them that though in a sense it is ancient history it is ancient history which has a very direct and immediate bearing on the events which we are considering this afternoon. I confess that it is with very considerable reluctance that I view the step which I am asked to take as a Member of this House this afternoon. It is a step which is distinctly reactionary in character, a step not towards inclusion and comprehension, but towards excision and contraction. I admit, of course—nobody can deny it—that this Bill is the logical, and indeed perhaps the inevitable, corollary of the Treaty of 1921, which I think you, Mr. Speaker, would not desire that we should discuss this afternoon, but leaving this part of the Bill, may I say a very brief word in regard to the other portion of the Bill, that which deals, not with the style of Parliament, but with the Royal style and titles.
  I need not say that I approach this portion of the Bill with very respectful, if not wholly uncritical consideration. Indeed, I would apply to this portion of the Bill—supplemented, as the information contained in the Bill is, by the information which Was given us by the Home Secretary a too the intentions of His Majesty if this Bill should become law—very much the same sort of criticism that I would apply to the other part. It is perfectly true that the tradition of inclusion and comprehension is not so uniform in the case of the Royal titles as it is in the case of the title of Parliament, for, after all, the Kings of this Realm have abrogated in the past, at any rate, one portion of their power, that

  1261
  referring to the Crown of France. Although not quite so unbroken, still the tradition is very strong. I was looking up a few hours ago the two Acts which have been recently enacted by this House in regard to the Royal titles. I mean the Act of 1876, the Act of 39 Vict. chap. 10, which was, I ask the House to observe, according to its Title,
  "An Act to enable Her Most Gracious Majesty to make an addition to the Royal Style and Titles appertaining to the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom and its Dependencies,"
  and similarly, the Act of the first year of King Edward VII, the Act of 1901, which was described as:
  "An Act to enable His Most Gracious Majesty to make an addition to the Royal Style and Titles in recognition of His Majesty's Dominions beyond the Sea."
  Now, there is a very striking difference between the Titles of those two Acts and the Title of the Bill which we are asked to consider this afternoon. We are not now asked to provide for an addition to the Royal style and titles; we are asked to provide, quite accurately, for an alteration in the Royal style and titles. For the first time, as far as I know, in the history of this Parliament, we have been asked to make an alteration which is not an addition to the Royal style and titles.
  There is just one other quite small point on which I wish to ask a question of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I observe that in Clause I of this Bill it is stated:
  "It shall he lawful for His Most Gracious Majesty, by His Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of the Realm."
  I want to ask my right hon. Friend whether that is an expression which has hitherto been known to constitutional law. I am not quite sure—I am asking purely for information—but if it is, what I want to know is this: Are you going to have a new Great Seal? Because the phrase, at any rate, strikes me as an unfamiliar one. When I turn back to the Acts to which I have been alluding, the Acts of 1876 and 1901, or, if not those Acts—I speak under the correction of learned lawyers—at any rate, the Acts of Union of 1707 and 1801, my recollection is that there the Great Seal is described as "the Great Seal of the United Kingdom." I presume that the Great Seal of the United Kingdom is still in use, and
  1262
  what I want to know from my right hon. Friend, when the Bill speaks of "the Great Seal of the Realm," is whether that is the Seal of the United Kingdom, or whether it is a new Seal, which, as a consequence of this Bill, it is proposed to bring into being. At any rate, I hope we shall have some information on a point which, I think, is of some little constitutional importance. It may be thought that the points which I have attempted to make are not of great substance or importance, that they belong rather to the realm of black-letter learning than to that of practical affairs. It may be so, but I agree with my right hon. Friend that this is an historic occasion, and I hope that, whether or not the House takes that view, it will forgive me for having detained it by a few words in the domain of historical sentiment, if not of unavailing regret.
  Sir HENRY SLESSER: I do not, of course, in any way qualify what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition with regard to our general approval of this Bill, but if I may follow up what the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) has just said, I would like to ask about the phrase "the Great Seal of the Realm." There may be such a term known to the constitution, but I have not met it before, and the word "Realm" is spelt with a capital letter and, therefore, I assume that there, is an existing Great Seal, which must be the Seal here referred to. I cannot accept the possible explanation of the hon. Member for York that this Seal can refer to a Seal hereafter to be made. The Bill treats the Seal as already in existence, and, therefore, it must be the existing Seal with which we are dealing. It would be unfortunate if there was any slip-shod description in this Bill in its final form, and if we were to refer to "the Great Seal of the Realm" when there was no such thing.
  The only other point I wish to make is this, and I wish here rather to support the framers of the Bill as against the hon. and gallant Member for West Walthamstow (Major Crawfurd), who raised the question that this could not properly be described as the Thirty-fourth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, because, as I understood has argument, the previous 30 Parliaments have been the Parliaments of Great

  1263
  Britain and Ireland and that, therefore, this must be the Third Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I think he forgets this fact, that Northern Ireland is itself a part of Ireland, that it is not a separate entity, and that, therefore, those previous Parliaments were Parliaments which covered the area of Northern Ireland. Therefore, I think that, even from the most pedantic point of view, one may approve of the words here inserted. Perhaps the Home Secretary will tell us about the Great Seal of the Realm, and, if the word "Realm" is not appropriate, insert in Committee a reference to the actual technical title which the Great Seal now bears.
  Sir MALCOLM MACNAGHTEN: The criticism raised by the hon. and gallant Member for West Walthamstow (Major Crawfurd) seemed to me to be one of considerable importance to Great Britain and of the very greatest importance to Northern Ireland. The object of this Bill is to make the title of the King and the title of this Parliament in accordance with the actual facts of the case as they are to-day, which are different from what they were in 1800, because a large part of Ireland, some 26 counties, has gone out of the Union and has been established as a self-governing Dominion with the status of the Dominion of Canada. The title of Great Britain and Ireland, therefore, was a misnomer, and it was obviously right and proper that the title should be brought into accordance with the facts. Therefore, the title of the King is to be changed in accordance with the recommendation of the Imperial Conference, and the title of this Parliament is to be changed from that of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to that of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Our point of view in Ulster has always been that we wanted to remain in the Union. We did not want our constitution changed at all, and we were only willing to accept the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, on the terms that we remained in the Union. That is, we understand, to be the position. The Union, so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, has never been dissolved. Therefore, for us as for Great Britain this is the Thirty-fourth Parliament of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, and that is the title that it ought to have, and I trust that the Home Secretary will stand
  1264
  by the drafting of the Bill. I can only say it would be a bitter misfortune to the people of Ulster if they thought that there was to be any indication in this Bill that they had lost in any way at all their right to share in the United Kingdom.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: With the permission of the House, I will answer one or two questions which have been put to me. The first point is in reference to this being the Thirty-fourth Parliament of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, and, if I may say so, I think that was very accurately answered by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Londonderry (Sir M. Macnaghten) and by the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser). It is a fact that it is the Thirty-fourth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and that portion of Ireland which still remains a portion of the United Kingdom. The hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds and my hon. Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) raised a very interesting question in regard to the Great Seal. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for York will forgive me if I do not follow him into his historical disquisition, which was so interesting, in regard to the various stages of the title of Parliament. I apologise to the House, and perhaps I ought to have made a longer speech than I did in moving t lie Second Reading of the Bill, but I am a man of few words, and of action as far as possible. With regard to the question of the Great Seal, we are met with the difficulty that I do not want to refer to the Seal by any title which would be inconsistent with the new title of the King. The hon. and learned Member realises that the Great Seal of the King or of the Realm is used sometimes for documents which are not confined to the United Kingdom. Just as the King is King of Great Britain and of the Dominions beyond the seas, and so forth, so there is only one Great Seal, and it may be utilised for documents connected with countries outside the United Kingdom itself. I, therefore, had to cast about for an expression which would not be slipshod, as the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds seemed rather to suggest, and I was rather pleased to find that the expression

  1265
  "the Great Seal of the Realm" is used in the Statutes for the Order of the Bath. It appears there for the first time as the Great Seal of the Realm, and I find also that the word "Realm" is constituted an alternative expression for the "Dominions of the Crown." It goes back as far as the reign of Henry VIII. The Act 24th year of Henry VIII, Chapter 12, says:
  "This Realm of England is an Empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one supreme head and king, having the dignity and royal estate of the Imperial Crown of the same."
  Perhaps those are rather archaic words at the present time, but they show that as long ago as that "Realm" was a comprehensive term for the Dominions of the Crown; and as the Great Seal may be utilised for documents or proclamation connected with the whole Dominions of the Crown and is, as it were, a mere appanage of the Crown—of course it is not the appanage of Parliament at all, it is purely the appanage of the Crown—I and my advisers thought it would be well to go back to that rather fine old term "The Realm," and that Parliament would be rather pleased to be associated with this alteration in the style and title of his Majesty the. King and the style of Parliament through the utilisation of the old words "The Seal of the Realm."
  Sir H. SLESSER: Is not the usual style simply "A proclamation under the Great Seal"? It stops there. Does not that cover the whole Empire, and is not that the ordinary usage?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the hon. and learned Member will find that in many Acts the Seal is referred to as "The Great Seal of the United Kingdom."
  Sir H. SLESSER: Not often.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is in very many. Having regard to the change in designation which has been made, in consequence, as I said in my former speech, of the Imperial Conference, "The Great Seal of the United Kingdom" is not the correct expression to use at the present time, any more than it would be correct to continue to use "United Kingdom" in connection with the Crown. I
  1266
  need hardly say that it is not a matter of vital importance, but if the hon. and learned Member opposite and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York convince me that "The Great Seal of the Realm" is not the correct expression to be used, that can be remedied in Committee. I suggest to the House that "The Great Seal of the Realm" is a fine term, a term which, though not exactly a term of art, is an historical term and one which might very well be enacted by Parliament to represent the Seal of His Majesty the King.
  Sir J. MARRIOTT: Would the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to satisfy some of us on another point? Will the physical Great Seal require to be changed in consequence of this? The right hon. Gentleman, when he was referring to the interesting precedent which he quoted from a famous Statute of Henry VIII, was referring to a time before there was a United Kingdom. But what I want to know is whether there will be any necessary change in the physical Seal?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir. As soon as this Bill is passed, arrangements will be made for a new Seal, the Great Seal of the Realm, and the first occasion probably on which it will be used will be for the Royal Proclamation by His Majesty the King proclaiming the new Royal title.
  Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the term "Realm"?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: With very great humility, I thought I had already been explaining it. It is difficult to explain.
  Sir B. FALLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman know Lord Coke's definition of the word "Realm"? The Northern Islands are not in the Realm. The point is a very small one, but it is deserving of notice.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second Time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir W. Joynson-Hicks.]

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (INDIAN NAVY) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
This is a Bill to recreate the Indian Navy, and I think I can best explain its purpose by saying a word or two about the history of the naval forces of India. As long ago as 1613, or at any rate very soon after the Charter was granted to the East India Company, there was a naval force which was paid for by and controlled by the East India Company.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 1612.
Earl WINTERTON: I am very much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend I was only a year out. It is true to say that that Navy for three-quarters of a century before it was finally abolished by an Act of this House and another place in 1862, bore the brunt of policing the Northern Indian Ocean and the adjacent seas. Its record of service included China, Burma, the Persian Gulf, Aden and a great many other places, and it is true to say that it was a distinguished and a romantic one. Among the members of that old Indian Navy were men with very famous names, who did great service to the Empire in those parts.
Because of his interesting career, perhaps I might refer to one figure in particular, a certain Captain Haines, who was a member of the Indian Navy, and was the Political Officer with the Indian Naval Forces at the time of the taking of Aden in 1838. He was afterwards Governor of that place for 14 years, and a very successful one. During that period he never once left Aden. It is almost incredible to us to-day to think that a European could have remained there for all that time without leave. In the course of his Governorship he made several requests to the East India Company to be supplied with an accountant, saying, without such an officer, it was almost impossible properly to run the finances of the place. That request was invariably refused. At the end of 14 years he gave up his Governorship and expected to be received with some marks
1268
of commendation by the Company, to whom he had given 14 years most successful service, during which he had succeeded in turning what was a barbarian place into a peaceful and contented one. So far from that, however, as soon as he arrived in India he was asked to account for some £20,000 which it was alleged was missing, and he was prosecuted for criminal breach of trust. He was acquitted by the Count, but immediately on leaving the Court was served with a writ to return the £20,000. The case went against him, and he spent no less than seven years of his life in a debtors' prison, being eventually released by Sir George Clerk, only to die shortly afterwards of bad health. That story shows that, not only were the members of the Indian Navy men of courage and stalwartness, but that they did not always receive from those who employed them the treatment one would expect a public servant to receive.
In 1862, it was decided, for reasons I think which were perfectly good at the time, that the Royal Navy should take over the Naval Defence of India, and the place of the Indian Navy was taken by a non-combatant force which eventually developed into the Royal Indian Marine.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Non-combatant?
Earl WINTERTON: I said non-combatant, and I intended to say non-combatant.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It was never non-combatant.
Earl WINTERTON: It was formed into a non-combatant force. The Royal Indian Navy was abolished in 1862, and the personnel and many of the ships were formed into a nor-combatant force. In the year 1884 an Act of Parliament was passed which established that force as the Royal Indian Marine.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Noble Lord will forgive me. I heard him perfectly on all three occasions, but, if he will allow me to say so, "non-combatant" is not the right term to use. It was always a combatant force.
Earl WINTERTON: I am sure the last thing I wish to do is, if I may use a slang term, to split hairs over the mean-

1269
ing of the term "non-combatant." It is the term which has been usually applied to the Royal Indian Marine. In point of fact, it was, for the greater part of its service, a non-combatant force, and its duties included marine survey, transport of troops and the care of lighthouses and all duties pertaining to a force having to look after so large a coast line as India has. By almost a side wind, that Act of 1884 made it possible for the personnel and vessels of the Royal Indian Marine to be incorporated in the Royal Navy in times of emergency, which was done in the first year of the Great War. The vessels were then taken over by the Royal Navy, and of the personnel some were taken over by the Royal Navy and some were drafted to the Inland Water Transport, and they rendered most valuable and valiant service in every sphere of sea conflict from the Euphrates to the Channel. In substance, the personnel of the Royal Indian Marine will probably be almost entirely absorbed in the new Indian Navy. But the old name will go, and I feel I must pay my tribute to it in its passing. The Royal Indian Marine has had during its history no small or mean quota of good men and true, both British and Indian, and one can say with confidence that the new force will inherit from its first personnel great traditions of service.
I come now to the reasons for the creation of this new force, for the recreation of the Indian Navy. After the War, for various reasons, the question of reorganising the Royal Indian Marine as a combatant naval force, able to take its place amongst other naval forces of the Empire, came to the fore. It was examined by Lord Jellicoe in 1919 and by two separate naval commanders-in-chief on the East India Station in 1922 and in 1924. I think it was a result of the recommendations of the last of those two authorities, the officer commanding the naval forces on the East India Station in 1924, that a scheme was laid before a Departmental Committee in India, with Lord Rawlinson as Chairman, and with the naval Commander-in-chief among its members. The outcome was that the Committee's Report was accepted by the Secretary of State for India, by the First Lord of the Admiralty and by the Government of India, and the announcement of the intentions of the Government was made in February, 1926.
1270
5.0 p.m.
The policy declared in the announcement followed the recommendations of the Imperial Conferences of 1923 and 1926, which were to the effect that primary responsibility rests on each part of the Empire for its own local naval defence. I will now proceed to explain the provisions of the Bill, after having given this short history of the events which led up to it being produced. It is intended that the name of the Navy shall be the Royal Indian Navy. Its functions in peace time will be the training of personnel for war, and the maintenance of services which are required at all times by the Government of India, such as survey and transport work. It will also be used for the organisation of naval defence of Indian ports. Eventually, it may undertake patrolling in the Persian Gulf, which is at present carried on by the Royal Navy. That would involve a very small addition to the force which is at present contemplated, but it would certainly have advantages, I think, from the point of view of the Royal Navy, in so far as it would relieve the officers and ratings of the Royal Navy from a very arduous and difficult service for Europeans Clause 1 of the Bill applies to the new force provisions analogous to those already applied by Statute to the land forces. That is to say, it provides that, if those naval forces and vessels are placed at the disposal of the Admiralty, the revenues of India could not, without the consent of both Houses of Parliament, be used to defray such expenditure, as long as they are not employed on Indian Naval Defence. In other words, authority would have to be given by this House before the force could be so employed. The Clause goes on to apply, or rather goes on to give powers to adapt the Naval Discipline Act to Indian conditions, as has been done in the case of the Dominion Naval forces. Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 is merely a drafting Sub-section, and Sub-section (4) deals with the question of the Naval Discipline Act and is based very largely on what has been done in the Dominions.
I think there are no other points in connection with the actual wording of the Bill with which I need deal except to say this. I appreciate the fact that most of the provisions of the Bill take the form of legislation by reference, and I would be the last person to deny the general disadvantage of that course, but it is

1271
quite impossible to avoid it in the case of the Government of India Bill. India is, I think, the only part of the Empire which has a written constitution. The Government of India Act has to be amended in order to make Statutory provisions for an Indian Navy, and you have to amend it in this way. Amendments are, in the main, full substitution Amendments, and are, therefore, far less cumbersome and confusing than in those cases where a Bill seks to amend a principal Act by altering a word here and a phrase there. I am almost sure to be asked as to how this Bill affects the question of commissions for Indians. The Bill does not alter the existing law as now applied to the Royal Indian Marine. Under the existing law, Indians are eligible for commissions in the Royal Indian Marine. In practice, it has been found that a class of educated Indians willing to, and capable of serving as officers on ships is almost non-existent. Pull opportunity will, however, be given to any young Indian who comes forward and is prepared to be trained as a naval officer. The new service is to be small in numbers, the number of vacancies for new officers, British or Indian will he limited, but, as I have said, Indians if they come forward will be eligible for those vacancies when they have passed the necessary examinations and had the requisite training.
I do not think it would be in Order for me to attempt to deal in advance with any Amendment that may be moved to this Bill, but I gather from questions which have been asked in this House that objection is likely to be taken to it on two grounds, first, that it is an addition 'or that it will constitute an addition to the naval forces of the Empire and, secondly, that the Indian Legislature has not been properly Consulted. As regards the first point, I am bound to point out that there is nothing in the Bill which need bring a blush even to the most pacifist cheek, because the Bill only provides, and is only intended to provide a service to carry out the duties which will always have to be carried out, even if the ideal of universal disarmament, as far as combatant ships are concerned, is reached. It will always be necessary for every country with a large coast-line like India
1272
to have survey ships, to prevent smuggling and to control poaching by other countries. I do not contemplate that any circumstances will arise which will need combatant ships. The type of ships in use will be similar to those in use by the Royal Indian Marine, except that, possibly, the new Indian Navy may, in the course of time, take over the patrolling in the Persian Gulf. No one can say that the ships which now carry out that patrolling, such as sloops or launches, constitute a menace to any other country. Therefore, as regards the argument that this means a considerable addition to the naval forces of the Empire, I do not think that it can be held for a moment. There is nothing in the constitution to the effect that Parliamentary legislation affecting India requires the previous approval of the Legislative Assembly, nor is there any precedent for doing so. And I would point out that certain hon. Gentlemen have on the Order Paper in this House a Bill, the Commonwealth of India Bill, which has not yet come forward for Second Reading, which proposes to make fundamental changes a hundred thousand per cent. greater, if one may use such an expression, than the changes proposed in this Bill in the Government of India Act. It practically sweeps that Act away. That Bill has never been discussed in the Legislative Assembly, although there is nothing to prevent any private Member of that Assembly bringing it forward and discussing it. There is nothing, however, in the constitution which makes it necessary for the Legislative Assembly to discuss the Bill now before the house.
Someone may ask what opportunity will be given to the Legislature in India to deal with the Bill. The opportunity will be this. In the first place, this Bill cannot come into effective operation in India without consequential legislation by the Assembly, and when that Bill is discussed by the Assembly, there will be full opportunity of discussing the whole question of the Indian Navy. In addition, this new Indian Navy will be in exactly the same position in relation to the Assembly as the Indian Army is at present. While I believe it is true that it is not possible under the Government of India Act for the Assembly to discuss any actual items dealing with military

