Sitting of 18 December 1929

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bradford Extension) Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time tomorrow.
Astley Ainslie Institution Order Confirmation Bill (by Order),
Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.
Lanarkshire Traction Order Confirmation Bill (by Order),
Considered:
A Clause (Application for renewal of existing omnibus licences not to be prejudiced) — [Mr. W. Adamson] —brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 13) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a Second time, and committed.

MERCANTILE MARINE (HELM ORDERS).
Sir BASIL PETO: I desire to present to this honourable House a humble Petition on behalf of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, representing nearly 5,000 masters and officers of the Merchant Service. The Petition prays this honourable House that Article 41 of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1929, be not approved for ratification and be not enforced by Act of Parliament or Order in Council on board British ships.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    STATES CONTRIBUTIONS (ARREARS).
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which, if any, of the member countries of the League of Nations are in arrears with payment of their quota of expenses of the League; and can he give the amounts?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply returned to a similar question put to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Waterloo (Captain Bullock) on the 16th December, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether by the non-payment of expenses by certain nations our share is heavier?
    Mr. HENDERSON: No, I think not.

    ABYSSINIA (SLAVERY).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is prepared to take the initiative in the Council of the League of Nations in proposing that an offer of advice, expert personnel, and trained administrators should be made to Abyssinia by the League to assist that country in carrying out its undertaking to the League to secure the complete suppression of slavery in all its forma and the slave trade by land and sea?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: The Assembly of the League of Nations, in September last, instructed the Secretary-General to collect from the States Members of the League, and from all parties to the Slavery Convention, all possible information on the present position of slavery throughout the world, and to report to the next Assembly with a view to suitable action.
    Mr. MANDER: In view of the fact that there are in Abyssinia still over 2,000,000 slaves, will he use the great influence of this country in some way to bring that state of affairs to an end, through the League?
    Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, but—
    Mr. DAY: Is it a fact that there are 2,000,000 slaves in Abyssinia?

    COUNCIL MEETING.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is his intention to attend the meeting of the Council of the League of Nations at Geneva in January next; and what business will be before the Council on that occasion?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: I propose to attend the meeting though, owing to the forthcoming Naval Conference, I may not be able to remain in Geneva until the end of the session. During the remainder of the session His Majesty's Government will be represented by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. The official agenda for the forthcoming meeting of the Council has now been issued, and I will send the hon. Member a copy.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Will not Lord Cecil be acting on behalf of the Government?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I have already answered. I said that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will represent the Government in my absence.

  RUSSIA.

    DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS.
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the following European countries have diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government of Russia: Spain, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, YugoSlavia, Rumania, Hungary, and Bulgaria?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: As indicated in the reply which I returned on the 25th November to a question put by the hon. Member for Newcastle, North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle), diplomatic relations have not been established between the Soviet Government and the Governments of the countries enumerated by the hon. and gallant Member in the present question.
    Sir A. KNOX: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the statement which he has just made is in direct contradiction to a statement made by the Government spokesman in another place?
    Mr. COCKS: May I ask whether Italy, Germany, France, Portugal, Norway, Sweden and Denmark, as well as Great Britain, have diplomatic relations with Russia?
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to reconcile the divergent views of Ministers in this House and in another place?

    BRITISH RELATIONS.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Soviet Ambassador has now presented his credentials; and whether he has signified agreement on behalf of his Government with the interpretation placed by the British Government on the pledge with regard to propaganda contained in Article 16 of the Treaty of the 8th August, 1924, referred to in paragraph 7 of the Protocol of the 3rd October, 1929, especially as regards the activities of the Third International?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: The Soviet Ambassador has not yet presented his credentials but will, I hope, do so on the 20th December. With regard to the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on the 16th December.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of the reason for the Soviet Ambassador remaining in this country as a free lance, without presenting his credentials, seeing that he has been here for more than a week?
    Mr. HENDERSON: There is nothing unusual in a new Ambassador being in this country for a week or even 10 days before presenting his credentials. I have already informed the House that the blame does not rest with him.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Has the Soviet Ambassador been informed that Parliament has not approved the resumption of diplomatic relations?
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what matters he proposes to immediately discuss with the Soviet Ambassador?
    Mr. HENDERSON: The questions to be discussed are enumerated in Article 1 of the Protocol of the 3rd October.
    Sir K. WOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman propose to discuss with the

    1373
    Soviet Ambassador immediately the grave question of religious persecution in Russia?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I have nothing to add to the answer that I have given.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is going to inform the Soviet Ambassador that only the House of Commons has approved the resumption of diplomatic relations?

  CHINA AND RUSSIA.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what countries have associated themselves with the initiative of the United States of America in appealing to China and Soviet Russia to observe the obligations of the Kellogg Pact?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: The French and Italian Governments have taken the same steps as were taken by the United States Government and His Majesty's Government in the matter. Replies were received by the United States Government from a number of other Governments approving the proposal made by them, but the fact that direct negotiations had been begun between the Soviet and Chinese Governments has, no doubt, made it seem unnecessary to many other Governments to follow suit.

  ANGLO-EGYPTIAN RELATIONS.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the recent White Paper does not contain a draft treaty between this country and Egypt but only an outline of proposals, he can say whether he adheres to his statement in the Note to the Egyptian Government that these proposals represent the extreme limit of the concessions which His Majesty's Government can make?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer returned to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) on the 4th December, in which it was stated that no change had taken place in the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to the proposals.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether that letter contains a guarantee against a further change of policy?

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the detachment for service in the Dominions of members of the Diplomatic Service, he proposes to increase the establishment of that service?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: The seconding of members of the Diplomatic Service for service in the Dominions has not resulted, and will not result, in any increase in the establishment of the service. These officers are provided for in the Dominions Office Vote, and the vacancies caused by their departure were filled by successful candidates in the 1928 and 1929 examinations. In the event of any such post being suppressed its occupant would return to the Foreign Office and would be absorbed on the occurrence of a vacancy.

    MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
    Mr. ROSBOTHAMasked the Prime Minister whether in view of the increase in the work of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and considering the importance of the fishing industry, he will set up a separate department for the latter with a Minister of Fisheries?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): In the absence of the Prime Minister, I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the Prime Minister's reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul) on 15th July, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many committees and commissions which have sat in the past to consider the question of the fishing industry, have recommended the setting up of such a department?
    Mr. BUXTON: I am afraid I cannot add to the Prime Minister's answer.
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Will the Minister convey to the right hon. Gentle-

    1375
    man the Prime Minister the fact that the tendency at present is that the fishing industry should receive less consideration than it did before?

  GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (PASSPORTS AND VISAS).
  Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received complaints of the treatment of British subjects in the United States of America who have outstayed the time allowed in their passports; whether he has information of the numbers of British men and women now imprisoned in the United States for infringement of passport or immigration regulations; whether he is aware that they are confined with common criminals; and whether His Majesty's Government proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: No complaints have been received at the Foreign Office during the last two years from British subjects who have rendered themselves liable to deportation from the United States by outlaying the period of their temporary visitor's visa. I have no information as to the number of British subjects held for deportation in United States immigration stations or gaols, but most of these have rendered themselves liable to heavy penalties including a term of imprisonment by effecting illegal entry into the United States. If arrested in a place where there is no United States immigration station, deportees are necessarily confined in the local gaols, but I understand that ordinarily they are separated from common criminals. I am always ready to take up with the United States authorities any individual case as to which I am furnished with reliable information, and to make such representations as the merits of the case may justify.
  Mr. SOMERVILLE: May I ask whether any warning is given to British subjects of the penalties they may incur if they outstay their passport permission?
  Mr. HENDERSON: I am not aware that any warning is given, but I should imagine it would be stated on the passport.

  ENGLISH AND FOREIGN COURTS (JUDGMENTS).
  Mr. CROOM-JOHNSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that in actions brought in other European countries on judgments obtained in English courts certain foreign courts claim the right to examine into the grounds of such judgments and do not follow the practice of the English courts in actions brought therein on judgments of foreign courts; whether there are any conventions dealing with such matters between this country and any, and, if so, which, European countries; and whether he is prepared to consider the question of making representations through the proper channels to the Governments of the countries concerned with the view of obtaining reciprocal treatment in the matter?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: The matter to which the question relates has engaged the attention of my Department and of the present Lord Chancellor and his predecessor, who appointed a small committee, presided over by Lord Justice Greer, to investigate it. This committee reported that, in order to remedy the existing unsatisfactory state of affairs, it would be necessary to conclude treaties with foreign countries providing for the reciprocal enforcement of judgments, and that legislation in this country was necessary before such treaties could be concluded. The committee made certain suggestions as to the form which such legislation should take, but recommended that before any Bill was drafted preliminary discussions should take place with one or two foreign Governments, and these discussions will take place very shortly.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    SINGAPORE BASE.
    Mr. DAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the amount contributed separately by Hong Kong, Federated Malay States, and New Zealand towards the expenditure incurred with reference to the proposed naval base at Singapore; and whether any compensation has to be paid by the Government for the non-fulfilment of any contracts entered into by any previous Governments?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): The amounts contributed to date by Hong Kong, the Federated Malay States and New Zealand towards the expenditure incurred on the base at Singapore are £250,000, £1,200,000 and £250,000 respectively. Of this total of £1,700,000, £1,294,000 has been appropriated by the Admiralty in relief of expenditure falling on Navy Votes; the balance of £406,000 has been credited to Army and Air Votes in relief of expenditure falling on those Votes. As regards the latter part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given on the 20th November (OFFICIAL REPORT, column 463) to the hon. Members for East Willesden (Mr. D. G. Somerville) and Kingston-upon-Thames (Sir G. Penny).
    Mr. DAY: Has the hon. Member now ascertained that there is no break clause in any of the contracts made by the British Government?
    Mr. AMMON: All information will be found in the replies that I have given.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: May I ask whether, in view of the answer which he has now given, it may be taken for granted that His Majesty's Government will see that these moneys are returned to the Dominions and Colonies who advanced them under false pretences. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: It rests with the hon. Member as to whether he will give an answer or not.

    MERCHANT SHIPS (ASSISTANCE).
    Dr. HASTINGSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty to what extent vessels under his charge gave assistance to ships of the Mercantile Marine during the recent gale; and whether he will give instructions that every possible assistance shall be given in similar circumstances?
    Mr. AMMON: I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a brief record of the assistance given by His Majesty's ships to ships of the Mercantile Marine during the recent severe weather. As regards the second part of the question, it is a standing instruction that His Majesty's ships should afford every possible aid to vessels in danger or distress, and is so laid down in Article 896 of the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions.
    Commander SOUTHBY: Can the hon. Member tell the House whether there is any reason to suppose that this instruction is not being carried out?
    Mr. AMMON: No; on the contrary, the Navy is glad and willing to give every assistance.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Will not the hon. Member admit that such an instruction is quite unnecessary?
    Following is the record:
    24th November.
    His Majesty's ship "Cambrian" on passage from Gibraltar to Plymouth in a full gale intercepted an S.O.S. from the steamship "Leonidas" and went to her assistance, which eventually was not required.
    2nd December.
    In response to an S.O.S. from the British steamship "Canadian Transport," His Majesty's tug "Pilot" proceeded from Portland to her assistance. The ship, however, was eventually able to avoid shipwreck unaided.
    6th December.
    In response to an S.O.S. from the Hungarian "Honved," His Majesty's tug "Sprite" proceeded from Portsmouth to her assistance. Later, however, a message was received that the cable ship "Telconia" was standing by and the "Sprite" was recalled.
    7th December.
    His Majesty's tugs "Resolve" and "Grappler" from Portsmouth went to the assistance of the Italian steamship "San Marco" which had broken from her moorings and gone ashore. She was towed off by the tugs.
    His Majesty's tug "Pilot" proceeded from Portland to the assistance of a vessel reported ashore at Osmington. It was found, however, that she did not require assistance.
    His Majesty's tug "Retort" from Devonport went to the assistance of steamship "Andalucia Star" which had lost her rudder. A mooring party and lighter were also held in readiness to berth the ship if required, but she was able to arrive at Falmouth safely.
    His Majesty's tugs "Robust" and "St. Clears" from Sheerness went to the

    1379
    assistance of the Anglo-American tanker "Ashtabula" which had gone ashore and refloated her.
    8th December.
    His Majesty's tug "Retort" from Devonport went to the assistance of the steamship "Tynebridge," whose steering gear was reported disabled. The "Tyne-bridge," however, succeeded in repairing her steering gear and the tug was recalled.
    11 th December.
    His Majesty's ships "Sutton," "Vimy" and "Trinidad" were engaged for several days, in very heavy weather, in searching for nine Lowestoft fishing vessels which were long overdue. All have now returned safely.
    There are also numerous instances of assistance given to barges, lighters and other small craft.

    OFFICERS (MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE).
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is prepared to grant allowances to married naval officers of over 30 years of age, such as are now provided for Army and Air Force officers under existing regulations?
    Mr. AMMON: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle) on the 8th of July.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: May I ask whether the hon. Member recollects that a committee set up by the Admiralty reported in favour of marriage allowances for officers in the Navy; whether that proposal was not subsequently carried unanimously by this House, although it was taken away at a later date. Cannot the hon. Member see his way now to restore it?
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Will the hon. Member also remember that the provision of marriage allowances for the Navy must certainly result in reduced efficiency.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Will he also remember that the Navy will be put in a very unfair position in comparison with the Army and the Air Force?

    TRAVELLING ALLOWANCES.
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the question of providing adequate travelling allowances for naval personnel proceeding on leave, and also for their families, when, as the result of the exigencies of the service, they are compelled to transfer their homes from one port to another?
    Mr. AMMON: I regret that it is not possible to make a contribution from public funds towards the travelling expenses of naval personnel proceeding on leave. All men of the Royal Navy participate in a concession granted by the railway companies whereby return tickets are issued for journeys on leave at the cost of a single fare and a third. Naval ratings are not compelled to transfer their homes from one port to another to meet the exigencies of the service and I am unable to entertain the suggestion that travelling expenses in such cases should be a public charge.

    HOUSING SCHEME (ST. BUDEAUX).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to the St. Budeaux housing scheme for dockyard and naval employés, whether he is aware of the condition of the houses and of the danger to health caused by the inadequate protection afforded by them against bad weather; and if his Department is taking any steps to safeguard the interests of the tenants, all of whom come under the aegis of his Department?
    The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. George Hall): Certain complaints have been made unofficially, but the Admiralty have no responsibility for these houses, which were erected by the Devon port Dockyard Employés Housing Association, Limited, on land given by the Admiralty.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the hon. Member be good enough to look into this question, seeing that many employés of the Admiralty are in a very serious plight and that the medical officer of health has reported that their accommodation is not fit for habitation?
    Mr. HALL: I must repeat that the Admiralty have no responsibility in the matter.

    RETIRED EX-APPRENTICES.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will reconsider making A. F. O. 674a, dated 16th March, 1928, retrospective, seeing that hardship is felt by ex-apprentices who retired from the dockyard service before 31st December, 1927, and are consequently not included in the concession?
    Mr. G. HALL: The answer is in the negative.

    HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "REPULSE" (CHRISTMAS LEAVE).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty for what reason His Majesty's Ship "Repulse" is not giving Christmas leave from her home port, Sheerness; and whether, seeing that a welfare request by the lower deck that all ships should return to their home ports for leave was granted by the Admiralty, he will consider, when exceptions are by necessity made, of granting to the ship's company their going-on-leave free railway facilities to their home ports?
    Mr. AMMON: With reference to the first part of the question, it was necessary for His Majesty's Ship "Repulse" to go to Portsmouth for docking and other work. In view of the uncertainty as to the date she would be able to leave Portsmouth and the very considerable amount of extra work which would have been involved in steaming the ship to Sheerness in the middle of the Christmas leave period, it was felt that it would be to the advantage of the ship's company that she should remain at Portsmouth during the whole leave period. With regard to the latter part of the question, I am not aware that any such welfare request was granted, and I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer given him on this subject on the 20th November.

    MASTERS AND MATES (PAY).
    Captain W. G. HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the pay and conditions of masters and mates of vessels in Admiralty establishments, serving under D. 13 articles of agreement, are very much below those obtaining in vessels engaged in similar work in mercantile marine ports; and, if so, can he indicate
    1382
    how soon a return will be made to the previously established policy of securing for Admiralty employés rates slightly better than those paid by the best private employers?
    Mr. G. HALL: I would draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) on the 11th December. The rates of pay awarded to masters and mates of yard craft are in accordance with the awards of the Industrial Court dated 16th May and 4th July, 1928, and it is not proposed to depart from these awards. The policy of the Admiralty has been to abide by the findings of the Industrial Court.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: May I ask whether these men were represented at the Industrial Court?
    Mr. KELLY: In view of the tremendous discrepancy between the amount paid by outside employers and the Admiralty, will the hon. Member go further into the matter?
    Captain W. G. HALL: Is the hon. Member aware that the men in question made many attempts to redress this grievance through the ordinary channels, and, in the light of that, cannot the Admiralty see their way to re-open the matter?
    Mr. G. HALL: This matter was the subject of a decision by the Industrial Court as late as July of last year, and it is impossible for the Admiralty to interfere with a decision of the Industrial Court.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. Member not aware that the men were not represented, and are not represented directly on the Whitley Council?
    Mr. KELLY: Oh, yes, they are.

    PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD (CHRISTMAS LEAVE).
    Captain W. G. HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that only 10 per cent. leave is being /granted this Christmas in the torpedo tube shop, Portsmouth dockyard; and if, as over 37 per cent, has been given in previous years, he will cause inquiries to be made with a view to increasing the percentage now allowed to something like its previous level?
    Mr. G. HALL: I am unable to admit the correctness of my hon. Friend's comparison. This year, for the first time in history, six days' leave with pay has been granted to the general body of workpeople employed by the Admiralty and Boxing Day will be a holiday with pay.
    Captain W. G. HALL: May I ask whether the hon. Member will have inquiry made into some of these complaints?
    Mr. G. HALL: Inquiries have already been made, and, as I have stated, Boxing Day will be a holiday with pay. Last year it was not a holiday.

    RESERVE FLEET, PORTSMOUTH (PAY).
    Captain W. G. HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of men employed in the Reserve Fleet working party, Portsmouth dockyard, who receive less than 4s. 5d. a day, the rates they receive, and the reason for the difference?
    Mr. AMMON: The answer to the first part of the question is one, and to the second part 3s. a day. As regards the third part, this particular pensioner has been out of the Service for more than five years, and consequently cannot count his previous service towards progressive pay and good conduct badge pay. I may add that this payment is exclusive of victualling, accommodation, etc., which are additional.
    Captain W. G. HALL: Does the hon. Gentleman think that 3s. a day is sufficient pay for a man working proper hours?
    Mr. AMMON: My hon. Friend apparently did not hear the whole of the reply. There are other things that have to he taken into account, and the effect is that these men are on precisely the same footing as ordinary ratings.

    EXECUTIVE MATES AND MATE ENGINEERS.
    Mr. T. LEWISasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the number of executive mates and mate engineers, respectively, who have been compulsorily retired under special retirement schemes?
    Mr. AMMON: The answer is 54, including officers promoted from mate, and nil, respectively.

    EXPENDITURE.
    Mr. KELLYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what would be the saving in Naval Estimates in each of the next three years if it was desided not to replace any battleships now in commission; and what would be the additional saving if half the number of battleships now in commission were scrapped?
    Mr. AMMON: As the answer is somewhat long, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    As regards the first part of the question, the battleship replacement programme contained in the Washington Naval Agreement provides for two new battleships to be laid down by the British Empire in 1931 and two more in 1932. Assuming that such new battleships were to be of the maximum permissible displacement, the estimated cost would be:

    in 1930

    …

    …

    …

    nil.

    in 1931

    …

    …

    …

    £1,030,000

    in 1932

    …

    …

    …

    £6,065,000

    As regards the second part of the question the present annual cost of maintenance of eight of the 16 existing battleships is approximately £2,300,000, of which roughly £1,500,000 is for the pay, allowances, insurance, victualling, clothing, mess gear, etc., of the personnel and for non-effective liability in respect of retired pay and pensions. What would be the actual effect on Navy Estimates of the policy indicated I could not undertake to say.

  PALESTINE.

    DISTURBANCES (COMPENSATION).
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies by whom compensation is payable in the case of persons claiming for damages sustained in the recent disturbances in Palestine?
    Mr. FOOTasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the fund out of which it is proposed to pay such compensation as may be awarded in respect of damage arising from the late disturbances in Palestine?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): I would invite reference to the

    1385
    reply given on the 16th of December to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury).
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I know the answer given then, but can the hon. Gentleman assure us that under no circumstances will there be any charge on the British taxpayer for this service?
    Dr. SHIELS: I can only say that I do not contemplate that there will be any such charge.

    JEWISH COLONIES (ARMS).
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to state whether the 16 or 17 Jewish colonies which were still in possession of their arms in sealed armouries under the colony defence scheme at the time of the recent outbreak will be allowed to retain them, at any rate until other and adequate means of defence are provided by the Administration; and whether, pending a final decision as to the means of maintaining order in Palestine, the arms will be restored to those colonies which have been deprived of them during the last five years?
    Dr. SHIELS: As regards the first part of the question, so fax as I have information the colonies referred to still retain their arms. As regards the second part, I am not yet in a position to make any statement as the nature of the future defence of the colonies is at present under consideration.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the hon. Gentleman hope to be able to answer the question about this protection before the House rises?
    Dr. SHIELS: I am sorry that I could not say that. I do not think it is likely.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has my hon. Friend communicated with Palestine and asked them the question by cable?
    Dr. SHIELS: We are in constant communication on this and other matters.

    DR. BERQOVITCH (ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION).
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can give the House any account of the circumstances in which the assassination of Dr. Berqovitch
    1386
    was attempted some days ago; why it was necessary for the district officer at Safed to provide a police escort, for the doctor attached to the Scottish Mission at Tiberias who was summoned to Safed to attend Dr. Berqovitch, and what measures are being taken to restore order and give adequate protection to law-abiding citizens in the district?
    Dr. SHIELS: The High Commissioner reported on the 4th December that Dr. Berqovitch was shot at and wounded on the previous afternoon while motoring to Rosh Pinah, and that his condition was serious. He further reported that 10 minutes later at the same place an Arab mounted Customs officer was shot at, and his horse wounded, and that the assailant in both cases was unknown. I have received no report as to the provision of a police escort for the doctor, but if the local authorities thought this precaution desirable, I am not disposed to question their view. Every effort is being made to preserve order and to protect law-abiding persons.

    INQUIRY AND SITUATION.
    Mr. FRANK SMITHasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can say whether the commission of inquiry sent to Palestine is likely to complete its investigations into the causes of the recent happenings in that country in time for its Report to be presented to the House before the Christmas adjournment; whether he is satisfied that the local administration in Palestine is now capable of ensuring security of life and property pending the consideration of the Commission's Report; and whether, in any event, he will make a statement in the House concerning the existing conditions before the adjournment?
    Dr. SHIELS: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Commission is expected to conclude its inquiry in Palestine before the end of the month, but I am unable to say when its report will be available. As regards the second part, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Palestine Government is capable of maintaining order in the country, but it is, of course, impossible to guarantee, in Palestine or elsewhere, that isolated cases may not occur of offences against life or property. As regards the third part of the question, I do not think that it would be in the

    1387
    public interest to make a general statement on the situation at the present juncture.
    Mr. SMITH: Has the hon. Gentleman any information concerning the reported trouble and violence at a place called Mestha, near Mount Tabor, and will he kindly make inquiries about it?
    Dr. SHIELS: I have no information, but I shall be very glad to make inquiries.
    Mr. SMITHERS: Do the terms of reference of this Commission include inquiry into the causes of the disturbances in Palestine?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

    CRIME STATISTICS.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the figures for the number of crimes in Palestine in 1920 and 1928; and whether he can account for the increase in the figures?
    Dr. SHIELS: It is difficult to make the comparison desired. In 1921, the first year for which figures are available, the number of crimes classified as "heinous" was 650. In 1928, 944 crimes occurred which were classified as "serious." But in the interval—apart from the increase in population—there had been much legislation affecting the number of indictable offences, and in particular the later figure includes no less than 356 cases of "malicious damage to property," a category which first appears in 1926.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Does not this malicious damage to property arise out of the Arabs being dispossessed of their ancient lands?

  EAST AFRICA.