1273
expenditure in the Budget they can discuss and reject or accept the whole Budget of which these items are a part, they will have exactly the same rights, from the legislative and statutory point of view, over the new force as they have over the Army. May I say, in conclusion, that I commend this Bill to the House for the reason that, to the best of my belief and the belief of my Noble Friend the Secretary for India and of the Government of India, it is desired by the people of India. There have been in the past many questions asked in the Assembly as to when it was proposed to put the recommendations of the Committee into operation. This Bill gives an opportunity for Indians to be trained for commissions. It turns over the existing personnel of the Royal Indian Marine to the new force, and that force will, therefore, start with the very great advantage of having a tradition behind it, and a very valuable tradition indeed. It is hoped that this force, which is not intended to be a menace to anyone, will do the same beneficial work for the coasts of India and for the people of India that the Royal Indian Marine has done since its inauguration and which was done by the old Indian Navy.
Mr. AMMON: I beg to move, to leave out froth the word "That", to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
"this House, being desirous of extending, the powers of the elected representatives of the Indian people in the control of Indian affairs, cannot assent to the Second Reading of a Bill for the provision of an Indian Navy which fails to place such Navy under the control of the Indian Legislative Assembly, has not been submitted to and approved by that Assembly, and incidentally involves an increase in Imperial Naval Forces."
The Noble Lord has referred to the difficulty and undesirability of legislation by reference, and I would only say that when a Bill of this kind is brought forward, there ought to be an explanatory memorandum which would help the House to understand matters which are so involved and technical. I join with the Noble Lord in paying a tribute of praise to the old Indian Marine and of regret at their passing, although that reference to the Indian Marine points to the fact that they could have done everything which is stated in the Noble Lord's
1274
speech as having to be done by the Indian Navy. One is bound to point out that we cannot accept his statement as wholly covering the ultimate intention and work that is cut out for the proposed Royal Indian Navy. Again and again, we have been informed in this House that we cannot, under any circumstances, amend the Government of India Act, and we are forced to the conclusion that it can be amended only as and when it may suit the purposes of the Government.
Earl WINTERTON: I never said that the Act could not be amended. Since I have been in my present position I have brought in no less than four Bills to amend it.
Mr. AMMON: I am not accusing the Noble Lord of saying it, but it has been said again and again that the Act cannot be amended till 1929. When it suits the purposes of the Government, they can bring in Bills to amend it, but they cannot accept them when they come from the people of India themselves. What is the purpose of this Bill? In days gone by, I used to hear that the danger-spot of India, was the North-West Frontier. If that still be true, then it would seem to me that a far better thing for this Government to have done in the matter of defence would have been to have organised an Indian Air Force rather than an Indian Navy. In that case, I understand the difficulty might he that in no circumstances can Indians be used in the Air Force itself. It is nonsense to talk about this Indian Navy being an Indian Navy in the real sense of tin, term, because the only people who are excluded from it are the Indians themselves. The policing, coast guarding, and all that sort of thing could be, and was to large extent, carried out by the old Indian Marine. Although under this proposal it is quite true only about a dozen small ships are proposed in the first instance, it is undoubtedly a proposal to supplement the British Navy. Let us be quite sure about that. The Rawlinson Committee recommended, in regard to the recruitment of executive officers in the proposed Indian Navy, that they would be required at the rate of three a year. Boys should enter by competition in exactly the same way as the public school cadets are taken into the British Navy. Examinations for cadetship, they say, should be held

1275
simultaneously in England and India, but only one appointment every year should be reserved for an Indian boy, and he should be from the Prince of Wales's College, Dehra Dun, or an English public school. At the same time, the Committee say it will be several years before any Indian cadets will be able to enter from Dehra Dun.
In face of that, is it not absurd to talk about this being an Indian Navy? It is simply a proposal to supplement the British Navy, and impose it upon the Indian people. The Indian Press have evidently seen the humour contained in the suggestion, for I read in an extract from the "Modern Review," published in Calcutta:
"We are overjoyed at the prospect of India having fullfledged navy in A.D. 2526, by which time it is hoped naval warfare will have become obsolete owing to the greater vogue and efficiency of aerial warfare, and navies will have become objects of curiosity tit to be kept in aquatic museums."
That is how the Indian people view this proposal. Here we are seriously told, as the Noble Lord has himself told us, that provision will be made to officer the Indian Navy, and suitable candidates will be given promotion as and when occasion arises, and it is going to be done at the rate of three a year, one appointment every year to be reserved for an Indian boy. I leave it to hon. Members to work cut how long it will take at that rate of progress before the Indian Navy is officered by Indians, and at what age one will be appointed to have a ship under his control.
The question of pacifism does not arise in the opposition to this Bill this afternoon. The opposition this afternoon arises from the point of view that here is an attempt to tell this House, the country, and the Empire if you will, that an endeavour is being made to create a real Indian Navy when it is nothing of the sort, but is simply an attempt to put on to the Indian people the cost of a British Navy, which ought to be borne by the Exchequer of this country. This talk about reforming the Navy is the same that we hear with regard to the Army. There we have a barrier put up. Only about 10 Indians per year are sent to be trained at Sandhurst, and there they are to be commissioned officers only in the Infantry and Cavalry. No Indian
1276
is allowed to be trained as a commissioned officer for the Artillery, Air Force, etc. Precisely the same position under different methods is to be set up with regard to this Navy. All lower ranks, we are told, will eventually consist of Indians. It simply means that probably the more unpleasant work, the work which is more difficult for Europeans to carry out, is going to be given to the Indian people, but they are not to have their own nationals to officer them, nor are they to be trusted in that particular respect.
In spite of what the Noble Lord has said, that this can be, and will be, discussed, there have been attempts to discuss this in the Indian Legislative Assembly and in Madras, and on each occasion it was ruled out, in the first case by the Viceroy, and in the second by the Governor, and we have no reason to expect that there will be any different action in the future. What Indians are asking is, that if there is to be an Indian Navy, it should be manned by Indians in all ranks, and be under the control of their own Legislature. The Amendment we have placed on the Order Paper asks that that should be the point of view taken by the Government. We are asking that if the Government seriously mean what they are saying, namely, that they are going to establish an Indian Navy, we should hear the opinion of the elected representatives of India on this matter, and they should be given an opportunity to discuss and consider it even before we have passed it in this House. It has been laid down that the Army in India should not be employed outside the external frontiers of India, except for purely defensive purposes, or in case of very grave emergency. That was accepted by Sir Godfrey Fell on behalf of the Government, and has been accepted in this House by the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Captain Lord Stanley) speaking on behalf of the Noble Lord. But if that be so, there is no substance in it whatever. The Noble Lord has already told us that this Government, by simply passing Resolutions in this House, can take over the Indian Navy, anti use it as and when they like, as circumstances may seem to them fit. That all points to the conclusion, at which some of us have arrived, that the Indian Navy is Indian only in name and not in actual fact.
Earl WINTERTON: I apologise for again interrupting, but this is really an important point. I did not say that, nor does the Bill say it. The Bill does not say that this House, simply by passing a Resolution, can take oven the Indian Navy. What the Bill says is:
"Any naval forces and vessels which may from time to time be raised and provided by the Governer-General in Council shall be employed for the purposes of the Government of India alone, except that if the Governor-General declares that a state of emergency exists which justifies such action, the Governor-General in Council may place at the disposal of the Admiralty," etc.
It can only be done by the Governor-General in Council, and has nothing whatever to do with this House. When it has been done, it does not become effective, as far as money is concerned, unless this House passes a Resolution allocating the revenues of India for the purpose. It rests with the Governor-General in Council, and not with this House at all.
Mr. AMMON: I had omitted one stage, but it really makes it worse, as far as the Indians are concerned, because there would be a certain opportunity for discussion if it came before this House, whereas it means that the Governor-General can certify, and then it will come before this House for the necessary funds. No one would imagine that the Governor-General would place these forces at the disposal of the Admiralty unless he had received instructions from the Government on this side. He would be acting on those instructions alone, and it is reducing the whole thing to a farce to talk about the Indian people being consulted or considered in any manner, or to officer the Indian Navy or have any part in it other than having to foot the bill. The whole concern is not so much to help the Indians forward in their search for self-government and Home Rule, but is an attempt to impose upon them certain obligations that ought rightly to be borne by this country. As far as we on this side are concerned, we would have been prepared to welcome the Bill if it had been a real and genuine step towards the furtherance of self-government by the Indian people, that is to say, if the Bill had been so framed as to allow Indian people, if they so desired, to form their own Navy, to
1278
officer it and use it as they thought fit. That would have had our consent, but, as the circumstances are entirely different, as they have no voice in it, and it is being imposed upon them, we feel bound to oppose this Bill.
Having said that, one has a right to ask what steps are to be taken to train the officers and men for the Navy? Why are they not to be trained in our Royal Navy? Everyone who has had any contact with the Navy knows that you can see Chinese, Japanese and all other nationals being trained in our Royal Navy as officers. Yet there is no such provision made for our Indians, who are British subjects, who form part of the Empire. As far as one understands, there are to be no colleges set up in Bombay or Calcutta, and there are to be no seagoing ships in which to train officers. All we have got is this nonsensical proposal, which is merely meant to deceive both the Indian and the British public, that three boys every year can be trained, and one a year can be selected as a cadet. It is simply absurd to suggest that you can form a Navy in circumstances like that, and that seriously to ask people to believe that you are sincere in any such proposal. If there he any genuine intention on the part of this Government to extend the self-government of the Indian people, they must trust them and allow them a full share in the responsibility. That is what our Amendment calls for. This, however, is simply a means whereby this country is seeking to escape from its, own moral commitments and obligations.
What is the good of statements such as we have had this afternoon, that we are willing to consider and discuss the proposal of President Coolidge for the reduction of armaments to be brought before the League of Nations? What is the good of talking about the reduction of armaments in England while we are doing all we can to foment an armament race in Indian waters? The Indian people themselves are not unaware of what this means. The Noble Lord has not made any reference to it, hut this is simply a further development of the Singapore scheme. As the "Modern Review' says:
"Why should we grumble even if the 'Indian' Navy be a part of the Singapore Base idea in disguise?"

1279
Contrary to all expressed wishes and desires to diminish armaments, and to reduce the possibilities of friction throughout the world, we are by this method and other methods setting up in Indian waters precisely the condition that was established in the North Sea prior to the outbreak of war in 1914. As sure as night follows day, the same results are bound to follow if we continue our present policy. In the Navy there has been a reorientation of our naval forces based on the Pacific and the Mediterranean as compared with what they were in previous years, and all this is part of the scheme. It may be small in its conception, but it can easily be extended. I believe the cost is about £150,000 a year placed on the Indian people, but above all that it is simply putting us again in the position of which we accuse other nations, that is, being hypocritical when we talk of our desire for peace and disarmament and giving support or approval to the Coolidge resolution.
I am aware that the Washington Conference had regard only to capital ships, but it is only sticking to the letter of the Agreement and violating the spirit when we are acting in this way by seeking to pile up our armaments and building naval bases in Eastern waters, and we are doing it by this means in order that there will be an accumulation of forces which can only be used for aggressive purposes. There can be no confidence in the talk about abolition of armaments while we are going on in this manner. The Foreign Secretary is now at Geneva, probably talking about peace and giving his blessing to proposals for a reduction of armaments, yet at the same time the present Government bring in a Bill which has for its object, not the creation of an Indian Navy as such, because it would not be officered and manned by the Indian people, although it would be paid for by them, and all this is being done without consultation with or ascertaining the views of India's elected representatives.
The proposals in this Bill with regard to the position of officers and their appointment to high rank is insulting to the Indian people. They will have to pay the bill. The position we are in is that we are signalling across to the United States that we are willing to join
1280
with them in any proposals for the reduction of armaments with our tongue in our cheek, because we have no intention of carrying them into effect. There is a growing desire, not in one section but throughout this country as well as other countries that all Governments should seek ways of peace, disarmament and reduction of expenditure on armaments. This Bill is not the way to do it. This Measure is arousing a great deal of dissatisfaction. If my statement in this regard is challenged, I can quote many newspaper cuttings from the Indian Press condemning this Measure, because they claim that the Indian people are excluded from participation in benefits although they will be called upon to foot the bill. We cannot, with any consistency, go, forward with these proposals without doing what the Amendment tries to suggest, namely, that the Indian people themselves should be consulted with regard to them through their elected representatives. These matters should be placed under the control of the Indian Legislative Assembly. Although it is claimed that the proposals in this Bill are the means by which you are-seeking to increase British armaments. What you are really doing is demanding an additional contribution from the Indian people.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to second the Amendment.
Like my hon. Friend (Mr. Ammon) I would like to join with the Noble Lord in his tribute to the service given by the old Royal Indian Marines who disappear through the passing of this Bill. The officers of the Royal Indian Marines, many of whom I have had the honour of meeting and serving with, are practically all drawn from the British Mercantile Marine and the Royal Naval Reserve. No one has ever given anything but very high praise to their capabilities, because natives and Europeans have performed very great services in the past. I think the Noble Lord was not quite so happy, in view of the position he holds in this. House as spokesman for the India Office, in his reference to the facilities offered to young Indians for becoming officers under these proposals. It was quite unnecessary for him to have suggested that up to now no suitable young Indians had come forward, and that he did not

1281
see any possibility of this happening in the future.
Earl WINTERTON: I did not say that. I hope they will come forward. I hope it will be possible in the future to obtain young Indians for this purpose.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What chance have they had in the past? During my short service I actually served our ships with Chinese cadets, Turkish, and Siamese officers and Japanese. Even Chilean officers had been given a chance of serving in our Navy. The Siamese officers passed right through the training ship and became officers in the Siamese Navy. The Noble Lord, I know, is, very interested in the Mohammedans, and probably he will be interested to know that at one time I had in my special charge as a Lieutenant in the Navy a Turkish officer who kept watch with me, and he was excellent company. He claimed special dispensation from the Moslem law against taking alcoholic liquor, but I told him this could only apply so long as the ship was in harbour, and that it must be waived when he was on board ship. This man turned out to be a very good officer, and probably gave us a good deal of trouble during the Dardanelles campaign. If we can do that with Turks, Chinese and Siamese officers, why cannot we do the same with regard to Indian officers?
I see the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty on the Treasury bench, and as this is the first time I have addressed my remarks to him, may I congratulate him upon his well-merited promotion. May I say in this connection that while the Government is in office I should very much like to see it refreshed with agile brains like those possessed by the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. When twenty or thirty years ago we wished to encourage the formation of Colonial Navies, we took special steps to induce the sons of Colonials to join the Navy and we gave them Colonial cadetships. When the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) and the hon. and gallant Member for Evesham (Commander Eyres Monsell) entered the Navy, there was then a fierce competition in the Navy, and in order that the sons of Colonial gentlemen should have every opportunity of coming in, special cadetships were given and they made very good officers. Why is that not being done henceforward with regard to the Indian
1282
Navy? If you are in earnest in making this a new Dominion Navy, why do you not take up this matter in a large way? Even if some of these young Indian officers do not turn out very well, no harm will be done, and they ought at any rate to be given a chance. I am sure it would be quite possible to pick out suitable young Indians from the Universities and from the sons of suitable Indian families and pass them through the Training College at Dartmouth and send them to sea for a period of training. From what I have seen of these young Indians on the cricket field and the tennis court, and from what I know of their intellectual qualities, I think that with a few years training they would be well worthy of taking their places as officers in the Navy.
Earl WINTERTON: Hear, hear.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Noble Lord agrees with me now, but why did he disavow the evidence brought forward by the Rawlinson Committee which considered this question, because that is not the way to get acquiescence for these proposals. These proposals might have been used for carrying out a scheme of promotion in the Indian Navy, and this would have given them a greater responsibility for managing their own affairs and defending their own country. I sometimes think the real Imperialists are to be found on the Labour benches. At the present moment no Indian gentleman is permitted to be a commissioned officer in the artillery, although he can become a gunnery officer in the Indian Navy. That is an extraordinary anomaly, and I think it is time the War Office took notice of this in order to remove a very humiliating restriction upon the employment of Indian officers in the Army.
I wish to refer to the present officers of the Royal Indian Marines. These officers have done their course at Whale Island and on His Majesty's ship "Vernon" for the study of naval subjects, gunnery and torpedo. There is quite a respectable officers' list in the Royal Indian Marines. There are nine post-captains—one is the director—25 commanders, 21 lieutenant-commanders, 29 lieutenants, and nine midshipmen on the officers' list. In addition there is an engineer-captain, nine engineer-commanders, 25 engineer-lieutenant-comman-

1283
dens, and 11 boatswains, all of them Britishers, and there is not one of Indian birth in the whole of that list. Forthwith I think we should begin training suitable youths in the Dartmouth College, and we should train engineers as well. There is no question, surely, that the engineers should also be recruited from Indians. As we know, the Indians are very good technicians and engineers, if they are properly trained.
I took issue with the Noble Lord when he spoke of the former Service being non-combatant. The word "non-combatant" is looked upon as a slight at sea. These vessels were always armed, and I think the term should be "non-military." There is some soreness on that matter, and that is why I refer to it. As the Noble Lord referred to past history, I would like to point out to the House that really there is not so very much change. This Force was originally formed, as the Noble Lord said, in 1612 by the Honourable East India Company, and was known as the Honourable East India Company's Marine. In 1830, still under the control of John Company, it became known as the Royal Indian Navy, so that there is not such a very new de parture in this proposal. As the Royal Indian Navy, it served as far away as New Zealand in the Maori Wars, in addition to the campaigns mentioned by the Noble Lord. It also took a useful part in the South African War, and the Noble Lord has referred to the services of the Royal Indian Marine in the Great War, which are well known and were of tremendous value to the Empire. I might also remark that, during the Indian Mutiny, the Royal Indian Navy, as it then was, was loyal and stuck to its duties in a most creditable way. With this history and these traditions behind it, now is the time really to make this Force into a national force such as T have attempted to describe.
As Indian troops were sent very willingly to our service during the Great War, surely we can trust the Indian people, if our cause is just in any struggle in which we may he engaged, to put their forces at our disposal. There lies the objection to the present Bill because this Force will be at the sole disposal of the Governor-General in Council, and the
1284
permission of the Indian Legislature will not be sought. That is the blot on the Bill. It is a very important point in connection with the Resolution referred to by my hon. Friend, that was passed by the Legislative Assembly on the 25th March, 1921. This Resolution was brought forward, as the Noble Lord will remember, by a very moderate Indian Liberal —not a Swarajist by any means—Sir Sivaswamy Aiyer. He was referring to the Indian Army, and the Noble Lord said—I took down his words—that this Force would be in the exact position of the Indian Army. Therefore, I think the terms of this Resolution are of the highest importance. It was passed by the Assembly after its acceptance by Sir Godfrey Fell, as my hon. Friend mentioned, who was the Army Secretary speaking for the Commander-in-Chief. This was the Resolution:
"That the Army in India shall not, as a rule, be employed for service outside the external frontiers of India, except for purely defensive purposes, or, with the previous consent of the Governor-General in Council, in very grave emergencies; provided that this Resolution does not preclude the employment on garrison duties overseas of Indian troops at the expense of His Majesty's Government and with the consent of the Government of India."
That is a very important resolution to have been passed by the Indian Legislative Assembly, and, in these Circumstances, the big thing, the Imperial thing, would have been to insert words in this Bill providing that, in case of grave emergency, this Force could be placed at, the disposal of the Admiralty with the consent of both Houses of the Indian Legislature. Why not? You will not get willing service unless you have the consent of the Indian. Legislature. We are gradually giving greater powers, as time goes on, to the Legislative Assembly. Why not allow words like these to be put into the Bill? That would remove the suspicions referred to by my hon. Friend, which are being aroused in India by this proposal. The Noble Lord, surely, wishes to placate to satisfy patriotic Indian opinion, and there is a patriotic Indian opinion which can be roused if it is properly met. Let us, if you like, play up to, let us acquiesce in the patriotic nationalist feelings in India, and play on those feelings. Why not? In the Fr6nch Navy they have commissioned officers actually serving in the Fleet who