    UGANDA (AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT).
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is intended to move the agricultural department of Uganda from Kampala to Entebbe and, if so, why, and what is the estimated cost; whether he has received any representations against the proposal; and whether the proposal has received the sanction of the Secretary of State for the Colonies?
    Dr. SHIELS: The Governor of Uganda has informed my Noble Friend that it is proposed to move the headquarters of the agricultural department from Kampala to Entebbe for reasons of general administrative convenience, but no estimate of the cost has yet been reported. It is understood that the question has been debated in the Legislative Council in the Protectorate and the Governor has been asked for a report which has not yet been received. Representations against the transfer have been received from the East African Section of the London Chamber of Commerce and from the Joint East African Board, and have been communicated to the Governor. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Sir HILTON YOUNGasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the decision of the Governrnent as to the recommendations of the committee on the closer union of British territories in East Africa relating to Kenya, Uganda, and Tanganyika?
    Dr. SHIELS: I would refer the right hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Leyton, East (Mr. Brockway) on 11th December.
    Sir H. YOUNGasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the decision of the Government as to the recommendations of the committee on the closer union of British territories in East Africa relating to Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia?
    Dr. SHIELS: I can add nothing to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the Noble Earl, the Member for Horsham (Earl Winter-ton), on 27th November, except to say that that reply may be taken as applying to Nyasaland as well as to Northern Rhodesia.

  CEYLON (CONSTITUTION).
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what action is to be taken with regard to the reform of the Constitution of Ceylon, following the vote of the unofficial members of the legislative council?
  Dr. SHIELS: As was indicated in my Noble Friend's despatch of the 10th

  1389
  October, which was laid before Parliament in Command Paper Number 3419, the drafting of the necessary Order in Council to give effect to the proposals will now be put in hand, and the Governor will take the preliminary action directed in paragraph 24 of that despatch.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will the hon. Gentleman say more approximately when the new Order in Council will be promulgated and brought into force?
  Dr. SHIELS: I am sorry that I cannot give an exact date, but the life of the present council will be prolonged to the end of next year, so that there is plenty of time.

  SHERIF OF MECCA (WAR PARTICIPATION).
  Mr. COCKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will publish the text of the correspondence which took place between July, 1915, and January, 1916, between Sir Henry McMahon, acting for His Majesty's Government, and the then Sherif Hussein, of Mecca, respecting the territorial claims of the Arab peoples, and the terms upon which they entered the War on the side of the Allies?
  Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir. A similar question was put to the Government of the day on the 11th July, 1922. The reply given was that it would not be in the public interest to publish one or all of the documents comprising the long and inconclusive correspondence that took place with the Sherif of Mecca in 1915–16. The present Government see no reason to reconsider this decision.
  Mr. COCKS: Does my hon. Friend think it in the public interest for this House to decide questions when the facts are being withheld by the Government? Will not the Colonial Office follow Use example of the Foreign Office and abandon the practice of secret diplomacy?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Before the hon. Gentleman replies, is it not the case that this correspondence had nothing to do with the Colonial Office, but was conducted by the Foreign Office; that, as he says, the correspondence was inconclusive; that the Sherif of Mecca came into the War quite apart from anything that
  1390
  was contained in this correspondence, and that, therefore, it is not in the nature of a contract?
  Dr. SHIELS: I may say that I do not accept the aspersions on the Colonial Office made by my hon. Friend. In regard to the second point, some of this correspondence has already been published unofficially, and, after all, there must be some discretion given to a Government Department.
  Mr. COCKS: Arising out of the hon. Gentleman's answer and the question put by the right hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), does not that question show the necessity of publishing the text of this correspondence?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    COTTON GOODS (AFRICAN COLONIES).
    Sir GERALD HURSTasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any and what progress has been made in the direction of securing the automatic registration of British designs for cotton goods in His Majesty's African colonies, dependencies, and mandated territories?
    Dr. SHIELS: As regards the automatic protection, in the African dependencies, of designs registered in the United Kingdom, there has been no change in the position indicated in the reply given to the hon. Member s question of the 11th November.
    Sir G. HURST: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to pursue this question in regard to designs of cotton goods?
    Dr. SHIELS: It has been very thoroughly gone into, and it is the view of the Government that the present arrangement is quite fair. It is in agreement with the views of the colonies concerned. As far as I can state at present, we have no intention of proposing any alteration.
    Sir G. HURST: Does the hon. Gentleman know that at the present time there is no arrangement at all.
    Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir, I do not know anything of the kind. The arrangement is—and I think the hon. Member got the information the last time he asked the question—that quite a number of colonies

    1391
    give automatic protection, and in others there is registration by local deposit and a certain charge is made. I understand that part of the criticism is about this charge.

    JAMAICA RAILWAYS (ORDER).
    Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the Council of Jamaica has just ordered 40 railway cars in the United States for delivery in 1930, British firms tendered for the order; and whether they could deliver equally promptly and, if not, for what reason?
    Dr. SHIELS: I understand that tenders were received from British firms. They were, however, unable to guarantee equally prompt delivery, owing principally to the fact that whereas cars of the type required can be delivered from stock in America, they require special manufacture in Great Britain.

    EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Empire Marketing Board will refrain from giving publicity to the goods of those Dominions which restrict the import of British manufactures?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Lunn): The principles on which the Empire Marketing Board works have been publicly specified on many occasions, and would not be consistent with a policy of discrimination such as that which, if I understand rightly, the hon. Member has in mind.
    Mr. MANDER: Does the hon. Gentleman consider it a reasonable proposition that we should be spending the money of this country endeavouring to persuade ourselves to buy the goods of a Dominion which does everything possible to prevent our goods going there?
    Mr. HURDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will suggest to the Empire Marketing Board that, following upon their advertisement of British beef on the Board's hoardings and elsewhere, a similar advertisement should be made of the nutritive value of liquid milk?
    Mr. LUNN: The Empire Marketing Board have already undertaken an extensive advertising campaign on their hoardings and elsewhere in favour of liquid milk, when special attention was drawn to its nutritive value. I cannot say when the Board will again undertake special advertising of milk.

  SOUTHERN NIGERIA (DISTURBANCES).
  Mr. A. SOMERVILLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received from the Governor of Nigeria any information regarding recent disturbances in Southern Nigeria; what were the causes of the trouble; and what steps have been taken to deal with the disturbances?
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement respecting the causes of the native unrest in South-Eastern Nigeria; and what is the present situation there?
  Dr. SHIELS: According to the information which my Noble Friend has received, which is, however, still scanty, the cause of the disturbances was an assessment which involved counting women in certain districts. This gave rise to a wholly unfounded rumour that it was intended to impose direct taxation on women, and recent lowering of the prices paid by merchants for native produce was a further contributing factor. On the 11th of December large crowds assembled, but in spite of assurances that there was no intention of taxing women, proceeded to loot and destroy property at various places in the neighbourhood of Aba and Opobo.
  Additional police were brought in to deal with the situation, and were reinforced by detachments of the Royal West African Frontier Force. On the 15th of December, the Governor reported that there were sufficient troops and police on the spot to deal with the situation, and that a reserve was standing by if necessary. On the 16th he reported that it had been necessary to introduce additional troops and police, and that rioters had attacked officials at Opobo, where it had been necessary for the police to fire causing 18 casualties which I regret to say are all women. It is not stated how

  1393
  many were fatal. My Noble Friend has telegraphed for further information which may be expected promptly. I may add that the districts in question are a long way from headquarters and the people are still largely in a primitive condition. It will probably take some time before the situation is quite clear. Telegraphing last night, the Governor reported that the situation round Aba was now satisfactory and that every effort was being made to avoid further bloodshed.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is this part of the territory that came to us after the War, formerly belonging to Germany, and therefore not one of the older parts of the Colony?
  Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir. It has always been part of it.

  REPARATION CLAIMS (COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES).
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the total amount to date of the claims made by British nationals belonging to British Colonies and Protectorates on account of loss or damage falling within the reparation clauses of the Treaty of Versailles; what is the machinery for considering the claims and fixing the amounts of the awards; and what steps have been taken overseas by the Colonial Office to direct public attention to the closing date for the receipt of claims?
  Dr. SHIELS: The total amount to date of the claims made by British nationals belonging to the Colonies and Protectorates on account of loss or damage falling within the reparation clauses of the Treaty of Versailles is roughly £100,000. Such claims are assessed, on behalf of the Colonial Office, by the Board of Trade in accordance with the principles adopted by the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware an announcement recently appeared in the Press with regard to the final date for the lodgment of these claims, namely, the 31st March, 1931. The Colonial and Protectorate Governments have been notified by despatch of the closing date and have been asked to give it the widest publicity. Steps are also being taken with a view to giving it publicity in other countries.
  Mr. KELLY: Have any of these amounts been paid, particularly in Malta?
  Dr. SHIELS: I require notice of that question.

  CYPRUS (CONSTITUTION).
  Mr. DENMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the revision of the constitution of Cyprus so as to satisfy the legitimate desire for increased self-government?
  Dr. SHIELS: The Secretary of State is not satisfied that the time has yet come when it would be to the general advantage of the people of Cyprus to make a constitutional change of such a nature.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it correct that adjectives like "legitimate" should appear in this connection in a question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Qualifying adjectives are always to be deprecated in questions, but they creep in sometimes.

  BRITISH FILMS (DOMINIONS).
  Mr. DAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any statistics that will show the number of British talking-films that have been banned by any of the Dominion Governments; and can he give the House particulars?
  Mr. LUNN: I have not been able to trace any statistics which would provide the information asked for.
  Mr. DAY: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the banning of "Blackmail," a noted British film; and will he suggest to the Dominions and Colonial Governments, that where British films are banned some reason ought to be given so that they may be reconstructed and resubmitted?
  Mr. LUNN: I have said that I cannot find any statistics whatever relating to films which have been banned, and, unless my hon. Friend can give me particulars and statistics, I cannot inquire into the matter. If he does so, however, I will make inquiries.
  Mr. DAY: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the correspondence between the film producers and Lord Passfield on this subject, and, if not, will he look into it?
  Mr. LUNN: I will look into it.

  IRISH FREE STATE (TREATY).
  Sir K. WOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs when the Irish Free State last made a communication to the Government concerning the Irish Treaty or its position thereunder or its relations with this country; what was the nature of such communication; and what reply was made thereto?
  Mr. LUNN: There has been official correspondence with His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State on several occasions with regard to particular articles of the Articles of Agreement of the 6th December, 1921. The most recent correspondence of this nature which has been brought to my notice is that concerning the interpretation of Article X regarding the compensation of transferred civil servants. This correspondence led up to the agreement which, it will be remembered, was discussed in this House in July during the Debates on the Irish Free State (Confirmation of Agreement) Act, 1929.
  Sir K. WOOD: Is there anything in this correspondence which raises the question of the position of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?
  Mr. LUNN: The correspondence took place during the period of the late Government, and I am not at the moment in a position to answer as to the nature of the correspondence. I have answered the question as to what the correspondence was.

  AVIATION.

    IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LIMITED (AIR MINISTRY CHARGES).
    Captain HAROLD BALFOURasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the total amount received by his Department on account of charges to Imperial Airways, Limited, for housing of aircraft and office staffs, landing fees on Government landing grounds and terminal airports, wireless and meteoro-
    1396
    logical services, and the cost to his Department for the supply of these services, and the basis on which such charges are made; and if the Air Ministry are willing to supply similar services on the same terms to any unsubsidised air line which may contemplate starting in competition with Imperial Airways?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): As the answer is long, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    At Croydon the Air Ministry receive £7,461 per annum from Imperial Airways, Limited, in respect of the housing of aircraft, the hire of office and other accommodation and the use of the aerodrome. The charges at Lympne aerodrome and at Penshurst landing ground are levied at the ordinary tariff rate for each housing or landing and vary in accordance with user; for 1928 they amounted to £282 10s. in all. The charges in respect of accommodation represent the economic rental based on the capital cost of the buildings with interest on capital, maintenance and amortization. The charges in respect of the use of the aerodromes, which include wireless and meteorological facilities, are the ordinary tariff rates available to all users but at Croydon these are commuted for a fixed annual payment; it would be impossible to segregate from the total cost to the Air Ministry the amount which the user of the aerodromes by Imperial Airways represents. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

    AIR SERVICES (CAIRO-CAPE ROUTE).
    Rear-Admiral SUETERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is in a position to say what progress has been made in developing the Cairo-Cape air route?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: The proposals for this service have been agreed in principle with the various Governments concerned and have also been accepted by Imperial Airways, Limited; and various preparatory details for the organising of the service are in hand. The survey party referred to in my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull

    1397
    Central (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) on 30th October has forwarded a first report, from which it appears that satisfactory arrangements have been made with regard to ground organisation within the Union of South Africa.
    Mr. SMITHERS: Can the hon. Gentleman give us the latest news of the two officers on this route?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I am afraid that I cannot give any news at the moment.
    Sir SAMUEL HOARE: When is it expected that the first section of the route will actually begin to be operated?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: It is expected that it will begin to be operated in June, 1930, and the latter half about six months after that.

    AIRSHIPS R 101 AND R 100.
    Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what alterations are being made to airship R 101; when she will be ready for further flights; when she will make her projected flight to India; and when the trials of airship R 100 will take place?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: As regards the first part of the question, the work in progress on R 101 consists of minor modifications which the trials have shown to be desirable and practicable, such as the enlargement of the gas bag wiring and the removal of equipment and fittings which the trials have shown not to be required. In addition, it is proposed further to increase the efficiency of the airship by the insertion of an additional bay. As regards the second and third parts, the airship will resume flying as so-on as these alterations are completed; I am not, therefore, as yet in a position to give a definite date for her first flight to India. As regards the last part of the question, R 100 was flown successfully from Howden to Cardington on Monday, and her flying trials from the Cardington tower have commenced.
    Mr. HAYCOCK: Has my hon. Friend made any arrangements for a further Parliamentary trip?
    Major GEORGE DAVIES: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any idea of what the additional cost of these alterations is likely to be, approximately?
    Captain BALFOUR: Are these alterations in any way going to reduce the factor of safety for which the airship has been designed?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Certainly not; quite the contrary.

    AEROPLANES (FLYING LIFETIME).
    Mr. PALMERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he can state the average flying lifetime of an aeroplane; and what are the methods employed by his Department to ensure that no aeroplanes are retained in commission to the prejudice of safe flying?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: It is not possible to give a definite answer to the first part of the question. The flying lifetime of an aeroplane depends upon the type of machine, the country in which it is used, and the manner of its use and other variable factors. As regards the second part, elaborate instructions in regard to the maintenance, inspection and testing of service aeroplanes are laid down in the King's Regulations and Air Council Instructions. They provide for a daily inspection of all machines in use, for further periodical inspections after a given number of hours' flying, and for complete overhaul or reconditioning after other stated periods. The system in force should make it impossible for any machine to be retained in commission if it has become unsafe for flying.
    Captain BALFOUR: Is the hon. Gentleman making every possible effort to ensure that aircraft 12 years old in design will not be used—war-time aircraft?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I must have notice of that question.

  FARNSWORTH v. MANCHESTER CORPORATION.
  Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the case of Farnworth versus Manchester Corporation and to the opinion of Lord Dunedin expressed therein; and if he will take steps to ensure that a nuisance similar to that in Manchester shall not be caused by the power station proposed to be erected in London?
  The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): My attention has been called to the case referred to. With

  1399
  regard to the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 5th December to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), of which I am sending him a copy.

  TRANSPORT.

    MOTOR TRAFFIC (DAZZLING HEADLIGHTS).
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Minister of Transport whether he will request the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to furnish him with a further report on the most modern devices and controls tried or adopted in different countries for dealing with the problem of dazzling headlights on road vehicles in time for publication before the House of Commons is asked to deal with the Road Traffic Bill?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: So far as I am aware, the elimination of dazzle has not been the subject of investigation by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. The problem involves practical as well as scientific considerations and the technical officers of my Department are in constant touch with all modern developments.
    The Road Traffic Bill does not deal with the lighting of road vehicles, which is covered by the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1927, and I am considering the advisability of making a regulation under that Act.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is the hon. Gentleman quite sure that he has sufficiently full powers under that Act and will not require further legislation to compel the adoption of particular types of glass, if his technical officers advise him that modern discovery shows that they are practicable?
    Mr. MORRISON: Yes, I think I may say that I am satisfied that the existing powers under the Act of 1927 would be sufficiently comprehensive.

    LOWER THAMES TUNNEL.
    Rear-Admiral SUETERasked the Minister of Transport if he is now in the position to make his promised statement on the construction of the Lower Thames Tunnel?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Negotiations are still continuing with the various interests concerned, and I am not at present in a position to make any further statement.

    PARKING PLACES (LONDON, W.).
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Minister of Transport if he will consider extending the time at present allowed on parking places in the West End of London?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I see no reason for extending the time at present allowed on parking places in any part of London, and would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to a question by the hon. Member for the Eye Division (Mr. Granville) on 27th November, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. HALL-CAINE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is garage accommodation for only about a quarter of the vehicles that use the West End of London and that want to park, and that even when they do go into garages, the price is exorbitant for the poorer man?
    Mr. MORRISON: I am not satisfied, on the information before us, that that is the case. In any case, we have to have some cognisance of the danger of our spending large sums of public money on street widenings and then having them, in turn, turned into free garage accommodation.
    Mr. DAY: Will my hon. Friend consider having erected at different parking centres signs similar to those in use on the Continent so that motorists will know where they can definitely park?

    LIVERPOOL-MANCHESTER ROAD.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Transport the number of persons now employed on the Liverpool-Manchester road which is in course of construction; what will be the maximum number; and when it is expected the road will be completed and ready for use?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The number of men employed on the Liverpool-Manchester road during the week ending 12th December was 528. At the beginning of November the number was 823; the reduction has been due to bad

    1401
    weather. It is anticipated that the maximum number of men to be employed at any one time will be in the neighbourhood of 1,600. The date fixed for completion of the works is 30th November, 1933, and it is hoped that the whole length of the road will be ready for use by that date. As sections are completed they will be opened to traffic.

    LONDON TRAFFIC (GOVERNMENT POLICY).
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Minister of Transport whether, before announcing the Government's plans for dealing with London traffic, he secured the agreement of the London County Council to the scheme so far as it affected their property?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The announcement to which the hon. and gallant Member refers was a. general statement of the Government's policy in regard to the co-ordination of London passenger transport, and its terms were not discussed with any of the interests concerned.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Does the hon. Gentleman think it right to make public announcements about taking over the property of these public authorities without even consulting the existing owners?
    Mr. MORRISON: I think the course of action which the Government have taken is perfectly right in the circumstances of the case. I have no reason to believe that the London County Council consider that they have been treated with any discourtesy, and discussions will proceed with them as soon as we have reached the necessary stage of detail.
    Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it would be better, instead of entering upon these long and doubtful negotiations, to reintroduce the London Traffic Bill?
    Mr. MORRISON: Not only do I think that would be wrong, but the House of Commons has rejected those Bills.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Minister of Transport whether he has referred to the London Traffic Advisory Committee to consider and advise as to the steps to be taken to deal with the congestion of traffic caused by the development of central sites like Devon-
    1402
    shire House and Grosvenor House, Westminster, and Hereford Gardens, Marble Arch, so that several hundred families are housed where few were housed before without any corresponding provision of adequate road-traffic space?
    Mr. MORRISON: The London Traffic Advisory Committee have considered and advised me on the general problem raised in the hon. and gallant Member's question. Representations have been made in individual cases, but I am advised that the powers of the London County Council are not sufficient to enable them to deal adequately with the traffic problems created by developments on sites such as those referred to by the hon. and gallant Member. I am conferring with the representatives of the London County Council with a view to seeing whether further powers could with advantage be sought.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is it not possible to consider the question of bringing in Hyde Park close by for a larger development of Park Lane?
    Mr. MORRISON: If it is a question affecting the extent of the Park, that is a matter upon which it will be necessary to consult the First Commissioner of Works.

    RURAL ROADS (GRANTS).
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Transport if the new allocations from the Road Fund for the relief of unemployment will in any way lessen the amounts hitherto available as grants for the maintenance and improvement of rural roads?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I do not anticipate that the acceleration of road and bridge works for the relief of unemployment will lessen the amounts hitherto made available for the improvement of rural roads not in Class I or Class II, but as the hon. Member is aware, the grants to the ordinary maintenance of such rural roads will be discontinued at the end of the current financial year when they will be merged in the General Exchequer contribution made to County Councils under the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1929.
    Mr. HURD: Does the hon. Gentleman anticipate that the amounts available to the county councils on road account will be in any way lessened?
    Mr. MORRISON: I was not responsible for the passage of the Local Government Act of 1929, and I am afraid I should require notice of that question.
    Mr. HURD: But are not the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues responsible for the new funds that are being spent upon improvements?
    Mr. MORRISON: If that supplementary question refers to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question on the Paper, I think he will find the point sufficiently covered in the first answer that I gave, and I do not anticipate that we shall meet difficulties on that point.

    RAILWAY PLATFORMS.
    Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONESasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the condition of the passenger platform at the London, Midland and Scottish Railway station at Flint, which platform is so low that passengers frequently have difficulty in getting in and out of compartments without assistance; and whether, seeing that the railway company have been for many years delaying the carrying out of the alterations essential to make the platform not merely more convenient but also safer for passengers, he will intervene to have the work carried out without delay?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: My attention has been previously drawn to this matter. I understand that pending the carrying out of certain extensive alterations which are contemplated at and near Flint station, the railway company do not consider it necessary to incur expenditure on the existing platforms.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Will my hon. Friend call the attention of the railway company to the platforms at Tebay and others on that railway?
    Mr. MORRISON: I came to the House ready to deal with Flint station, and I am afraid I cannot deal with the stations mentioned by my hon. Friend without notice.

    RIVER TYNE (BRIDGES).
    Mr. EDEasked the Minister of Transport at how many points the River Tyne is crossed by a bridge at points on its tidal reaches; how far from the mouth of the river the nearest bridge is; and
    1404
    what is the distance between the bridges on the tidal reaches nearest to and furthest from the mouth?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: There are six road bridges from and including Newborn Bridge to the mouth of the river. The nearest bridge to the mouth of the river is the new Tyne bridge at Newcastle, which is about 10¼ miles from the mouth. The distance between the new Tyne bridge and Newborn bridge, which is the farthest from the mouth, is about 6½ miles.
    Mr. EDEasked the Minister of Transport if he has yet reached a decision on the application of the county boroughs of South Shields and Tynemouth for the appointment of an engineer to consider the problems involved in a crossing of the River Tyne between the two boroughs; and, if not, when he is likely to reach a decision?
    Mr. WEST RUSSELLasked the Minister of Transport if, seeing that when he met representatives of the county boroughs of Tynemouth and South Shields with regard to a new bridge or tunnel across the Tyne, he agreed to appoint an engineer to investigate the matter, provided the local authorities made the necessary application, he will state whether he has received this application; if so, has he appointed an engineer; and will he state the name?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I regret that I am not yet in a position to add anything to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Russell) on the 11th December.
    Mr. EDE: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to say whether he will be able to make an announcement before Christmas?
    Mr. MORRISON: It is possible, but I should hesitate to give a definite assurance on the point.

    RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION (DURHAM).
    Mr. EDEasked the Minister of Transport whether the London and North-Eastern Railway Company contemplate any extension of the electrification of their system to any of the lines in the county of Durham; and, if so, the mileage it is proposed to electrify and the towns that will be served by the electrified lines?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am informed by the railway company that no electrification of their lines in the county of Durham is at present contemplated.

    FOOTPATHS.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Minister of Transport whether, in making any new roads, he will consider the making of adequate footpaths separated from the main road by either a hedge or a ditch?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: As I have stated in answer to previous questions, it is the practice of my Department to require the provision of adequate footpaths where it is desirable and practicable, before any scheme of improvement or new construction is approved for grants from the Road Fund. I am not satisfied that footpaths should of necessity be separated from the carriageway by a hedge or ditch; but I have issued instructions to my divisional road engineers that in the siting of footpaths regard should be had to the preservation of trees and hedges.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that it would be far prettier and more in keeping with the characteristics of the country if the footpaths were separated from the main road by hedges or trees?
    Mr. MORRISON: I think that frequently that might be the ease, but should hesitate to utter a universal dogma.
    Mr. SMITHERS: Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the requirements in certain country districts of mounted riders?
    Mr. MORRISON: That will be considered at the right time.

    JERMYN STREET, PICCADILLY (WIDENING).
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Minister of Transport whether he will confer with the local authorities as to their plans for widening Jermyn Street, Piccadilly, before the Commissioners of Crown Lands deal with the site of the Geological Museum in that street?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The question of the widening of Jermyn Street is primarily one for the local authorities concerned, and I am not aware that any such proposal is under consideration by them.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the motor traffic renders the street dangerous to life and limb?
    Mr. MORRISON: I am not aware that it is particularly so in this street. In any case, the matter is one for the Westminster City Council rather than for the Department, at any rate, in the first instance.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS.