1285
are not of the same race as the Indians, but are full-blooded negroes. There is actually a flag officer in the French Navy who is a full-blooded negro, and he has the reputation of being an excellent seaman and a good disciplinarian.
That is how the French, without any talk of democracy or giving self-government, manage to maintain the loyalty of so many millions of their colonials, and that is the sort of principle that the Noble Lord must follow in the ease of India, side by side with the carrying out of the reforms. Without it, in reviving the Royal Indian Navy, we lose an opportunity of satisfying nationalistic and patriotic feelings, and at the same time removing suspicion from the minds of the Indian people that this Force may be paid for, as my hon. Friend suggests, by them only, and may then be at the disposal of the Admiralty in time of war. The Government are doing a thing that may be defended as a right thing, but they are doing it in a most unfortunate way. In view of the presence at the India Office of the Noble Lord who is my Noble Friend's superior, and to whom I may not refer more fully, I am not surprised to find that it is being done in a foolish, a weak, and a small way, and as, without the. Amendments I have suggested, the Bill will do much more harm than hood, I and my friends will oppose it, and, in so doing, will be doing a service to the whole Empire.
Mr. PILCHER: I listened very carefully to the two speeches we have just heard from the Labour benches, and it seems to me that they have displayed both a fundamental misapprehension of the principles of the existing Indian Constitution and an almost complete ignorance of the real facts of the case we are discussing. May I first just allude to the question of facts? The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) said, not once or twice, but many times, that the real gist of this proposal was to shift from the British taxpayer the cost, which he is rightly bearing at the present, moment, on to India. I cannot imagine a more complete and total misapprehension of the facts, a more complete failure to look up the facts and find out what they are, than that repeated asseveration of something which is totally false. At the present time the Indian taxpayer
1286
bears the cost of the Royal Indian Marine to the extent of 51 lakhs, or a matter of some £400,000, per annum. Under the proposal which is now before the House, and which later on will come before the Legislative Assembly itself, the position will be exactly as it was. There will be a matter of 10 lakhs a year more to be expended by the Indian taxpayer, but there are also proposals for economies and an important proposal, in regard to the matter of capital expenditure, under which a very considerable additional sum will, for some years at any rate, be borne V the taxpayers of this country. That did not appear from the speech of my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary; he did not go into the details of this Measure; but it is proposed, to begin with, that at any rate two additional sloops shall be added to the four sloops in Indian waters, at the expense of the British taxpayer, under the head of "Capital Expenditure. 'There is no question here of shifting the incidence of the expenditure or of taxation from one set of taxpayers to another.
On the question of the misreading of the Indian Constitution, there is a serious misunderstanding on the Labour benches of the reasons which have animated the Indian Government in making this arrangement with regard to the consent of the Assembly. At the present time, under the Indian Constitution of 1919, certain matters are kept from the final and absolute purview of the Indian Parliament. This arrangement was come to after very long and careful consideration in 1919. There was a certain reservation of final responsibility as between the Imperial Government of India, and the imperial Parliament. There was a careful distinction between reserved and transferred subjects, and, while very great powers were given to the Assembly—much larger powers than it had ever had before—there was a careful reservation of certain subjects—
Mr. THURTLE: A very astute reservation.
Mr. PILCHER: That was an understanding arrived at by Commissions and Committees composed of both Indians and Britishers. It was accepted by the Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament. It was fundamental in that settlement that matters of defence and foreign policy, the Government of the

1287
Indian States, and ecclesiastical policy, were not to be placed absolutely under the control of the Assembly. That was a matter of arrangement for 10 years only. As a matter of fact, the Assembly has enjoyed very much greater privileges in discussing matters of defence than it was ever imagined that it would have in 7919. The Army Vote is submitted to the Assembly in very great detail every year, and very full discussion takes place. The Viceroy has the power, which was given to him with the greatest deliberation on the part of this House, of ensuring ail expenditure on the defence of India during this 10 years' term. That is the fundamental and purely technical reason why the Assembly is not made the complete arbiter in the matter of expenditure on this small Navy.
I would draw the attention of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) to the fact that the proposal in this Bill goes very much further in a statutory sense than ever before in the matter of conferring on the Indian Assembly control over any branch of the defensive forces of India. No statutory power has ever been given to the Assembly to decide the use and destination of any branch of that expenditure until now. The Resolution which the hon. and gallant Member read out was a mere resolution of the Assembly, passed in 1921. It was approved by Sir Godfrey Fell, but it was not made a statutory power of control. This Bill, however, goes almost to the extent of making the Assembly the absolute arbiter in this matter. It is given complete control over the whole personnel of the Indian Navy. There has never been, in any Measure for extending the power of the Indian Parliament, anything quite corresponding to one of these Clauses, which gives the Assembly power even to alter the Naval Discipline Act as it pleases, even though there is a large white personnel in the Navy. It must be remembered that the Royal Indian Marine, which we are now handing over to become the basis of the Royal Indian Navy, is entirely, so far as officers go, English in personnel. It is to the fact that this experiment is to be built up on the basis of the existing Royal Indian Marine that, in reality, the smallness of the experiment is due as far as Indian promotion or Indian entry is concerned.
1288
6.0.p.m.
This proposal has been criticised on the ground that it is very small indeed, and almost worthless. It has also been criticised on the ground that it imposes a new and heavy expenditure on the Indian people. You really cannot have it both ways. We are completely bound so far as the beginning is concerned by the conditions at present prevailing. We have had to accept the cadre of officers as it exists, and it seems to me impossible suddenly to arrange for this inrush of Indian personnel that is asked for by the hon. Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy).
Mr. THURTLE: I take it there is nothing in the Bill that is going to make defence anything but a reserved subject, so I take it the Indian Government will control the Navy in future.
Mr. PILCHER: The Assembly is in entire control until a given moment when an emergency arises. That is a much better position so far as the Assembly is concerned than the position in regard to the Army. The Assembly controls it by Statute till an emergency arises, and then the head of the Executive has the power to hand the Navy over for the time being to the Admiralty. That, I imagine, is only what happens in the case of Dominion Navies. There, too, when we had an Imperial emergency it was found impossible for individual control of Dominion Navies to continue. In fact, I think that is really one of the most important lines of criticism which could really be offered; this Bill does from the naval point of view rather increase the centrifugal tendency in general Imperial naval administration. I am perfectly willing to run that risk because, contrary to anything that has been or will be said in the Debate, this proposal is essentially designed to satisfy Indian democratic sentiment. The newspapers that have been quoted—I know the Indian Press inside out—have very small circulations indeed. Very much of what is quoted is irresponsible. It does not very much matter what the. Indian Government proposes. However much it is designed to carry out what the Indian people want, you get some irresponsible criticism. This proposal very largely came from Lord Reading's most earnest desire to do something wherever he found the possibility to satisfy the growing sense of

1289
nationhood of the Indian people. In similar way, and as a like concession to Indian demand, a Committee was appointed to consider the possibility of promoting the growth of the Indian Mercantile Marine. At present you have practically no Indian Mercantile Marine. It is almost impossible to build up an Indian Navy in a country which owns only one shipping line.
I should like to say a word on the sources from which the Indian officers are to be found. The hon. and gallant Gentleman sincerely thought you could at any moment find a number of Indians who are prepared to take on this work. So far as the Hindu community goes—it is a matter of 160,000,000 people—the sea is taboo. In the orthodox communities if a Hindu of any but the lowest castes goes to sea he has to undergo very elaborate ceremonials and pay fines to the priests when he comes back. The sources from which you can recruit people for naval work are extremely small. There are lascars in very large numbers who will do the lower deck work and that sort of thing. You have large seafaring classes on the coast, but when you get away from the coast into the interior, the mass of the inland people scarcely know of the existence of the sea and will have nothing to do with it because it is more or less forbidden by their ancient law.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Member speaks with very great authority. Does he really wish the House to believe that where you can make an Indian Army officer it is impossible to make an Indian gentleman a marine officer?
Mr. PILCHER: I very much hope, exactly as the hon. and gallant Gentleman hopes, that we may succeed in inducing a considerable number of Indian gentlemen to take to this life, but the demand has not come from those classes from whom he imagines it comes. The educated class are not the sort of people who go to sea. The man who plays good tennis, cricket and football is not likely to volunteer for a sea life from what I know of him, and I am fairly intimate with his class. You will have to get this population from the sea-port towns and sea coasts, and even there there is going to be a good deal of difficulty in getting them.
1290
The hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench (Mr. Ammon) rather suggested that no provision was being made for training the class of men we hope to get to officer the Indian Navy. He referred to the Prince of Wales's college at Dehra Dun. That is really a notable development, again a matter of the last three or four years. It had its origin, I think, in Lord Reading's Viceroyalty. There primarily we are trying to train a type of Indian officer for the Indian Army. If the hon. Gentleman would have the curiosity to get the first few reports, which describe the first few years' working of that institution he will see how difficult it is even with the best of intentions to get the type of man you want to undergo the training. You must have a certain amount of literary skill and capacity and some power of assimilation before you can begin to train them, and when the attempt began to bring this class of young Indian gentlemen to Dehra the fundamental difficulties were found to be very considerable. Their sense of geography and the most elementary things is extraordinarily limited. The period of training is necessarily a long one and all sorts of provision are made in this scheme for giving them a chance. They will have six years nominally at the Dehra Dun college, but the last two of those years are to be spent in touch with the sea at Bombay and the cadets are finally to go through a very elaborate two years' course at Whale Island and various centres in this country. There is, in fact, nothing repressive or timid in the scheme at all. It it simply that you have the Britisher officering the Indian Marine from top to bottom and gradually you are going to substitute for him the Indian officer and you are limited by the conditions prevailing at the outset.
There is one last point I should like to impress on my Noble Friend. I have been in fairly close touch with the officers of the old Royal Indian Marine for some years past and have had a number of letters from them during the last two or three months. That Service has always been regarded as a non-combatant service, as those who have been in India know. The pay has always been fixed rather on the basis of what men of the same type can obtain in the Mercantile Marine than on what they ought to receive in a corn-

1291
batant service. For the combatant service the rates of pay and pension which Royal Indian Marine officers are now receiving are very inadequate. They had their rates of pay raised in 1919, and they had their pensions re-arranged in 1923, and there seems to be an idea abroad that they are more or less satisfied. I should like to draw attention to the serious congestion on the engineering side. There is a whole batch of lieutenant-commanders who cannot move up in the promotion scale and have no possible hope of obtaining commander's rank by the time the 55 years' rule operates. Two-fifths of the pension is based on rank. Unless a man obtains commander's rank during his service, he gets three-fifths only of the pension which almost admittedly he is entitled to. To give the House some idea of the sort of unsatisfactory rates of pay these men are receiving, the cadets who are trained at the Prince of Wales's College and go to the Army start at 400 rupees a month. The starting salary in the Indian Navy is 200 rupees a month. You will certainly not attract the Indian gentleman of the type you want to attract to the new Indian Navy so long as that disparity obtains, and I would press on the attention of my Noble Friend the extreme desirability of eliminating the discontent which exists in the old Indian Marine and in the Royal Indian Navy at the outset of its existence.
Finally, with regard to the Amendment, it seems to me to be fundamentally inaccurate in every one of its sub-sections. It asks the House to say that the House, being desirous of extending the powers of the elected representatives of India, does not like the Bill. All those who know the genesis of the Bill know that it is a real and genuine effort to extend the power of the Assembly and to give it control over the new service. The Amendment goes on to say the Bill fails to place the new Navy under the control of the Indian Legislative Assembly. It does as much as could possibly be done, and it goes very much further than the resolution of the Assembly which the hon. and gallant Gentleman read. I give the Measure my whole-hearted support. It is a genuine effort to associate the Indian people in the solution of one of their chief problems of self-defence, and it goes as
1292
far as it is safe or possible to go while conditions are as they are in India.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: I suppose in a long and varied political career I have heard more criticism of England from Indians than anyone else in the House. They all seem to pour their grievances into my ear. The grievance I have found it most difficult to answer is the accusation that in our occupation of India we have created in the Indians a slave mentality, that we have by our administration of India destroyed their self-respect. It is obvious to any of us who go to India that they, like many other people, suffer from the inferiority complex. To my mind the most important work we can do in India, and in this country also, is to destroy the inferiority complex from which so many people seem to suffer. How can we destroy it in India? We are doing something by making them, if only to a slight degree, responsible for their own Government, but I do not believe you will ever create self-respect in any people till they are in a position to defend themselves. I welcome the enormous development in India in recent years of physical training. The work done in the Benares College and the development of football throughout India is excellent and has created this spirit of self-respect. I look upon the development of an Indian Navy as a step in the same direction. It is humiliating to any people to be told that they may only serve in the stokeholds or in the ranks and that they can only occupy administrative posts of an inferior degree. The more we can associate them, not merely with the Government of India, but with the direction of the Army and the Naval forces of India, the more you create that self-respect which to nay mind is the most important work in politics.
This Bill is a pitiful start in that direction, and the start made in regard to the Army is equally pitiable; but they are starts. I would accept anything provided it came before this country as the wish of the Indian people, and not as the wish of the British Government. It makes all the difference in its psychological effect whether this is put before the people of this country as something which the British Government requires of India or whether it is put before the people of this country as something which is required by the Indian people. That

1293
is why I could have wished that there had been a direct, definite Resolution passed by the Indian Assembly in favour of this Measure before we were asked to debate it. It destroys all the value, or the greater part of the value, of the new development when it is imposed upon India instead of coming from India.
On this Second Reading, I would urge the Government to do a little bit more. If we are going to treat the Indians as fit to defend themselves, or as trainable to become capable of defending themselves, then, surely, let us do something more than this Bill proposes or more than is proposed in the recommendations of the Rawlinson Committee. What my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) suggested is surely the right thing. Just as we took Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders into the Navy as Colonial cadets, just as they were taken into the Army in order to bring the Empire together, and to create in our great Dominions overseas a feeling of solidarity with ourselves, so, instead of confining our attention to the new Indian Navy, I would have brought Indians over here and put them into the British Navy. I would take them at the same age at which cadets are taken into the Navy here, at the age of 13, I think it is, and I would see that they were treated in our Navy as capable of becoming officers. Half the difficulty in India to-day comes from this infernal feeling of superiority on one side and inferiority on the other. If we could knock that feeling out by treating Indians just as if they were Australians, then we should find that they are exactly like Australians. If you expect people to accept a position of inferiority, they will only be fit to be inferiors. It is a question of atmosphere.
Mr. ERSKINE: Couéism.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes, Couéism, very largely. Insist that people are capable of defending themselves, and they will defend themselves, but, if you expect them always to run away, they will run away. We must insist that they are capable of doing things. That is the whole essence of what we call moral in the Army and Navy. If we can break down this horrible feeling of jealousy, because it is nothing else, in our Services against an admixture of Indian
1294
cadets, we shall really he doing more to create the right spirit in India and to bring India and the rest of the Empire together than in any other way that I can think of. If we cannot persuade the Army and the Navy to accept this new Indian competition, at any rate could not something be done to persuade the great steamship lines to take Indian cadets? It is only in quite recent years that young Indians have gone into engineering. When we were young they went into the law. There seemed to be nothing else for them but the law and administration. Recently, they have taken to engineering. They come over here to take up railway work and go through the shops to learn engineering, but there is no opening for them beyond a few posts in the railway world. Generally speaking, as far as the steamship lines are concerned, there is no chance of their becoming even third or fourth officers, and no chance of them working their way up. Indians are still confined to the stokehold and the Lascars' quarters.
I think the Government might do something even more important than the provision of cadetships for Indians, if they would persuade steamship lines which trade with India to accept as engineer officers and as executive officers a small beginning of Indians, so that they might have posts where they would issue orders, instead of merely posts where they receive orders. This Bill is a beginning. It will evidently take a very long time before the Indian Marine can become officered by Indians. It is not so much a question of how long a time it will take for the new Indian Navy or for the Indian Army to become officered by Indians as how long it will take for this Rouse to realise that we ought to be anxious to get Indians as officers of the Air Force, the Artillery and all branches of the Services. The desire to keep them out of these branches of the Services is a horrible survival of the old spirit of the Indian mutiny. If these Indians once learned the real skill and art of flying, engineering and artillery proficiency, there is an idea that they would be a danger to the Empire. What we have to do is to convert our people to recognising the fact that trained on these lines the Indians would be an advantage to the Empire, and that it would create in

1295
the Indians a spirit of command instead of the mere spirit of obedience.
This Bill, as far as it goes, would be on the right lines, if it had been preceded by a Resolution of the Indian Assembly. For what it is, it is a pitiful step in the right direction, and to those of us who desire to see India a self-governing Dominion within the British Empire, and who desire to see the Indians themselves lose the inferiority complex and become a people to issue orders, it is an opportunity to press the Government to extend the principle of cadetship for Indians, to extend the principle of bringing Indians into the executive services, the Army, Navy, the Air Force, the Artillery, and into the civilian branches of engineering, the railway> and the steamship companies, so that we may seek the co-operation, and thereby secure the assistance of the Indian people in constructing that great union which the British Empire has become, thanks to the Resolution of the last Imperial Conference.
Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I, too, would welcome the provisions of this Bill to give a Navy to India. I cannot understand the mentality of hon. Members opposite who are out to give self-government to India, and who, when it is proposed to give a Navy to India, are the first to object to it. Reading their Amendment, I think their real objections must be contained in its last few words, because this Bill
"incidentally involves an increase` in Imperial Naval Forces."
The hon. Member who moved the Amendment talked about an armaments race in Eastern waters. What more absurd definition could there have been? To provide a few ships to go round the lighthouses, for transport purposes and for survey purposes around the Indian coasts, and possibly even around the Persian Gulf, is an armaments race in the opinion of hon. Members opposite. I cannot imagine anything more ridiculous. Does not the hon. Member welcome our handing over these services to India? We are leaving the coast-line to the Indian people, who are accustomed to the sea. Has the hon. Member ever sailed those seas in the summer I Does he realise the extraordinary heat day in and day out, with a temperature of 100
1296
to 110 degrees, and a dampless, moist-less atmosphere? It is not a suitable climate for Europeans When we bring Indian natives to our Northern clime, into our cold fogs, they shiver and are miserable. Just in the same way, our people, when they are serving in those hot Eastern seas, suffer from fevers. Yet hon. Members opposite object, when we are handing over these services to the Government of India, who are to be responsible for them, and who will gradually transpose Europeans and substitute natives of India.
The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) was very anxious that we should provide officers for the new Indian Navy immediately. You cannot create a new body of officers to take over the new Navy immediately; it has to be done slowly and by degrees. You must do it cautiously, and find the right type. Hindoos are not suitable for the work to-day; they have to change their views and their mentality. It is from the Mohammedan population that we draw our sailors today. Along the coast-line in India they have great traditions. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary went back 300 years or more in dealing with the history of the Indian Navy. We might go back even to the time of Sennacherib, who sailed those seas and crossed "The sea of sunrising," as it was called. Sinbad the Sailor was not a myth; he lived on those coasts and sailed those seas. Fleets sailed along those coasts and went round the land of silk, and, incidentally, sacked Canton in those days. That was a monstrous thing to do, I suppose, in the view of hon. Members opposite; but it was done many hundreds of years ago by sailors from those coasts. Cities rose and fell along those coasts, whose life was on the seas. Pirates rose and fell. When we went 300 years ago and first brought our flag to those seas, bit by bit we routed out those nests of pirates. We made commerce safe in those seas, and for three centuries we have patrolled and looked after those seas and made them safe to-day for commerce. Many there are whose bones lie on those heated shores who could have testified to the work and the efficiency of our Navy.
To-day we propose to hand over this work to the Indian Government. It is a

1297
great step forward. The hon. and gallant Member opposite talked about amending the Government of India Act. I think he was mistaken. The idea was that after ten years they were to go into the whole question as to the revision or not of the Government of India Act. There was nothing about the amending of the Government of India Act being impossible. This Bill is a step in the direction which one would have imagined hon. Members opposite would have welcomed. It is giving the Government of India power and control over their Navy. They are put in the position as they are in regard to the Army in India to-day. The Assembly can refuse if they choose to vote the 50 lakhs of rupees or more which may be necessary for the provision of the naval services. The hon. Member opposite seemed to think that officers are the only men in the services. There are other ranks as well. The argument is that because these ships are not completely officered by natives of India, that, therefore, we have done nothing, and are doing nothing, to further the desires and wishes of the people of India.
We welcome any cadets that may come forward as officers in the Indian Navy, we welcome as many cadets as possible, but this must be done slowly, by degrees. You cannot jump at once to conclusions arid imagine that it is possible to-day or to-morrow to complete the officers. We have sailed and fought in those seas and are proud of the traditions we hold along that coast, and it is a great thing to hand this duty over to the Indian marine, and in so doing to found and start an Indian Navy. It is the beginning, and I am surprised that hon. Members opposite object to it. I believe their only idea is —it is a wrong idea—that this is an increase of our Imperial naval forces. This is for the benefit of our own people and Indians, and only in cases of emergency can the Governor-General in Council lend these survey ships for service in foreign waters. The Legislative Assembly have control over the personnel of the Indian fleet. It is a great step in advance. I welcome it as such, and I hope hon. Members will not from purely party politics or because of the representations of a few native newspapers, which have a small circulation and are very extreme, oppose it, but will look
1298
upon it as a great advance towards giving India its own navy.
Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I rise to support the Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down welcomed the Bill, because it represents the creation of an Indian Navy, which is being handed over to the Government of India. The real question is this: Is this Bill creating an Indian Navy or is it creating a British Navy manned by Indians? If it be really creating an Indian Navy, then the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. Pilcher) will agree with us when we say that it should be manned and officered by Indians. There is this further point, which hon. Members opposite do not seem to appreciate, that in order for it to be an Indian Navy, definitely manned and officered by Indians and controlled by Indians, India must have the last say in determining not merely how far it shall carry on its work of home defence but the conditions under which it can be used away from India in the defence of other parts of the Empire. It is perfectly clear that the Indian people have not that power. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Lieut.-Colonel Howard-Bury) explained that it was only in an emergency that it could be used in any other place than around the Indian shores. That might have passed muster if we had not had precisely a similar instance in regard to the use of the Indian Army. In a recent case, and t cite this only to show how an Indian Navy can he similarly used—the Governor-General has certified that an emergency has arisen at the present time in China and the Indian Army can go to China in order to further the interests of His Majesty's Government in China. The sending of the Indian Army to China is bitterly resented by the Indian people. I have only to quote as an illustration a distinguished Indian who is not against this country, in fact he has been honoured by the King—Dr. Rabindranath Tagore—who says that he bitterly resents this use of the Indian Army on foreign soil, not only without previous decision of the Indian Legislative Assembly but even without their being able to express an opinion as to the rights and wrongs of the case.
I want to put this question to any Service Member who may be in the

1299
House. The Services of this country are called upon to perform a patriotic duty. They are called upon to take their lives in their hands at the command of the Government of the day. They have but a very small say in determining on what purpose their services shall be employed, but they say: "We know it will only be by the Government of our own country that we can be sent to serve in foreign lands, and we are prepared to act at the dictate of our own Government because of our patriotic feelings." What are you asking the Indians to do? You are asking them to take their lives in their hands, to undergo all the perils of the Services, to be sent, it an emergency arises, to some foreign country, not at the instruction of the Government of their own people, but at the instruction of the Government of a, country which has empire over their land. In these circumstances I put it to hon. Members opposite that you will not command the services of the best of the Indians who might come in. If you want to get the very best men in India to take such risks as these services must necessarily entail, you can only do that by appealing to their patriotism. If you are going to appeal merely to the financial conditions of service, you are going to have a Navy of mercenaries and not a Navy of patriotic citizens. I am quite certain that if the position in this, country were that you were asking men to go into the Army and Navy and Air Force, to be used not at the discretion of the Government of their own people but at the discretion of an alien Government, you would not get the best men to volunteer and face all the risks and dangers of the service.
Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: In 1914, did they not come over and help us? Did they not volunteer?
Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Yes, because they were appealed to. The facts were put before them, and they had a free choice. They have not a free choice under this Bill, and that is what we are objecting to. We object to the power which is put into the hands of the Governor-General to declare an emergency. We know the kind of case that will be called an emergency. It will not be an Indian emergency, it will be an emergency of this country, and in those cir-
1300
cumstances these Indians can be used for foreign service without an opportunity of expressing their views on the matter.
One of the difficulties in granting Home Rule to India at the present time is that Home Rule for India without control of defence, without an Army that is Indian in reality and not merely in name, an Army that is officered throughout by Indians, can only be an imaginary and illusory form of self-government, and it is recognised, therefore, that complete self-government cannot come about for India until it has an Array which is really composed not only of Indians but manned by Indian officers. That will take a considerable time. In the case of the Navy it is also true that self-government for India cannot ever be genuine self-government unless the Indian Navy is also composed throughout its whole personnel of Indians. It will be felt in India, if this Bill goes through in its present form, that the obstacles which are placed against Indians taking the highest positions in these services will be one further obstacle against granting self-government to the country, and for that reason the view we take, that this Bill in its present form is not acceptable, is a view which should he worthy of the greatest consideration.
Finally, I want to remind hon. Members that these emergency powers of the Governor-General to send the Army and Navy to foreign lands are a source of the very greatest irritation to the Indian people.
In addition to Dr. Tagore, other great leaders like Ghandi have protested in the strongest way. The Legislative Assembly has been unable to debate the question, and if His Majesty's Government persist in this method of dealing with India, flouting their right to the final word as to the disposal of their men in the Army and Navy, you are going to increase ill feeing in India, which is unfortunately quite widespread enough at the present time. I heartily support the Amendment because I feel that if you are going to create an Indian Navy it should be an Indian Navy on the right lines, entirely confined to the defence of India, with the solitary exception that the Indian Legislative Assembly may after consultation decide that the force can be used in a

1301
special case away from the shores surrounding the Peninsula.
Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I trust the hon. Member who has just spoken will forgive me if I do not follow him in his references to the Indian Army and the conditions of their service beyond saying that I am perfectly certain it will be deeply resented in India if it were known that a suggestion has been made that the members of the Indian Army, the soldiers comprising the Indian Army, only went to China under some form of compulsion and would have refused to serve there if they possibly could. It may be that the hon. Member did not mean to convey this, but the impression I got was that there were a large number of soldiers in India who would never have proceeded to serve overseas unless they were absolutely bound to do so.
Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That was not my point at all. Of course, they had to carry out their instructions, and they went where they were sent. But the Indian people resent the power of this country, through the Governor-General of India, to send regiments overseas without consulting the people of India.
Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I am very glad to give, the hon. Gentleman any opportunity to explain what he means. But I say, further that I do not know to whom he refers when he speaks of the people of India. If he refers to those most concerned, the soldiers of famous Indian regiments, I entirely repudiate the suggestion that they object to serving overseas. If he refers to the vapour-inns of a few politicians, extremists or otherwise, that is quite a different thing. They very likely do object—they do not serve in the Army. The Amendment which we are discussing is, I imagine, one of the most difficult that the Labour party ever had to frame. If it be carefully read, it will be found, in the first place, that it is almost contradictory, and that is borne out i3y the speeches we have heard regarding it; and, secondly, it is extremely difficult, after having listened to the speeches, to follow exactly what it is that the supporters of the Amendment really desire. The speech which we heard from the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment was one of the most mischievous regarding India that I have ever heard in this House. It is likely to be used to try to stir up a
1302
considerable amount of trouble where no trouble existed before. It is likely to give a totally false impression, and I think it was based on very insufficient knowledge.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to object very strongly to the defence of India falling upon the Indian people. I should have thought that that was a thing which was extremely desirable. I am certain that it is a thing that the people of India desire. The whole trend of Indian thought in recent years has been, to my certain knowledge, to demand that when, as they hope, they eventually become a self-governing Dominion within the Empire, they shall control their own defence. If that is the case, it is essential that there should also be a beginning with a defence of the seas around the coasts of India. A great deal has been made in the Debate of the desirability of having the Royal Indian Navy officered entirely by Indians. In fact we had both the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), and, to my surprise, the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) suggesting that it would be possible almost immediately, if not immediately, to officer the Indian Navy by a system of cadetships similar to that of the "Britannia," and to enlist boys at 13 years of age to go to the "Britannia." I cannot understand anyone who knows India putting forward such a suggestion. I can hardly conceive that at present there would be a dozen Indian families willing to send their boys of 13 years of age to the "Britannia."
Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not think it would be the slightest use sending them to the "Britannia," but there ought to be a training school similar to the "Britannia" at Bombay.
Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: With that suggestion, when the proper time comes, I am in accord. But that is rather different from the proposal put forward in the Debate.
Mr. AMMON: I have suggested that there should be a college and a ship for training.
Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: That is a thing on which all of us could agree. In connection with the possibility of training for sea life in the Mercantile Marine, the Superintendent of one of the

1303
training ships in this country—I believe it is the "Worcester"—was recently sent to India to make a report. That is a matter which I believe is under the consideration of the Government of India at the present time. On the whole question of sea training may I, as one who has some experience of the matter, say definitely that it is by no means easy to get Indian officers, to get any class of Indian to serve at sea at all excepting those whose whole life and surroundings and hereditary instincts are concerned with the sea? That is a comparatively small population which exists around the shores of India. The point I wanted to make was that one has always to remember, in dealing with India, that we are not only dealing with a population of 250,000,000 or 300,000,000, but, from a sea point of view, with a population of only about 70,000,000 Mohammedans, of whom not more than 5,000,000 at the outside have any connection with the sea, hereditary or otherwise. India is an enormous country and vast numbers of Indians have never seen the sea in their lives. There are no hereditary sea instincts, as in this country.
The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull surprised me when, haying referred to the sea sense of the Siamese and other nations, he spoke of the Turks as a non-seafaring race. I do not think he will find that history bears out that statement. In fact all the nations to which he referred are, compared with India, seafaring nations. The ranks of the Royal Indian Marine, and indeed of the old Royal Navy, were to a large extent recruited in the lower ranks from Lascars, as they are to-day, and most excellent seamen they make. But there is the greatest difficulty in getting Indians of a higher type to take to the sea—that is, Indians of a class who are likely to become officers. I can assure the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme that I have had actual experience contrary to what he said. I am sure that he did not know the facts. It was extremely difficult in the Mercantile Marine before the War to get men to join as deck officers with the intention of rising. It is not so difficult to get Indians to undertake engineering, for that work is more in keeping with their character. For every
1304
Chief Officer of a merchant ship who was an Indian, I fancy there would be five or 10 engineers. But both above and below decks it is extremely difficult to get the class of Indian who will make a suitable officer.
The statement was made that the intentions of this Bill were such as to bring the whole proposals into contempt, and, in fact, to make the proposals a part of the Singapore scheme. I never heard anything more preposterous declared in this House. I can assure the House that the conditions for docking for repairs and other matters of that kind, in India, are such as to be perfectly capable of dealing with all the ships that are likely, in any future that we can foresee, and that there will not be the slightest necessity to send them to Singapore. Singapore is a totally different problem. I think the authorities in Bombay would be offended at the idea that they were not able to deal with the ships that are likely to be built or commissioned under this Bill. One word about the historical aspect of this matter. I personally welcome very much, as I know almost the whole of moderate opinion in India welcomes, the re-establishment of the Royal Indian Navy. It is true that the original Navy came from the Navy of the East India Company, away back in the days when the handful of merchant adventurers to whom we owe India had to struggle against Sevaji and the Mahrattas on the landward side and against the sea pirates on the other. Then came the first of those ships which brought about the East India Company's Navy and eventually became and did wonderfully good service as the Royal Indian Navy. I would like to see not only a reconstruction of the Navy, but the reconstruction and the building of naval ships, for in those days India built a large number of very fine ships. In 1821 there was launched the famous "Ganges," of the then enormous tonnage of nearly 2,300, with 84 guns, built by the master draughtsman, though I think they called him the master builder of the Company, Jamsetjee Nowrowjee. I would like very much to see those days back again. Whether they came back or not, the traditions of the old East India Navy and of the Royal Indian Marine will be carried on in the new force, and the chance which the Indian people are now getting, of gradually accustoming

1305
themselves to a sea life and enabling their boys to take to the sea, will be welcomed not only by those in this country who wish well to India, but throughout the length and breadth of India itself.
Mr. LANSBURY: I have listened and waited for someone to tell us exactly what was meant by the "Indian people" and "Indian public opinion." Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen continually affirm that in making statements in reference to India they are speaking on behalf of the Indian people, and that those of us who take a contrary view speak only for the vapourings of extremists.
Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I did not accuse either the hon. Member or his party of that.
Mr. LANSBURY: That sent that point of view people who express that in India.
Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I said there were such people.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. LANSBURY: And that our point of view was based upon them. This House has conferred on the people of India a Legislative Assembly. We think that before such a Bill as this was brought in that Assembly should have been consulted. If there were any real demand in India for a Navy it would have found expression in the Indian Legislature. The Noble Lord, the Under-Secretary for India, answering questions the other day, said there had been plenty of opportunities for such expression if the Legislative Assembly had so desired. I have taken some trouble to try to find out the facts, and if I am wrong I shall be glad to be corrected. I believe that the only official notification that has been given to the people of India that such a proposal as this was going to be made was given to them in February of last year in the speech of the late Viceroy, Lord Reading, and the subject has not been before the Legislative Assembly either directly or indirectly. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Lieut.-Colonel Howard-Bury) said that we were going to confer an inestimable benefit on the people of India by giving them a Navy. A more extraordinary statement I have never heard. We are not going to give India anything at all. Whatever revolts from this Bill, the people
1306
of India will pay for it, and we shall have the management of it. It will be under our control. That that is so is quite evident from the answer given to-day by the First Lord of the Admiralty to ray hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), who asked:
"Whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government that any naval forces and vessels raised and provided by the Governor-General of India in Council should be placed at his disposal to be employed otherwise than upon Indian naval defence."
That is, to be placed at the disposal of the British First Lord. The answer was:
"The Bill makes provision for the possibility that the Royal Indian Navy, after being placed at the disposal of His Majesty, may be employed for purposes other than the purely local defence of India. Circumstances may arise in which it may be desirable to take advantage of this provision."
That means that this new Navy may, if thought desirable, be brought into the Mediterranean, or even into the North Sea and be used against the will of the representatives of the Indian people. If it be true that the Indian people are so anxious to assist the British Empire at such times as the provisions in this Bill and the answer I have quoted contemplate, why is it that you are obliged to retain in the Viceroy power to certify the use of either the Army or this new Navy without the consent of the Legislative Assembly? This House, which is a representative Assembly, would never tolerate His Majesty using the Navy or Army without its consent, and I say that it is simply playing the fool with democracy in India to continue a provision such as that which we are complaining of in our Amendment.
As to the notion that this Navy is going to be one that is only to visit light-houses and to sail round the coast, to have a look at the harbours, why, you need not change the name at all if that be all you want. It is either a Navy you are going to create, or it is not. It is either to be something new or it is the old thing under another name. I am perfectly certain from the answer this afternoon that it is not the old Indian Marine under another name. This answer to-day proves conclusively that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) is quite wrong when he tells us that it is not a new Navy and an addition to the British Fleet which is going to be created, because what would be the use of these coasting vessels in time of emergency?

1307
What would be the use of the present Indian Mercantile Marine in times of danger? If it were true that you were not going to change it, you would not want this Bill at all.
The real fact is that you are trying, under the guise of giving the Indian people some sort of pride in the Navy, merely to create a new Navy in the Pacific. The main objections—and no-one has yet met them, and I hope whoever speaks for the Government will try to meet them—against these proposals are, first, that you have a Legislative Assembly in India and you have professed to give India a measure of self-government. You profess to consult the representatives of the Indian people, and yet here is a very big new departure, and you have never consulted them one bit. You have never asked their opinions and you have never got their opinions. So far as any Indian opinion is vocal at all, it is dead against this proposition, because you are going to create a Navy which is to be used in this way and paid for by the Indian people without the Legislative Assembly—the Parliament of India—being asked either for their consent or whether they are willing to pay.
So far as this Bill is concerned, there is no provision that Great Britain will pay, but there is a provision that the Navy shall be used when the Governor-General says it may be used, after an application from the British First Lord of the Admiralty. About that there can be no dispute whatever. As to who is to pay, there is no provision in the Bill at all. We are not at all sure, in spite of many questions which have been put, who is to pay for the troops which have been sent to Shanghai. We have not yet been told that, and in this Bill there is no provision at all as to who shall pay for this new Indian Navy when it is used, not for the purposes of defending India, but for some purposes which the Admiralty or the Government in this country may think desirable. If you concede a nation self-government, it ought to be real self-government. When you talk about the Indian people taking a pride in the Navy, I would like to emphasise another point. The hon. Member for Kidderminster, and the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford were at some pains to tell us that this proposal really restored a tradition that along the
1308
coast of India there were, in days gone by, people who took a pride in sailing the seas and that now we were reviving that tradition. But you are only reviving it for the lower kind of posts in the Navy. I would like whoever replies to tell us how long they think it will take to train and get going the captains for these new ships, the admirals who will be in charge of the various squadrons, and so on. We have some evidence that will assist us in this matter. One Indian a year—the Noble Lord, I am sure, will not deny that—is allowed to be an officer in the Royal Air Force in India, and, if I concede the point—which I do not except for argument—that an Air Force is necessary in India and that you ought to have it manned by Indians, I venture to say that more than one Indian a year, if given an opportunity, could rise to the position of an officer in the Air Force.
Earl WINTERTON: I must not allow that to pass. There is no such thing as the Royal Indian Air Force. The hon. Member is speaking of a force which does not exist.
Mr. LANSBURY: If I am wrong in calling it the Royal Indian Air Force, I will call it the Air Force of which India pays a part and the British Empire pays a part, and, so far as the officers in that Air Force who serve in India are concerned, one Indian per year can rise to the post of an officer. I put a question to the Noble Lord, and he knows perfectly well that the number of Indians who have risen to the poet of officers in the Air Force serving in India—
Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Member really must not make a series of misstatements on a Bill which has nothing whatever to do with an Indian Air Force or the Indian Army. I repeat for his information and for flat of the House, that there is no Indian Air Force, and, therefore, the situation to which he refers cannot possibly arise.
Mr. LANSBURY: That will not do. It is all very well for the Noble Lord to he indignant, and to want to put me right. It is perfectly true, and I admit it, that the Air Force serving in India is part of the British Air Force, but it is equally true that Indians are allowed to serve in certain ranks in that force, and about one Indian per year rises to the post of officer. We have been discussing

1309
the relative merits of Indians becoming officers or remaining in the subordinate positions, but it is perfectly true that, as regards the commands and the officering of the Indian Army, it is very difficult to know, and there is no one who can tell us, when that Indian Army will be really officered by Indians. It has been in existence for many years, and, if the same policy is going to be followed with regard to the Navy, we shall see the same conditions prevailing there, namely, that the ordinary drudgery work of the Navy will be done by the Indians, and the officers will go out from this country. They will brave all the terrors of the climate. I also have travelled in the East but I have travelled in comfort, and, although it is very hot, it is not at all unenjoyable, as the Noble Lord himself knows. It is only when you have to do the work in the stoke-holes and the hard drudgery work on a ship that it becomes rather intolerable, and, according to the statements we have heard to night, the work that the Indians will be allowed to do in the Navy will be that kind of work, while the plume of the profession, the officers posts, will as usual go to the people of this country.
It is for those reasons that I object to the Bill in regard to India. We also object to the Bill, because we are quite certain that it does mean an addition to the competitive race that has commenced in armaments in the Pacific. In days not long ago the competition was between the German Fleet and our own in the North Sea. I happen to have sat in this House and to have heard all the Debates about the removal of the Fleet from the Mediterranean to the North Sea before the War. In these days we are told that the Singapore Base does not mean anything sinister at all, that it is simply something that we are doing, I suppose, in order to get rid of money that we do not otherwise know what to do with, that it is not against anybody, and that it has been created for some purpose that is called Imperial defence. Now there is this Navy. Hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways. If it be only to give a new name to the Indian Marine, then it cannot possibly be used for the purpose which the First Lord spoke of in his answer to this question this afternoon. I take him as the best judge.
1310
This Bill is going to create a new Navy of capital ships, submarines, cruisers and all the rest of the paraphernalia. I dare say that the Under-Secretaries and Parliamentary private secretaries know nothing about it; but the chiefs of the Admiralty have a very happy knack of getting their own way with Governments. They cannot get additions to the Navy directly, even out of the present Government, but they are going to do it in a roundabout way through what they call the Indian Navy. We oppose this Bill because we are dead against having this race in armaments and because we believe that if an agreement is come to with America, Japan and the other Governments, it ought not to be vitiated by Great Britain being able to reinforce the British Navy by an Indian Navy in addition to an Australasian Navy. For these reasons we are united against the Bill. The worst service that the Western nations are rendering the people of the East is in teaching them how to kill scientifically. Great Britain has done a great service to the world in opening up the waterways of the world. Many British citizens have done great service in India, China and other foreign lands by trying to raise the status of the people and preserve their lives, but the Governments of the Western world have done the worst disservice they could to the East by taking to them the knowledge which we have acquired—I was going to say the infernal knowledge—of how to kill and destroy, This Bill is one more step along that road. You are going to teach the Indian how to use the submarine and how better to destroy his fellow men. Many millions of these people have been brought up to honour all life as sacred. You are going to undo that teaching. That is another reason why I shall quite cheerfully vote for the Amendment, and I hope to vote against this Bill at all its stages.
Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: The main criticism which has been directed against this Bill is that it does not go far enough, that it is not important enough, that it is an insult to India and that the process of Indianising the Indian Navy will proceed exceedingly slowly. That I do not consider a sufficient reason for voting against the Bill. A beginning has to be made and if it is desirable that an Indian