    SEATING ACCOMMODATION.
    Mr. MALONEasked the First Commissioner of Works if be has made any investigations as to whether it would be possible to re-design the seating arrangements in the House of Commons so as to provide accommodation for all Members?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): A Select Committee investigated this problem as long ago as 1868, but no scheme has been developed in recent years. I am advised that a satisfactory scheme of reconstruction would involve large-scale alterations and very considerable expense.

    MEMBERS' SECRETARIES (TYPISTS' ROOM).
    Mr. MALONEasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the allocation of a special room in the Houses of Parliament where Members' secretaries may bring and manipulate their typewriters?
    Mr. LANSBURY: After discussion between my officers and those of this House, arrangements are being made for the room known as the Oratory, adjoining the Secretaries' room, to be allotted for the use of Members' secretaries as a typists' room.

  ST. JAMES'S PARK (DOGS).
  Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that certain restrictions have recently been imposed on the free use of St. James's Park; whether he will look into this matter and restore the original freedom that has hitherto been enjoyed?
  Mr. LANSBURY: I think that the hon. Member must have in mind the Order that dogs must be kept on leash in the park. This Order is necessary in the in-

  1407
  terest of the flowers, in view of the removal of railings, which I have carried out for the improvement of the appearance of the park, and I do not see how I can agree to cancel it.
  Colonel HOWARD-BURY: In view of the broad-minded views of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the freedom of the park, does he not also consider that every dog should have his day as well?
  Mr. LANSBURY: I also think that every flower should have its right to bloom.

  HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (MEDICAL SERVICES) ADDITIONAL GRANT BILL.
  Commander WILLIAMS: I desire to ask for your personal guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which arose last night, when we were discussing the Highlands and Islands Medical Service Bill. There was some doubt in the minds of certain Members whether this is a Money Bill, and whether it has been certified as such; and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you can give the House guidance on this matter.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Bill to which the hon. Member refers is a Money Bill, and I have certified it as such.

EXTENSION OF POLLING HOURS.
Mr. SCURR: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the hours of polling at local government elections."
Our experience in Parliamentary elections is that when the poll has extended from seven to nine o'clock, it has in many instances enabled a larger number of voters to record their votes. As a consequence, we have been able to get a far better expression of the opinion of the country. In municipal elections, we still follow the old rule of a poll from eight in the morning to eight in the evening. There was for a time a possibility in the boards of guardians elections of having the time extended to nine o'clock, but to a large extent that went; the guardians will go out of existence next April, and we shall have only the eight-to-eight poll for the other authorities.
1408
In London, these hours exclude a large number of persons from recording their votes at municipal elections. I feel sure that hon. Members opposite will support this Bill, because they are constantly assuring us how interested they are in local government, and they will agree that it is far better to have a poll of 80 or 90 per cent, of the electors than to have the miserable polls that we often have in municipal elections. A large number of people who live in places like Westcliff and Southend have to get to work in London in the morning, and they find it impossible to record their votes before they leave, and they often cannot get back in the evening in time to do so. Statistics which the London County Council have given show clearly that large numbers of people, who would otherwise be excluded from the poll, are able to vote in the extended hours. This Bill does not compel any municipality to have a 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. poll if there is no need for it. I can quite understand that there are certain areas like the City of Westminster where it is perhaps not necessary, but in those areas which are largely dormitories it is necessary. The Bill proposes to follow the ordinary practice in regard to Parliamentary elections, and to allow candidates to have the right to demand a pall from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. or 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. or 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. I think this Bill will commend itself to the House.
Major COLFOX: I rise to oppose this Bill, because I consider that it is absolutely and entirely unnecessary. It will impose unnecessary expense upon the authorities concerned, and, in addition, impose a totally unnecessary strain on the returning officer and his staff, who in many cases are old men and ought not to be asked to carry on their duties for many hours and then, very likely, be called upon to assist in the counting of the votes after the poll has closed. This may mean that some of these people will have to be at their posts continuously for 15 or more hours on end—18 hours perhaps—and it is quite unfair and unnecessary to ask them to submit to this strain.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Scurr, Mr. Edmunds, Mr. Mort, Mr. Thurtle, Mr. Cluse, Mr. Robert Richardson, and Mr. John Palin.

EXTENSION OF POLLING HOURS BILL,
"to extend the hours of polling at local government elections," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 21st January, and to be printed. [Bill 104.]

PREVENTION OF VICTIMISATION.
Sir GERVAIS RENTOUL: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower the Minister of Health to give such directions as may be necessary to local authorities for the purpose of ensuring the fulfilment of undertakings given by, and on behalf of, His Majesty's Government during the General Strike, 1926."
I am hopeful that this Bill will commend itself to a majority of the Members on all sides of the House, because it seeks to remedy a grave anomaly which has revealed itself during the past few days. We now discover that it is apparently open to any local authority to set at naught the solemn pledges given by His Majesty's Government on behalf of the nation. We are told that the Government have no power to intervene, and that so little as they are concerned in the matter that it is out of order to put questions in this House to any Member of the Government with regard to these matters, because they are not responsible for them. This Bill seeks to empower the Minister of Health, acting on behalf of the Government, to issue such directions as may be necessary to local authorities in order to ensure the fulfilment of undertakings and pledges given by His Majesty's Government. [Hon. MEMBERS: "What were those undertakings?"] I regret that it should have been necessary to revive unpleasant memories and the bitter experience through which this country passed some three years ago. I regret that very much; but the recent incident in connection with the tramway men at Hull has made it altogether unavoidable and inevitable. We have learned that a large number of tramway men employed by the Hull Corporation have been threatened with dismissal or with reduction to a lower grade in the service after three years of unblemished service on their part, and it has been publicly suggested that they are being dismissed or degraded because the majority of the Tramways
1410
Committee desire to rid themselves of men who had volunteered during the General Strike, and for no other reason. Whether this be so or not I am not able to say at the moment.
We understand that the matter is to be ventilated in the Courts, and no doubt the whole of the circumstances on both sides will then be brought into the light of day, and consequently I desire to say nothing that is likely in any way to prejudice those pending legal proceedings. But the gravity of the matter as it affects this House is that on Thursday last, when the right hon. Lady the Minister of Labour was questioned about the matter she, without attempting to deny the accuracy of the statements that were made, said she had no power to intervene in this matter. I think most of us must have heard that admission with surprise and with a certain feeling of shock, because, apart from the legal position, one would have imagined that the moral influence of the Government was sufficient to have carried very great weight, especially with a number of men who are their avowed supporters, especially as that influence was used on previous occasions by the right hon. Lady's predecessor. If it be true that the Government have no power to intervene, then I submit to the House that it is not only desirable but essential that they should have such power. That is why I hope for a large measure of support from hon. Members here, irrespective of party divisions, because there is no doubt whatever that a very clear and definite pledge was given in regard to this matter. I say that in spite of the ingenious suggestion made yesterday by the hon. Member for Shore-ditch (Mr. Thurtle) that no such pledge ever was given and that it was merely an appeal made by the Prime Minister of the day. I am afraid that will not do. [Interruption.] Public memories may be short, but they are not quite as short as that. [Interruption.]
HON. MEMBERS: Order!
Sir G. RENTOUL: Not only was such a pledge given, but it was given on the authority of the whole House, and if such pledges are given a very grave state of affairs arises if they are not observed. [Interruption.] What was the pledge? It was a pledge many times repeated throughout that period. It

1411
appeared in its clearest and most concise form in an official statement issued on 6th May, 1926, in which are contained these words:
"When the present General Strike is ended His Majesty's Government will take effectual measures to prevent victimisation of any man who remains at work or may return to work."
Mr. SEXTON: Which they did not do.
HON. MEMBERS: Order!
Sir G. RENTOUL: And then there appear these words:
"No man who does his duty loyally to the country in the present crisis will be left unprotected by the State from subsequent reprisals."
Mr. W. THORNE rose—[Interruption.]
Mr. SPEAKER: There will he an opportunity for reply.
Sir G. RENTOUL: On 13th May, after the General Strike—[Interruption.]
Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. T. Smith) not to keep on interrupting.
4.0 p.m.
Sir G. RENTOUL: On 13th May, after the General Strike had collapsed, the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin), then Prime Minister, used these words in this House:
"I have given no pledges at it all during this conflict except one, and that is, that those who help the Government should not Suffer for having done so. … If ever I went back on that pledge, who would ever trust me again? Not only that, but who would ever trust a Government again?"
The present Prime Minister said, in the course of the same discussion, that the House should make a declaration to the whole of the nation to that effect. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), now Lord Privy Seal, said:
"I ask every Member of this House who has any influence to join in substantiating the plea of the Prime Minister, with which I heartily associate myself."
As far as the Liberal party is concerned, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), at that time used these words:
"I should also like to say I am in entire agreement with the Prime Minister that it is essential that the pledges he gave
1412
during the strike should be redeemed. Anyone confronted with such an emergency as the Government had to encounter had to take action for the purpose of carrying on the life of the community. They could only do so by encouraging men to undertake tasks which had been deserted by others. In order to do so, pledges had to be given both to those who remained at their tasks and to those who were prepared to come in, and I cannot see how any Government, or any employers, can fail to carry out pledges of that kind without dishonour."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th May, 1926; eels. 1045–57, Vol. 195.]
I could multiply quotations of that kind, but it is quite clear from what I have said that this pledge was given by His Majesty's Government on behalf of the nation, and it was given with the express consent and approval of all parties in this House. In these circumstances, I do submit that it is intolerable that a local council should he in a position to set such a solemn undertaking at nought, and especially when we are told that it is part of a long-cherished design. One of the councillors concerned is reported in the Press to have said publicly that his party on the council had been waiting for a long time to get these men out. Another Member of the committee said that if the men were not dismissed, they must definitely go to the bottom. That is to say, for the last three years these men have been working satisfactorily, some of them have obtained promotion—
Mr. THORNE: Over the heads of others.
Sir G. RENTOUL: —and now they are to be either dismissed or to go right to the bottom of the ladder. As I say, there may be an answer to all this, but if the facts are as stated, I do submit that it would be an abuse of power by the tramways committee and the whole corporation. I hope it is not true, but it is certainly a breach of both the letter and the spirit of the pledge that was very solemnly given in this House. It upsets an equitable agreement that has been working very well for a long time past. It revives bitter memories. I do urge upon the House that this is a matter in regard to which the Government ought to be in a position to intervene, and if they have not got the authority and the power to do so, they ought to be accorded it, as they are under the terms of this Bill. For all these reasons, I hope I shall obtain not only the leave of the

1413
House to bring in this Big, but also a very large measure of active sympathy and support.
Mr. MUFF: I rise to oppose this Bill. It is somewhat of an ordeal for a new Member to be called upon, but I should be lacking in my duty if I did not, as representing part of the county borough of Kingston-upon-Hull, try to inform the House as to the real facts of this case. I want to say right out that this is an attempt to put right the victimisation which has been going on since 1st May, 1926, at the behest of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). At the outset, seeing that the hon. Member opposite has mentioned the City of Hull and its Corporation, it would be as well if I might be allowed to quote the actual resolution passed on 26th November, 1929. It states:
"That the whole of the volunteers be given notice to terminate their engagement; that they be given the option of applying for re-engagement"—
HON. MEMBERS: Why?
Mr. MUFF: I will try to explain that when I have read the Resolution.
"the option of applying for re-engagement in the lowest grades; that the principle of promotion which was in operation prior to May, 1926, shall apply, namely, that seniority of services, coupled with ability, shall be the basis of promotion, and that with respect to those employés who were on the undertaking prior to May, 1926, and Who have since received promotion for other reasons than the one outlined above, the general manager be instructed to review their cases on the basis of the principle Laid down."
It is a sorry history of what has been transpiring, not only in the city of Kingston-upon-Hull, but in other places where systematic victimisation took place. Kingston-upon-Hull was affected for days after the rest of the country had come to terms owing to the fact that the new party of the right hon. Member for Epping, the undergraduate party, filled the city. They came in large numbers at a cost of £15,000 to the rates. [An HON. MEMBERS: "Mostly spent in drink."] No, Sir, they only spent £900 odd in refreshments. When the strike was settled, they called in mind the words of the Leader of the Opposition, the then Prime Minister. It was difficult. There were only two Labour members upon the tramways committee. The Conservative majority expelled them, and refused to
1414
allow them to do their duty to the burgesses of Kingston-upon-Hull. The right hon. Member for Epping, the editor of the "British Gazette," in putting into force the Emergency Powers Act, saw to it that one of these men was arrested and sent to gaol for six months. He came out of a sick bed suffering from a diseases prostration, and, instead of excusing Limy they persecuted him.
Let us come to the crux of what happened. The then chairman of the tramways committee pitchforked into offices of responsible men volunteers contrary to the terms of the advertisement for their engagement which I have here in black and white, and made them into inspectors, supervisors and so forth. To such an extent had the scandal grown that even the party with which hon. Members opposite are associated had a committee of inquiry, and it was found that many men who had been promoted were inefficient. Fourteen were left, and of these one committed suicide, one died, and, with the exception of three or four, they were sacked by Members of the party opposite because they were inefficient. It amounts to this: There are 113 volunteers to-day. They have received notice which takes effect at the end of February, and the hon. Member opposite and his lady friend need not be under any apprehension that they will have to put their hands into their pockets to pay for any Christmas dinners. These men, if they are out of employment, will put themselves out of employment. Boiled down to the actual facts, it concerns two inspectors, three time-keepers, and 18 motor-men who were promoted contrary to the service conditions, and contrary to the regulations of the advertisement which I have here. Those men will be offered reinstatement in the grade at which they should be put, and according to the terms of the corporation service, that is, at the lowest grade, and men who have been victimised since the General Strike are going to be promoted with from 20 to 25 years' service. We want to bury the hatchet, and but for the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who has endeavoured to bring about a class war, the hatchet would have been buried long ago. I am told that, in football parlance, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has pet the right hon. Gentleman the Member for

1415
Epping on the transfer list. I want to say, in conclusion, that if I thought one of those 113 men was going to be thrown on the streets I should not be standing up in my place this afternoon opposing this Measure. I am convinced that justice is going to be done to those 113 men, and also to the 700 men who are left, as well as to the manager who was victimised at the behest of the party
opposite. I hope the House will not give a First Reading to this Bill.
Question put:
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower the Minister of Health to give such directions as may be necessary to local authorities for the purpose of ensuring the fulfilment of undertakings given by, and on behalf of, His Majesty's Government during the General Strike, 1926."
The House divided: Ayes, 185; Noes, 202.

Division No. 108.]

AYES.

[4.17 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Fison, F. G. Clavering

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Albery, Irving James

Foot, Isaac

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)

Ford, Sir P. J.

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Aske, Sir Robert

Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

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

Atholl, Duchess of

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Ganzoni, Sir John

Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Balniel, Lord

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

Beaumont, M. W.

Glassey, A. E.

Peake, Capt. Osbert

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Penny, Sir George

Berry, Sir George

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Granville, E.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Birkett, W. Norman

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Preston, Sir Walter Rueben

Blindell, James

Gray, Milner

Pybus, Percy John

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Ramsbotham, H.

Bracken, B.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Rathbone, Eleanor

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Briscoe, Richard George

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

Remer, John R.

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

Hanbury, C.

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Harbord, A.

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

Hartington, Marquess of

Rothschild, J. de

Buchan, John

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Ruggles-Brise, Lieut-Colonel E. A.

Buckingham, Sir H.

Haslam, Henry C.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Bullock, Captain Malcolm

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

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Butler, R. A.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Salmon, Major I.

Castle Stewart, Earl of

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie.

Savery, S. S.

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

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

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

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Chapman, Sir S.

Hunter, Dr. Joseph

Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

Christie, J. A.

Hurd, Percy A.

Skelton, A. N.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

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

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Iveagh, Countess of

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Colfox, Major William Philip

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Smithers, Waldron

Colman, N. C. D.

Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Colville, Major D. J.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Cowan, D. M.

King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Cranbourne, Viscount

Knox, Sir Alfred

Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)

Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

Thomson, Sir F.

Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Train, J.

Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W)

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

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

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Warrendor, Sir Victor

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Macquisten, F. A.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Duckworth, G. A. V.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

Eden, Captain Anthony

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Edge, Sir William

Marjoribanks, E. C.

Womersley, W. J.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Mond, Hon. Henry

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Elmley, Viscount

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

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

England, Colonel A.

Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

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

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Faile, Sir Bertram G.

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Sir Gervais Rentoul and Major

Fielden. E. B.

Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

Carver.

NOES.

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

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

Quibell, D. J. K.

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

Herriotts, J.

Raynes, W, R.

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

Richards, R.

Angell, Norman

Hoiline, A.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Ayles, Walter

Hopkin, Daniel

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Horrabin, J. F.

Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Barnes, Alfred John

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Ritson, J.

Batey, Joseph

Isaacs, George

Romerll, H. G.

Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Rowson, Guy

Benson, G.

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Kelly, W. T.

Sanders, W. S.

Broad, Francis Alfred

Kennedy, Thomas

Sandham, E.

Brockway, A. Fenner

Kinley, J.

Sawyer, G. F.

Bromfield, William

Kirkwood, D.

Scrymgeour, E.

Bromley, J.

Knight, Holford

Scurr, John

Brooke, W.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Sexton, James

Brothers, M.

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Brawn, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Lawrence, Susan

Sherwood, G. H.

Buchanan, G.

Lawson, John James

Shield, George William

Burgess, F. G.

Leach, W.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

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

Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

Shillaker, J. F.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Shinwell, E.

Caine, Derwent Hall-

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Cameron, A. G.

Lindley, Fred W.

Simmons, C. J.

Cape, Thomas

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Sinkinson, George

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

Logan, David Gilbert

Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

Charleton, H. C.

Longbottom, A. W.

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Chater, Daniel

Longden, F.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Clarke, J. S.

Lowth, Thomas

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Cluse, W. S.

Lunn, William

Sorensen, R.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Spero, Dr. G. E.

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

McElwee, A.

Stamford, Thomas W.

Compton, Joseph

McEntee, V. L.

Stephen, Campbell

Cove, William G.

McKinlay, A.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Daggar, George

MacLaren, Andrew

Strauss, G. R.

Dallas, George

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Sullivan, J.

Dalton, Hugh

Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

Sutton, J. E.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Mansfield, W.

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Day, Harry

March, S.

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Marcus, M.

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

Dickson, T.

Mathers, George

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Pialstow)

Dukes, c

Matters, L. W.

Thurtle, Ernest

Ede, James Chuter

Maxton, James

Tout, W. J.

Edmunds, J. E.

Messer, Fred

Turner, B.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Milner, J.

Viant, S. P.

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Morley, Ralph

Wallhead, Richard C.

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton)

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Watkins, F. C.

Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

Mort, D. L.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Gibson, H. M. (Lanes. Mossley)

Moses, J. J. H.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah

Gillett, George M.

Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Wellock, Wilfred

Gosling, Harry

Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

Welsh, James (paisley)

Gossling, A. G.

Murnin, Hugh

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Gould, F.

Naylor, T. E.

West, F. R.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Noel Baker, P. J.

Westwood, Joseph

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

Oldfield, J. R.

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Groves, Thomas E.

Palin, John Henry

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Grundy, Thomas W.

Paling, Wilfrid

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

Palmer, E. T.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Perry, S. P.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Hardie, George D.

Phillips. Dr. Marion

Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)

Hayes, John Henry

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

Pole, Major D. G.

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Potts, John S.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Muff and Mr. Arnott.

PUBLIC PETITIONS.
First Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read. Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SOVIET RUSSIA.
Captain PETER MACDONALD: I beg to move,
"That this House expresses its disapproval of the methods of the present Government in its conduct of the negotiations with the representative of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and condemns its careless drafting of the protocol of agreement."
I put this question down for discussion to-day because of the unsatisfactory nature of the answers which I have received to numerous questions which I addressed to the Foreign Secretary on the negotiations with the Soviet Government, and the attitude taken up by that Government in regard to propaganda methods organised in this country and throughout the Empire. This question has been considered by the representative of the Soviet Government and the Foreign Secretary. Hon. Members are aware that I have been a somewhat persistent questioner on this subject. I think I may also claim that I have not only been persistent, but I have been thoroughly consistent in my attitude on this matter. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) occupied the position which is now occupied by the present Foreign Secretary I did not spare him, because I thought it was my duty to raise this question, but I found the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham more open to reason than the present Foreign Secretary.
Let me, first of all, say that I believe it is a fundamental misconception, and it is wrong, to suppose that in dealing with the Soviet Government we can be guided by any precedent in the conduct of negotiations with any other nation. It will be recalled that the famous lady in the past was no ordinary woman; in fact, she was no lady at all. The Soviet Government is no ordinary Government; it is, in fact, no Government at all. The real governing body in Russia to-day is the Third International, otherwise known as the Comintern. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] A Government is that body within a nation in which authority resides, and no authority resides to-day in the Soviet Government as such; as I have said, the chief governing authority to-day in Russia is the Comintern or the Third International. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which?"] Even if we credit the
1448
Soviet Government with the best and most honourable intentions in the world, it does not follow that they are in a position to carry out or fulfil those intentions; but I maintain that the Soviet Government have not honourable intentions. Even while—
Mr. THURTLE rose—
Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the terms of this Motion are extremely narrow, and that the only question which it proposes to raise is that of disapproval of the methods adopted in the negotiations with the representative of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. That is a very narrow issue, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman must not go beyond the actual terms of the Motion.
Captain MACDONALD: Of course, Sir, I accept your ruling, but I thought that I was only dealing with relevant matters, and, in dealing with the activities of the Third International, or the I.K.K.I., which is the Executive of the Third International, after the negotiations took place, I thought that I was perfectly in order. I would like—
Mr. SPEAKER: For that purpose the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to put down another Motion altogether. I cannot allow him, on this Motion, to discuss something else.
Captain MACDONALD: It is because of the activities of the Third International that I have put down this Motion to-day—
Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing about the Third International in this Motion.
Captain MACDONALD: I am trying to point out to the House that they are one and the same thing, and it has been admitted on more than one occasion in this House, and outside this House, that they were.
Mr. SPEAKER: Even if they were one and the same thing, the Motion is confined to dealing with the methods of the present Government.
Captain MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that the representatives of the present Government have admitted that these two bodies are one and the same thing—that the present Prime Minister of this country has admitted that; and,

1449
in view of that fact, is it not impossible to deal with this question without referring to it?
Mr. SPEAKER: I really do not think that the hon. and gallant Member realises what this Motion means. It states very definitely that it asks the House to express disapproval of the methods adopted in the negotiations by the present Government. It does not say anything else at all, and we must confine ourselves to that point.
Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is not a fact that the proceedings in regard to the recognition of Russia were all on the basis of the question of propaganda, and that these two bodies are one and the same is admitted by the Prime Minister?
Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: On a further point of Order. May I point out that the Motion also asks the House to express disapproval of the careless drafting of the Protocol of Agreement; and, surely, my hon. and gallant Friend is entitled to show how the Protocol is carelessly drafted by referring to the Third International and the Comintern?
Mr. SPEAKER: When the hon. and gallant Member comes to that part of his Motion which deals with the drafting of the Protocol, I shall allow him to proceed, but I cannot see what this has to do with the Third International.
Major COLFOX: Might I submit a further point to you, Sir, namely, that if my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) is arguing, as perhaps he is, that his reason, or one of his reasons, for objecting to the course followed by the Foreign Secretary, is that the Foreign Secretary was dealing with an undesirable and untrustworthy type of negotiator, and if that is the reason why he is calling in question the character of the negotiators in the other side, would not that be within the Rules of Order?
Mr. SPEAKER: I really cannot see that this has anything to do with the matter. It must also be recollected that this House, as recently as the 5th November, passed a Resolution saying that it was in favour of the resumption
1450
of diplomatic relations with Russia, and we must not stultify ourselves by saying that we do not want them now.
Commander BELLAIRS: On a point of Order. The Government contend that they have a guarantee against the activities of the Third International, and surely it is possible for hon. Members on this side to say that, because of the conduct of the Third International, and also because exactly the same words have failed in the past, the conduct of the negotiations has not been satisfactory?
Mr. SPEAKER: That might be a consideration in connection with the question of resuming diplomatic relations, but the House has already passed a Resolution saying that it was in favour of resuming diplomatic relations, and I really do not see that it has anything to do with the present Motion.
Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it not clear that, under the guise of discussing the method of negotiation of the present Foreign Secretary, bon. Members opposite are attempting to insult a nation with whom this Government is in friendly relations?
Mr. SPEAKER: That is a different point altogether.
Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: Will it not be in order to deal with the Protocol which was signed by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and, when the Protocol is dealt with, will it not be in order to try to point out how ambiguous it is, and also that the reason for the ambiguity is that it does not make clear the organic connection between the Soviet Government and the Third International?
Mr. SPEAKER: I have said that, when the hon. and gallant Member came to that part of his Motion which dealt with the careless drafting of the Protocol, I should think that he would be in order in what he was saying.
Mr. WALLHEAD: Could we not adjourn for half an hour, so that hon. Members opposite may make up their minds what they want to do?
Captain MACDONALD: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, although it certainly narrows the scope of this Debate. I will confine myself to the issues which certainly are contained in this Motion,

1451
namely, those of the conduct of negotiations and the drafting of the Protocol. Surely, it is a very serious departure from precedent that negotiations of so serious a character should have been conducted in such a very slipshod manner. When the House adjourned for the Recess, we had a very clear and definite statement from the Prime Minister to the effect that in no circumstances would there be an exchange of Ambassadors until and unless certain undertakings were given by the Soviet Government. One of those undertakings was to be to the effect that they were to recognise their debts to us, and the other to the effect that propaganda should cease. It was also very clearly stated that, before any definite agreement was made, the matter should be discussed in this House. If that procedure had been followed, we should probably have had no grievance at all, but, instead of the matter being brought to this House to be discussed, it was brought to a public house in some other part of the country, and that is one aspect of the matter, at any rate, which I think I am within the scope of my Motion in discussing.
Let us consider this Protocol. I venture to say that never has a State document been drafted in so slipshod and careless a manner in the history of British diplomacy. It clearly and definitely states in Article 9 that, before Ambassadors are exchanged, the agreement must come before Parliament. We were later informed that "Parliament" does not mean both Houses of Parliament, but only this House. Surely that is a very grave and serious departure from what has always been considered to be the constitutional practice in this country. This is the first time, I think, in history—
Mr. SULLIVAN: On a point of Order. May I ask if the hon. Member is in order in insulting the other House?
Captain MACDONALD: That, I am afraid, would be outside the scope of this Motion, but, nevertheless, I maintain that, in this departure from Parliamentary and constitutional practice, the right hon. Gentleman has established a precedent which is very serious and a very grave danger to the Constitution of this country. Article 9 of the Protocol also states clearly and definitely that the matter will be brought before Parliament
1452
this Session. As the Protocol was drafted and dated in October last, it would be necessary, if it were to be carried out in its entirety, that it should be brought before Parliament, not this Session, but early next Session; that would be early in the coming year. There are two very serious errors in the Protocol of Agreement, and I venture to say that, when the local football team meets in that same alehouse to discuss its annual affairs, its proceedings will be conducted in a far more orderly manner than was the business discussed by Mr. Dovgalevski and the right hon. Gentleman opposite. We are informed that he did not mean what he said. Imagine what this means to people who can only understand words to mean what they say. Far be it from me to say that those of us who are unable to probe the sphinxlike brain of the right hon. Gentleman opposite understand what he means when he says that Parliament must ratify the Protocol this Session or early next Session. Therefore, I contend that, on this and many other grounds, I could very strongly criticise the attitude of the Government in recognising the Soviet at the present time, the manner in which they have conducted the negotiations, and the careless way in which they have drafted the Protocol of Agreement. I ask the House to agree with me in my view and to support this Motion.
Captain EDEN: I beg to second the Motion.
I believe all sections of the House should be grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for the use he has made of the fortunes of the ballot. We on this aide are certainly grateful to shim for the opportunity which it gives us of reviewing the methods adopted by the Foreign Secretary in the course of these negotiations and, I trust, of effectually criticising them. Hon. Members opposite will have a valuable opportunity of trying to unravel the tangled mesh into which' the right hon. Gentleman's method of negotiation has involved himself and his Government, whereas hon. Members below the Gangway do not seem conspicuous for their interest in the Debate at the moment. No doubt, when they come to speak they will give us another example of the tolerant broadmindedness which is so useful a cloak for the differences in the party.