1311
Navy should be created I think the Government are taking the best method of doing so by building on the basis of the old Indian Marine, and incorporating in the new navy the traditions of a very fine service.
Mr. PURCELL: I oppose this Measure for larger reasons than those signified by the Amendment. The extension of the Navy to India, in my view, is not for the good of the Indian people. I do not think it is designed to improve either the health or the general condition of the Indian people. On the contrary I think it is for the purpose of tightening the hold of certain interests upon India, and for that reason I am hound to oppose it. The position seems to be that we are eager to give military and naval forces to India and to man those forces, in the most important departments, from our own side rather than from the Indian side; but it would be a far better task for us and far better business for us and would be to the credit of our race, if we were to have greater care for the people of India themselves. It would be better if we sought to improve their conditions instead of arming them or seeking to set up a steel wall round their coast. I am bound to admit I have not seen India and know little about it, but the reports we have had in this country go to show that the conditions of the people there beggar description. The conditions under which many of the people on whom, I suppose, we should be compelled to rely for support in the event of any emergency, are vile in the extreme. Nobody can justify the conditions of the Indian workers in mills, mines or factories, and instead of turning their merchant marine into a _Royal Navy, or an Indian Navy, or whatever you are pleased to name it, we would do far more good by attempting to improve the lot of the Indian people generally.
I shall be told that this matter is within the purview of the Government of India, but at the same time we have representatives of the Indian Government here in London, though there always seems to be a difficulty either in getting information on these subjects or in getting confirmation of such information as comes through to these shores. Even in regard to the recent dispute,
1312
which I am glad to say is finished on the Nagpur Railway it was difficult to get information, but we are informed that shootings have taken place. It seems to me that it is not a Navy that India wants. It is consideration for her people who are working under these conditions; it is advice and, if possible, assistance in regard to the treatment of the operatives in the various undertakings in India. A Measure like the present will tend to withdraw the loyalty of the Indian people from the British Empire rather than assist them to be heroes of the British Empire. We are always more ready to consider questions of improving our military and naval position than we are to consider the ease of working people. All the reports which we get show that there is an awful death-rate in certain cities in India. To induce the authorities representing India to promote or to suggest legislation which would give greater health and strength to the people would be a real benefit to India. It may be true that you cannot impose legislation, though I cannot understand for the life of me our position in that respect in view of the fact that we have here before us a Bill which is legislation and which is being imposed upon India. I am strongly opposed, in any circumstances, to increasing naval or military forces anywhere until we have first given some attention to the position of our people here at home. We have masses of unemployed here, and if we can use our time on a question of this kind, we ought to he able also to get down to the real hard task of improving the lot of our people at home.
Mr. SCURR: The Government are treating the House with very scant courtesy. We have bad a number of criticisms of this Bill, but not a single Member has risen on the Government side either to controvert or to admit those criticisms. Members of the Opposition who are putting forward a particular point of view, however distasteful that point of view may be to the Government, are entitled to a reply. There was some amusement on the Government side when the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) suggested that the idea of this Navy was to increase the forces of the British Empire, and when he said that he relied on the First Lord of the Admiralty rather than

1313
on other Members of the Government to know exactly what was being done. While the hon. Member was speaking, I was looking through an extract on the speech made by the then Viceroy of India, Lord Reading, when he opened the second Council of State on 9th February, 1926. He said:
"Subject to the approval of His Majesty the King Emperor, the service will be known as the Royal Indian Navy and will fly the White Ensign. Its functions in peace time will be as defined in paragraph 3 of the Report of the Lord Rawlinson Committee. Its most important aspect in the early stages will be that of a training squadron. It will train the personnel for service in war. For this purpose it will become from the first a sea-going force. In addition, in peace time, its functions will include the services required by the Government of India in the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf, the organisation of naval defence at ports, marine survey, in the Indian Ocean and marine transport for the Government of India."
From that speech it, is obvious that it is not in the minds of those who have put forward this policy that this force should be merely a small squadron consisting of about four sloops and a few other vessels to go round the Persian Gulf and elsewhere. It would be more honest of the Government to say that they consider it necessary for the defence of India to have a real Navy there, but even from that point of view, has any case been made out for an Indian Navy The Indian people are always being assured that their danger of invasion does not come from the sea, but from the North-West frontier. We are constantly being assured that the one way to defend India is to have a highly organised military force on the North-West frontier. When protests are made by members of the Indian Legislative Assembly against the enormous expenditure on the British Army in India this view is always put forward. If we study the beginnings of the occupation of India we find that, with the exception of the English occupation, India was always invaded from the North. That has always been the danger point of India. So far as we are concerned, we went there as traders. The French went there in the same way, and because of the quarrels between this country and France at that time, the French and ourselves ingeniously used the Indian people to fight against each other. By that process of dividing and conquering, and as a result of our vic-
1314
tories over the French in Europe, and in the sea-fighting against the French in Indian waters, we were ultimately able to control the whole of India. That was not due to an invasion by a naval force, nor was there any necessity for India to be defended by a naval force. It seems that there is something, after all, in the criticism that the real object of this Bill is to get behind any arrangements which may be entered into for a reduction in the British Navy.
There is another strong point, and that is that if you are going to give real Dominion status to India—and that, we are assured, is the ultimate object of the policy of this country—and if you are going to supply armed forces to the Dominions, they should have the control of them themselves. I wonder what would be said if the slightest suggestion were made to the Dominion of Australia that, in regard to the officering of her Army or Navy, only a certain number of Australians per year would be allowed to take commissions. I think the reply from the Australian Government would be one that would set every one's ears tingling. There are only about 10 Indians per year sent to be trained at Sandhurst, and they may only be trained as officers for infantry and cavalry. Although the Noble Lord has said that the Air Force is not technically an Indian Air Force, yet, under modern conditions of warfare, you have to have artillery and an Air Force, and if you are going to have them and to give Dominion status to India, it is obvious that they should be under Indian control and officers. In regard to this proposal for an Indian Navy, we find that in the Indian Legislative Assembly last month the Army Secretary said that all lower ranks of the Indian Navy would eventually consist of Indians, but with regard to the higher ranks, one-third of the commissioned ranks would be reserved in the first instance for Indians, provided that qualified candidates were forthcoming. I suggest that, from the Indian point of view, they should control and officer their Navy themselves.
Finally, I want to associate myself with what the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley has said in regard to this question of increasing our armed forces. In regard to this country, occupying the position which it does in the world at the

1315
present time, if its rulers were to set themselves to the task of bringing about disarmament instead of increasing navies and creating new ones, they would be making a valuable contribution to the future of the Empire and of the world. A British Empire which was standing for bringing about such a position of affairs that disputes between nations would be settled by arbitration and conciliation, instead of resorting to force, would be making a very valuable contribution to civilisation, and even if there is something to be said, so long as we have lethal weapons, for India having its own forces under its own control, I think a Measure of this kind is going against all that spirit which some of us hoped, after the Great War, would be more prevalent in the world, namely, the spirit of arbitration and conciliation instead of a resort to force.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): When the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) accused us of discourtesy, he was going too far, because I had every intention of saying a few words in reply to the very interesting Debate to which we have listened. It seems to me that the opposition to this Bill has been divided into two parts, one of which, I think, is perfectly legitimate and the other not. I rather resent that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment should read into this small Bill so much evil. I wish I could believe that the British Admiralty were going to be relieved in the way suggested by a gigantic Indian Navy. I wish that from a purely Admiralty point of view, but I cannot think that the Navy designed in this Bill can be considered as a serious threat to the peace of the world or as an attempt to increase our armaments unduly in foreign waters. No such attempt is intended, and there is nothing in the Bill to lead the hon. Gentleman to think so. With regard to the speeches that were made by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and the right hon and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), there is a great deal to be said for the idea, and I should like to inform the House that, so far as the Admiralty is concerned, every effort will be made to train Indians,
1316
where suitable, for the position of officers in this new force. The Admiralty has offered two sloops to the Indian Navy already for that purpose. I take it that the arrangement will be that, supposing suitable candidates for commissions can be found, they will be treated very much as our own special entry cadets are treated in this country. We cannot expect the parents of Indian boys of youthful age to send them across to be trained at Dartmouth in the way in which English boys go to school, but afterwards, as a special entry, when they are older, I can foresee that Indians who are willing will have every opportunity of learning their naval work and receiving commissions in the Royal Indian Navy.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that Dartmouth College is to be barred to Indian cadets?
Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The hon. and gallant Member must not take it to mean anything more than I have said. I am only saying that it will be the intention, that it is the intention, of the Admiralty to treat the Indian would-he officer in the same way as the English would-be officer who enters as a special entry cadet.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman does not seem to have comprehended the fact that the normal way of Entering the British Navy is through Dartmouth, and that the non-normal way is the public school entry. Why not allow Indian cadets to go through the ordinary way?
Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: If the hon. and gallant Member had only listened to what I was saying, he would have heard the reason. You cannot expect Indian parents to send quite young boys across here to be trained, but you can rightly expect them, when they are older, to allow them to come over here and he trained as officers, and that is the intention, so far as the naval authorities of this country are concerned. We have had an interesting Debate, and we have heard views expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull and the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme in which a great many of us have agreed. They say, and they say rightly, that the policy of this

1317
country is to try and make the Indians part of His Majesty's Dominions, self-respecting and able to defend themselves. You cannot run before you can walk, and the object of this Bill is to carry out the great principle, in which I think all parties in this House are united at the present time, and that is to enable the Indians, the various races and nationalities there, if possible, to come together and form a great Dominion of India. This is part and parcel of the same policy, and I hope that, now that the House has debated it, and we have found that so many are really in accord on both sides, we may have a Second Reading of the Bill.
Mr. MONTAGUE: I should like to know whether the remark of the hon. and gallant Member with regard to the impossibility or impracticability of bringing young India-us over to Dartmouth for training implies that it will be considered as a desirable thing to establish training colleges in India itself, or sea-going training ships for the training of young Indians. Before I sit down, I would like to make one comment which I think is deserved. When the Labour Government were in office in 1924, the question of the replacement of five cruisers was debated by this House. They were replacements, and not an increase in the British Navy at all, but from the Liberal Benches we had lecture after lecture—that is the only term by which I can describe the way in which the Labour party were criticised at that time—upon the subject of the necessity for disarma
ment. We were criticised, not for increasing the Navy, not even for doing what Manisters say is implied in this namely, bringing the status of the Marine Forces in India up to the basis of a Navy, which means the beginning and ultimate development of an Indian Navy, but even so, if it is only a question of maintaining just the amount of naval defence that there may be in. India at the present time, the criticism against the Labour party in regard to the five cruisers was that the Labour panty were not in favour of doing away with five cruisers and restricting the naval forces of the Empire, and we had caustic references all over the country on Liberal platforms to the supposed Imperialism and Jingoism of the Labour party. There was a perfect justification for the attitude which the Labour party took. We could not raise the whole question of disarmament in that short time. Now we find to-night, on a question of this kind, which, at the very lowest, and taking the statements of the Government themselves, raises the status of the Marine Forces in India up to that of a Navy, that the one Liberal speaker who has taken part in this Debate blesses the scheme. I think that is a comment that might be well made to-night, and I am glad to have had the opportunity of making it.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be loft, out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 117.

Division No. 37.]

AYES.

[7.45 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Clarry, Reginald George

Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Clayton, G. C.

Albery, Irving James

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Briggs, J. Harold

Colfox, Major William Phillips

Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Brown, Maj. D. C.(N'th't'd., Hexham)

Cooper, A. Duff

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W

Buckingham, Sir H.

Cope, Major William

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

Burman, J. B.

Couper, J. B.

Atholl, Duchess of

Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)

Atkinson, C.

Burton, Colonel H. W,

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Balniel, Lord

Cadogan, Major Hon, Edward

Dalziel, Sir Davison

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Calne, Gordon Hall

Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T, P. H.

Campbell, E. T.

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Carver, Major W. H.

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Dawson, Sir Philip

Bennett, A. J.

Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)

Duckworth, John

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Eden, Captain Anthony

Berry, Sir George

Chapman, Sir S.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Bethel, A.

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Betterton, Henry B.

Chllcott, Sir Warden

Ellis, R. G.

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Christie, J. A.

England, Colonel A.

Blundell, P. N.

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M)

Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth

Jephcott, A. R.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Everard, W, Lindsay

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

Rye, F. G.

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Salmon, Major I.

Falls, Sir Bertram G.

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Fenby, T. D.

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Fermoy, Lord

Kindersley, Major Guy M.

Sanders. Sir Robert A.

Fielden, E. B.

King, Captain Henry Doublas

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Ford, Sir P. J.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Sandon, Lord

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Lamb, J. Q.

Savery, S. S.

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Lister, Cunlifle-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

Fraser, Captain Ian

Little, Dr. E. Graham

Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

Frece, Sir Walter de

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Locker- Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Looker, Herbert William

Skelton, A. N.

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Luce, Major-Gen.Sir Richard Harman

Slaney, Major P, Kenyon

Ganzonl, Sir John

Lumley, L. R.

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne.C.)

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Lynn, Sir Robert J.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Smithers, Waldron

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Macdonald, R, (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Grace, John

Maclntyre, Ian

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

McLean, Major A.

Stanley,Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)

Grant, Sir J. A.

Mac Robert, Alexander M.

Storry-Deans, R.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Malone, Major P. B.

Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

Grotrian, H. Brent

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)

Margesson, Captain D.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Mllne, J. S. Wardlaw

Tasker, R. Inigo.

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Harland, A.

Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Harrison, G. J. C.

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

Hartington, Marquess of

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Tinne, J. A.

Hawke, John Anthony

Morris, R. H.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

Turton, sir Edmund Russborough

Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd,Henley)

Nelson, Sir Frank

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

Neville, R. J.

Waddington, R.

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

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

Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Nicholson, Col.Rt. Hon. W.G.(Ptrsfl'd.)

Warner Brigadier-General W. W.

Herbert, S. (York, N.R.,Scar, & Wh'by)

Nuttall, Ellis

Walts, Dr. T.

Hills, Major John Walter

Oakley, T.

Wells, S. R.

Hilton, Cecil

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Wiggins, William Martin

Holland, Sir Arthur

Penny, Frederick George

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Holt, Captain H. P.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Phillipson, Mabel

Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Pitcher, G.

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.

Price, Major C. W. M.

Winby, Colonel L. P.

Hudson, Capt. A.u. M. (Hackney, N.)

Radford, E. A.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd,Whiteh'n)

Raine, W.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Huntingfield, Lord

Ramsden, E,

Wise, Sir Fredric

Hurd, Percy A.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Withers, John James

Hutchison,G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Woodcock, Colonel K. C.

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Rice, Sir Frederick

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

Richardson, Sir p. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Jacob, A. E.

Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Strettord)

Major Sir Harry Barnston and Captain Lord Stanley.

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Day, Colonel Harry

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Dennison, R.

Hirst, G. H.

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Duncan, c.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Ammon, Charles George

Dunnico, H,

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Baker, Walter

Gardner, J. P.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Gibbins, Joseph

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Barr, J.

Gillett, George M.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Bondfield, Margaret

Gosling, Harry

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Broad, F. A

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Kelly, W. T.

Bromfield, William

Graham, Rt. Hon. Win. (Edin,. Cent.)

Kennedy, T.

Bromley, J.

Greenall, T.

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Lanshury, George

Cape, Thomas

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Lawrence, Susan

Clowes, S.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Lawson, John James

Cluse, W. S.

Grundy. T. W.

Lee. F.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Lindley F. W.

Connolly, M

Hardle, George D.

Lunn, William

Cove, W. G.

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Mackinder, W.

Dalton, Hugh

Hayday, Arthur

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

March, S.

1320

1321

Maxton, James

Sexton, James

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Viant, S. P.

Montague, Frederick

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Wallhead, Richard C

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Mosley, Oswald

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Naylor, T. E.

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. O. (Rhonddal

Oliver, George Harold

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Palln, John Henry

Snell, Harry

Wellock, Wilfred

Paling, W.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Welsh, J. C.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

Westwood, J.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Stamford, T. W.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Ponsonby, Arthur

Stephen, Campbell

Whiteley, W.

Potts, John S.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Purcell, A. A.

Sutton, J. E.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Taylor, R. A.

Wright, W.

Ritson, J.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R.. Eiland)

Thurtle, Ernest

Scrymgeour, E.

Tinker, John Joseph

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Scurr, John

Townend, A. E.

Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Hayes.

Bill read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Mr. Ammon.]
The House divided: Ayes, 120; Noes, 244.

Division No. 38.]

AYES.

[7.54 p.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fits, West)

Hayday, Arthur

Scrymgeour, E.

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Scurr, John

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Sexton, James

Ammon, Charles' George

Hirst, G. H.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Shiels, Or. Drummond

Baker, Walter

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Barr, J.

John, William (Rhondda. West)

Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

Batey, Joseph

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Bondfield, Margaret

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Snell, Harry

Broad, F. A.

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Bromfield, William

Kelly, W. T.

Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

Bromley, J,

Kennedy, T.

Stamford, T. W.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Stephen, Campbell

Cape, Thomas

Lausbury, George

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Clowes, S.

Lawrence, Susan

Sutton, J. E.

Cluse, W. S.

Lawson, John James

Taylor, R. A.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Lee, F.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Connolly, M.

Lindley, F. W.

Thurtle, Ernest

Cove, W. G.

Lunn, William

Tinker, John Joseph

Dalton, Hugh

Mackinder, W.

Townend, A. E.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

MscLaren, Andrew

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Day, Colonel Harry

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Viant, S. P.

Dennison, R.

March, S.

Wallhead, Richard C.

Duncan, C.

Maxton, James

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Dunnico, H,

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Montague, Frederick

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Gardner, J. P.

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Gibbins, Joseph

Mosley, Oswald

Wellock, Wilfred

Gillett, George M.

Naylor, T. E.

Welsh, J. c.

Gosling, Harry

Oliver, George Harold

Westwood, J.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Palin, John Henry

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Paling, W.

Whiteley, W.

Greenall, T.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Potts, John S.

Wright, W.

Groves, T.

Purcell, A. A.

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Grundy, T. W.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

Ritson, J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)

Mr. Hayes and Mr. A. Barnes.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Betterton, Henry B.

Agg Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

Balniel, Lord

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Albery, Irving James

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Blundell, F. N.

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Alexander. Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Applln, Colonel R. V. K.

Beckett, Sir Gervass (Leeds, N.)

Braithwalte, Major A. N.

Apsley, Lord

Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

Briggs, J. Harold

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W

Bennett, A. J.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd, Hexham)

Atholl, Duchess of

Berry, Sir George

Buckingham, Sir H.

Atkinson, C.

Bethel, A.

Burman, J. B.

Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

Pilcher, G.

Burton, Colonel M. W.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Price, Major C. W. M.

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Radford, E A.

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Ralne, W.

Calne, Gordon Hall

Herbert,S. (York. N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by)

Ramsden, E.

Campbell, E. T.

Hills, Major John Waller

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Carver, Major W, H.

Hilton, Cecil

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)

Rice, Sir Frederick

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Holland, Sir Arthur

Richardson, Sir P. W, (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Cayzer,Maj.Str Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

Holt, Capt. H. P.

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Cecil, Bt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Hope, Capt. A. o. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

Chapman, Sir S.

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Chilcott, Sir Warden

Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.

Rye, F. G.

Christie, J. A.

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Salmon, Major I.

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Clarry, Reginald George

Huntingfield, Lord

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Clayton, G. C.

Hurd, Percy A.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Hutchison,G.A.Clark(Midl'n — P'bl's)

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Conway, Sir W, Martin

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Sandon, Lord

Cooper, A. Duff

Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

Savery, S. S.

Couper, J. B.

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)

Jacob, A. E.

Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Jephcott, A. R.

Skelton, A. N.

Dalziel, Sir Davison

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

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n& Kino'dine, C.)

Davies, Ma|. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)

Kennedy, A, R. (Preston)

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Smithers, Waldron

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Kindersley, Major Guy M.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Dawson, Sir Philip

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Sprot, sir Alexander

Duckworth, John

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Stanley, Co. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

Eden, Captain Anthony

Lamb, J. O.

Storry-Deans, R.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Lister, Cunilffe, Rt' Hon. Sir Philip

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Little, Dr. E. Graham

Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

Ellis, R. G.

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Stuart, Hon J. (Moray and Nairn)

England, Colonel A.

Locker- Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Erskins, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

Loder, J. de V.

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Looker, Herbert William

Taster, R. Inigo.

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Lumley, L. R.

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Fenby, T. D.

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Fermoy, Lord

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

Fielden, E. B.

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

Ford, Sir P. J.

Macintyre, I.

Tinne, J. A.

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

McLean, Major A.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Foster, Sir Harry S.

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

Fraser, Captain Ian

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Frece, Sir Walter de

Malone, Major P. B.

Waddington, R.

Fremantle, Lt.-Col- Francis E.

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Margesson, Capt. D.

Warner, B'lgadler-General W. W.

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

Watts, Dr. T.

Ganzonl Sir John

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Wells, S. R

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

White, Lieut-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Wiggins, William Martin

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Grace, John

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland N.)

Morris, R. H.

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh. Wrexham)

Grant, Sir J, A.

Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Nelson, Sir Frank

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Neville, R. J.

Winby, Colonel L. P.

Grotrian, H. Brent

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

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambrldgel

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Nicholson,Col. Rt. Hn.W.G. (Ptraf'ld.)

Wise, Sir Fredric

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Nuttall, Ellis

Withers, John James

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Oakley, T.

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Harland, A.

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Harrison, G. J. C.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Hartington, Marquess of

Penny, Frederick George

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hawke, John Anthony

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Major Cope and Captain Lord Stanley.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)

Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxl'd,Henley)

Philipson, Mabel

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

Mr. SPEAKER: As there is business appointed for 8.15 of the clock, I leave the Chair until that time.
Sitting suspended at two minutes after eight o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London, Midland and Scottish Railway Bill. (By Order.)
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION BILL. (By Order.)
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Mr. TREVELYAN: The House is always traditionally, and rightly, unwilling to reject Private Bills on Second Reading, but occasionally circumstances occur where Members think that certain Clauses can contain a serious innovation, and feel objection towards them. In this case, when I have announced the changes which the promoters are prepared to make in the Bill, I very much hope that those who have hitherto been opposed to the Bill will feel that there is no question of principle involved which need lead them to oppose the Second Reading any longer. In the first place, the promoters are prepared to forgo that portion of Clause 3 which would have given the Newcastle Corporation permission to run omnibuses for 21 miles in any direction in the county without the consent of the Minister of Transport. Secondly, they are prepared to forgo Clause 5, which deals with extraordinary traffic on roads. Thirdly, they are willing to abandon Clause 11, which would have given the right to the Corporation to let omnibuses for private hire. What remains in the Bill I believe to be entirely innocuous, even from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I feel certain that most of them will feel that any questions which remain can well be left to a Committee. I would only say, in conclusion, that the Bill is supported in Newcastle with practical unanimity. It is not in any sense a party Bill. It is supported quite as strongly by the Conservative elements in the City as it is by the Labour elements. Therefore I hope that, after the concessions which have been made, the House will sec fit to send it to Committee, where the various other points can be discussed.
The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I hope after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan), who has spoken for the promoters of the Bill, that the House will see its way to give it a Second Reading. There were undoubtedly in the Bill as it was introduced many features of an unusual character, to put it at its very lowest, indeed, features to me of an objectionable character, but as those proposals have been withdrawn we need not go into them. Before I sit down may I deal with a personal matter? In the part of the Bill that remains there are four routes as to which Parliament is to be asked to say whether the Corporation shall he allowed to run their omnibuses over those routes. It has always been the custom, and the proper custom, that the consideration of specific routes should always be left for the consideration of the Local Legislation Committee upstairs, who are able to take evidence and go much more deeply into the merits than can the House of Commons. It happens that three out of the four routes specified in the Bill were submitted to me last year as Minister of Transport, and I, in the exercise of the discretion vested in me, refused leave, after a local examination. I am the last person to wish in any way to stand on my dignity. I have made a decision, I may have been wrong, but I want to make it quite clear that I consider the Corporation of Newcastle have a perfect right to come to Parliament to get the opinion of Parliament as to whether the law should be changed, and there is no slur on the Minister who has done his best to carry out his duties as he has seen them. What I would respectfully suggest to the House is that they should give the Bill a Second Reading, and that the question of the four routes should be investigated upstairs. Besides that there only remains in the Bill the very necessary powers in certain circumstances to substitute omnibuses, which we all think may be an excellent provision.
Mr. LOOKER: I think the promoters of this Bill have been very wise to withdraw from it the Clauses referred to. In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) has said about their being supported by a large majority of Con-

1327
servatives in Newcastle, there is no doubt that to ask a Parliament with a large Conservative majority to swallow three Clauses like that was a very tall order indeed. In view of the fact that those Clauses have been withdrawn and that I am informed that those private interests most affected by the remainder of the Bill have no objection to its going upstairs, and on the distinct understanding, of course, that they are still free to object to any of the provisions remaining in the Bill, particularly as to the powers which are sought to run omnibuses over the routes which they desire to run over, I do not think I shall be justified in persisting in the Motion which I have put down, and I would ask leave to withdraw it.
Sir COOPER RAWSON: I would like the right hon. Gentleman to explain what is proposed with regard to Clause 4, which gives the Corporation the power more or less to run repairing garages, and also to explain Clause 9, which enables the Corporation to take over competitive systems of omnibuses running in the city of Newcastle. After all, the arrangement come to has not been very clearly defined on either of the Front Benches, and there are many of us in the House, who are opposed I think, to any extension of the facilities for municipal trading and would like to have a little more information on those points.
Sir JOSEPH NALL: I think it is desirable that the House should be informed, in view of the arrangement which has been come to, of what was really sought in this Bill. A good deal of misapprehension has arisen, and some quite ridiculous ideas have been spread outside this House, as to the attitude of Members on this side and, indeed, on the other side, on the points that have arisen in connection with this Bill and the Bradford Bill last week. I do not think, after all that has been said, and after all the interest that has been created, that this Bill ought to be disposed of so summarily without some regard being paid as to the nature of the Bill. The Newcastle Corporation, along with many other municipalities which are owners of tramway systems, are also owners of an omnibus service, and they have had powers conferred upon them by Parliament. Unfortunately, there is a wide
1328
divergence between municipalities as to the interpretation of their powers and as to the manner in which they administer those powers in their own locality. It is quite usual for a tramway authority owning tramways, and other local authorities who do not own tramways, to come to Parliament and ask for authority to work omnibus services. It is suggested by those who are hostile to the Conservative party that we are opposing these Bills because we do not think they should have power to run omnibus services. May I point out that already many authorities have power to run omnibuses. It is the general rule, except where it is shown that a local authority ought not to be invested with such powers, to give local authorities power to run omnibus services within their areas.
The Newcastle Corporation not only have power to run omnibuses in their areas, but under their Act of 1920 they can run omnibuses outside their areas with a certain condition attached to that power, and it is a condition similar to those contained in many other private local Bills. Therefore, when it is said either that this authority or the Bradford authority were being denied reasonable facilities for running omnibuses, it is absolutely contrary to the fact. The Newcastle authority under the Act of 1920, can run omnibus services outside its own boundary if it gets the assent of the other authorities concerned, if it satisfies the Minister of Transport, and he is prepared to grant his consent. Where local authorities have that power and have applied to the Minister, they have been given permission to provide services. But in this particular ease the authority has acted contrary to the spirit of that general rule. They, on the one hand, have acted ultra vires and run services for which they have no authority at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who?"] The Newcastle Corporation. They have run services for which they had no authority under their existing Act. They have then gone to the Minister of Transport under the provisions of their Act and asked for authority for certain routes. The Minister of Transport has been informed of the fact that there was local opposition to the granting of his consent for these services to be run and after lengthy and highly expensive local inquiries the Minister has withheld his consent on the

1329
merits of the case, arid has not allowed this local authority to run on certain routes.
When the Bill was originally presented to this House it was designed to sidetrack Departmental control and to enable the Newcastle Corporation to do just as it liked, and run services where it liked on the roads mentioned in the Bill without the consent of the Minister, and contrary to his already expressed decision. That, of course, makes the case of this Bill quite different from the usual case of a municipality asking for powers to run omnibuses, and I think that fact ought to be clearly stated for the information of the House. What is the fact? The Newcastle Corporation took up an absolutely unjustifiable attitude. Of course, it is useless for Parliament to prescribe for Bill after Bill in Committee upstairs a model form of procedure, if it is to be defied by great municipalities, as is being done by this particular municipality, and we ought to take notice of that fact. Now the Newcastle Corporation realise that they have been taking up a wrong attitude, and as things stood a few hours ago this Bill would certainly have been rejected on the ground that it was absolutely necessary to maintain the authority of Parliament.
Quite rightly realising that their attitude has placed them in the wrong and imperilled the Second Reading of their Bill, the promoters have run away at the last moment, and now we get the Bill before us in a condition which justifies this House sending it upstairs to he considered in the ordinary way. I understand that that satisfies the Minister of Transport. I am glad to hear it does so, because the situation now is that the local authority, having applied to the Minister under the provisions of the Act of 1920, and having been on the merits of the case turned down, the promoters are now appealing to Parliament against the decision of the Minister. I do not object to that, in fact I am glad to see the Government now realises that the Departmental inquiry should be subject to revision by this House. Of course, it is somewhat late in the day for a recantation in regard to Departmental policy, but having been refused the appeal to Parliament asked for on major questions in another direction, it has now
1330
been found necessary to allow quite small persons outside to be involved in considerable expense in appealing to Parliament in order to have their case heard against the decision of the Minister.
There is a wider question on this subject of municipalities and omnibus services. I said just now that there is a wide divergence of practice in the way in which the different municipalities administer their function in relation to omnibus services. You get in one place a local authority which is a licensing authority simply refusing to admit any outside omnibuses into their borough on the ground that those omnibuses would compete with their tramways. Nevertheless, the same authority will come along notwithstanding that fact, and ask for powers to run their omnibuses outside their borough in competition with other people to whom they have refused access to the centre of their borough. That is an attitude which I hope the Department will deal with in the Roads Bill when it is introduced. Then you have a class of local authorities which licenses all comers with omnibuses until they get such a state of congestion and chaos within their boroughs that they do not know how to clear up the muddle into which they have got. That frequently happens where the existing services within the borough are not provided by the same authority, but are provided by some private company. I have mentioned these two instances of what is going on because it is obvious that the general law of the country relating to these matters cannot remain as it is, but ought to be amended.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): If the hon. Member is proposing a change in the general law, I am afraid we cannot argue that here.
Sir J. NALL: I quite realise that, and I am not proposing to do so, but here is a local authority, that of Newcastle-on-Tyne, which, as a lisensing authority, has refused licences to other omnibus-owning people to run their services into Newcastle, and is now asking Parliament to allow it to run its omnibuses outside in competition with people to whom it refuses access to the borough. That is an entirely inconsistent attitude. I think it should be recorded now, because the promoters,

1331
who have, quite rightly, so far recognised the foolish position in which they nave placed themselves, and have precipitately run away from that position at the last minute, should realise the further illogical absurdities relating to their position, in order that, when this Bill goes to a Committee, they may endeavour to put forward a reasonable case, founded upon facts which do not do injustice to people who are already providing services, and in order that, instead of wasting many hours of Committee time upstairs, they should be content to put forward a case which can be justified on its merits, and avoid a repetition, on the Third Reading, of the doubts and difficulties which have arisen in connection with the Second Reading.
I can only hope that the experiences of the promoters in connection with this Bill, as in the case of the Bradford Bill last week, will indicate to municipalities who are omnibus-owning authorities and at the same time licensing authorities that they cannot have it both ways—that they ought not to abuse their position as licensing authorities in order to protect their own undertaking as against the undertakings of other owners. If the Debates which have taken place on this Bill and on the Bradford Bill will do something to draw the attention of municipalities to what ought to be the principle upon which they work, and cause them to realise that, as authorities invested with special powers by Parliament, it is their duty to see fairness to all the parties concerned, and not to take advantage to their own ends and abuse their special privileges, these Debates will have been to good advantage, and one may hope that such a situation will not arise on later Bills.
Mr. MacLAREN: I intervene for a few moments because of the statements which have fallen from the last speaker. His speech was ostensibly one lecturing the corporations on the ground that they seemed to be biased as far as their own interests were concerned, and more keen to promote their own interests than to preserve the interests of private traders outside. Now that the Minister is in his place, I want to put a case which is within my own knowledge, and I think it is pertinent to this Debate. I am giving the case for the benefit of the hon. Member who has just spoken, because he occupies a very prominent position upstairs, and it is in order that he may be able to adjudicate in an unbiased manner that I give the illustration.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question of the hon. Member's action in another capacity is really not relevant to a Private Bill.
Sir J. NALL: May I be allowed to say that I am not on the Committee of which the hon. Member speaks?
Mr. MacLAREN: I will not proceed to say what I meant to say, but I congratulate the hon. Member on having done what he has done.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION BILL. (By Order.)

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir Harry Barnston.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes before Nine o'clock.

  NORTHOLT AERODROME (ACCIDENT).
  NORTHOLT AERODROME (ACCIDENT).
  QUEEN'S HALL.
  QUEEN'S HALL.
  POOR PERSONS (LEGAL AID).
  POOR PERSONS (LEGAL AID).
CHINA.
  BRITISH TROOPS, SHANGHAI.
  BRITISH TROOPS, SHANGHAI.
  HANKOW AGREEMENT.
  HANKOW AGREEMENT.
  ARMS AND AMMUNITION (IMPORTS).
  ARMS AND AMMUNITION (IMPORTS).
  SHANGHAI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL.
  SHANGHAI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL.
  UNITED STATES.
  UNITED STATES.
  OPIUM CONVENTION (UNITED STATES).
  OPIUM CONVENTION (UNITED STATES).
  BANKRUPTCY ACT (DEBTOR'S CORRESPONDENCE).
  BANKRUPTCY ACT (DEBTOR'S CORRESPONDENCE).
ROYAL NAVY.
  PARCELS (DOMINION CUSTOMS TARIFFS).
  PARCELS (DOMINION CUSTOMS TARIFFS).
  WIRELESS MESSAGES.
  WIRELESS MESSAGES.
  EGGS (MARKING).
  EGGS (MARKING).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  NATIONAL FINANCE.
  NATIONAL FINANCE.
  PRISONS (VISITS).
  PRISONS (VISITS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The EARL of DONOUGHMORE on the Woolsack.

EDUCATION AND INDUSTRY.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK, who had given Notice to call attention to the Report of the Committee on Education and Industry (first part), and to ask if His Majesty's Government is prepared to adopt its recommendations, said: My Lords, nearly two years ago I brought before your Lordships' House the problem of juvenile unemployment and I then asked His Majesty's Government what steps they were prepared to take in dealing with the demoralisation which arose from this cause. The speaker for the Government, in a very sympathetic reply, pointed out quite fairly that there were a number of matters on which further knowledge was required and which were still under consideration. During the last three months we have received a good deal of valuable and additional information on the whole subject of the juvenile, particularly through the very valuable Report of the Committee on Adolescent Education and also from the Report of the Committee on Education and Industry, which was appointed by the President of the Board of Education.
The terms of reference to this Committee were:—
"To inquire into and advise upon the public system of education in England and Wales in relation to the requirements of trade and industry, with particular reference to the adequacy of the arrangements for enabling young persons to enter into and retain suitable employment."
The President, in appointing this Committee—a very competent Committee under the Chairmanship of Mr. Douglas Malcolm—asked that the Committee should deal firstly with the second part of the reference—namely, "the adequacy of the arrangements for enabling young persons to enter into and retain suitable employment." The Committee heard a great number of witnesses and have produced an extremely valuable Report.
I think that a large number of people have quite failed to grasp the extent and importance of this problem of juvenile employment. Every year 600,000 children leave our schools, either elementary or secondary, and are looking for employment in occupations other than in their own homes; that is to say, there are probably at the present time no fewer than 2,000,000 juveniles either in employment or seeking employment, and it is of vital importance to the State that these boys and girls should be occupied in industries which are good for their own development and which will equip them for later life. The State has, of course, recognised its responsibility in this direction. It is obvious that without some guidance a very large number of these young persons may drift into employments which are quite unsuitable. There are many parents who, with real self-sacrifice and careful foresight, place their children in suitable employment and there are a large number of young people who go into what may be called hereditary employment—that is to say, into work in which their parents and possibly their grandparents have been engaged. On the other hand, a very large number simply drift into any kind of employment—employment that may be hopelessly unsuitable, that may teach the young person nothing to equip him for later life, and that may come abruptly to an end when he reaches the age of sixteeen, so that he will then have to commence his industrial career afresh having lost a good deal of what he had originally learnt at school.
The State has tried to meet this difficulty partly by appointing or calling into existence a number of local committees which deal with the children before they leave school, advising them as to the employment that, they should enter and bringing them sometimes into touch with employers. There are often committees that are responsible for after-care work and there are also juvenile exchanges. When a boy reaches the age of sixteen he comes under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. The State has thus recognised that it has a real responsibility in this matter, but it is undeniable that a comparatively small proportion of these young persons are in any real contact with these different organisations after they have left school. Only twenty per

393
cent. of young persons are in touch with these various exchanges and labour organisations.
The Report of this Committee recognises that a number of boys can be placed in employment in other ways that are perfectly satisfactory, but they go on to say:—
".… at the same time, we wish to record our strong opinion that the average chances for the average juvenile must be better if the public organisation is widely utilised. With properly constituted committees and efficient officers the work is conducted on the basis of a knowledge much more detailed and extensive than that which can be possessed by individual parents, or even by teachers. Public bodies can offer expert advice and possess records of the child's history and educational attainments which are of prime importance in securing suitable employment; they have the experience gained from successful and unsuccessful placings in the past; and, finally, they are able to compare the abilities and aptitudes of individuals in deciding what will be suitable employment."
It is, of course, impossible for any central organisation to force employers to turn to the local exchanges to find labour. The success of the exchanges must depend upon the efficiency and thoroughness with which the exchanges do their work and this Committee consequently recommend that very great care should be taken in appointing the officers who are responsible for this kind of work, that suitable Premises should be obtained, and that in these premises there should always be a room where the officer can interview the applicant privately. Boys are much too shy to speak truthfully about their circumstances when they have to appear before a large number of others. It is also suggested that there should be a much closer relationship between the various districts, but I am quite deliberately not dealing with those points because I want to draw the attention of the House to the three fundamental problems with which the Report deals.
First of all, there is the problem of what is commonly called the "gap"—the gap, that is, between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. Up to the age of fourteen the young person is compelled by the State to attend school and he is brought into touch with the various facilities that are offered by the State. At the age of sixteen, again, he comes under the Unemployment Insurance Acts
394
and is brought into close contact with the various labour exchanges. Between those periods, however, he is left very largely to his own devices. When he has once left school, unless there is an exceptionally keen and capable after-care committee to look after him, he is left alone until he reaches the age of sixteen. He may be in quite unsatisfactory employment, he may be out of work with no one to supervise him, he may be out of work without its being known that he is out of work, he may not be following any course of education, and he may be steadily becoming demoralised. During that intervening period the State, for all practical purposes, really neglects him. It is recognised by all those interested in this subject that it is right that a bridge should be built between the ages of fourteen and sixteen and that the State should be able to intervene actively in advising the young person as to his occupation.
After all, these ages are in some ways the most critical. In many ways the age of fifteen is more critical than the age of seventeen. By the time the lad comes under the Unemployment Insurance Acts and is forced to attend an unemployed centre he has probably forgotten a great deal of what he had already learnt at school and has already become demoralised through a considerable period of unemployment. A very interesting Inquiry was undertaken a year or two ago by the Ministry of Labour into the personal circumstances of several thousands of young persons who were unemployed. It was found that out of some three thousand the great majority had obtained work immediately they left school, but had lost their first job at the age of fifteen. At the age of fourteen they were in touch with various juvenile organisations with which at the age of fifteen most of them were entirely out of touch.
This Report considers various ways in which this interval may best be bridged. The first suggestion which was considered was that the age of education should be raised either to fifteen or sixteen. The Committee feel that this matter really does not come within their province, that they are dealing with industrial rather than educational problems, but they give their own personal opinion in no uncertain terms. They are in