1453
There is in the Motion no reference whatever to the fact that the Government have seen fit to renew diplomatic relations. I would not wish to criticise them for that for, after all, they made so many pledges at the Election that we can hardly blame them for trying to redeem the only one which lies within the immediate sphere of their practical politics. Therefore, we certainly have no complaint, but I would try to review the methods which the right hon. Gentleman pursued from the beginning of these negotiations. In July he was very firm. The strong rays of the summer sun strengthened him. September came and he was less firm in his methods, with the result that the Soviet Government claimed a victory, which surprised the Foreign Secretary very much, although I do not think it can really have surprised anyone else.
The Under-Secretary in our last debate produced a very ingenious explanation. He told us that the representative of the Soviet Government had not perhaps quite understood all that was going on, because he was not very familiar with the language. That explanation is not likely to carry much conviction. I think the real reason for the method followed by the right hon. Gentleman is far simpler than that. With September came the Socialist party conference, and the right hon. Gentleman's concern was to make a good splash from the pier at Brighton. He knew that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do that, for all his more slender proportions, because he was fresh from his triumph at the Hague, and he knew the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) would make a good splash not only for his names' sake but because he told them he came back from Canada with something up his sleeve, though he did not tell us then that that something was a vacuum. What was the right hon. Gentleman to do in the face of his two triumphant colleagues? He reviewed the sphere of foreign politics and he found everywhere that, so successful had been the endeavours of the late Government, that there was no scope except in the resumption of relations with Russia, and upon that he concentrated. We can guess the methods that followed, the unofficial diplomacy so characteristic of the negotiations of the party opposite with the Soviet Govern-
1454
ment. We can quite easily picture the coming to and fro until at last this agreement was arrived at, and the kettle of an uneasy friendship was put on the hob at Lewes.
So much for the right hon. Gentleman's method of negotiation up to that time, but what has been happening since the date of the last debate in the House? He has not been watching that kettle. It has boiled over but he has paid no attention to it. He would not look at it. He would not even hear it, although it has been making noise enough. The Soviet Government, through its representative organ, has not attempted to conceal its view of this Protocol and of its terms, or its view of the right hon. Gentleman's methods of negotiation. "Isvestia" is not in the same position as a newspaper in this country. It is not an organ of public, or even of national opinion. It is an organ of Government policy, which is not always the same thing even in this country. Therefore, when that paper makes a, definite declaration as to the interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman's policy you may be sure that that interpretation represents the views of the Soviet Government. I do not think that will be denied for a moment. In the terms of this Protocol is the right hon. Gentleman's very definite assertion, with which he is familiar, as to his interpretation of its terms. May I quote one sentence from his speech when we last debated this subject. He made it perfectly evident:
"After 1924 it has been plainly stated to the Soviet representatives, and stated again twice by myself, that the Communist International will be regarded by His Majesty's Government as an organ of the Soviet Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1929; col. 901, Vol. 231.]
That is a sufficiently clear declaration. In response to that "Isvestia" makes a perfectly plain declaration. It says:
"The Soviet did not and cannot promise to curb the activities of the Communist International, which is an independent organisation outside Soviet control."
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman, like the previous speaker, is going quite outside the scope of the Motion.
Captain EDEN: I am dealing with something that is in the Protocol and with the right hon. Gentleman's method of commenting and negotiating about it.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman forgets that this House so recently as 5th November definitely passed a Resolution approving the resumption of diplomatic relations. It is quite out of order at one moment to pass such a Resolution and the next to say you do not approve of it. It cannot be done in this House.
Captain EDEN: I was not suggesting that we should ask the House to reverse its decision on the last occasion. However, if that is ruled out of order, I will pass to the next point. I maintain that there is under existing conditions and under existing negotiations a flat contradiction in terms. The right hon. Gentleman has seen the Soviet representative himself in the last few days and I think I am entitled to ask whether he sought from him any explanation of the comment of his own official organ upon the methods of negotiation which have been going on between the right hon. Gentleman and himself.
Mr. SULLIVAN: On a point of Order. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman entitled to put a question like that under this Motion?
Captain EDEN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us that information, which I feel sure will be both of use and of interest to the House. I could not help, as I watched this method of negotiation, recalling the words of the Prime Minister in April last when he told us that by hook or by crook it was his intention to see recognition finally carried out. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can tell us what at the present moment is the position as to the negotiations with the Dominions and what their view has been, whether he has received it personally and, if not, what is the present state of those negotiations.
I would pass to the domestic side of this question. In the terms of the Protocol is the statement, with which the Foreign Secretary is very familiar, that he will attempt to secure the approval of Parliament for the Protocol. We know, from replies to questions, that by Parliament he meant the House of Commons, a rather curious and somewhat unfortunate lapse, because as the outcome of it we have this extraordinary position. Parliament has, in fact, ex-
1456
pressed itself quite as emphatically against these terms as it has expressed itself in favour of them, and we are now proceeding to the actual ratification after these prolonged negotiations and we are in this position, that one party to the negotiations has already expressed its determination not to adhere to its terms, while the other party has already expressed an equally indeterminate point of view as to whether it intends to adhere to the terms or not.
Mr. THURTLE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this House is the operative part of Parliament, whereas the other House is merely the decorative part?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member really must not make that kind of remark.
Captain EDEN: Those of us on this side of the House who have reviewed the course of these negotiations have often wondered to ourselves what was the fatal fascination which hon. Members opposite found themselves incapable of resisting in all negotiations with the Soviet Government, because it is a fatal fascination. The caresses of the bear have already exterminated the life of one Socialist Government and, unless I am very much mistaken, unless the right hon. Gentleman is more careful in the future than he has been in the past, they may exterminate the life of another. I cannot believe the right hon. Gentleman is under any illusion that the feelings of that Government's representatives are so extraordinarily friendly to himself.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now condemning the action of the House itself by condemning the resumption of diplomatic relations.
Captain EDEN: I will turn, then, to the concluding stages of what I have to say. I regret the method of these negotiations, because I fear that their whole course, not only here but towards the Dominions, cannot but create the very unfortunate impression that this country is uncertain in its views and that in right hon. Gentleman is in some doubt why he is actually negotiating himself, and I fear, in the future that cannot but have very unfortunate consequences. I still hope the right hon. Gentleman, even at this late hour, will try to obtain a

1457
final explanation of these matters in negotiations where there is still a difference of opinion. If he cannot do that, I hope he will have the courage to say so, for it is far better from the national point of view that we should come to a conclusion which we dislike than that there should continue to be over these negotiations, as most undoubtedly there is to-day, a maze of uncertainty which has most unfortunate results both here and abroad and which is doing the Government no good, and certainly will not facilitate their further progress.
5.0 p.m.
Mr. SANDERS: I rise to oppose this Motion, and I do so in a very happy position. I represent a constituency which is unanimously in favour of the proceedings of this Government with regard to the resumption of relations with Russia. Naturally, my own party in my constituency supports the action of the Government and their methods. My Liberal opponents are also with me in my support. The local Conservative party is so enthusiastic and so passionately fervent in its support of the Government in this matter that sometimes I feel a little shocked at the degeneracy which is coming over my local Conservative friends, or opponents, as the case may be. Finally, my local Communist party, which is the ally and sometimes the household pet of the local Conservative party, naturally also supports the Government in this matter most enthusiastically. I ought, if I may be allowed, to commiserate with the Mover and the Seconder of this Motion that they have been debarred from carrying out its real intention. We on this side of the House knew very well when this Motion was put down that the object was, not as was stated in the Motion, but to give an opportunity to the other side to bait the Government of a country with whom we are in friendly relations.
Mr. SMITHERS: Not yet.
Mr. SANDERS: Less than anybody in this House have I any love for Bolsheviks or Communists, and less than any man—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member seems to be trying to run on the same lines as the previous speakers. He must confine himself to the terms of the Motion.
Mr. SANDERS: I agree, and I apologise for being out of order. The criticism of the Mover and the Seconder limits itself to two points only in connection with these negotiations. The first point is that the Foreign Secretary had the audacity to carry on a part of these negotiations with a duly accredited representative of the Russian Government at a perfectly respectable hotel. I have a fairly long political memory, and I recollect that on one occasion, when certain critical matters were being discussed by Parliament and by the country, the late Lord Rosebery threw out the suggestion that the best way to deal with critical matters was for a couple of representative men to meet at a wayside inn. I have no doubt that the Foreign Secretary, who as everybody knows, by what we have seen of his work during the last two months, must have carefully studied the best means of carrying on negotiations based on the practice and precepts of the past, decided to take the advice of the late Lord Rosebery and to carry on the negotiations in the manner that that lamented nobleman put before the country at that time. I think that in dealing with what I may call an unconventional Government such as the Russian Government, slightly unconventional methods are very likely to lead to the best results, and I am certain that, as far as the country is concerned, no matter whether these arrangements and negotiations were unconventional or not, the vast majority of our people are gratified that we are on the point, if we are not already there, of resuming full and friendly relations with this great country.
The other point is the question of the interpretation of the word "Parliament." In this matter, it is a question of interpretation, and the Prime Minister has stated that, when he made the promise that the matter would be brought before Parliament, he had in his mind this House. It is true—I am quite willing to admit it—that the other House is a part of Parliament, but I would suggest, without any disrespect to the other House, that if this House agrees to the line that was taken and the Protocol that was drawn up, that is all that really matters. That agreement has been made. The methods may be questioned, as no doubt any method would have been questioned, but we have come, by what I consider to be the skilled and the proper action of

1459
the Foreign Secretary, to the end, I hope, of a very difficult situation. I trust, too, that not only will it end the difficult situation which has lasted for three or four years between us And Russia, but that it will put an end to the undignified and the vulgar attacks that are being made on another country and will lead to a better understanding between two big peoples.
Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Sanders) is mistaken in thinking that we on this side of the House object to the conduct of these negotiations on the ground that the treaty, if it is to be called a treaty, or the agreement was concluded in a public-house. Personally, I think that that was the best thing about it. I think that it is a good honest inn that is rather degraded by this agreement. It has troubled us a good deal because we are directly against the policy, but that is not a question which I want to touch upon in speaking here to-day.
I want to ask one or two direct questions of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, who, I suppose, will reply on this Motion. I want to ask whether, when he undertook these negotiations with Mr. Dovgalevski, he first of all did not put the suggestion that questions regarding propaganda and the payment of debts due to British nationals should be settled before Ambassadors were exchanged? I understand from the White Paper which was issued that these questions were put up, and that this was the cause of the first breakdown of the negotiations which took place on 1st August when the Foreign Office issued a statement to say that negotiations would not be resumed at the present. Then we had an interval until 8th September, when, I think, the right hon. Gentleman directed another letter to the Soviet Government, 'and then we had the negotiations started again on 24th September, and on the 29th, the final agreement. Is it not a fact that in this final agreement the right hon. Gentleman climbed down from the position which he had first taken up, that some agreement regarding propaganda in future and the settlement of the claims of British
1460
nationals for debts should be made before Ambassadors were exchanged? I want to ask that question.
The other question I want to ask relates to what has been going on since we had this partial agreement at the beginning of October. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Captain Eden) pointed out that an official newspaper in Russia had stated that they, the Soviet Government, would not be responsible for any action by the Third International. We had the statement of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer that the three things were a trinity, three in one and one in three—the Soviet Government, the Comintern, and the Profitern. It has been held on all sides of this House that these three are really one. Everybody knows that the Comintern could not exist for a month unless it obtained assistance from Government funds.
Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: On a point of Order. I beg to call your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the fact that Mr. Speaker ruled out all these discussions.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): I was following the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument, as I was not sure whether he was out of order at the moment.
Sir A. KNOX: I was trying to allude to this as part of the negotiations, because I consider that all the actions of the Soviet Government and of this Government here until the ambassadors are finally exchanged are part of the negotiations. I think that this lapse is a thing that definitely ought to be referred to in the prolongation of these negotiations. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will give the Rouse to-day an undertaking that this question will really be gone into and that the ambassadors will not be exchanged until the Soviet Government give a definite promise that they will be responsible for the actions of the Comintern now and in the future. If he will give that undertaking, we on this side of the House will go into this agreement with a lighter heart. I do not want to go into any further matters regarding the agreement with the Soviet Government, because I might be out of order.
Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: I rise to oppose this Motion, and I do so because I have the honour to represent a constituency which very heartily approves of the policy pursued by the Government and by the Foreign Secretary, and which is already beginning to reap substantial benefit on that account. Your predecessor, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, gave a Ruling which necessarily restricts this Debate. I was interested, in listening to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Macdonald), to hear that his main reason for moving this Motion was the unsatisfactory answers which had been given to questions which he had recently put to the Foreign Secretary. From what he said subsequently, I arrived at the conclusion that he had two other complaints. First, he complained very strongly that the wording was very slipshod and that the Foreign Secretary was open to criticism because, in using the word "Parliament," he had not made it clear that it included both Houses. I have searched through the Debate which took place in this House on the 5th November, and I have looked through the speeches of the late Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister with a view to discovering whether or not they raised this particular point as to the submission of these proposals to Parliament. I have looked in vain for enlightenment from that quarter. Neither the late Foreign Secretary nor the Prime Minister made any complaint as to the wording of the Protocol in this connection, and it seems to me that the hon. Member who moved the Motion might very well take some lessons in the accuracy of drafting a Motion which meets his own wishes. He should hesitate to rush into a chapter of charges against the Foreign Secretary of such a character that they are a grave reflection upon the efficiency of his own Front Bench.
If there was anything in the complaint as to these letters not being submitted to Parliament we might have expected that the Prime Minister and the late Foreign Secretary, who have had a great experience in these matters, would have taken the opportunity of drawing the attention of the House of Commons to the omission. I very respectfully submit that submission to Parliament as laid down in the Protocol has been fulfilled.
1462
As there has been submission to the House of Commons, there has been submission to Parliament, although another place has taken the constitutional way of expressing their opinion. I cannot escape the conclusion that the expression of opinion that has recently taken place in another place is not unrelated to this Motion. In both cases the desire seems to be to create discord, to perpetuate friction and to embarrass the Government but, fortunately, neither in this country nor abroad are the members of the other Chamber taken at the same value that they place upon themselves.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not make use of that expression with regard to the Members of another place.
Mr. TAYLOR: If I have made any allusion to another place which is out of order in this House, I am sorry, but I should be failing in my duty if I did not attempt to make it clear that in expressing that opinion upon this matter they really represented their own opinion and not the opinion of the elected representatives of the people. I cannot see why this Motion should have been put upon the Order Paper at the present stage. In the policy that they have pursued the Government have made the best of a very difficult situation. What could they have done to deal with this problem in a most efficient and businesslike manner than the policy outlined in the Protocol? They might have restored the position as it existed prior to the breaking off of diplomatic relations, but in that case we should have been left without the possibility of a full and complete settlement of all the outstanding questions between the two nations. If they had taken that course we should have been thrown back upon the operations of the Trade Agreement so far as our commercial relationships were concerned and, on the other hand, we should not have got a settlement on the question of debts and counter claims or on the question of propaganda.
The Trade Agreement of 1921, so far as it was workable, was an agreement to make an agreement, and was regarded as the preliminary to a full Treaty which, even at that time, was considered to be essential to a satisfactory solution of all the difficulties existing between the two countries. It seems to me that that

1463
method of restoring the situation which existed before the breaking off of relationships under the later Government would not have settled anything, but would have left us in a very indeterminate position. On the other hand, the Government might have taken the course of exchanging Ambassadors absolutely unconditionally. No hon. Member on this side of the House would have desired the Government to take unnecessarily precipitate action of that kind, because we desire to see a proper safeguard for British interests in this matter as much as hon. Members opposite. We desire to see our country and the various parts of the Empire safeguarded against propaganda, and we desire to see a settlement of the problem of debts. I suggest that the undertaking as laid dawn in the Protocol and as taken from the Treaty of 1924 provides as real a safeguard against propaganda as anything which it is in the power of the Government to lay down. Hon. Members opposite are elevating this question of propaganda to a degree of importance to which it is not properly entitled. Very often in the past we have had to complain of Russian propaganda. In the reports that were placed before the Foreign Office long before there was a Bolshevik regime in Russia, and when we were in full diplomatic relations, there were constant complaints of Russian interference in other countries, and of antagonism and propaganda against British interests. Just as diplomatic machinery was used in those days—
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: On a point of Order. I understand that Mr. Speaker has ruled out the question of propaganda. Is the hon. Member in order in discussing that subject now? If so, shall I be allowed to reply to him?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I did not think that the hon. Member was discussing propaganda.
Mr. TAYLOR: I do not think that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) was in the House when Mr. Speaker gave his ruling.
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I was not strictly in the House, but I was watching the proceedings from another part.
Mr. TAYLOR: If the hon. Member was not in the House when Mr. Speaker gave his ruling, it is a little difficult for him to give us guidance. [HON. MEMBERS: "He was beyond the Bar!"] In former times we had our difficulties in relation to Russian propaganda in various parts of the world, but it was not suggested by responsible members of the Conservative party in those days that we should break off relations.
Mr. ALLEN: Is a discussion of the pre-War activities of the Russian Government in order?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is in order for the hon. Member to say that there have been difficulties in the past.
Sir A. KNOX: Is not the present Debate concerned with the conduct of negotiations by the present Government?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Motion relates to the methods of the present Government in its conduct of negotiations. Surely, the hon. Member can refer to what has happened under previous Governments, in support of the methods now adopted.
Mr. TAYLOR: I was going on to say, as a reason for voting against this Motion and as a reason for upholding the Government's policy, that on former occasions Great Britain had had cause of complaint and that she had wisely had recourse to the normal machinery of intercourse between nations for the settlement of the difficulties, and that no responsible Member of the Conservative party in those days suggested that we should break off relations on that account. Therefore, I think the Government are to be congratulated upon the success which has attended their efforts up to the present time, and I hope the Foreign Secretary and the Government will not be unduly disturbed by the kind of speeches that have been made in support of this Motion. British Statesmen and Russian Statesmen have a very heavy responsibility at the present time, not only to their own peoples but to the whole world. Those who can drive away through the mists of misunderstanding and can overcome prejudice in connection with this problem and lead the two nations to reconciliation will make a great contribution to the cause of international goodwill and constructive world peace.
Mr. ALLEN: It is not altogether inappropriate that an Irish Member should intervene in a Debate on Russia, because Ireland and Russia have probably caused more tense moments in this dignified Assembly than all other countries and all other questions of this unhappy universe. The trouble and heart-searching which Russia and- Ireland have caused from time to time was aptly expressed by the Secretary of the First Ambassador to the Court of Russia, in the reign of Elizabeth, when he said that:
"Wilde Irish are as civil as the Russes in theyre kinde,
Hard choice which is the best of both ech bloudy rude and blinde."
[Hon. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] The first word is an adjective and not an affirmative, although it might apply as an affirmative to the present attitude of the Soviet Government towards His Majesty's Government. I understand that my Amendment to the Motion will not be called and, therefore, I seek guidance before raising a point which I am very anxious to ventilate on this or some other occasion. I should like a ruling with regard to the word "methods." The Motion asks the House to express its disapproval of
"the methods of the present Government in its conduct of the negotiations with the representative of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics."
My Amendment proposed to add the words
"and takes notice that His Majesty's Government, in recognising the frontiers of the Soviet Union, ignores the fact of the occupation of the territory of the Socialist Democratic Republic of Georgia by troops of the Soviet Union."
I have looked up the word "method" in the encyclopaedic dictionary in the House, and I find that the meaning of the word is defined as
"The way, mode, or cause by which an object is or may be obtained."
In this case the object is the successful conclusion of a satisfactory agreement with the Government of the Soviet Union, but I submit that: "The way, mode or cause" by which this can be obtained, implies both methods of commission and omission. One of the methods of emission has been the failure to make any reference during the negotiations to the illegal occupation by the troops of the Soviet Union of the territory of the Socialist Democratic Republic of Georgia,
1466
which was recognised by the Soviet Government, the League of Nations and the Allied Governments. I should like to have your Ruling on that point before proceeding. I should like to know whether it comes within the terms of the Motion?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the terms of the Motion "the methods of the Government," mean the action of the Government in connection with the negotiations which have taken place up to now. I do not think we can have a debate on foreign policy relating to Russian policy in other places.
Mr. ALLEN: I suggest that diplomatic negotiations with the Soviet Government would have been considerably more difficult if the Foreign Secretary had adhered to the policy outlined by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1923 when he suggested that recognition of the Soviet of Russia should be conditional on the evacuation of the territory of the Georgian Republic by Soviet troops. I submit that they would have been much more difficult if reference had been made to that question and that therefore it is a "method" of omission and comes within the scope of the Motion.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am sorry I cannot accept that view. If I did, there are many other things which might be brought within the scope of the Motion.
Mr. ALLEN: In that case, I shall reserve my remarks for a more suitable occasion, and I hope to take an early opportunity of bringing before the House the statements of His Majesty's Ministers in regard to the evacuation of Georgia, not only in the questions they put in this House when in Opposition, but also in their capacity as delegates to the Labour and Socialist International.
Mr. MOND: I have been surprised during the Debate to notice the very airy way in which an extraordinary constitutional situation has been brushed aside by hon. Members opposite. It seems to me that the object of the Motion is to give the House an opportunity of discussing, and the Foreign Secretary an opportunity of justifying, the amazing position which has arisen as a result of the drafting of the Protocol. Previous speakers