395
favour of extending education on the grounds that the extension of compulsory education, either whole-time or halftime, would be in the interests of the boys and girls themselves and of the country as a whole. This is the opinion also of that other Committee—the Committee on Adolescent Education—in which it is stated:—
"There is the proved social and intellectual deterioration resulting from the premature entering of many thousands of young persons into wage-earning employment, the grave waste of part of the effort and money applied to the early stages of child life which is inevitable when education ceases abruptly at fourteen."
This, I believe, is the ideal to aim at; we shall never successfully bridge this gap until the age of education is raised to fifteen or sixteen. It is, of course, impossible to press this upon the Government at the present time. The cost would be very great, and even if the Government decided to-day that they would accept this policy, it could not be carried into effect for a large number of years. This Report, therefore, does not recommend this as a solution of the problem.
The next suggestion which the Committee considered comes from the other direction—namely, that the age under which the young person comes under the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Acts should be lowered from sixteen to fourteen. This suggestion has always met with great and vehement opposition. I have always been struck by the fact that those who have least personal contact with this problem are most vehement in their denunciation of this proposal, while those who are most in contact with the actual facts of the problem are generally most ready to consider it sympathetically. The members of the Committee certainly regard this with great sympathy and would be prepared to recommend it if their own particular recommendation is rejected. But here, again, they recognise that this proposal was rejected by Parliament in 1924 and would be opposed not only by the employers of labour but also by educationists, who feel that this would be standing in the way of the extension of the age of education.
The Committee, therefore, put forward an interesting and original suggestion. They proposed that at the age of fourteen
396
every young person entering into employment should receive a working certificate; that no employer should engage him unless he has produced this working certificate; and that the employer should be responsible for informing the exchanges of the engagement or of the dismissal of the boy who holds this certificate. In this very simple way it would be possible for the exchange to keep in touch with the boy at every stage in his industrial career and it would be possible for the State to gain the information, which it lacks at the present time, of the extent of unemployment among those under the age of sixteen.
I turn to the next problem, that of the juvenile who is actually unemployed. In some ways the figures which are given by this Report are reassuring. They show that the number of juveniles unemployed has steadily fallen in the last few years, but of course the figures are to a certain extent quite hypothetical. They have not been able to obtain any exact figures of these juveniles who are unemployed at the ages of fourteen and fifteen, but they state that in May, 1925, there were 78,000 young persons unemployed, and in November of that year 59,000, although in May of last year, while the coal strike was on, the numbers rose to 120,000. If those figures are rather less than what many of us had anticipated, on the other hand the Report gives us a very significant warning. It tells us that these conditions of juvenile unemployment must not be looked upon as temporary but as permanent; that there is no prospect of sufficient work being found for all the juveniles who leave the elementary or secondary schools; and that for a very long time to come we shall be confronted with this problem. The Report endorses what has been said again and again—namely, that there is no experience which has a more demoralising effect upon the young person than a period of unemployment. Everyone of us who has had anything to do with boys' clubs can endorse that from his own personal experience. The strongest character gives way under a long period of unemployment, and year by year a large number of valuable characters are being wasted in our large towns through the continuance of unemployment.
The real problem before the State in dealing with the unemployed juvenile is to secure as far as is possible that the unemployed juvenile does not become a juvenile who is unemployable. For a prolonged period of unemployment does create the unemployable. The State arts therefore called into existence a number of unemployed centres, which the unemployed who is receiving insurance benefit is forced to attend, and where he receives education on certain days, and for certain hours of the week. It is impossible to praise too highly the work of these centres. Their work has been admirable. At the head of them there have been a number of men who are not only able, but, full of real enthusiasm for the work they are doing. It is now recognised, I think, in every quarter that these unemployed centres have stopped utter demoralisation from setting in among at any rate some of those who have attended.
But these centres are open to various, defects. There is not a sufficient number of them. All those who are receiving unemployed insurance benefit are expected to attend these centres, but as a matter of fact only 20 per cent. attend them. There are 80 of these unemployed centres. The number is nothing like large enough. Next, the lad of fourteen or fifteen who is unemployed very rarely attends these centres; the State does not compel him to do so. Not until sixteen is he compelled to attend. The third defect under which these unemployed centres suffer has been the lack of stability. Regulations have been changed year after year, different Regulations are repeatedly issued, and those who have been engaged in this work have never been sure whether the work they are doing is to last this year and to close next year, or whether it is to go on for two or three years. Under these conditions there has been a lack of permanency and stability in this work.
The Report therefore recommends that encouragement should be given to the establishment of these unemployed centres, that a permanent scheme should be brought forward and that unemployed centres should be placed on a permanent basis, because it is recognised that they are dealing not with a temporary problem, but with a problem which is more of less permanent. The Report also suggents
398
that lads and girls who are unemployed at the ages of fourteen and fifteen should be compelled to attend these centres, and that the local education authorities should draw more fully on their staffs so as to secure the best teachers for the work, which is very difficult.
And now, for a moment, I turn to the third problem, the problem of administration. The problem of administration is extraordinarily complicated and difficult. Here you have the dual system flourishing luxuriantly. In the various localities the work may be undertaken either by the local education authorities or by committees and officers appointed by the Minister of Education. The committees and officers appointed by the Minister of Education are under him for all matters; but the committees appointed by the local education authorities are partly under the Board of Education and partly under the Ministry of Labour. The Report recognises that locally there is an advantage in having a great deal of variety. It is an advantage when a local authority is prepared to make itself responsible for dealing with this problem, while, on the other hand, it would be hopeless to attempt to compel a local authority to undertake work which is distasteful to it, and in which it has no real interest.
At the same time, it is felt that the dual system centrally is open to greet objections; it is an anomaly that one Minister of the Crown should reply for certain matters in one district, while another Minister of the Crown should reply for exactly the same matters in another district. This arrangement leads often to delay, and certainly in the past it has led to occasional friction. The Report therefore recommends that in future there should be one authority, and that should be the Ministry of Labour. And here I am bound to say that I am not so cordially in favour of this recommendation as I am of most of the other recommendations made by this Committee. There has always been considerable discussion as to whether the young person should be regarded mainly from the point of view of education or as one who is to be engaged in industry. And therefore there seems to be a very strong case that until the age of eighteen he should be regarded as under the Board of Education. On the other hand,

399
the Ministry of Labour has the machinery and the statistics to enable it to deal rather more fully and capably with the industrial problem which arises in connection it.
I would urge on the Government the importance of considering as soon as possible whether they will adopt must of the recommendations put forward by this Committee. There are three points in particular. First, are they prepared to accept the recommendation of working certificates, or, if they reject that, what other proposal have they for bridging the gap? Secondly, are they prepared to place the unemployed centres on a permanent basis and to compel unemployed juveniles of the ages of fourteen and fifteen to attend these, as well as those who are older? Thirdly, can they yet express any opinion on the administrative changes proposed by this Report? The answer may be given that there has not yet been time to consider this Report. I admit that the Report has only been issued for a comparatively short time and that further delay may possibly be necessary before any definite reply can be given to these various recommendations. But I would suggest that this delay should not be unduly long. There are recommendations in many Reports which can be delayed for some considerable period without doing any particular harm. But delay in this case is real loss. It means that every year 600,000 children are seeking employment under conditions which are admittedly inadequate. I trust, therefore, that the Government will accept at any rate some of these recommendations, for they are recommendations which concern the happiness and welfare of multitudes of the children of this land.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I think all of us must welcome wholeheartedly the discussion that the right rev. Prelate has initiated. Few of your Lordships probably feel that the Report now under discussion is the last word on this subject. The present situation of the State standing by with almost complete inaction watching the youth of this country rotting and the unemployed adolescent growing up into the unemployable adult is one that cannot be allowed to continue. The Report puts forward what we may call ameliorative measures and those measures the right rev. Prelate has dealt with so completely
400
that I will not venture to enlarge upon them. There are really only two proposals or suggestions mentioned in the Report on which I would like to lay particular emphasis, and they have both been mentioned by the right rev. Prelate.
The first is the raising of the school age. To some of us almost the whole importance of this Report lies in the fact that the Committee appointed by the present Minister of Education in order to investigate the problems connected with education and industry should admit that the only ultimate complete solution of this problem is the final and complete abolition of what the right rev. Prelate has referred to as the gap between the ages of fourteen and sixteen by the raising of the school age. It is perfectly true the Committee do not discuss the matter at length. They say that they do not consider it comes entirely within their province and they feel that the decision to raise the school age must finally be taken on social rather than on economic and industrial grounds. They may be right. Even more significant is it that within a week or two of the appearance of this particular Report another Report was sent out by the Consultative Committee of the Board of Education. That Report specifically states that on educational grounds the Committee favour the raising of the school age to at least fifteen.
I would be inclined to join issue with the Committee which is responsible for the Report that we are now discussing. Ideally and theoretically speaking it is undoubtedly desirable that this problem should be considered primarily from the point of view of education. We have to recognise facts and it seems to me that the main fact in this situation is that the opposition to the raising of the school age is put forward on economic grounds. Therefore, until we can meet that economic case it is going to be extremely difficult to persuade the authorities to take this particular step. One has heard for so many years discussions of the unemployment problem in this country. How many of us realise that every single year we are casting yet another half-million children between the ages of fourteen and fifteen on to an already overstocked labour market? When we talk about the raising of the school age, you say: "It is quite impracticable; we cannot afford it." But think what you

401
are doing in throwing these children on the labour market. What is happening to them? Either they are, as the right rev. Prelate says, almost rotting away to become useless for future work, or they are taking men's jobs and those men have to have recourse to the unemployment insurance benefits or to the rates to be maintained at the public expense. Again, by having these children between the ages of fourteen and sixteen standing about at street corners, are we not laying the seeds of our future prison problem? We shall have to maintain our future hospital population and the future inefficients in industry who constitute the clogs on the wheel. Surely these are economic, considerations, and when we talk about what we can afford and cannot afford they ought to be borne in mind.
There is the further point mentioned by the right rev. Prelate in regard to the insurance of children between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. I admit that it is very unlikely that we shall have the school age raised by the present Government. On what ground is the placing of these children within the benefits of the insurance scheme opposed? On the ground that it is going to be an impediment to the raising of the school age. But surely it is a little hard when we ask for the raising of the school age to be refused, and then when we ask for a substitute also to be refused, but on the ground of the future raising of the school age! You cannot have it both ways. If you will not have one thing you have to take an alternative. Besides, is the insurance of these children really, going to operate against the raising of the school age in the future? I dissent altogether from that point of view. To begin with, if you read the conditions in this Report and the conditions that were in the Bill of 1924 (from which they were struck out). you will find that it was intended to use these benefits as an inducement to gel the child population by voluntary means into the schools. In so far as that is successful you would be taking a step in the direction of raising the school age and at the same time taking another very important step. Whether through an insurance scheme or through an education scheme, the State from now onwards accepts responsibility for the care and maintenance of children between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. Surely that is a very important advance.
402
I quite realist—we all realise—that this is a very difficult problem and the regrettable fact is that, as yet, we have been given no clear lead whatsoever from the Government. I would put it to them that this wastage cannot be allowed to go on. I put to them this: If you cannot accept the suggestions contained in this Report, if you cannot accept what we consider to be our very much more complete and fundamental solution to the problem, then it is at least for you to put forward some proposition of your own and that proposition has really got to be put into force. The right rev. Prelate referred to the juvenile unemployment centres which have been talked about for a very long time and are, so far as they go, undoubtedly of a certain use. But these were put before us by the Government and talked about in this House over two years ago, and they are only actually in existence at the present day and there are very few attendances at them. It cannot be suggested that that is a solution. Finally, I would repeat my point that it is for the Government to put forward some proposition and to see that that proposition is put into force and made a reality.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I have read this important Report and have come to practically the same conclusion as the right rev. Prelate who initiated this discussion. Though it is reassuring that unemployment among juveniles throughout the country is intermittent and not continuous and that the number of unemployed in this class was only 4 per cent. of the total insured juveniles in 1925, yet that does not apply when you consider individual trades or districts. As you may see from the Appendices to this Report—Nos. 6 and 7—there were some very high figures of unemployed in various trades, such as shipbuilding, wool, cotton and coal. Moreover, these statistics, as the right rev. Prelate has pointed out, only apply to the ages of sixteen and seventeen. Though the Ministry of Labour, in conjunction with the local education authorities, have power to open unemployment centres in various parts of the country, at which juveniles who receive unemployment benefit are required to attend and undergo courses of physical training and practical work, yet, as has already been stated, the numbers who have taken advantage of these opportunities

403
are not large. I see from the Report that in October, 1926, the average weekly attendance at these classes was only 7,500, and this represents only 20 per cent. of the total number of unemployed juveniles. These centres aim at maintaining the employability of the children by keeping them mentally, physically and morally as fit as possible. This, I feel sure, is a work of national importance. It is also important to industry.
Another point, which I do not think has been mentioned to-day, is that if they are successful they will save money for the Unemployment Fund. They are, as is shown in the Report, highly successful in many cases. In one centre the efforts of those who ran it were so successful that when it was reported that the centre was to be closed the children offered to subscribe a penny each per week to keep it in operation. But these centres are not available for children of fourteen and fifteen, and I think every effort should be made—and I hope the Government will make that effort—to make them available for those children. After spending so much money on the education of the children it seems a pity that the results obtained should be wasted by not providing organised supervision during periods of unemployment. Even short times of unemployment tend to demoralise children, to weaken the habits of industry which they gained while at school and to make them less amenable to discipline. I should like to point out that when depression takes place in any industry it is very often the younger children who suffer from it because the employers cease to absorb so many of the younger ones in the industry. Every effort should therefore be made to develop these unemployment centres and to bring into operation the working certificate scheme, so that it may be available for children of fourteen and fifteen and, to a greater extent, for those of sixteen and seventeen. One point which is raised in the Report is that voluntary effort should be taken advantage of. I hope this will be done to a large extent.
In the Report issued by the Board of Education reference is made to the juvenile organisation committees, which awe so largely run by voluntary assistance. It seems to me possible that the kind of people who work on these committees, and also those who give
404
assistance in the infant welfare centres, which are doing so much good and receive grants from the Ministry of Health, could be employed more largely in this sort of work than they have been. Hopes which were held out at the General Election of improvements in education, such as smaller classes, more widely extended secondary education and development of adult education, have not been realised, and £70,000 a year has been cut off from the grant to higher education. I hope, however, that this will not prevent the Government from seriously considering these proposals since they are framed to benefit industry as well as education and the children. Their adoption would enormously increase the safeguarding of industry in general and would be economically preferable to plans which have recently been put into operation for this purpose.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite has sugested to me a matter in which I venture to think that the Government might give very considerable assistance to certain agencies that already exist and are doing splendid work. He referred to certain voluntary agencies. There are great institutions that are working in these matters on a voluntary basis but that nevertheless do require a certain amount of support by way of compulsion. I happen to have spent the best part of this morning in the chair of the education committee of my own school. That school is one of the agencies to which I have referred. Under its scheme, which has been in operation for nearly thirty years, it is obliged every year—and it does it very gladly—to admit by competition boys and girls, some of whom are gathered from the diocese of the right rev. Prelate who has so usefully brought this subject before your Lordships this evening.
Those children come into the school and, if they are poor, as most of them are, they receive, without any cost to their parents, even for their clothing, an education on public school lines, costing the governors of the hospital about £107 for each boy and £98 for each girl. Those children come in at the age of twelve and a half or thirteen, and it constantly happens that, when a boy or girl reaches fourteen and is looked upon by the parents as a potential wage-earner, that

405
child is withdrawn. It does not matter to the parents—poor things! I am not blaming them—that if that child makes good in the school there are exhibition funds which will send the child along to the University, and advancement funds that will apprentice the child or give any kind of preparation that is needed for a profession. All this is completely sacrificed in order that the child may immediately begin to contribute to the earnings of the household. I mention this in all sympathy, but I am certain that it is wrong. If you could only in some way give us a sanction which would enable us to exercise proper pressure in those cases, these children would be kept within the benefits of the hospital until the end of the school year in which they reached sixteen and if they showed any promise at all, if they were what the ancients would call "apt to learning," they would be retained to the age of eighteen or nineteen, until they were ready for the University.
But what can we do? It so happens that this matter was before us this morning, and we brought up a form of words which we intend in the future to ask these parents to sign—namely, an undertaking, so far as they are concerned, that the boy or girl shall remain under the care of the hospital until the end of the school year during which the child attains the age of sixteen. I am delighted that this decision was come to, but my trouble is that I fear very much that the undertaking is not worth the paper on which it is written. I believe I am right in saying that if children are similarly admitted to scholarships elsewhere under the London County Council the parents are expected to sign a similar paper, but I doubt the worth of the undertaking if the parent insists on withdrawing the child. What is obviously needed is some action higher up which would strengthen the position of such agencies and enable them in some way to say: "I beg your pardon, but you must allow your child to continue to receive the benefits of this or some other institution until such and such a time."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD): My Lords, the right rev. Prelate who has just sat down has made a very interesting suggestion, though I am not sure that it falls strictly within
406
the discussion that we are initiating today. All that I can say in answer to him is that the matter will, no doubt, be carefully considered by the Departments concerned. I certainly think that your Lordships owe a debt of gratitude to the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of South-wark for bringing this matter to your notice, and I am personally grateful to, him for the speech that he made because he went so very fully into the substance of this Report that it will make my task much lighter and, I hope, the demand that shall make upon your Lordships' patience much smaller.
On one point I venture to express my warmest agreement with him. I refer to his tribute to the authors of this Report and the valuable work that they have done. I confess that, in reading the Report, it seemed to me to be almost a model of what such documents should be: full of information and suggestion, and yet without any tall writing to impede the lucidity of the expressions of opinion contained in it. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said that it was not the last word. I have no doubt that he is right and that there will be other Reports later, but I hope that he will agree with me that, if it was not the last word, it was at any rate a very good word and has made a very important contribution to this subject. On one point I do venture to express disagreement, not with the right rev. Prelate but with the noble Earl. He spoke of the Government watching youth rotting without doing anything, or something of that kind. I really think that this was a very exaggerated way of stating the case—useful, I dare say, on Labour platforms, but not perhaps quite so useful in a discussion in this House.
EARL DE LA WARR: I carefully qualified the statement. I stopped and corrected myself, and added "almost."
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am sure that the noble Earl meant everything that was courteous, because he is always courteous, and I am merely protesting against his rather extravagant way of putting it. Certainly this subject is a very serious one, and there is nothing to be gained by exaggeration. As the noble Lord opposite pointed out, although the position is very serious in certain trades, yet on the whole the percentage

407
of juvenile unemployment is, comparatively speaking, a low one, although we should all admit that it is much higher than we should like to see it. There is one other preliminary observation which I should like to make. The right rev. Prelate was extremely friendly to us, but he evidently regarded it as quite out of the bounds of possibility that the Government should have arrived at any decision upon the Report at present. I hope to be able to reassure him a little. He dealt with the subject in a different order from the Commission, taking working certificates first, the juvenile unemployment centres second, and the administrative question last. I will reverse that order and take the administrative question first.
Evidently this question, as he admitted, and as everyone must admit, has two aspects, educational and industrial. That, no doubt, is the reason why there has grown up in this country this curious dual system, that you have this matter being considered in different parts of the country by two different administrative bodies. In some places it is being dealt with by the local education authorities through the medium of juvenile employment committees. In other cases it is being dealt with by the Ministry of Labour through the instrumentality of the juvenile advisory committees. These two bodies are really discharging, I think you may say in all respects, identical duties. They really do two main things. They first charge themselves with advising and finding work for what are called in this Report "school-leavers," that is, children as they leave school, and keeping in touch with them after that has happened—never an easy thing to do—and in the second place they also have to administer, with regard to the labour group—ages sixteen to seventeen—all the questions of unemployment insurance. With regard to the first set, the question of finding work, they are under either the Education Department or the Ministry of Labour, according to whether they are working through the local education authorities or directly under the Ministry of Labour. With regard to the question of unemployment insurance, they are entirely, so far as they are under any body, under the Ministry of Labour.
I do not think it is necessary to elaborate an argument to show that administratively that is not a satisfactory state
408
of things. You may, and do, have two adjoining districts—East and West Ham is the instance given in the Report—where in one district the administration is under one Department of the Government, and in the neighbouring district, where the conditions are substantially the same, the administration is under the other Department of the Government. The majority of the Commission—there was one dissentient—reports strongly two things. In the first place, they report that the local bodies, the education committees and the advisory committees under the Ministry of Labour, should be left where they are. They think that there is a great deal of advantage in having a certain amount of diversity in this respect, that to make an alteration would cause a great deal of upset, and that there is no sufficient reason for making a change with respect to those bodies.
With respect to the central Department the Commission recommends that the whole thing should be put under the Ministry of Labour, working, of course, in the closest association and co-operation with the Education Department. Evidently it is most important that they should do so and I think the Report recommends that—
"The Ministry should leave the Authorities as far as possible to conduct and develop the work on individual lines … and in a manner consistent with their general educational policy."
That evidently is most desirable, and whether the local bodies are directly under the Ministry of Labour—or rather whether they are part of the local education authorities or directly appointed by the Ministry of Labour, it is quite evident that the educational aspect of the question must be continually borne in mind. Subject to that the Government have decided to accept the recommendation of the majority of the Commission in this respect, and to put the whole of the administration of this matter under the Ministry of Labour. They are satisfied that that Department of Government, having to deal with all the questions of unemployment and unemployment insurance, is on the whole the best body—the body having the greatest amount of information and the widest outlook on this question of unemployment, and on the question of finding employment—and it is therefore