1467
have made allusions to this House being the effective part of Parliament, but that is beside the point. In dealing with documents of State Parliament surely means Parliament, and there are many constitutional precedents of the greatest and highest authority which can be brought forward showing precisely and exactly what Parliament means, outside of which no one, not even a Secretary of State, has any right or power to go. Not even this House has the sole power to alter the Constitution of this country. In May's Parliamentary Practice, on page 2, Parliament is defined as the Crown
"and the three Estates of the Realm, namely, the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and the Commons."
There is a further reference in Sir Courtney's Ilbert's work on Parliament, in which, on page 15, he says:
"Thus Parliament became an Assembly not of three Estates but of two Houses: the House consisting of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the House representing the Commons."
In other words, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. In Sir William Anson's "Law and Custom of the Constitution," on page 49, there are these words:
"Parliament therefore consists of the Barons and the Commons summoned by the Crown."
There is a most interesting ruling on this point, by the Earl of Cromer in another place. On the 23rd May, 1916, in dealing with the India Council, he pointed out that in ordinary colloquial language when we spoke of Parliament we alluded principally to the House of Commons, but that technically, of course, a Peer is quite as much a Member of Parliament, and that if the matter ever came before a Court of law it would unhesitatingly be held that Peers were debarred from being appointed to the India Council by reason of that law. It is quite clear, therefore, that Parliament means Parliament as summoned, and does not mean the House of Commons alone. We never asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to put "Parliament" in this Protocol. We should have been satisfied if we had been able to discuss it in the House of Commons, but it was on his own volition that he drafted it in conjunction with the representative of a foreign Power. It was not a document to pull about or
1468
jockey with just as he chose. It was an agreed document, and I have always been taught that agreed documents are supposed to be word perfect and that if one word is wrong the whole document may fall.
We have already asked certain questions of the Secretary of State on this point, and it is interesting to notice the replies he has given. He has said that Paragraph 9 of the Protocol was designed to comply with the Prime Minister's undertaking of 11th July. That undertaking was quite clear and I personally have no quarrel with it. It was an undertaking that there should be a discussion in this House on the question of the Protocol and that it should not become effective unless this House agreed. But Paragraph 9 as drafted is not an instrument which reflects the Prime Minister's promise. It is an entirely different and separate document, and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in reply to another question, took upon himself the responsibility of substituting "Parliament" for the "House of Commons." I deny that any Secretary of State has any right whatever to do such a thing. He cannot take the responsibility for altering the terms of a settled arrangement nor can he take upon himself the responsibility of using words which are clearly defined in constitutional precedents in another way to that in which they are commonly used. He has no power to do anything of the sort.
I go further. In another part of the Protocol he has given an undertaking to the Foreign Power and to this House that he will bring the matter up as early as possible in the next Session. All who have studied Parliamentary practice and procedure are well aware what a Session means, and we have the words of the Prime Minister as to when he intends this Session to come to an end. Speaking in this House on the 3rd July, he said:
"It is our intention that the Session should last until, say, July of next year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1929; col. 83, Vol. 229.]
It seems to me that the Foreign Secretary has put upon himself a curious obligation. All that he has done up to the present is out of order. If he is to bring himself in order with his own

1469
drafting he has to go through one of the following steps. He can obtain the Prorogation of Parliament and commence a new Session and having done that, and put himself in order with his own Protocol, he can arrange for a discussion in both Houses and abide by the result, or he can come forward and present a new agreement to this House. He has not done, or made any attempt to do, either of these things which would bring his own draft in order. I ask: what does he propose to do? Does he propose to carry out any of the steps I have mentioned? Does he propose to leave the draft standing as a memorial to his indifferent draftsmanship, or does he propose to go to the Russian Government and explain to them his mistake and have his draft put in order?
There must be some explanation for such a grave error on the part of a responsible Secretary of State. I have been trying to understand what the cause of that error may be. It is apparent that misfortune dogs the footsteps of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary and his party whenever they deal with this subject. It will be within the memory of the House that the right hon. Gentleman himself lost his waistcoat in Moscow in 1917, and it appears to me that he has been in grave difficulties again with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and his followers, because it is quite clear that it was only upon the very violent representations they made that he entirely changed his mind, and in a moment of panic concluded these negotiations, under most unusual circumstances, and by doing so embarked on a 'Clause at the very tail which he never properly considered and which he has never taken the trouble to put right. It will be within the memory of the House and the country the difficulties which attended the right hon. Gentleman on his return from Russia in 1917, on his arrival in Downing Street. They say that the marks of his impatient paces can yet be traced on the carpet outside the Cabinet Room. I wonder whether he has been in similar trouble lately? I wonder whether his recent delinquency in the matter of drafting State documents has got him into similar difficulties with his present colleagues.
What are the real facts? [Interruption.] The real facts are extremely
1470
simple. [Interruption.] Either the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs does not know the difference. between this House and Parliament, and the difference between a new Session and the Recess, in which case I would suggest, with the greatest deference, that he should obtain a little elementary instruction on the point or that he was in such a great hurry to bring the glad news to his friends at Brighton that he did not take the trouble to draft properly a State document for which he was responsible. He has drafted the Protocol so carelessly that he dare not give effect to its terms; and he does not propose to do so. In other words he made what may be called a school-boy howler in a State document. The lesson of these lamentable negotiations is simple. This House should support this Motion if for no other reason than because it is clear that the right hon. Gentleman does not bring to his task those qualities and that equipment which are essential for the carrying out of the very delicate duties which his task imposes upon him.
Mr. SINKINSON: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman giving us a lesson on constitutional law and practice. Let me say that one of the greatest impressions ever made upon me was made at the time when I came to this House. Before I had been in the place 24 hours I was taught that this House was the supreme House, that any other place was a secondary place, and that the elected representatives in this House were the greatest men in the country from the political standpoint. From what I was taught then I would say that this House as Parliament is Parliament. I find that there is a certain amount of prejudice predominant in the moving, seconding and supporting of this Motion. I suppose it will be expected that there will be prejudice in favour of the Soviet Government on the Labour benches. Let me give my reason for opposing the Motion. I can see nothing wrong in the Soviet Government taking upon themselves the form of Government that they think fit. There was a time in the history of this House when this country took upon itself a change of Government and actually had the head of the King chopped off. The Table whereon the supposed bauble stood, now stands in the Library.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now going rather far from the subject of the Motion.
Mr. SINKINSON: The only thing that the Russians have done is to change their method of Government, and that is entirely an internal affair. The Russians were friends of ours for many years. Up to the Great War and during the War they were our Allies. They lost in the War something like 2,000,000 lives, against our loss of less than 1,000,000 lives. When they decided upon a change in their internal affairs, certain people in this country took umbrage. The Russians are trying an experiment, and that experiment was based on actual facts in other countries. The position was that a feudal State had grown up, and that that feudal State was to be changed to a capitalistic State. It was then pointed out that capitalism had already been tried, and it was said, "Look at Britain and other countries."
Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON: On a point of Order. Is this subject in order on the Motion that is before the House?
Mr. SPEAKER: I would like to hear what the hon. Member is going to say.
Mr. SINKINSON: The Russians' method of government is perfectly in order, and I hold that we have no right to take offence at it.
Mr. SPEAKER: To pursue that subject would certainly not be in order on this Motion.
Mr. SINKINSON: If the experiment is a failure—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not pursue that line of argument.
Mr. SINKINSON: The Soviet Government that is in existence is now finding expression in negotiations with this country, and in seeking trading, diplomatic and social relations with this country. I really find no reason why every encouragement should not be given to the British Foreign Secretary in conducting those negotiations.
Major GEORGE DAVIES: The very confined limits which have been imposed upon us in this Debate make it necessary for those who wish to take part in the Debate to exercise extreme caution. I
1472
hope that I shall be able to conform to the rules laid down, and if I am success-ful—
Mr. SPEAKER: The limits of debate are ordered by the terms of the Motion.
Major DAVIES: I should not wish you to think, Mr. Speaker, that I was criticising your Ruling. I was only, in a way, giving a warning to myself of the very narrow terms of the Motion, and expressing the hope that I should be more successful than my predecessors in dodging the Scylla and Charybdis laid down by the Mover of the Motion. Those of us who have sat through or taken part in Debates touching, however remotely, the question of Russia, cannot but he impressed by the extraordinary change of atmosphere that we see in the House today. Time was when a 11iotion of this sort could have resulted in the Labour benches bristling with warriors armed to the teeth, ready at any moment, whether in order or out of order, to interject, and the Liberal benches would have been as packed as they are at this moment. The Motion seeks to criticise the way in which the Foreign Secretary has handled the negotiations. It is interesting to see why the atmosphere has changed, because that has a certain bearing on the gravamen of our criticism of his mishandling of these delicate negotiations. It is not so long ago that the feelings of hon. Members were expressed rather by the presentation of jewellery than by a refusal of invitations.
The reason why the Foreign Secretary has been struggling under a. handicap in conducting these negotiations is to be found in a past attitude which gave the present pledge. We have seen one after another of the solemn undertakings of the Government failing in achievement when it came to carrying them out in the letter and the spirit, and that has laid them open to criticism, not only from this side of the House, but from the country as a whole. One hon. Member has expressed the opinion that we have brought this Motion forward purely to embarrass the Foreign Secretary and the Government Front Bench. That would indeed be to quote the unreformed Prayer Book a work of supererogation. It is not for us to embarrass him; he has done that for himself. He has embarrassed his party and he has embarrassed the

1473
country. What are the real causes which lead us to criticise his handling of the situation? He entered into his responsible position under a pledge to resume relations. When he came to the carrying out of that pledge, he was faced with difficulties which everyone who has had, to tackle such delicate negotiations knew were there. The right hon. Gentleman knew they were there, but he was compelled to endeavour to carry on the negotiations on account of a pledge that had been given. He was faced with an unreal situation.
Mr. MACLEAN: And an unreal Opposition.
Major DAVIES: I thought the hon. Member wanted to make an intelligent interjection, and so I gave way to him.
Mr. MACLEAN: I made an intelligent interjection, but you had not the intelligence to understand it.
Major DAVIES: The hon. Member knows that when the word "you" is used in this House, it is understood to refer to Mr. Speaker. Anyone who tries to go into negotiations on an unreal basis is bound to ride for a fall. It is not material to have said whether certain undertakings regarding propaganda or anything else should have been given before or after another event. The point that really is the point of criticism is this: That the Foreign Secretary has endeavoured in these negotiations to take up a certain position which he was unable to hold, and consequently in the course of the negotiations he has had to recede step by step and has allowed himself to be euchred and outmanoeuvred by the other party to the negotiations. That is the reason why, regardless of whether the achievement is desirable or not between the two countries, he has embarrassed himself and his Government and the nation, and has caused it to lose prestige as an able negotiator in delicate foreign relationships.
The right hon. Gentleman knew that the representatives with whom he was carrying on negotiations refused to accept any responsibility for actions of a certain other body. He knew that his own Prime Minister had stated that from our point of view we regarded the two as one. Never has that situation been cleared up. It is not cleared up now, as everyone
1474
knows. I think it was the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. R. A. Taylor) who took the stand that in past history the question of propaganda against this country had been connected in the public mind with the activities of the Russian Empire and its successors. Consequently it is nothing new. That may possibly be admitted. What is new is that the Foreign Secretary took up originally a position which has been placed before the country categorically by the Prime Minister, that in carrying on these negotiations one thing must have been absolutely certain, and that was that we regarded the activities of these other bodies—I shall be out of order in giving names—as part and parcel of the Government with whom this country was carrying on the negotiations. We took up that attitude; the others refused. We knew that they did not mean what we meant them to mean.
It was absurd for the right hon. Gentleman to try to carry on negotiations under these unreal conditions. In order to carry out the pledge that his party had given, he was compelled to live in a fairyland of make-believe and then to recede step by step from the original position that he took up. It has made the nation as a whole, I shall not say a laughing-stock, but it certainly has reduced our prestige in international relationships. At the same time the right hon. Gentleman is going to achieve nothing. He has either to put into operation the undertakings of himself and the Prime Minister and of representatives of the Government in another place—
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): And approved by this House.
6.0 p. m.
Major DAVIES:—and by this House, I agree, and by everyone concerned, that if certain things are done by the other parties to this agreement, then steps to sever the negotiations are to be taken. He knows and the country knows and this House knows that these activities are going to continue, and indeed those responsible for the Russian Government say that they cannot control those activities and that it is absurd to think that they can control them. The methods followed by the Foreign Secretary were

1475
bound to result in an unreal atmosphere and in the situation in which we find ourselves to-day. Hon. Members opposite while they have lost that touch of first love with regard to their brothers and comrades overseas and overland are, at the same time, looking forward to certain commercial advantages for this country. If those commercial advantages hinge upon international relations, and if those international relations are based upon the unreal policy of the Foreign Secretary, what is going to become of this prospect of increased and more profitable commerce between the two countries?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is now going outside the terms of the Motion.
Major DAVIES: I will finish with that point. After all, I was only putting what is called a rhetorical question to which I did not expect an answer. I have only one more comment to make and that is on the constitutional aspect of the question. We always understood hitherto that we had in this country two-Chamber Government. It is true that there are other countries—Liberia I believe is one—so simple-minded and progressive, as hon. Members opposite possibly would think, that they had single-Chamber Government. A good many Members opposite, I think, include that form of Government among their unrealised ideals. But we have always supposed that to achieve single-Chamber Government in this country would entail a long political fight and a constitutional struggle. We see that in this case it has been done by the administrative action of the Foreign Secretary who, by a stroke of the pen, has reduced us to single-Chamber government. It is a comforting thought, however, in view of the brief Debate which took place immediately after Question Time, that even the administrative action of the Government cannot bind either the Government itself, or the country, or apparently anyone else. In that thought I think we can find some consolation as against the menace of this being an indication of a desire on the part of certain occupants of the benches opposite to realise in the near future their ideal of single-chamber government as opposed to that form of government which
1476
we understand by the word "Parliament" to-day. For these reasons it seems to me that the Foreign Secretary has blundered badly in his handling of these negotiations. I do not think that for a long time he and his party are going to recover from the damage which they have done to their own prestige and to the prestige of the nation as a whole.
Mr. WISE: I think what this Debate has demonstrated has not been the careless drafting of the Protocol, but the careless drafting of the Motion which the party opposite have put on the Paper. If they are unable to draft a Resolution of five lines to express the views which they wish to enforce on the House, it is rather presumptuous on their part to criticise the drafting of this Protocol. I think the Debate has also shown the unreal nature of the criticism from hon. Members opposite. The House has listened to a number of speeches designed to criticise words and phrases in the Protocol, but everybody knows that it is not the phrasing or the wording of the Protocol which annoys the other side, but the fact that the Government has renewed relations with Russia. This Motion was not put down really for the purpose of discussing the methods of negotiation, but in order to arouse what hon. Members opposite suppose to be the existing antipathy of this country towards relations with Russia. The attendance in the House this afternoon shows how much importance the House attaches to their efforts. They have been driven to thin legal arguments as to what constitutes the approval of Parliament. It is a curious fact that this point did not occur to them when the Prime Minister made his statement in July of what he proposed to do, and nobody supposes that the point raised about the joint approval of both Houses to an administrative act of the Government would have been raised at all had it not referred to Russia.
They have raised another point. They have tried to insinuate that the Foreign Secretary, in some obscure way, changed his position between the opening of the negotiations and the conclusion of the Protocol. I watched with enormous interest the glee with which the other side welcomed what was evidently a deliberate misunderstanding on the part of some organs of their Press as to the actual proposals made at the beginning of the

1477
negotiations. What the Foreign Secretary said in his Note of 15th July—the first Note sent by the present Government to the Soviet Government—was that he invited the Soviet Government to send a responsible representative to London to discuss with him directly the most expeditious procedure for reaching as rapidly as possible a friendly and mutually satisfactory settlement of the questions outstanding between the two countries. The other side pretended that the Foreign Secretary was desirous of reaching his settlement before the renewal of diplomatic relations. What they desired that he should do was to fall into the trap of following precisely the procedure which they had tried for several years. They criticised the method adopted by the Foreign Secretary, but what other method was possible?
There was another method—the method which they desired him to follow. He might have done what the previous Foreign Secretary and other Foreign Secretaries had done for several years. He might have carried on a long-range correspondence with the Russian Government, by means of manifestoes and speeches and telegrams and declamations against the misdoings of that Government. He might have continued demonstrating to the world how every proposal made by any Russian representative at any international conference, was merely an occasion for acute and ill-tempered and generally rather rude criticism on the part of the representative of the British Government. He might have continued to try to reach a settlement by arousing and stimulating and by occasionally alternating with those methods a rather pretentious and sententious denunciation of the Russian Government's methods. That plan had been adopted for several years and had completely failed. Nobody on the other side had the smallest hope that it would succeed and it was never likely to succeed. The right hon. Gentleman took the only course which was open in the circumstances. He met face to face the representative of the other Government and, as I understand, had a talk as to what the subjects were which required settlement. He then proceeded to establish in his Protocol the only possible machinery by which these problems could be settled. They were problems of great difficulty and intricacy
1478
requiring probably weeks of negotiations. They could not be settled by the exchange of despatches or telegrams. They would never have been settled by the methods previously operative.
There was, for instance, the question of debts, involving an examination of the claims of thousands of claimants on both sides. There was the question of a commercial treaty involving the re-establishment of relations between two entirely different commercial systems and the setting up of new commercial arrangements in both countries. The settlement of such questions has clearly to be reached by friendly negotiations in a friendly atmosphere and that was the method adopted by the Foreign Secretary. The only other point which the other side raised was with regard to the question of propaganda. I am not going to run the risk of being ruled out of order by following the path which the other side have tried to follow, but I will say this, and I think in doing so I am well within the terms of the Protocol. I think the importance of this question of propaganda has been grossly exaggerated.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now dealing with the terms of the Protocol. That subject does not arise upon this Motion. It has been dealt with by the House already.
Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Does not the wording of the Motion bring the terms of the Protocol within the discussion? There is a statement about the careless drafting of the Protocol.
Mr. SPEAKER: There may be an allusion to the drafting, but it does not follow that the terms can be discussed.
Mr. MACLEAN: With all due respect, Sir, may I submit that it is only possible to show that the Protocol has been carelessly drafted, by quoting its terms?
Mr. SPEAKER: I have no objection to anybody quoting the terms of the Protocol in order to show whether they have been properly drafted or not. What I am objecting to is a discussion of the terms of the Protocol.
Mr. WISE: I am anxious to keep within the rules of order and I shall not pursue the point except in so far as I may comment on the methods adopted in the negotiations. The Foreign Secretary, as

1479
I understand, strove to create an atmosphere of friendly contact between the two countries. He brought the representatives of the two countries around a table to discuss points of common interest and to endeavour to reach a solution of—if hon. Members like to call them so—the easier and more immediate problems. He created a desire in both countries for the avoidance of difficulties in regard to propaganda and other things. I think that was the right method and the only method likely to reach success. The other side are constantly quoting, both inside and outside the House, phrases from newspaper articles, some of them unofficial, some of them no doubt mischievous, and endeavouring to use those articles to make relations between the two countries more difficult.
No one denies the difficulties. It is inevitable after the years of struggle between the two systems—between the two countries—that there should be difficulties in reversing the process of those years and bringing the two countries together. I think the House would have been better guided this afternoon if we were striving to find methods of solving the difficulties instead of striving to discover methods by which those difficulties might be made more acute. If quotations are to be made let us at any rate have authoritative quotations—quotations which are helpful as well as those which are unhelpful. Three weeks ago in a speech to the Central Executive Committee of the Russian Soviet in Moscow the Russian Foreign Secretary said he thought the liquidation of past questions which, owing to their complicated nature, required considerable time, should not hinder the adoption of methods designed to meet present needs, and he referred to the growth of trade and easier conditions for contact and trade between—
Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that would not be in order.
Mr. WISE: I will not pursue that, but he ended by saying—and I am sure you will admit that this is in order—
"There is a sincere desire to establish friendly relations with the British people and to remove all—
Mr. ALLEN: On a point of Order. Have not speakers on this side of the House already been ruled out of order
1480
for quoting from "Pravda" and from "Isvestia?"
Mr. WISE: I am not quoting from "Pravda"; I am reading a quotation printed by an anti-Soviet propaganda organ in this country.
Mr. SPEAKER: The Motion before the House condemns the action of His Majesty's Government. It does not go into the question of what the Russian. Government does at all.
Mr. WISE.: I will conclude by saying that the action of His Majesty's Government in striving to create an atmosphere of good will and a sense on both sides that these problems can be solved is the only likely method by which a solution of these problems can be found, and hon. Members on the other side seem to have completely failed to demonstrate the inadequacy of these methods or to put forward any other methods which are likely to lead to better relations between the two countries.
Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I should have liked to answer the speech which the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) could not make, but I do not find anything to answer in that part of the speech which he did make. The ground, as you have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, covered by this Motion is very narrow. It condemns the course followed by the Government in their negotiations, it condemns the slovenly character of the drafting of the Protocol, but the substance of the Protocol has already been discussed by the House, and whatever may be our opinions upon it, we are not entitled to re-open that question to-day. I hope I shall be able, in the very few remarks which I am going to make, to keep strictly within the limits of the issue opened by the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend behind me.
Let me deal first and briefly with the second part of the Motion—the condemnation of the slovenly drafting of the Protocol. The actual terms of the Motion are, I think, "careless drafting," but I prefer to call it slovenly. In our colloquial language, we, as has already been pointed out, often use the word "Parliament" when we intend to indicate the House of Commons, but in documents of State and, above all, in international agreements it is desirable that

1481
language should be precise and correct and that the words chosen should express the meaning of the negotiators. The right hon. Gentleman has very frankly and handsomely taken upon his own shoulders the whole responsibility for the error which has been committed. His attitude is, in fact, one of confession and avoidance. The fault is his, but, in his view, after all it does not much matter, because what he had in mind when, in negotiating an agreement with a foreign Government, he used the term "Parliament" was a statement by the Prime Minister, and because the Prime Minister had correctly used the term House of Commons. "I venture to say that whether or not that kind of slovenly or careless drafting has any other consequences in this particular case, it is dangerous in international affairs. have known, and I could point to, cases where international agreements have been disputed long after they were signed on just such ground as would be open to the two Governments who have signed this Protocol, namely, that the Protocol provided for the approval of Parliament and that the approval of only one House of Parliament, not of Parliament, was given.
That is as much as I wish to say in respect to the international aspect of the question, but I must say one word on the domestic aspect. Parliament is Parliament and cannot be made anything but Parliament by a Secretary of State, and if the right hon. Gentleman means in future to ignore one of the two Houses least let him be careful in his language not to imply that the sanction of this House is the sanction of Parliament. That would be a constitutional innovation and indeed a constitutional revolution, which, good or bad, could not be executed in that way either with due regard to the serious nature of the questions involved or with common courtesy to the other House of Parliament. That is all that I wish to say in regard to the drafting of the Protocol.
I turn now to the methods employed in the negotiations. The charge which I make against those methods is that, in the first place, they are not consistent with the dignity of this country, and, in the second place, that they condemn this Protocol in advance to futility. They render it certain that it will not have
1482
the results which the Government expect from it or hope from it, and they make it not improbable that, instead of improving our relations, it will be a definite step in their worsening. Let me very briefly, as I hope, make good my two points. The hon. Member for East Leicester says that the Soviet Note printed as No. 3 in the White Paper was either a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation, fostered in certain Russian quarters, of the attitude of His Majesty's Government. Supposing that were true, what ought to have been the course of the negotiations?
Mr. WISE: I made no such statement.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me exactly what he did say when he spoke of misunderstanding or misrepresentation fostered by certain newspapers?
Mr. WISE: I was dealing with the first Note, No. 1 in the document, signed by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench on 15th July. What I said was that the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary says quite specifically that he invited a representative to London to discuss the proceedings for reaching a settlement in order to see the intention of those first negotiations, but very shortly afterwards the other side got the impression, the quite wrong impression, that the purpose was to reach a complete settlement.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That will not do, if I may say so, as an explanation of the course of the negotiations. His Majesty's Government sent a Note which was not very clear. The Soviet Government replied by a Note which was perfectly clear, and in which they definitely asserted their refusal to negotiate at all on the questions in dispute until diplomatic relations were resumed. It was after that exchange of Notes that a Soviet representative was invited to this country and the first meeting took place. The right hon. Gentleman has himself—
Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: On a point of Order. You ruled at the commencement of this Debate, Mr. Speaker, that discussion of the acts of the Government prior to the Vote of the House was to be excluded from the Debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That was what I

1483
understood to be your ruling, and that we could only discuss such acts of the Government as had relation to the terms of the Motion on the Paper.
Mr. SPEAKER: My Ruling was that this discussion could not degenerate into a discussion complaining of the resumption of diplomatic relations with Soviet Russia. That I should still rule out of order, because the resumption of diplomatic relations with Soviet Russia was endorsed by a Resolution passed by this House on 5th November. Certainly, it will not be in order to re-open that subject, but, as I understood the right hon. Gentleman, he was just coming to the point of the negotiations which took place between the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary and the representative of Soviet Russia, which is exactly what the Motion does say.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That is so, and I hope I shall be successful—and I have no reason to think that any part of the argument which I wish to address to the House will prevent my being successful—in strictly conforming to your ruling and in keeping myself strictly within the terms of the Motion. What I am dealing with is the course of the negotiations, and I say that the method of those negotiations, the conduct of those negotiations, is inconsistent with the dignity of this country and is calculated to render futile or sterile the agreement, whatever it is, which has been reached. It is with the course of the negotiations, therefore, that I am dealing. The right hon. Gentleman issued his invitation, and the Soviet Government replied safeguarding the position which they have always taken up. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that their answer was ambiguous. Why did not he clear up the ambiguity before beginning the conversations He preferred to begin the conversations, and the next stage is that they break off the conversations.
The Soviet Government explained why they were broken off. Was there any misunderstanding, was there any doubt, that the Soviet representative correctly stated the reason for which the negotiations were broken off? No correction issued from the right hon. Gentleman, no Foreign Office communiqué, no com-
1484
munication, as far as we know, of any kind was made to the Soviet Government, to say, "You have misunderstood the contentions which we have put forward; you are breaking off because you think we have imposed conditions which we have never suggested." On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman replied confirming the conditions and explaining how it was his hope that the principles on which a settlement could be worked out should have been defined at that stage. It is quite clear that when they parted in July or the beginning of August the Soviet Government, adhering to their Note of acceptance, and not altering their attitude, were refusing to discuss questions which at that time the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State considered an essential preliminary to the resumption of negotiations.
What followed? Without any suggestion that the Soviet Government had altered, without any change in the situation, the right hon. Gentleman invited a resumption of the negotiations, and this time, while the Soviet Government maintained their attitude, as they had done throughout, the right hon. Gentleman made a volte face, surrendered to the ultimatum which had been issued, and, sooner than find the negotiations broken off a second time because his conditions were not accepted, yielded to the insistence of the Soviet and abandoned the conditions which he had stated as essential. I say that negotiations in which a British Government subject themselves to that kind of humiliation are not consistent with the dignity of this country, do not promote the authority or the influence of this country, and will not aid the right hon. Gentleman in any further negotiations which he has to conduct, either with the Soviet Government or with other Powers, but, above all, with the Soviet Government, because he has shown to that Government that he was so hampered by pre-Governmental pledges, that he was squeezable and as putty in their hands, and that, when they like to insist, he will sooner or later submit. I hope that I have made my first point; at any rate, I shall have made my first point clear to the right hon. Gentleman even if he does not, on reflection, share my view of the error which he committed.

1485
The second point about the course of the negotiations is that their conduct makes it certain that, instead of healing a quarrel, they will continue a quarrel, and not improbably embitter a quarrel. I have already called attention to the consequences of the right hon. Gentleman entering into negotiations on a reply from the Soviet Government which he himself subsequently described as ambiguous. But the same ambiguity runs through the whole of the negotiations. The right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly assured this House that the Protocol which he has signed, and which the Soviet Government have signed, forbids propaganda or interference in our affairs, either in this country or in any part of His Majesty's Dominions. Every spokesman on the Soviet side from first to last has repudiated the idea that in signing the agreement, he attached the same meaning to it. My second paint, therefore, is that with his eyes open, having already been warned of the danger, by his own experience in this very matter, of accepting ambiguous language without being sure that both sides meant the same thing, he has gone on deliberately cultivating that ambiguity, and has not settled the condition which he declares to be a necessary preliminary to the resumption of diplomatic relations. Not only has he not settled it, but by leaving it open, by accepting these relations while each party puts not merely a different, but a contradictory, construction on the Protocol, he is preparing the way for infinite trouble for himself, and for an exacerbation of all the difficulties and bitterness to which Soviet propaganda within the British Empire has already given rise.
Mr. A. HENDERSON: This has been one of the most surprising Debates which I have heard in my 26 years in this House. Very serious charges have been made against the present Foreign Secretary. I think that the gravamen of the charge, according to the closing part of the Motion before the House, is, my carelessness in the drafting of the Protocol. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) has changed the language to some extent, and has described it, not as careless, but as slovenly. Most Members who have sat through the Debate must have been impressed with the irony of the situation. Nearly every speaker on the other side of
1486
the House has found that he has not been able to proceed very far with his speech. before Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy-Speaker has had to remind him that the Motion before the House was so 'carelessly drafted and so slovenly worded that he was entirely out of order. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have overlooked the fact that there was an important Debate on this subject on 5th November. I do not wish to say anything that would be in the slightest degree discourteous, but I am not very far wrong if I say that the speech to which we have just listened, certainly the arguments to which we have just listened, were applied by my right hon. Friend in the Debate which took place on that occasion. I would be wasting the time of the House if I were to make the same speech that I made on that occasion.
The main point which the right hon. Gentleman advanced was that some serious change took place between the negotiations at the end of July or the beginning of August and the resumed negotiations that took place when I issued my statement in September. I very fully explained that in my speech, but evidently not so as to convince the right hon. Gentleman. The change was not with us at all; it was with the representative of the Soviet Government. I told the House on 5th November that we broke off the negotiations because he put in a demand to which I would not listen. What was that demand? It was that we should not even settle the question of procedure before ambassadors were exchanged. I pointed out in my speech on 5th November that even then we did not make an exchange of ambassadors, and that we were complying with the conditions laid down by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he replied to the point made by the Leader of the Opposition at the opening of the Session. He laid it down then that we would not have an exchange of ambassadors until the matter had been reported to this House. In my speech, I said that in the Protocol we had complied with one of the two conditions, and that, in having the Debate, we were complying with the second of the conditions.
We have heard a great deal of the methods of the negotiations. The methods of these negotiations were before the House in the last Debate. The negotiations had practically ended when

1487
that Debate took place, and all the things which we have heard to-day, and all the delinquencies that have been hurled at the Foreign Secretary, were known, and were in the speeches of hon. Members on the other side. What did the House do, not in a Debate such as that of to-day, which has been reduced almost to a burlesque owing to the almost careless drafting of the Motion, but in a serious Debate lasting for the whole of the sitting? The House, by a majority of 125—probably the largest majority that has been secured on any important question during this Session—accepted the result of the negotiations, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) wished me God-speed in the rest of my work. Yet to-day hon. Members have spent the last two or three hours in bringing up all the old excuses—I cannot more properly define them—not because there was some flaw in the Agreement, but because hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are opposed to the policy of the Government in seeking to establish proper relations with Russia.
Then there is the second part of the Motion. The hon. Member for East Toxteth (Mr. Mond), who got very near the offensive in his personal references, tried to raise what I believe has more than once been described as a constitutional issue. In answer to questions, I think that I did say that if the words "House of Commons" should have been used instead of the word "Parliament," I was prepared to express my regret for what might be called a formal slip in the manner of expressing it. I am not convinced, however, in spite of all that the right hon. Gentleman said about the importance of correct language in a document between this country and a foreign-country, that the word "Parliament" was not the correct word to use in this connection. I am prepared to admit, for the sake of argument, that it might have been a slip, and that it might have been better if I had put in the words "House of Commons." But I can well imagine—and I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to challenge me very much on the point—that if I had put in the words "House of Commons" I would have been blamed for raising a constitutional issue.
Mr. MOND: Hear, hear!
Mr. HENDERSON: Wait and see! The hon. Member has had the opportunity of expressing an opinion, and I want to have an opportunity now. I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman, with all his personal references.
Mr. MOND: On a point of Order. Am 1 not entitled to say "Hear, hear," without being accused of interrupting the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. HENDERSON: I again repeat that I am not fully convinced that the word "Parliament" was not the correct word to be used in this connection. I have been asked on more than one occasion if I had obtained the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, and in view of all the talk about the constitutional position—and there have been several demands to-day to know the constitutional position—I have taken the trouble to obtain that opinion. I think the gallant major who represents Yeovil (Major G. Davies) gave us a little ditty on the constitutional position. I think he said he believed that we had two-chamber government. Yes, we have, for certain purposes. In order to put the position very plainly I am going to quote an opinion that has been drafted. It is rather long, but I think, in view of the criticisms, that I am entitled, in my defence, to give this quotation from the legal opinion.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not want to cause delay by intervention, but I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to fall into a trap. If he quotes a document he is bound by the Rules of this House to lay the document. If he is prepared to do that there is no more to be said.
Mr. HENDERSON: Oh, certainly I am. It is not a document in that sense. It is an opinion which I have obtained. I will quote the document, and then it can go to the OFFICIAL REPORT in order that it can appear on the records of the House.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman understands. He said that he would quote the document. If he means that he will read the whole document, of course that is perfectly in order, but it is not in order to make a quotation from a document unless he is prepared to lay it.
Mr. HENDERSON: I have already said that I consider the opinion that I have obtained of such importance that I propose, even at the risk of wearying the House, to give it in full:
"It may be that to use the word 'Parliament' in the Russian protocol was a slip in form, but if the Opposition argue that from the constitutional point of view it was a mistake of substance, they are certainly wrong. It must be noted that the resumption of diplomatic relations with Russia is an executive action taken in virtue of the prerogative of the Crown to carry on relations with foreign countries. In strict constitutional law, His Majesty's Government need not secure specific Parliamentary approval for any such action, and until recent times such approval would never have been sought. It was sought by His Majesty's Government on this occasion because, if their Russian policy had been condemned by the House of Commons, they would not have persisted in it, and the Government might not have remained in office. Although executive action in specific matters does not require specific approval by Parliament, nevertheless His Majesty's Government is responsible for executive policy as a whole to Parliament. That, indeed, is the essence of what is called Parliamentary Government. But what is meant by Parliament' when it is said that His Majesty's Government is responsible to Parliament for its whole executive action? Not what is meant by 'Parliament' when we are speaking of legislation?"
This is very important.
"In respect of legislation the sovereign body is the King in 'Parliament' assembled, and here 'Parliament' means both Houses. But when we speak of His Majesty's Government as responsible to Parliament 'for executive action,' Parliament 'means not both Houses but the House of Commons, and the House of Commons alone. The essence of Parliamentary Government is that His Majesty's Government can be turned out of office by the House of Commons, and by them alone. It has for many years been the established constitutional practice that only the House of Commons can control the executive action which the Government may take. The Government are, indeed, obliged by constitutional practice to answer questions in the House of Lords, but a defeat in that House in no way affects their constitutional right to take any executive action which may seem to them right. It follows from the above argument that from the constitutional point of view there is no substance whatever in the point made by the Opposition with regard to the use of the word Parliament' in the Russian protocol. On the contrary, there is a good case, from the constitutional point of view, for holding that the word 'Parliament' was the right word to use in an agreement with a foreign Power in which the purpose was to make plain to that foreign-Power that a certain executive action could only be taken if the
1490
approval of the relevant Parliamentary authority had been obtained."
That is not my opinion.
Mr. SKELTON: Whose is it?
Mr. HENDERSON: I have already hinted that it is the Law Officers of the Crown—the Attorney-General's. I have already hinted that if there had beers a slip I was prepared to apologise for it, but I tried to strengthen my position by obtaining an opinion, an opinion from one who, I think, is an authority on a constitutional issue such as has been raised, not by me but by the other side of the House.
Commander BELLAIRS: Is the Solicitor-General associated with the Attorney-General? We want to be precise.
Mr. HENDERSON: I say that this opinion is endorsed by the Attorney-General.
HON. MEMBERS: "Endorsed!"
Commander BELLAIRS: You said it was the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown.
Mr. HENDERSON: The Law Officer of the Crown. Can I put it that way?
Mr. MOND: Has he given any opinion on the question of the word "Session" which was raised at the same time?
Mr. HENDERSON: No. I never submitted that, because I thought anybody who has any sense at all knew what was meant. The reference to the Session could only mean one thing to the two parties who were negotiating, because if you look you will see that I told him "As soon as Parliament was opened." What else could I mean by as soon as Parliament resumes in October? I also told him that we would have the debate as speedily as ever it was possible when Parliament resumed. There could be no shadow of a doubt as to what was meant. This argument which has been put up can, in my judgment, only have force if there is any misunderstanding on the part of those with whom I was negotiating. That is the important point. There could be no misunderstanding in this House. The Prime Minister had made that unmistakably plain before any negotiations began. He distinctly said to the House, in answer to the Leader of

1491
the Opposition, "We will follow the procedure adopted by our predecessors when they broke off negotiations." The surprising thing is that we are having so much made of the rights of another place. There was not so much made of the rights of another place when relations were broken off. They were never consulted. The matter was never put to them. The deed had been done, practically, before they knew anything about it. So hon. Members opposite are great constitutionalists when the other people are using the wrong word, but are not such great constitutionalists when we are severing relations with an important country like Russia.
One cannot but be left with the conviction that all this—shall I say—second edition of the Debate of 5th November, despite the fact that we then had a majority of 125 for getting on with the work, is due to the opposition which hon. Members opposite are perfectly entitled to exercise towards the policy of the Government with regard to Russian relations.
One or two questions have been submitted to me during the discussion. The hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) asked me: "Was any agreement made that debts should be dealt with and settled before relations were re-established?" The answer to that question is quite plain. No such agreement was made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Now I am asked, Why not? I reported to the House why not on 5th November, and the House endorsed our policy. What we did undertake was to get a very definite commitment from them, which it had been difficult to secure in the past, that all forms of debt would be negotiated immediately there was a resumption of diplomatic relations, and that is the position at this moment.
Sir A. KNOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me for interrupting him I My question was this: Is it not true that the right hon. Gentleman in initiating these negotiations asked in the first instance that some agreement might be come to before the exchange of Ambassadors regarding debts and propaganda?
Mr. HENDERSON: No, it is the contrary that is true. I asked nothing of
1492
the kind. I laid it down perfectly plainly that what we had to do was to get them committed to four or five important questions that must be the subject of negotiations immediately relations were resumed, but not before. Otherwise I would have been asking for that which is practically an impossibility. How could you negotiate those questions before you enter into relations? How can you negotiate before you get a mission here with which to negotiate and how can you get a mission here until you have resumed negotiations? Therefore, the answer is in the negative. I have also been asked a very pertinent question as to the position with regard to propaganda and the Dominions. It is a very, very difficult question to handle, indeed. We know that the Dominions are many thousands of miles away, and that it is not an easy matter to carry on negotiations within a restricted time. We have done what we could. We have now secured, at the request of the Dominions, that on the presentation of credentials, which I hope takes place towards the end of the present week, as I said in answer to a question to-day, that there will be the exchange of a Note between the two Governments covering-propaganda as between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Government, and also, at the request of the Dominions, there will be a Supplementary Note, in which the name of each Dominion will be specially mentioned, giving exactly the same undertaking as we have secured as regards propaganda with the United Kingdom.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman for that purpose include India as a Dominion, and does "Great Britain" include those parts of the British Empire which are not Dominions?
Mr. HENDERSON: The phrase that is used, "The whole of the British Empire," is made very specific; but we are plus that by a definite supplementary agreement in which the Dominions will all be mentioned. India, as the right hon. Gentleman would expect, is not mentioned as a Dominion; it is included as part of the British Empire.
Commander BELLAIRS: What about the Comintern?
7.0 p.m.
Mr. HENDERSON: I do not think that there is any need for gale to answer

1493
that question. I have never given any undertaking in regard to the Comintern. When we have resumed relations, we shall watch these questions. We are as much opposed to this propaganda as anybody on the opposite side of the House. We realise to the full its subversive nature, and, when we get into relations with them, we shall do everything that we can to prevent it, and, in the event of it continuing, we shall use our diplomatic powers to have it discontinued. I think it was the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, in the Debate of the 5th November, who expressed the hope that we would not pack our kit at the very first provocation. I am not quoting him, but I think that is the idea, and it is the sane line we shall endeavour to follow. I hope I have answered the points that were not dealt with in the last Debate. I have endeavoured to confine myself strictly to the two points in the Motion, and I hope the House, if there is going to be a Division, will now proceed to divide.
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I intervene in this Debate, because I consider that there is still a question to answer. Aspersions have been cast on the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Macdonald) for the drafting of this Motion, but, as a matter of fact, it is extremely ingenious. The question of Russia is a very wide one and may divide opinion. It is one of the biggest problems any statesman has had to face and any Motion on the general question might have led to a very considerable division of opinion. Not two, but 10 or 20 opinions might have been expressed about what ought to be done, but on this Motion there is only one decision to which the House can possibly come. The words of the Motion are:
"That this House expresses its disapproval of the methods of the present Government in its conduct of the negotiations with the representative of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and condemns its careless drafting of the protocol of agreement."
The right hon. Gentleman has himself confessed that he was careless and made a slip and any defence he makes is a plea of mitigation and not a real legal defence.
Mr. HENDERSON: Cannot one make a slip without being careless?
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Attacks were made on the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight for being careless, but, however great his ability and however honourable his position in this House, he is not the Foreign Secretary, and he has not to draft documents affecting foreign nations. I should think no care could be too great in the case of such a, document, and, whatever the Attorney-General may say, "Parliament" in this House will still mean "Parliament." The Attorney-General has admitted that he has persuaded Judges to interpret words in quite a different sense from that intended by this House. The hon. and learned Gentleman is a conjuror with words, and a conjuror, however honourable he may be, would be wise to conceal his skill in sleight of hand when playing bridge with his friends. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he could not have possibly come to any agreement whatever as regards the question of settlement of debt before Ambassadors were exchanged. Of course, in matters of detail he is perfectly right. Nobody could possibly enter into exact detail on this question in a few months, but he could settle matters of principle. He said in one of his letters that, with good will on both sides, he hoped sufficient progress would be made to enable him, on the re-assembling of Parliament in October, to report what progress had been made and what questions of principle had been defined. What questions have been defined? Not one. I would refer the Foreign Secretary of Great Britain to the very distinct firmness with which the corresponding official in the United States treated this matter. Mr. Secretary Hughes said that it was an easy thing for a foreign State to admit liability for its debts and at any moment the Soviet Government could do so. I submit that this matter should be settled before we enter into relations with them.
There is one more aspect of the question with which I would like to deal. Will the right hon. Gentleman exercise the same skill in the management of State affairs as he would exercise in his own? Suppose he entered into an agreement and the other side obviously interpreted it in a different sense from himself, would he not make inquiries about it? There was very distinct evidence, and I think I am in order in talking

1495
about it, that the other side understood this agreement in a totally different sense from himself. Did he make representations? As far as we know, he made none, because when we asked questions in this House he refused any answer whatever, and we are to presume that no inquiries were made about the sense in which the Soviet Government understood this agreement. I think he has been extraordinarily negligent. It is sometimes useful to apply very simple tests in these matters, and the right hon. Gentleman must surely, in his own private way, have made some inquiries. One wonders whether, in addition to the Attorney-General, he consulted his learned son in this House, and what he said about the meaning of "Parliament" in these matters. Having regard to the facts that the right hon. Gentleman made no representations whatever to the Soviet Government, that he himself has confessed that he made a slip in the use of the word "Parliament," there can be only one verdict on this Debate. There is really no answer to what has been said about the terms of the Protocol.
Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman, who is such a stickler for clear and precise meaning, why there is such a difference between the pronunciation of his own name and the spelling of it?
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Because it is a Scottish name.
Mr. HAYCOCK: I am not sorry that in this Debate we have to confine ourselves to the constitutional issue. I want to say a few words on that issue. Our Constitution is supposed to be a democracy, and we are supposed to take our orders from the great British public.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot discuss that matter on this Motion.
Mr. HAYCOCK: All I am trying to do is to suggest that there has been no sin against the Constitution; at least, in spirit in the words of this Protocol. If one question was more discussed than another at the last election, it was the Russian question, and the British public in the last few months has given a very emphatic verdict. Concerning the word 'Parliament," all I know; is that as the
1496
Foreign Secretary has pointed out, in the past when we had the Arcos raid, that there was no question of the House of Lords having any say about it at all, and, even when it was a question of war with Russia and we were subsidising Denikin, Koltchak and the others, we never went to the House of Lords. For the first time for a long time, Parliament has something to say about diplomatic relations. For the first time, the relations between nations are open and above board, and the democratic representatives of the British people will have the last word. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear!"] I am very glad that hon. Members subscribe to something that is true. Just imagine the burlesque of leaving diplomatic relationships to the other House, to that Chamber of Horrors! We know perfectly well that if Parliament were to consist as far as this question is concerned, not merely of the House of Commons, but also of the House of Lords, there would not be any peace with Russia, and they would have thrown out this Treaty.
Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member continues to stray from the subject, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
Mr. HAYCOCK: I do not want to get out of order, and I think I cannot do better than to drop the constitutional question, and appeal, if I may, to the exact words, the ipsissima verba, of the right hon. Member for one of the Birmingham seats (Sir A. Chamberlain). I do not know which one it is, because he changes it so often. He told us it was inconsistent with the dignity of this country that we should resume relations with Russia, and our dignity was awfully important. I quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman's dignity is awfully important; he is almost the most dignified person who comes into this Chamber. I know that peace with Russia is vastly more important than dignity. I do not know how nations can behave in a dignified way. I do not know any sort of dignity as between a nation with 45,000,000 people and one with 130,000,000 people, who occupy one-sixth of the entire earth. Dignity, in this sense, is a, word that means practically nothing, and the dignified thing to do is to wipe up the mess our predecessors made with the Arcos raid, which was not at all dignified, and introduce dynamite into foreign politics.
Commander BELLAIRS: I wish to make two comments on the statement which has been made by the Foreign Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the opinion of one of the Law Officers of the Crown, the Attorney-General, and subsequently he promised to lay the document from which he quoted on the Table as a State document. I think we ought to know whether the Solicitor-General associates himself with the opinion given by the Attorney-General in that document.
Mr. A. HENDERSON indicated assent.
Commander BELLAIRS: There is another question which has a distinct bearing on the conduct of these negotiations. I believe it is admitted that the Prime Minister, at the time these negotiations were proceeding, was on his way to America.
Mr. HENDERSON: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to state that that is not a fact.
Commander BELLAIRS: Certainly, the announcement of the result of the negotiations in which we recognised the Soviet Government arid consented to an exchange of Ambassadors was made before the Prime Minister arrived at Washington, and I believe the British Government were perfectly familiar with the opinion of the American Government that the resumption of relations with Russia would do harm.
Mr. SPEAKER: That is going back to the question whether we should resume
diplomatic relations with Soviet Russia, and I have ruled that out of order many times this afternoon.
Commander BELLAIRS: I am dealing with the negotiations, and I am simply drawing attention to the fact that those negotiations resulted in a recognition of Russia and a decision to exchange Ambassadors before the Prime Minister had reached Washington.
Mr. HENDERSON: I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is right, after a denial has been given to a statement to continue to impute the motive that I was seeking to do something in the absence of my chief?
Mr. SPEAKER: I have often said that to impute motives is, of course, quite out of order.
Commander BELLAIRS: I am not imputing motives, and if there is any imputation of motives in anything I have said I withdraw it. I say that the least that could have been done to facilitate an agreement with America was to have that question discussed in America, because the course which was pursued was likely to harm our relations with the Americans.
Question put,
"That this House expresses its disapproval of the methods of the present Government in its conduct of the negotiations with the representative of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and condemns its careless drafting of the protocol of agreement."
The House divided: Ayes, 107; Noes, 254.

Division No. 109.]

AYES.

[7.20 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel

Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Albery, Irving James

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)

Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

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

Atholl, Duchess of

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Hurd, Percy A.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Knox, Sir Alfred

Bellairs, Commander Cariyon

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

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Berry, Sir George

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Eden, Captain Anthony

Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

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

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

Lleweilln, Major J. J.

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

Fleiden, E. B.

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Butler, R. A.

Ganzoni, Sir John

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

Carver, Major W. H.

Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Castle Stewart, Earl of

Gower, Sir Robert

Macquisten, F. A.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Marjoribanks, E. C.

Chapman, Sir S.

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

Christie, J. A.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Colman, N. C. p.

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Mond, Hon. Henry

Colville, Major D. J.

Haslam, Henry C.

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

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

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

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

Cranbourne, Viscount

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Savery, S. S.

Todd, Capt. A. J.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Skelton, A. N.

Train, J.

Penny, Sir George

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

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hattings)

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Smithers, Waldron

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Ramsbotham, H.

Somerset, Thomas

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Remer, John R.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Withers, Sir John James

Ruggles-Brise, Lieut-Colonel E. A.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Womersley, W. J.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Thomson, Sir F.