409
clearly better that they should be responsible to Parliament exclusively for the administration of this part of the Government's duty.
They also accept the proposal that there should be established a National Juvenile Advisory Council, on which, as the Report recommends, the local education authorities should be strongly represented. They have not, indeed, arrived at a final conclusion on that matter, because evidently it is necessary to consult the local education authorities, but they certainly are very anxious to consider that favourably, because it would make it still more certain that the educational aspects of this problem would be properly considered, since the education authorities would be represented upon this advisory body.
That is the administration part of this question, but it is not the only part or in some ways, perhaps, the most important part of this Report. The Report deals with a great number of detailed propositions and suggestions with which I do not propose to trouble your Lordships; not that I wish in any way to belittle their importance, but there is a limit to the patience that your Lordships should show. There are, however, two big divisions, which the lie% rev. Prelate has noted. There is the question of juvenile unemployment centres. That is a subject which has undoubtedly had a rather chequered history. Ever since the idea was started there have been various different propositions put forward and established, and then modified and altered. Indeed it is, in its very essence, a subject which is rather liable to lead to such results, because unemployment varies very much and consequently the demand for these centres also varies. If you look at the history, as detailed in the Report, you will see that a certain scheme is established, has at first a considerable vogue, a number of unemployment centres are created, then there is a change in the industrial conditions of the country, or some other condition arises, and they die away and a new scheme is established. I quite agree that that is not a satisfactory state of things, and the Report is well founded when it says that some permanence ought to be aimed at if you are to make a real advance in this direction. At present the situation is
410
that the local education authorities may organise such centres for the insured juveniles, that is, juveniles from sixteen to eighteen years of age; though the others may attend the centres they, in fact, practically do not do so; and there is a grant from the Ministry of Labour of from 75 to 100 per cent. of the cost.
The Commission propose four broad changes. They propose in the first place that the scheme should be made permanent; secondly, that in the large cities nucleus centres should be established, which can be expanded to meet any growth of unemployment; thirdly, that the full cost of these centres should be paid by the Government to the local education authorities; and fourthly, that new centres should be established from time to time by the Ministry wherever they think it is desirable. I can assure your Lordships that the Government do not underrate the value and importance of these centres, and they are certainly most anxious to give very sympathetic consideration to the proposals and suggestions of the Commission. But I could not at this stage, and without further consideration and discussion with other Departments, pledge the Government to adopt the full scheme suggested by the Commission. In particular, it is quite obvious that the proposal that the full cost of these juvenile centres should be thrown upon the taxes is one which would have to be very carefully looked at. All that I can say about that at this moment is that the Government are anxious to give very sympathetic consideration to this matter, and that in the meantime they will certainly continue the present system for at any rate another year until they are able to decide what steps they feel it right to recommend to Parliament as the result of this Report.
Then we come to the working certificate system. That, as the right rev. Prelate has rightly explained to your Lordships, is the proposal which the Commissioners make for dealing with these juveniles of fourteen and fifteen after they leave school and before they become subject to unemployment insurance. At the present moment it is quite evident that there is a gap in the State arrangements in this matter. From the time they leave school they are out of the control, discipline, advice and suggestion of the

411
school authorities, and yet they are not able to demand and receive the assistance which comes from the general unemployment scheme. The result is that for these two years there is a gap, as it is called, in this part of the educational or industrial system of this country.
The noble Earl says that the proper way to meet that is by raising the school age from fourteen to sixteen, and it is quite evident that that would meet it, because, of course, they would no longer leave school until the time they came on the unemployment insurance. He referred to the passage on page 58 of the Report, in which the Commissioners, after explaining that they are unable to express as a body any opinion as to whether this is right or wrong, state their view individually that at some time or another the raising of the compulsory age would be a very desirable step to take. But the noble Earl did not, observe that at an earlier stage they explained that, however desirable it might be, it did not seem to them that it was an immediate remedy for the difficulty that we are in at this moment. They pointed out that for various reasons it, was unlikely—indeed I think they put it more strongly. They said:—
".… it is not practicable for some years to raise the leaving age to fifteen and ninny more years would elapse before it could be raised to sixteen. Even for half the problem of the gap therefore the change would not afford a solution for several years at best, and for the other half there would be no solution for an indefinite time."
I agree with the Commissioners that this is rather outside the topics that we are discussing this evening. Yet I do not think it is right that the authority of this Commission should be quoted for general approval of the suggestion of raising the compulsory education age without also quoting their doubt as to its practicability as a remedy for the evils from which we are now suffering.
In the same way, though they consider the other proposal which the noble Earl put forward—namely, the proposal that unemployment insurance should apply to the younger juveniles—and though I quite agree that they give reasons for thinking that a good many of the criticisms of that proposal are not well-founded, yet in the end they do discard that proposal, and put forward themselves this working certificate
412
scheme. The right rev. Prelate described it in a few words with substantial accuracy, and I need not describe it again. The object of it is to see that some touch and contact is retained with all juveniles from the time they leave school until the time when they come under the insurance scheme. And it is undoubted that there is a great deal that is attractive about the suggestion that is put forward. It is simple, it would not impose a great burden on the employers—they would have, I think, to stamp one form, but they would not have a great deal to do—and it certainly has the advantage of keeping some kind of hold on the juveniles. That would have these particular advantages. It might well be, as the Commisisoners themselves suggest, that you should make it a condition of receiving, or at any rate of retaining, a working certificate that the juvenile undertook to attend at some centre, so that this very grave evil and danger of the unemployed juvenile becoming unemployable should be to some extent guarded against. They also point out that it would maintain some kind of control over these young people, and that it would give to the Departments of Government concerned a great amount of information as to the actual employment of these juveniles and as to what was the best path to recommend them to take in order to obtain and retain employment.
I can say that the Government regard this solution with great sympathy and with great initial favour, but they feel that before they adopt it it will be necessary for them to consult the local education authorities—that must obviously be done—and they would like also to note what those who would be principally affected, the employers and the parents and so on, would think of a scheme of this kind. It is evident that it would work far better if it could be adopted with general agreement; certainly if such general agreement could be obtained the Government would be very sympathetic indeed towards the adoption of the proposal. That is what I have to say on behalf of the Government with reference to this Report. I think that it has really facilitated the solution of the very grave and difficult questions with which it deals and I believe, once the new administrative changes have been made

413
and the matter is under the control of one Government Department, and therefore mach more easy to deal with than it has ever been before, that there is every prospect of considerable advance being made in this direction. I feel sure that I speak on behalf of all my colleagues in saying they are extremely anxious that some solution for the very grave difficulties and dangers that have been mentioned to your Lordships should be found.
LORD GORELL: My Lords, I cannot help feeling that the right rev. Prelate has indeed done a great service in bringing this question before your Lordships' House. I think also he must have felt satisfied with the amount of support that he has received from several quarters in the House. At the same time, he and those who have considered this question must be profoundly disappointed at the entire absence of interest in such an enormously important question manifested by the almost completely empty Benches of the Government. I think also that the speech of the noble Viscount, lucid and courteous as it was, has been listened to, and will be read by people outside your Lordships' House, with the greatest disappointment.
The noble Viscount was asked three specific questions by the right rev. Prelate. To take the order in which the noble Viscount dealt with them, he was asked first as to the Government's decision upon the administrative changes. That was the one point on which the noble Viscount, speaking for the Government, was able to announce anything concrete. I think it is the one point on which most people, and certainly the right rev. Prelate, felt the gravest doubt as to whether the Committee had been right. The noble Viscount mentioned, but I cannot help thinking he did not give sufficient weight to, the fact that one member of the Committee signed the Report with a very definite reservation on this point. In his note that member said:—
".… I think that more attention than my colleagues appear inclined to concede should be paid to the unanimous opinion of the representatives of local education authorities who appeared before us, that their present relations with the Board of Education and the Ministry of Labour should not be disturbed."
414
That is the note by one member only, but he is the one member of the Committee who really speaks with some knowledge of education administration.
The composition of the Committee was referred to in high terms by the right rev. Prelate. All the members of it are certainly people of great distinction and great weight, but none of them, with the one exception of the signatory who signs with a reservation, is directly concerned with education and this is the one point which the Government have decided. The noble Viscount said—and I think it can hardly be denied by anybody—that the question of the young people of this country between the ages of fourteen and sixteen is a dual question, and to hand it over from the dual system to the control of the Ministry of Labour is to treat those young people primarily as those going into industry and not primarily as young people whose education is not finished. I certainly feel considerable misgivings at the announcement of the noble Viscount, that this is the one point upon which the Government have already taken a decision.
On the second question, with regard to the permanency of the centres, the noble Viscount detailed the four points on which the Committee had laid stress and was able to say no more than that the subject met with the sympathetic consideration of the Government and that the present system would not be changed for one year. In other words, he was not able to give any definite answer to the question of the right rev. Prelate. On the third point, the question of the working certificate, he could only say exactly the same: that the Government would view with sympathy the proposal and would take everybody concerned into consultation. The net result of the noble Viscount's speech, therefore, is only that the administration changes, removing it from the dual system at the head, and nothing more whatever.
Something has already been said in the course of the debate on the question of raising the school age. The noble Viscount rather deprecated using this Report for support of that view and he quoted from the end of Paragraph 109 some words by the Committee as to their sense of the difficulties. To select one passage of that kind is not to give a fair representation of the view of this Committee

415
upon the question of raising the school age. I would remind your Lordships that at the conclusion of Paragraph 113—
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: The noble Lord should not misrepresent me. I quoted also Paragraph 113, which had already been referred to by the noble Earl.
LORD GORELL: I do not wish to misrepresent the noble Viscount in any way, but the words he quoted from Paragraph 113 are not those I was about to quote. I was going to quote the last words of the paragraph where they say:—
".… we should not, have hesitated to discard any of our recommendations, however valuable they might have appeared to be in themselves, if, in our opinion, there had been any prospect of their tending to defer by even one day the future provision of some form of compulsory education beyond the present statutory age."
I think it is fairly obvious from those words that, whether it came strictly speaking within the terms of their reference or not, the Committee undoubtedly look forward to a raising of the school ago as the main means by which this problem could be tackled, and they do, in fact, use very strong words in Paragraph 109, where they say:—
"It is perfectly clear that the problem of the gap, though not necessarily, as we have remarked, the problem of juvenile unemployment, would be completely solved by retention at a full-time day-school up to sixteen years of age, and indeed it is probable that this is the only really watertight system."
The noble Viscount, replying to my noble friend Earl De La Warr, said the Committee said it was a way of dealing with the matter. Here you have the Committee saying that in their view it is the only way.
I would be prepared to agree that it was not, strictly speaking, within the province of this Committee to express a definite opinion about it, but at the same time it makes it all the stronger that they went outside the strict terms of reference in order to do so. It becomes even more remarkable when one considers the composition of the Committee, to which I have referred. The Committee were very largely representative of the industrial and economic side, so much so that when I first saw the names of the Committee published I assumed that they
416
were the nominations of the Minister of Labour only and that they would be followed by the nominations of the President of the Board of Education. This Committee to inquire and advise upon the public system of education did not include one member of the teaching profession. At the time that was considered, and I think justly considered, by the teaching profession as a slight upon it, but it has had the advantage that without including anybody who is actually engaged in teaching, they have come to this conclusion and have expressed so strong an opinion upon the question of the raising of the school age.
But over and above the Report of this Committee, the right rev. Prelate mentioned that there had been another Committee which had reported upon the question of the education of the adolescent—namely, the Consultative Committee of the Board of Education. Now it was strictly within the terms of reference of that Committee. They went into it at great length and they went into the particular difficulties as to raising the school age with which this Committee on Education and Industry were faced in their one hundred and ninth paragraph. I cannot help thinking that the record of the Government in this matter is not a very good one. These two Reports came out at almost exactly the same time. Therefore you had a Committee composed exclusively, with the single exception of myself, of those engaged in teaching who recommended the raising of the school age to fifteen, and you had also this other Committee consisting of those who looked upon the question from the other point of view, the economic and industrial point of view, expressing their view in such strong terms. The Report of the Consultative Committee was blocked at the outset by the President of the Board of Education who had appointed it. He issued it to the public together with a letter in which, after thanking the Committee for their labours, he said that he had not had time to study the Report, but at the same time he wished to announce at once that he was not going to upset the three years' programme of local education authorities by any legislation raising the school age. In other words, he put up something to knock it down—something which had not been put up by the Consultative Committee. They had not asked for the raising

417
of the school age within three years but asked that steps should be taken now in order that the school age might be raised when it could be done without causing disarrangement of the programmes—namely, in 1932.
The position therefore is reached that two big, important bodies have considered different aspects of this vitally important question and both of them have come to the conclusion that the real way of tackling it, though it may not be the immediate solution—the noble Viscount shakes his head, but here it is in black and white. I have quoted the actual words of the Report, they have been read also by other speakers, and the right rev. Prelate quoted the words used by the Consultative Committee. I think there is no doubt whatever that the consensus of opinion of both these bodies was that the raising of the school age was the way in which to tackle the problem, that it could not be brought into effect immediately but ought to be begun—I am now quoting the Consultative Committee—at once in order that there might be no unnecessary delay. I cannot see how, when this Committee state that they will not propose anything which might tend to defer by even one day such provision as that, it, can be said that they came to any other conclusion than that it was the way in which to overcome the difficulty. Therefore, whilst we recognise that this Government and indeed any Government must reel extremely sympathetic towards the demoralisation of unemployment which is so particularly hard upon young people of fourteen and sixteen, I cannot help thinking that we must view with grave disappointment the only answer which has been made to this Question.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I am sorry that other engagements prevented me from listening to this debate. I merely rise to make one or two points and to emphasise somewhat those made by the noble Lord who last addressed your Lordships. I would venture to point out that having had some experience not only on a school board but on a local education authority for fifteen years, as well as having had some experience at the Board of Education, I am convinced that where this matter is taken tip by local education authorities it is better to entrust them with as much
418
power as is possible with a view of trying to find out what is the right choice of employment for children when they leave school.
I would emphasise the recommendation on page 22 of the Report in which the Committee say the Ministry should leave local authorities as far as possible to conduct and develop their choice of employment work on individual lines and in a manner consistent with their general educational policy. It is of vital importance that these terrible tragedies should be avoided of inducing children to go into occupations for which they are unsuited. Local education authorities, through their employment committees and in other ways, have the opportunity of ascertaining what is the disposition of the child and what is the likely occupation in which the career of an individual child may secure best realisation, not only for the individual and the family but also for the State. I had considerable experience when at, the Board of Education of the great tragedy of children who thought they might develop into schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, who even entered upon the, career, woo at great sacrifice to their parents were taught how to teach, who even secured their certificates after going through training colleges, but when they entered the schools were hopelessly unable either to maintain discipline or impart education. Teachers are born rather than made. This is the sort of tragedy which local education authorities are best able to deal with in connection with the choice of employment for the children. I use that merely as one illustration of many which I might use.
Another point that I desire to emphasise has been referred to by the noble Viscount. I do not think that he read the recommendation in the sum mary—though it may have been read to your Lordships—in which it is stated by the Committee that—
"While the raising of the school leaving ago to fifteen and ultimately to sixteen would remove the existing difficulties as regards unemployed juveniles of fourteen and fifteen the change, if made, should be made for educational and social rather than industrial reasons."
I believe that the importance of raising the school age cannot be over-estimated. I know of the expense connected with teaching children, I know the great sacrifices

419
that parents must make if their children are to have a fair opportunity in life, but it is the last year at school that is the most valuable in the career of every child, and if that additional year can be secured to the child the opportunity of doing good work for his country and entering good employment is greatly increased. I do trust that the Government will realise that keeping children longer at school is the very best way of meeting this great tragedy that we all deplore.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, before this debate comes to an end there are a few words that I should like to say, and they shall be very few. I agree with Lord Gainford in what he said about the importance of keeping the teaching profession and the education authorities as closely associated as possible in the guidance of children in the choice of employment. That is more important than it seems to people who look at things from the point of view of the administration of labour questions. It is of very great importance because it touches on education, and I cannot forget that in taking the line that they have taken the Government are overruling the opinion of the dissentient member of the Committee, Mr. W. B. Kenrick, who is one of the most experienced education experts in the City of Birmingham. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Gorell in what he said about the raising of the school age being the key to the whole of this problem. I recognise, however, that in all these matters the Government are face to face with a certain amount of difficulty. That does not put them in a better position, but it excuses them for a, certain inertia in action.
We have had one great advantage in this debate. We have had the decision of the Government stated by a distinguished and highly-responsible Cabinet Minister, who is able to tell us definitely what the Government will do about certain parts of the Report. That is a great advantage, and an advantage that we do not very often enjoy in this House. The noble Viscount told us, and it is indeed obvious, that the Government are going to go very slow. There is, of course, a reason for that—a reason with which we are all unhappily too familiar, and that is that there is not
420
that strong and well-organised body of public opinion behind the Education Department that we should wish to see. For this there are reasons, but, if properly estimated, they should not preclude those responsible for the administration of education from making things better in this respect. If you take England and look at it as a whole, you will see that different parts of England are in very different attitude. In Yorkshire, for instance, in Lancashire and in Wales you have an educational opinion as keen as you could wish, and almost as keen, if not quite, as it is in Scotland, where great progress has been made with these questions. In Scotland there is not a boy or girl who cannot to-day get full secondary education and go on to the University. I am not saying that all of them do it, but they all have the chance and a great many of them take it. Secondary schools and secondary education have been enormously developed under the pressure of popular opinion.
When the Education Bill of 1918 was before this House I well remember moving a clause, which the Government accepted, enabling them to divide England for educational purposes into provinces which should be somewhat of the size of Scotland. Wales would be one, Yorkshire would be one and Lancashire would be one, and it would be left to the provinces to work out their own educational salvation in their own way. To me it is certain that half the questions that we have been discussing to-day would have been solved long ago in these regions if that course had been taken. A keen opinion in the North and in Wales has been directed to them for a long time and has made some progress in solving them. But, instead of this, you have one single policy for the whole of this enormous country, a policy that declares that the same Regulations must obtain in Yorkshire that obtain in Devonshire. The result is that education questions become more and more centralised in the hands of the Board in Whitehall, and I think that this is quite wrong.
Scotland is an example of a country that finds its hands full with its education problem, and it is only one-seventh of the area that the Board of Education in England has to rule over. Why should not these parts of the country develop

421
their own policy? You do not want legislation for it. The Government accepted the clauses in 1918, but I have never even heard that they are considering taking steps under the Act to decentralise the education organisation that is at present centralised in Whitehall. You could put your inspectors at the disposition of the local authority in each province and, with a little negotiation, I think they would persuade the local education authorities to fall into line and join in the scheme. I quote that example only because that is one of the things that the Government might be considering and might enlighten us upon. The difficulty of the Government, as was said by noble Lords who have already spoken, is that they have no large policy, no definite policy in connection with education on which they are prepared to commit themselves or which they are prepared to press upon the country. But in education, above everything, the country does nothing unless it gets a lead, and what it wants now is a, lead from the Minister of Education, a lead given in a spirit that means that he intends to identify his career with it.
In these conditions we cannot hope to make very great or rapid progress. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for having spoken so far sympathetically of this Report. I am not quite sure of the things on which he definitely pledged the Government, but at any rate it is something that the Government should accept the Report in the main and should be willing to give effect to some of its recommendations. When the educational problem of this nation will be solved I do not know, but I am certain that we shall have to solve it in the interests of economy itself. The most wasteful thing is to make no preparation for what is staring us in the face. We have threatening us in the future the keenest competition that we have ever known. We can meet it only if we have an educated people to deal with the situation that is
422
about to confront them. To leave the young men and young women between fourteen and sixteen without any adequate training for their minds is to court disaster. What I complain of in the Government is that they will not face that situation, and will not put before us a bold policy, even if it is a policy which at the moment they are not prepared to carry into full effect.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

MONTROSE BURGH AND HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Duke of Sutherland, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Montrose burgh and harbour; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

NORTH BRITISH AND MERCANTILE INSURANCE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
[SUBSTITUTED BILL.]

SCOTTISH PROVIDENT INSTITUTION BILL. [H.L.]
[SUBSTITUTED BILL.]
Presented, read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at ten minutes before six o'clock.