Captain Macdonald and Major

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Colfox.

NOES.

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

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

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

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

Mansfield, W.

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

March, S.

Alpass, J. H

Gillett, George M.

Marcus, M.

Ammon, Charles George

Glassey, A. E.

Marley, J.

Angell, Norman

Gosling, Harry

Mathers, George

Arnott, John

Gossling, A. G.

Matters, L. W.

Aske, Sir Robert

Gould, F.

Maxton, James

Attlee, Clement Richard

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Melville, Sir James

Ayles, Walter

Gray, Milner

Messer, Fred

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

Middleton, G.

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Milner, J.

Batey, Joseph

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

Groves, Thomas E.

Money, Ralph

Bellamy, Albert

Grundy, Thomas W.

Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Mort, D. L.

Benson, G.

Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

Moses, J. J. H.

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Harbord, A.

Muff, G.

Birkett, W. Norman

Hardie, George D.

Murnin, Hugh

Blindell, James

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Nathan, Major H. L.

Bowen, J. W.

Haycock, A. W.

Naylor, T. E.

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Hayday, Arthur

Noel Baker, P. J.

Broad, Francis Alfred

Hayes, John Henry

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Brockway, A. Fenner

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

Bromfield, William

Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

Owen. H. F. (Hereford)

Bromley, J.

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Palin, John Henry

Brooke, W.

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Brothers, M.

Herriotts, J.

Perry, S. F.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

Peters. Dr. Sidney John

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Hollins, A.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Buchanan, G.

Horrabin, J. F.

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Burgess, F. G.

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

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

Hunter, Dr. Joseph

Pole, Major D. G.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

Potts, John S.

Caine, Derwent Hall-

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Price, M. P.

Cameron, A. G.

Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

Pybus, Percy John

Cape, Thomas

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Quibell, D. J. K.

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Raynes, W. R.

Charleton, H. C.

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Chater, Daniel

Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Church, Major A. G.

Kelly, W. T.

Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Cluse, W. S.

Kennedy, Thomas

Ritson, J.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Kinley, J.

Romerll, H. G.

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Kirkwood, D.

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Compton, Joseph

Knight, Holford

Rowson, Guy

Cove, William G.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Daggar, George

Law, Albert (Bolton)

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

Dallas, George

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

Dalton, Hugh

Lawrence, Susan

Sanders, W. S.

Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

Lawson, John James

Sandham, E.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Sawyer, G. F.

Day, Harry

Leach, W.

Scrymgeour, E.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

Scurr, John

Devlin, Joseph

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Sexton, James

Dickson, T.

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Dukes, C.

Lindley, Fred W.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Ede, James Chuter

Logan, David Gilbert

Sherwood, G. H.

Edge, Sir William

Longden, F.

Shield, George William

Edmunds, J. E.

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Lowth, Thomas

Shillaker, J. F.

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Lunn, William

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Elmley, Viscount

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Simmons, C. J.

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

McElwee, A.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Foot, Isaac

McKinlay, A.

Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

Freeman, Peter

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

Sinkinson, George

Cardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Sitch, Charles H.

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

1500

1501

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Thorne, w, (West Ham, Plaistow)

Westwood, Joseph

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Thurtle, Ernest

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Tinker, John Joseph

Whiteley. Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Tout, W. J.

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Turner, B.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Sorensen, R.

Viant, S. P.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Spero, Dr. G. E.

Walker. J.

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Stamford, Thomas W.

Wallace, H. W.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Stephen, Campbell

Wallhead, Richard C.

Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)

Stewart, J. (St. Follox)

Watkins, F. C.

Wise, E. F.

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Strauss, G. R.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Wright, W. (Ruthergien)

Sullivan, J.

Wellock, Wilfred

Sutton, J. E.

Welsh, James (Paisley)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Paling.

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

West, F. R.

Question put, and agreed to.

POLITICAL SITUATION IN INDIA.
Mr. BROCKWAY: I beg to move,
"That this House welcomes the evidence of the co-operation of Indian representatives in the settlement of the constitutional question and relies upon the Government of India to encourage good will by the sympathetic conduct of its administrative and executive functions, particularly in relation to the expression of political opinion."
I realise that the discussion which I am opening this evening may have very serious consequences, and that every word uttered here, while it may influence English relations to India, is likely still more to influence Indian relations to England. Within a few days of this discussion, very critical decisions will be taken in India, decisions which will largely determine whether the new policy which was recently announced will have successful results. I can assure the Secretary of State for India that I appreciate the effort which he is making, with the whole-hearted alliance of the Viceroy in India, in order to settle the constitutional question with good will between the Indian and the British representatives, and I hope that no word which I utter to-night will make that task more difficult.
The situation in India is serious because, ever since the War, there has been a growing alienation between the representatives of Indian political opinion and this country. Even in 1919, when the Montagu reforms began to operate, there was a strong body of Indian opinion which declined to co-operate in those reforms; but during the last two years the situation has become still more serious, because, in addition to that section of Indian opinion which declined then to co-operate, even the Moderate and Liberal parties in India during the last two years have joined the non-co-operation movement. If the constitutional question in India had had to be settled with that alienation
1502
between Indian and British opinion, the task would have been almost impossible, either for the Viceroy or for the Secretary of State, and the greatest tribute to the policy which has been pursued during the last few months is the fact that, for the first time since 1919, there is evidence of representative Indian opinion seeking to co-operate in the settlement of the constitutional issue. To-day we not only have evidence that the Moderate and the Liberal parties are prepared to co-operate, but we have very good evidence that even a large part of that section of Indian opinion which declined to co-operate in 1919 is now looking towards the possibility of co-operation in the settlement of this issue.
The Motion which I am moving begins by welcoming that fact. I think, however, that the House should recognise that, though the position is more hopeful than it has been for many years, there are still three essential things which must be done if there is going to be wholehearted co-operation upon the Indian side. The first of those essential things is that, when the round-table conference comes to meet, the Indian representation at that conference shall be, as far as it is humanly possible to achieve, really reflective of Indian opinion, and I would urge the Secretary of State for India, in preparing the plans by which India is to be represented at that conference, to do his utmost to secure that politically alert opinion in India shall be represented at the conference in such a way that it will have the confidence of the Indian people.
The second essential is that the necessarily rather vague language which was used in relation to the objective of Dominion status in the declaration of the Viceroy should be interpreted in such a way that the Bill which is discussed by

1503
the round-table conference shall definitely embody the principle of Dominion statue. I do not suggest that it will be possible to introduce a Bill which will make the transition from the present Government of India to Dominion status in a few months, or in a year, but I do suggest very strongly that that Bill should be one in which the advance towards Dominion status should be accepted, that it should be one in which there will be progressive and automatic development towards Dominion statue, and that we shall not again have to come to this House, that we shall not again have to have further Commissions, which will mean that the whole constitutional issue of India has to be threshed out again.
The third essential thing, if these hopes of co-operation are to be realised, is that there should be a definite ending of the political prosecutions which have been carried out in India during the last two years. Upon this matter there has been a suggestion that those prosecutions are limited either to acts of violence or to speeches which are an incitement to violence. I think I shall be able to show that that is not the case. But even when there are actual acts of violence, or definite incitements to violence, I want to urge upon the Secretary of State for India the adoption of two principles. The first is that the decision to prosecute should be taken very carefully, and the second is that, when the decision has been taken, the prosecution should be carried out with scrupulous fairness to the Indian people. Unless those two principles are adopted, the effect of prosecuting even for the expression of violent opinion is to make national heroes in a country where there is grave political and economic discontent. I am perfectly sure that I shall have the support of the Secretary of State in that respect, because his own declared opinions on the matter leave no reason for doubt. I have been interested in reading, for example, an article which he himself contributed to the "Contemporary Review" in January, 1026. He was then commenting upon Justice Swift's summing up in the Communist trial. Justice Swift had used these words:
"If you come to the conclusion that the language tends to subvert the Government
1504
and the laws of the Empire, if you think that is what the language moans, then you will not only be within your rights but it will be your duty to find the prisoners guilty."
The Secretary of State for India, in the "Contemporary Review," made this comment:
"These are very comprehensive words. What is meant by 'laws of the Empire'? How would such an interpretation affect, for example, the Nationalist party at present in South Africa, who have declared for secession?. … Most people would concur in the view that the weapon of prosecution for sedition should not be brought out except in the most urgent case of public necessity."
The principle which the Secretary of State for India expresses there is the principle which I am urging upon him now. I am not arguing that there should not be prosecutions in cases of violence, or incitement to violence; I am only arguing that a prosecution should be decided upon with very great care, and that, when it has been decided upon, it should be carried out with scrupulous fairness. There is one illustration of these two principles to which I want to draw the attention of the House. They are illustrated in the trial which is now proceeding at Meerut. The charge in that trial is:
"Waging or attempting to wage war against the King, conspiring to deprive the King of the sovereignty of British India, or to overawe the Government by criminal force or the show of criminal force."
That trial is sub judice, and, therefore, I only make this comment, that it seems to me that the trial is placing out of all due proportion the effectiveness of the campaign which has been urged, and generally I would put this point to the Secretary of State for India. Experience all over the world shows that, if Communists are left alone, they are so stupid in their propaganda that they defeat themselves. There is the case of China, where their stupidity has meant that they have estranged even the left in the Nationalist movement—
Colonel HOWARD-BURY: What has been the loss of life in China?
Mr. BROCKWAY: Their attitude in India is having the same effect, and I want to put it to the Secretary of State for India that there is a danger, by the very prominence of these trials, that more propaganda will be done on their

1505
behalf than they would be able effectively to do themselves. Generally speaking, I would say that the conditions in India, of political subjection and of economic poverty, and the repression which has existed in India, are likely to make many more Communists than all the propaganda of the Third International. To that I would add that not only does there seem to me to be some doubt as to tile wisdom of the trial, but that the proceedings have actually been unfortunate in certain respects—
Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot discuss the proceedings in a trial which is now going on. That would be quite out of order.
Mr. BROCKWAY: I want to be very careful about that point, and, therefore, Sir, I will first ask your guidance. All that I was going to raise as a matter of discussion was the transference of the trial to Meerut, the refusal of bail to the prisoners for eight months, and the absence of any trial by jury. If you rule these matters out of order, I will not proceed upon them.
Mr. SPEAKER: It is a very sound principle of Order that, when trials are proceeding, references to them and discussion and criticism of them in this House would be out of order.
Mr. MAXTON: On that point of Order. Have there not been many rulings in this House that, while one could not, when a case was sub judice, discuss in this House the merits of the question, it was always in order to discuss the procedure in the matter? I suggest to you, Sir, that my hon. Friend the Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway) is now only discussing the question of procedure, and not the merits of the case.
Mr. SPEAKER: To discuss the general procedure and method of trials in general would be quite in order, but not of a specific trial.
Mr. BROCKWAY: I will leave it at that, having expressed my view upon those three points. The point that I want to urge is that the trial at Meerut was only symbolical of a much wider campaign in India, and that in India during the last two years there have been, under Sections of the Indian Penal Code, and more particularly under Section 124A of that Code, repeated prosecutions, and that those prosecutions have gone much
1506
beyond any attempt to suppress violence or even incitement to violence. Perhaps I may read to the House the actual terms of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, under which these prosecutions have taken place. It reads as follows:
"Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs, or by visible representation or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite feelings of disaffection to the Government established by law in British India, shall be punished with transportation for life or for any term, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, to which time may be added, or with fine."
I am aware that Dr. Whitley Stokes in his book, "Anglo-Indian Codes," gives an explanation of that in which he would modify its effect, but, unfortunately, that explanation has no statutory power.
There has been a series of trials in India, of which I think my right hon. Friend will be aware, beginning with the case of the Bangobasi newspaper in 1891, when Sir Comar Petheram was the judge presiding, what is known as the Tilak case, which went to the Privy Council, and where Justice Strachey's summing up at Bombay was endorsed, and again in the case of the Queen Empress v. Arrba Prasad, which has very much modified the explanation given in that book. Indeed, it is not too much to say that the total effect of those judgments is that anyone in India is guilty under this Section who uses words calculated to create a disposition towards dislike or contempt or hatred of the system of Government, even if the words did not in fact create such a disposition and even if they were true. I will leave to others the elaboration of some of the many cases which will be brought before the House showing that, under that Subsection, many Indian politicians have been arrested and imprisoned, not for acts of violence or of inciting to violence, but for the expression of political opinion, which, in my view, ought to be regarded as absolutely legitimate. In addition to that, there has been a special Act passed during the last two years known as the Public Safety Act. I am wrong in saying it was passed, because it was rejected by the Indian Legislation Assembly, but it was certified by the Viceroy. That particular Act has ceased to operate and I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether it is the intention pf the Indian Government to renew the Public Safety Ordinance.

1507
It seems to me, on this issue of political prosecution, two developments are necessary if the attitude of co-operation which is beginning to show itself is to be encouraged. The first is that there should be a limitation of the prosecutions to violence, or to incitement to violence. During the past year there have been twice as many prosecutions of this character as there were last year. I welcome the fact that, since the Viceroy's Declaration, their number has decreased, though I regret to see there have been a few instances. I know it may be argued that strong language, quite apart from attempts to incite to violence, may endanger safety, but if strong language or incitement to violence endangers safety, that is the strongest possible indictment of the system of administration in which that kind of public opinion exists. The second thing that I suggest is essential is that there should be a review of the cases now in prison. That review, it seems to me, should cover two categories of offenders. It should cover old offenders who have been in prison for a very considerable time, and it should cover those who are in prison only for the expression of political opinion on the lines I have outlined. As far as the first is concerned I would particularly draw attention to the recommendation of the Punjab Jails Committee, an official committee of the Punjab Government, which recommended that there should be a release of the Lahore conspiracy prisoners of 1915, offenders imprisoned during the War who have been kept in prison ever since, and, secondly, that there should be a release of the martial law prisoners of 1919. I urge that on the ground of the very long period of imprisonment which they have undergone. As far as political expression is concerned, I would urge that there should be a review of the cases during the last year or two, so that where there has been imprisonment for the expression of political opinion, apart from violence, those cases should be reviewed. I would put to my right hon. Friend the words which have been given in an interview which appeared in the Press to-day by Pandit Malaviya, one of the most honoured of the Hindu leaders:
"The Indian leaders are requesting a political amnesty but do not wish the release of men guilty of political murders and
1508
acts of violence. It is recognised that such as these must remain in prison, but it is urged that prisoners' cases should be reviewed for the purpose of releasing men imprisoned only for expressing opinions."
I would strongly urge that point of view on the Secretary of State.
The position in India is full of hope, but there is still uncertainty. In my view, the decision we take, and the decisions which India takes in the next few months, will be of tremendous importance, not merely in the relations of Britain and India, but in the relations of the white and coloured races all over the world. Everywhere subject peoples have a new sense of national existence. Everywhere they are seeking education. Everywhere they are seeking political and economic liberty. There is no force on earth that can prevent that movement of liberty from ultimately reaching its achievement. The problem that is before us is whether that achievement is to be reached by our recognising and encouraging it or by the maintenance of domination, followed by rebellion. The decision we reach in relation to India in the next few months will be a decision which will have tremendous influence upon the whole of that vast problem in the immediate future. There are to-day new forces at work in India which are of much greater significance than the mere demand for political emancipation. They are forces which are demanding cultural emancipation, spiritual emancipation, and economic emancipation. India has been described as decadent. To-day India is the most renascent nation on the face of the whole world. Anyone who goes to India finds it in a ferment of new ideas, finds social reform movements, educational reform movements, women's movements, movements for the equality of the various castes rising up in a degree which we can little recognise here. That Indian movement for human liberty is absolutely irresistible. The issue before the House is whether, with our responsibilities and with our opportunities, we shall co-operate with that movement of liberty and allow it expression which will not bring it into conflict with this country. I want, in conclusion, to say a word to my own friends in India. They have reason to be suspicious and to doubt, but I know the new spirit that is finding expression in our own Government at home and in the Viceroy. I beg the Indian

1509
people to respond to that spirit and I beg our own Government to be courageous in its expression.
Mr. HORRABIN: I beg to second the Motion.
I realise, as my hon. Friend said he did, the fact that any words used in this House on a subject like this may have repercussions far away, and that it is incumbent on anyone speaking on this subject here to choose his words very carefully, and with a due sense of responsibility. I hope that from that far and away most important point of view I shall not offend. I want to express, I believe in the name of the majority of Members of the House, satisfaction at the evidence of the desire of considerable bodies of Indian opinion to co-operate in the solution of the constitutional problem in India, and to express satisfaction equally at the very clear evidence of a new spirit on the part of the Government of India, that new spirit which was expressed so finely in the Viceroy's declaration, with its frankly expressed desire to break through the webs of mistrust which have lately clogged the relations between India and Great Britain, that same new spirit which the Secretary of State voiced so clearly and unequivocally in the House a short time ago. We on this side, at all events, are not surprised that the evidence of that new spirit should come soon from this Government when we remember the words used by the Prime Minister only last year in presiding over the British Commonwealth Labour Conference in London. He said:
"I hope that within a period of months rather than years there will be a new Dominion added to the Commonwealth of our nations, a Dominion of another race, a Dominion that will find self-respect as an equal within this Commonwealth. I refer to India."
8.0 p.m.
In that sense this is not surely a new spirit at all—not even as new as 1917. The Act of 1833, passed while still the East India Company ruled, and the Royal Proclamation of 1858 both quite clearly declared for equality of opportunity for the people of India, and some of the very best servants of the Crown who have worked in India, men like Sir Thomas Munro of Madras, or Lord Bentinck or Lord Lytton distinguished servants of this country in India, have always admittedly and professedly
1510
worked for that ultimate goal of equality of opportunity and fellow-citizenship under the British Crown of the two races. That Birkenhead tone to which the Secretary of State referred was indeed a retrogression to the spirit and the attitude of the men who a century and a half ago lost the American colonies to this country. I do not know whether that eighteenth century attitude could have been more clearly expressed than it was on one occasion by the Noble Lord the late Home Secretary when he used these words:
"We do not hold India for the Indians. We hold it as the finest outlet for British goods in general and Lancashire goods in particular. We conquered it by the sword and by the sword we should hold it."
The same Noble Lord characterised as "cant" any other view. That is a fine expression of the 18th century attitude. One might almost suggest that a much earlier century, in fact a pre-Christian century, is characteristic of an utterance of that sort. Words uttered in a spirit such as that have resulted in an entire lack of trust, or, to use the Viceroy's words, in "webs of mistrust in India." It is hardly surprising that such words should have led to that result. It is a fact, and we all know it, that not merely the so-called extremists in India but the great bodies of Liberals, independents and moderates to-day manifest that same distrust in the British Government as their more left-wing fellows. I will quote some words which I came across the other day in a periodical dealing with affairs in the East; words written by one who certainly cannot be classed as an extremist. They are taken from an article written by Sir Phiroze Sethna, a member of the Viceroy's Council of State, a leading hanker and an ex-president of the Indian Merchants' Chamber. Sir Phiroze Sethna, writing in the "Asiatic Review" quite recently, while arguing that the British connection must be maintained, says that Western influences must continue to operate, and insists on the necessity of making substantial constitutional advance, or otherwise such hostility may be created against the British connection as to imperil its continued existence. Governmental machinery, he goes on to say, must be reformed and re-adjusted so as to win

1511
for the British connection the unanimous support of the Indian people. These are not the words of an extremist or of a political agitator; they are the words of an Indian at present prominently associated with the British rule in India. I want to point to the significance of the words he chooses to use "re-adjusted so as to win for the British connection"—not to regain but
"to win for the British connection the willing support of the Indian people"
I suggest that words such as those from such a man are of enormous significance as indicating the nature, extent, and depth of the distrust felt in India at the present time.
To come to the more specific point raised in the Motion which has been moved by my hon. Friend, that distrust has surely been made abundantly manifest by the widespread sympathy shown in India for the accused in such conspiracy trials as have recently taken place at Lahore and Meerut. Whole classes of people, and whole sections and castes of people do not spontaneously express in all sorts of ways their sympathy with violence, with outrage, with murder unless there is some very deep underlying reason for such an expression of sympathy. The very fact of the widespread character of the sympathy expressed in India in view of these cases is evidence of the nature and extent of that distrust. I want to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India that now surely, more than ever before, is the time for the clear manifestation of such qualities as vision and courage on the part of the Government in relation to India. I want to urge that some quite unmistakable gesture, some definite act which would symbolise the new spirit to which he has pledged himself and to which the Viceroy has pledged himself in regard to India affairs; that there should be some definite act or gesture which should make that abundantly clear to the Indian people. It would be good statemanship at this time and would repay this country and the men responsible for it a hundredfold.
I want to remind hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House that the party to which they belong has always quite clearly and quite definitely stood for an
1512
amnesty for political prisoners in India, and that only two years ago, at the annual conference of this party, a resolution was unanimously adopted asking for the release of all political offenders who were in Indian prisons. I want to make it clear, as the Mover of this Motion has already done, that in making that appeal we are not appealing, any more than our fellows at that party conference were appealing, for any less rigorous treatment of clear cases of violence or of clear and definite incitement to violence. We are asking that there should be very careful consideration, indeed very careful reconsideration, of every case which involves merely freedom of political expression and free expression of political opinion. This is a vital matter at the present time. I can think of nothing for which we ought to pray more in relation to this particular problem than that we should win the good will of the Indian National Congress and their support for this policy of co-operation. Is it conducive to the gaining of that support from the National Congress that a member of the executive committee of that body, numbering only some nine or ten men, is in prison on a charge of this kind? I do not want to allude to whole lists of cases, though it would be perfectly easy to do so, illustrating the kind of cases we are asking should be reconsidered and treated differently in future in order to help to break away from this web of mistrust.
I should like to refer to a case that has been mentioned more than once in this House—the case of Mr. Ramananda Chatterji, the editor of a monthly leading English journal. There appeared a book entitled "India in Bondage," by an American missionary. That book was published in serial form and ran through that journal for a period of two years. It then appeared in book form early this year, and no steps were taken. But on a second edition being issued, the publisher, Mr. Chatterji, was arrested and sentenced to three months' imprisonment, or pay a fine of 1,000 rupees under Regulation 124A. I understand that at the trial the prosecuting counsel, or probably the defending counsel, read from the book certain passages quoted from the writings of the present Prime Minister, and the magistrate informed counsel that if the present Prime Minister had used or written those words in India be would have been liable to prosecution for

1513
sedition. I understand that the writer of the book, the American missionary in question, has offered to withdraw the book as a whole if any critic can point to serious mis-statements of fact or even to exaggerated statements. It is that sort of thing which we feel is helping in no small measure to exacerbate that distrust which is making so difficult a real full-hearted co-operation at the present time. I might mention the fact that a list of books has been published in this country as having been banned by the police in one district in India, including poetic works of a Poet Laureate of this country and a poet who was an eminently respectable Poet Laureate, Robert Southey. I have not seen any explanation as to what particular part of Southey's works came under the police ban, but I am sure the ghost of the Poet Laureate must be anxiously awaiting some explanation.
I take up one page of a newspaper and glance across the headings at the top of it. It is a page of an Indian newspaper published in English: "A religious preacher sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment." Two columns afterwards: "A professor sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment." In the next column: "What is sedition? Editor sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment." I do not want to touch on the details of those cases, but I wish to urge that almost all of them—although there may be facts which do not come out in newspaper reports—are definitely cases in which the question of the legitimate expression of political opinion arises, and in regard to which the question of incitement to violence or murder produced long legal arguments during trial. We ask that in cases of that sort the benefit of the doubt should be given to the prisoner rather than against him. We urge that at all costs there should be avoided the sort of deadlock which comes about by one side regarding as necessarily innocent every person charged and the other side regarding as necessarily guilty every person charged.
I want to touch on the particular point of view in relation to this question which has a special appeal to my hon. Friends on this side of the House. There is in this country, up and down the movement with which Members on this side of the House are associated, much anxiety and
1514
apprehension as to the freedom of trade union organisation and trade union propaganda in India. The workers of this country feel that these fundamental rights of the workers in every country in the world must be very carefully safeguarded and that, in circumstances such as have obtained in India hitherto, those elementary rights of the working classes, nowhere more needed than in India, should be free from the suggestion that they themselves are seditious. I stress the side that arises out of this view of the question, and emphasise what I am sure many hon. Members must feel, as I do, that important as the political issues in India are, they are entirely overshadowed, or will be overshadowed, by the tremendous economic issues.
We are conscious of the appalling condition of the great mass of the people in India. We remember that that mass represents something like one-fifth of the total population of the world. We know something, from first-hand knowledge of our fellows who have been out there and have seen it, of the utter degradation of the industrial conditions in some of the important centres of India. We realise the danger of those low standards to our European standards. We realise, as human beings, the danger of a vast population so lacking in stamina, so lacking in the possibility of resistance to disease, that they may at any time become a sort of distributing plague centre for the rest of the world. That is the situation in India that is of more importance than any other to those of us who are associated with the working class movement, and I urge on the Secretary of State that, in order to meet that terribly urgent problem, nothing should be left undone to ensure the maximum of good will on the part of those involved in the solution. We welcome the pledges which the Viceroy and the Secretary of State have given, and we urge the Secretary of State and the Government to make it still clearer to the peoples of India that a new spirit has arisen and a new era of real co-operation has dawned.
Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I find myself in somewhat of a difficulty with regard to the Motion, but I regard it as applying to the case which I have in mind. Hon. Members opposite will agree with me that in the great problem

1515
of India, which the Secretary of State and the Simon Commission have to face, there are many different angles from which it can be approached. All these angles have to be dealt with, and they constitute the most important problem that the House and this country have had to face for many a year. I hope that no words that I say will raise any awkward question for the Government, the Secretary of State or the Simon Commission. The other day I read the comments of an Indian paper respecting the Debate which took place in this House, and they said that the wisest words spoken in that Debate were spoken by the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) when he said:
"It is useless to pretend that the incidents leading to this Debate have not for the time being added to our own difficulties, through no fault of our own."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1929; col. 1337, Vol. 231.]
The Motion says:
"That this House welcomes the evidence of the co-operation of Indian representatives in the settlement of the Constitutional question."
The Indian representatives are of many kinds, many races and many religions, and I think the Viceroy's Proclamation followed the right lines, when he said that the Government would invite
"representatives of different parties and interests in British India and representatives of the Indian States to meet them, separately or together as circumstances may demand, for the purpose of conference and discussion in regard both to the British-Indian and all-Indian problems."
I hope that in this scheme of cooperation the Indian representation includes the representatives of the Indian States—the Princes of India. I do not think that it is realised the great political power that the Princes of India have. I do not think that it is realised that the Treaties that we have with the one-third of India which is governed by the Princes, which Treaties were made by Queen Victoria and confirmed by King Edward and the present King, present a problem which is one of the most difficult if we want the question of the real representation of India dealt with in a proper manner. The problems of the Indian States require careful and sympathetic treatment. In the first place, they want definitely to know what real co-
1516
operation will amount to with the Government of India, in connection with any further proposals towards altering the Constitution, and I submit that their susceptibilities in this direction must be satisfied before we can get any real cooperation in India. They want to be sure that the Government of India will not usurp other powers than those which have been agreed to in their Treaty rights.
Secondly, they are at the present time unhappy about some of their fiscal relations. While the Government of India can put on a protective tariff and alter the fiscal relations, the Indian States, who have to pay more for their ploughs and machinery, get nothing back out of the taxes which the Government of India have levied. They fear that their Treaty rights may be handed over to British India. That is a big problem which must be carefully dealt with. The other day, I received a letter from a friend of mine in India. He said that he wished people who are in a hurry about India would think before they act:
"Most of them know so pitifully little of the problems out here and of the conditions that we live and move and have our being in. They do not grasp that the vocal politically-minded class represent one-fourth of one per cent. of the whole of India."
The politically-minded class, some of them are the Princes, are a very small minority, but they are a very vocal minority and cannot be ignored. It often happens that the politically-minded who speak out lead the others. If you do not know the people of India, if you have not lived amongst these 300,000,000 people for several years, you fail to realise their tremendous ignorance on political matters. At least 90 per cent. of them cannot read or write, and when they are led, as they were in the Mutiny by some scare about greased cartridges, by something which affects their religion, you cannot pay too much attention to the small number of politically-minded people in India.
Small beginnings have great endings; and the politicians of India are quite entitled to put their needs before the Government of India and before the people of this country. While I hope we shall do all we can gradually and slowly to press forward in fulfilment of the promise we have given, we must go slowly for many years before we can

1517
reach the goal of self-government for India. The very people who are now crying out for self-government for India would be the first to cry out for a return of the British troops and the British régime in India if it was withdrawn. I believe the co-operation of all Indian representatives is necessary, particularly in relation to the expression of political opinion, and if we go steadily along the line we are trying to go and get the support and co-operation of all classes of opinion, not least the co-operation of the Indian Princes and Native States, we shall stand a good chance of solving the biggest problem that this country has to face.
Mr. BROTHERS: The hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) has made, I think, a really good case for the Motion of the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway). I have been in India, and the people of India are a very lovable race. They may be excitable, but so are all non-educated people, taken in the mass. They are not to blame for that. If they are not able to state their case before a Commission, or if they have not the vote, it is not their fault; it is our fault. We should try to cultivate a better spirit between the two nations. Mere government by fear will not do. We have to realise that they are a nation just as we are a nation, and if we approach the problem in that way we shall do some good. I do not think we ought to consider the question of right as regards India merely from the point of view of trade, but rather on the basis of justice. I am specially interested in the cotton trade, and I know that the unrest in India has a very detrimental effect on the cotton trade of Lancashire, where many of our people are now unemployed. I had the privilege and the good fortune to be in the legislative assembly at Delhi on 2nd February, 1927, when they were debating the question of political prisoners. I listened to the debate for the whole of the day, and heard the arguments for, and the defence of Sir Alexander Muddiman, the Home Member, as he was called. I am speaking from memory, but I remember pretty well all the incidents, and I believe that the case for keeping political prisoners in prison was not made out. The Motion was:
"This Assembly recommends the Governor-General in Council that he be pleased imme-
1518
diately to release from prison or bring to trial all the detenus under detention under the Bengal Criminal Ordinance (Amendment) Act, 1925."
On a division the Ayes were 63 and the Noes 50. I quite realise that at times it may be difficult to obtain witnesses because of fear, but that is no reason why these prisoners should not have a fair trial. I have been making inquiries to-day, and I believe the Bengal Ordnance is not now operative, and I will, therefore, not go into that matter. I hope the Secretary of State for India will give this Motion due consideration in the interests of this country and in the interests of the people of India.
Colonel HOWARD-BURY: On reading the Motion put down by the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway) I was rather surprised to see that a change had been made from political prosecutions in India to the very much more moderate Motion dealing with the political situation in India, and I confess that I think the Secretary of State for India must have been behind the Mover of the Motion when he made it in these particular terms. They are so moderate and so different from what we were originally led to expect under the title "Political prosecutions in India." The first part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman certainly alluded to certain political prosecutions which are taking place at the present time. He referred especially to the Meerut case, and I see in to-day's paper that a Mr. Kelkar, who is a member of the Central Legislature, is to head an appeal to Pundit Motilal Nehru and Mr. Gandhi asking these two leaders to secure an amnesty for certain persons and generally for all the Meerut trial prisoners.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Hear, hear!
Colonel HOWARD-BURY: The hon. Member says, "Hear, hear," but does he realise the accusation against these men? Does he realise that they are in a very different position from those who were amnestied under the Gandhi-Reading Conversations, that they are accused to-day of conspiring to deprive the King-Emperor of the sovereignty of British India, that they plan to hold the means of communication throughout the country, and that they are acting under instructions from Moscow, and are working for a general strike?
Mr. THURTLE: On a point of Order. For the guidance of the House in subsequent debate would you state, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it is in order to discuss the Meerut trials, in view of the fact that they are still in progress?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not see where the subject comes in under this Motion. The hon. and gallant Member has referred to the Mover of the Motion, but I did not hear the speech of the Mover of the Motion.
Mr. THURTLE: The subject was then ruled out by Mr. Speaker.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If it was ruled out by Mr. Speaker I must follow that ruling.
Colonel H OWARD-BURY: It was ruled out after the hon. Member had spoken about it.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Chair cannot rule out anything until it knows what is likely to be said.
Mr. BECKETT: Further on that point of Order. The hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway) asked at the beginning of his speech, whether he would be in order in dealing with the Meerut trials, and Mr. Speaker advised him that it would not be in order, and the hon. Member left that subject at once.
Colonel HOWARD-BURY: The hon. Member for East Leyton was dealing with the procedure of the trial, which is quite a different matter.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. and gallant Member was in the House at the time he knows that Mr. Speaker ruled the subject out, and I must ask him to follow that ruling.
Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Then I shall not allude further to that case, but to other eases which hon. Members opposite would have amnestied, though they are in a totally different class from what could be considered political prosecutions. We have had evidence time after time that there are subversive organisations working in India, and that they are financed by foreign money. I could read extracts, one after the other, from the official Russian organ, the "Pravda."
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not see how that comes within the Motion. The
1520
Motion asks for "Co-operation of Indian representatives in the settlement of the constitutional question."
Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I want to deal with the last part of the Motion, in which occur the words "particularly in relation to the expression of political, opinion." Hon. Members have alluded in their speeches to these prosecutions and have claimed that those concerned are representatives of political opinion. With all due respect to your ruling, I want to point out that these are cases of revolutionary activity, and that they have nothing whatever to do with political opinions. Hon. Members opposite would have an amnesty for these prisoners, but I want to prove that these prisoners are in a totally different category from ordinary political prisoners or those who express a rather more violent opinion as to what should be done. These agitations are definite attempts to overturn the Government of the country by violence, with the aid of foreign money. With due respect I suggest that when proclamations are issued to the peasants of India, illiterate people as they are, with a great respect for the written word—
Mr. BROTHERS: They cannot read it.
Colonel HOWARD-BURY: That is true, but there is one man in every village who has to make out the taxes for the village, and he can read and write. To him is handed one of these documents and he reads some such statement as this:
"Peasants of India. Confiscate the land, hurry to the firing line to destroy the Imperialist colonial system India must be liberated!"
That sort of thing is read out and the peasants believe everything. Even in this country one often finds that because a statement has been seen in a newspaper it is looked upon as a fact. You have these inflammatory documents circulated:
"The soil of India is rising in flames in the attack on British Imperialism."
What good is that sort of thing going to do in India? These peasants are easily roused by people who go around with these inflammatory documents. How many lives have been lost in India as a result? During the Bombay strikes there were the Communist agitators. Are they to be amnestied? We have to realise

1521
that the politically-minded people of India are but a quarter of 1 per cent. of the vast population of India. We are apt to pay far too much attention to that very small but very noisy minority. The hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Brothers) knows India, and no doubt he has travelled widely in India. He spoke of India as a nation. India is not a nation; it is 40, 50 or 60 different nations, all speaking different languages, with four or five different religions. It is impossible to look upon the country as a single nation.
The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is to visit India. No doubt he wishes to come back with a certain amount of information, but what information is he likely to get in five or six weeks? He will travel around and meet various members of the different political parties, who will express different views to him. But is he going to travel through the country? Is he going to see the vast masses of the people who are not vocal? Will he learn their views? He would learn far more if he travelled with some Commissioner or Deputy-Commissioner on a tour from village to village, and saw how justice was administered, how the villagers looked to the Commissioner as the representative of law and order—often one white man amongst a million. The natives bring even their religious questions to him for decision, so great is the confidence that they have in him. Have those millions any idea of what "dominion status" or democracy means? Not the slightest. They have had no political education whatever. If you talked with them their conversation would be of their crops, good or bad, the rainfall, or the price of bread, and of nothing beyond that. When you bring an agitator amongst them he puts new ideas into their heads and stirs them up, and instead of a peaceful community you get a community—
Miss WILKINSON: Does not the hon. and gallant Member go to Chelmsford and stir the people there, or try to?
Colonel HOWARD-BURY: The hon. Lady went there, and I read the report of her speech with much interest. She said that she and her party were going to tire us out, but I think that we should tire her out, because we are not accustomed to an eight hours day, as hon.
1522
Members opposite are. Whether one goes to the aborigines with their bows and arrows, or to the cultivators in the United Provinces, one never hears a word of politics spoken. They are a happy and contented people. Why bring discontent all of a sudden to them by introducing politics? The Maharajah of Benares said the other day:
"The ever-indulgent British Government, eager to reward India for its war service, made a fateful announcement in 1917, anticipating the actual state of things by at least half a century, and trying to build a twentieth century constitution with materials of the Middle Ages."
That, I think, is true. It is very much what is happening in this vast country with all its possibilities. I have travelled with the pilgrims to the sources of the Ganges; I have met pilgrims who have walked for three or four or even five years to go to the sources and to bathe in those waters as they come out of the glaciers, many thousands of feet above the sea level, and they have poured blessings on the British Raj which enabled them to walk in peace through the length and breadth of the land. That is what the British Government have brought to India. We gave a definite promise in 1917 and we amplified it in 1919, and in the East when we make a promise we carry out that promise, be it right or wrong, be it wise or foolish. It is fatal in the East to break your pledge or to whittle it down. The people there trust the man who keeps his word, and we have always kept our word and we intend to keep our word. The pronouncement of the Viceroy the other day was but a restatement of what has been said before in the past 10 or 12 years.
All those who appreciated the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919 are however disappointed with what has been done. They have been disappointed by the opposition of the Assembly to further measures introduced by the Government of India to ensure the maintenance of order and the elementary rights of law-abiding citizens. Again we find that the trouble created by these Red Communistic agents has played havoc with a great Indian industry, and the spectacle is witnessed to-day of the leader of the Swarajist party threatening to inaugurate another widespread and subversive movement unless his demands are granted. In India we can never afford to give way to violence.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Nor in Ireland.
Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I quite agree. It is a fatal mistake, but, unfortunately, there has been a, tendency on many occasions for Governments to do so as being the easiest way out of a difficulty at the moment. It always creates further difficulties however in the course of time. We come to the present situation. We have an independent Commission and what it is expected to do is to present an unbiased report. It is not to formulate legislation. The Commission consists of members who have not been associated with India, who had no preconceived ideas about India, but went out there with open minds to hear everything which was to be said by all parties. Now, more than at any other time, when this Commission is due to report, we want a conciliatory feeling in India which will welcome that report. We want Indian appreciation of the kind of reformed government which is possible and practicable. Unless we can get the co-operation of Indian leaders and parties, of the native States, and of the European associations, these reforms, whatever they may be, will be made unworkable. What we need at the present time is the most conciliatory policy possible, and I think in the Viceroy we have to-day one who is doing much by his actions to conciliate all parties in India. The "Times" paid this tribute to him the other day:
"It is difficult to describe the respect in which Lord Irwin is held. Though I have waded through oceans of newspaper mud I have never seen a single unkind or doubting word said about the Viceroy. Against his sincerity, even the most violent extremists seem afraid to say a word."
I think we are lucky in having such a man at the head of affairs in India at the present time. This Motion seems to correspond with certain conditions which were formulated at the Delhi meeting of the Congress leaders for acceptance at the round-table conference. It welcomes the co-operation of Indian representatives and relies on the Government of India to encourage good will by the sympathetic conduct of its administrative and executive functions. The first of the demands of the Congress leaders was a demand for a policy of general conciliation. That is being carried out to-day by the Government of India. But they make a second demand, and that is for a general
1524
amnesty, and I think that would be an extremely dangerous policy at the present time. The amnesty of prisoners accused of revolutionary activities ought not to be tolerated in India. We must be firm somewhere. We must uphold law and order, and as long as we are in India we are responsible, not only for the few, but for the teeming millions who are affected at all times by disturbances—and as a rule those who Are killed and wounded in disturbances are not those who cause the disturbances.
At the same time, I think we are entitled to ask the leaders in India to refrain from suspicion and accept the conditions such as they are. Their co-operation will determine the rate of advance, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) has said, we ought to hasten slowly. Events in the East move slowly. India for a thousand years did not advance, and to bring the fruits of Western civilisation suddenly to a country where more than 90 per cent. of the population are illiterate would be fatal. They do not understand Western civilisation and Western ideas of government. India is a vast country of which over one-third belongs to native States, and with a population speaking more than 40 different languages. How are you going to institute any form of Dominion status there? Give them self-government bit by bit. Educate them slowly up to the time when it may be possible to give them full self-government, but it will have to be a slow process. What India wants most of all, and what is even more important than Dominion status, is racial equality within the Empire. That is their demand and that is what they really want.
It is not so much the form of Government about which they are concerned as the demand that they should be considered as racial equals throughout the Empire, and if you grant them that concession and then, bit by bit, give them the forms of government which they need, you will go a long way towards conciliating all the inhabitants of India. While doing that, and while backing up the Viceroy in his conciliatory policy we ought to assure ourselves at the same time as trustees for that country, that law and order are being upheld with firmness. We ought to prevent subversive elements going into that country and

1525
creating disturbances such as have happened at Bombay and Calcutta. While welcoming this Motion, I ask the Secretary of State for India when he makes his statement, which I know will be a conciliatory one, to assure us at the same time that those who are accused or have been proved guilty of revolutionary crimes will be dealt with firmly, and that there will be no sign of weakness in the Government of India in that respect.
Major GRAHAM POLE: I am very glad, indeed, that my first speech in this House should be on a subject that has been very near my heart for at least the last 20 years. During that time I have gone out to India on seven or eight different occasions, and I have toured it from North to South and from East to West. I have lived in Indian homes, I have met Indian people, and I have been in Indian villages. I have also gone among the others, the military men, the Indian civil servants; but if I desired to see India, I would not adopt the advice of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury) and go round the country with a Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner. He is the last man with whom I would choose to go round and see the conditions of the country. I would go round with an Indian who belonged to the place, who knew the place, a kind of thing that was impossible to do 20 years ago. Even a much shorter time ago than that, if you travelled in a railway train with an Indian, or drove in a motor car with an Indian, you were supposed to be lowering the British Raj.
I was very glad to hear the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford say that what we really required was racial equality within the Empire for India, but what we require first is racial equality in India for Indians. There is no racial equality in India to-day, but it is getting better than it was. Only a few years ago there was anything but racial equality there, and there is one thing to the credit of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, and that is that they have made for racial equality, because in the Indian Legislative Assembly and the Indian Legislative Councils Indians and British meet on equal terms. In Bombay, if you are a white man, you go on arrival to the Bombay Yacht club and
1526
lunch there, but if you are an Indian, it does not matter if you are a Maharajah, you dare not go in there. There was one man, an English solicitor's clerk, who took me in there, and he said to me, "This to us is sacred soil." That is the kind of spirit that we want to get out of India altogether and out of those who go to India and live in India.
My great difficulty in taking anything from those who have lived in India, especially if they have been in the Services, as actual fact for India, is that they go out to one province, spend 20 years or more in that province, and learn the language there, but they do not move from that province. They know the conditions of that province to a certain extent, but they do not know the conditions of other parts of India, and I have found the most appalling ignorance among civil servants in India about the conditions in other provinces in that country. You have also this difficulty, that whenever a man is in an official position, it is not very easy to get an Indian to speak to him quite frankly and openly, as he will to one who is not in an official position. We have heard that India for 1,000 Years has not advanced. India in the last 20 years has advanced—
Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I meant before that.
Major POLE: I agree, but you have had 1,000 years' advance in the last 15 years.
Colonel HOWARD-BURY: That is much too fast.
9.0 p.m.
Major POLE: You had the first signs of that advance when, an Eastern nation going to war with a Western nation—Japan with Russia—and the Eastern nation being victorious, it made every Eastern hold himself straighter. It made every Eastern feel that he was able to be on an equality with the Western. Then the Great War came, and you had Indians brought into Europe to fight white people, put on an equality with white people, asked to fight white people, and they did fight white people. Then during the war we promised them responsible government. It has been said, and quite truly,

1527
that there is nothing new in the Viceroy's statement with regard to Dominion status. There is nothing new. That was practically promised during the War in the Montagu statement in this House in August, 1917, but although we all understood that that meant Dominion government at some time, and that we were going to have progression towards Dominion government, it is also the fact that while Lord Reading was Viceroy of India, and when there was a debate in the Indian Legislative Assembly on the attainment of Dominion status by India, the Home Member of Lord Reading's Government got up in that House—a very able and clever man—and gave a very able and clever speech to prove that what we had said did not mean what they all understood and what we had all understood, up to that time, that it meant. He said that responsible government did not mean self-government, that it did not mean Dominion status at all, that Dominion status might follow, but that it did not necessarily follow; and in any event, he said, that was a further and a final step.
It was that statement that made the Indians again wonder if they could put any belief or trust in the British Government. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford said we always have carried out our promises in the East and that we have kept our word. I wish we had. I wish that were in the least part true in India. Let me read what was said by a very distinguished Viceroy of India. The late Lord Lytton, when he was Viceroy of India, writing to the Secretary of State in an official despatch on 2nd May, 1878, in regard to official promises that had been made to India, said:
"We all know that these expectations never can, or will, be fulfilled. We have had to choose between prohibiting them and cheating them; we have chosen the least straightforward course … Since I am writing confidentially, I do not hesitate to say that both the Governments of England and of India appear to me, up to the present moment, unable to answer satisfactorily the charge of having taken every means in their power of breaking to the heart the words of promise they had uttered to the ear."
Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is not that like the present Government have done in regard to their election promise?
Major POLE: This is far too serious a subject for the light, flippant way in which it is treated by some of the Members on the Tory benches. There are only four Conservative Members present at this important Debate, and I think the hon. and gallant Member might treat it with the seriousness which the subject deserves. The present Viceroy's statement has met with a wonderful response throughout India, and it has effected this complete change of feeling because they believe in it. They think now that that spirit that even animated that declaration in the Assembly during the Viceroyalty of Lord Reading, when the promise of Dominion status was tried to be explained away, has gone. The Indians feel that now they have a Viceroy in whom they can absolutely trust, whose word they can trust, and they want to see India go, not slowly, as we are always being told from the benches opposite that India must go, but they want and I want to see things go on as quickly as they can. I do not say it will be this year, next year, or when it is going to be, but I do say that we should go on as quickly as it can be made to go on, as quickly as we can get the Indian people to work with us. To urge them to go slowly is a fatal doctrine if you really want cooperation from the Indians with you.
The Indians now believe that this is an earnest of the desire of the Government to help them to go on as quickly as they can, an indication that we mean to deal with the problem of Indian self-government, in a manner consistent with our belief in their right to Dominion status as an equal partner in the commonwealth of nations, at the earliest moment that it can be achieved. None of us is going to pretend that there are not difficulties in the way; there are a thousand difficulties in the way. No one knows that more than the Indians themselves, and no one will have more difficulty in clearing away those difficulties than the Indians. The real difficulties are not on this side; they are in India, and only the Indians can get rid of them. Mr. Gandhi, a man who is tremendously reverenced in, India, who has been the leader of the Non-cooperatives there, writing in his paper "Young India" says:
"Let me repeat what I have said before in these pages that I am dying for co-

1529
operation. My non-co-operation is a token of my earnest longing for real co-operation."
Then he goes on to say:
"I can wait for a dominion status if I can get real dominion status in action; if, that is to say, there is a real change of heart, a real desire on the part of the British people to see India a free and self-respecting nation, and on the part of the official in India a true spirit of service."
That is really what we want, a real spirit of service. I heard it said 15 years ago in India that the real objection to the Indian Civil Service in India, as an Indian told me, is three-fold. In the first place, it was not Indian; in the second place, it was not civil; and in the third place, it was not a service, because they are masters. I do not say that is true to-day. I have the greatest admiration for members of that service, among whom are relatives and friends of my own. The reason why we are there is not the "Daily Mail" reason, or the "Morning Post" reason. These papers have told us that we are there, not as trustees for the downtrodden masses, as we have been told so often from the Conservative Benches, but as trustees for the capital invested by British people in India. I hope that the Secretary of State can point to the signs that Mr. Gandhi looked for in regard to dominion status, and I believe that he can. One of the promises that was broken was that made in 1924 when the Reforms Inquiry Committee was set up. At that time the Prime Minister, who is now also Prime Minister, said that we really meant that to be a business committee, and that we meant to act on the result of their work. Just before the Committee reported, the General Election came and a Conservative Government came back into office and power. Although believing in continuity of policy, they forgot all about it in this case; that promise was absolutely broken, and nothing from that day to this has happened as the result of that inquiry.
We had a tremendous amount of opposition in this country, chiefly from the Conservative Benches, to the Viceroy's statement and the dominion status declaration. There was nothing new in that; it was what we had believed in ever since 1917, and what Members of all parties have said. But what they did not attack was the round table confer-
1530
ence, which was proposed by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) and accepted by all parties. The most British of British papers which supports the British cause in India, the "Statesman" of Calcutta, said that they were amazed at the opposition in this country to the Viceroy's statement. They said that when Lord Birkenhead was at the India Office he had not attended to his work there. This paper which normally supports the Conservative party, said that they were very glad that Lord Irwin and the present Secretary of State were trying to save what they could from the "wreck of the Birkenhead." I have heard that same Noble Lord, when he was Secretary of State for India, make a speech in another place in which he twice referred to Indians as "natives." A Secretary of State for India should at least have known that that word was banned by the Government of India years and years before, and that no Government official in India would be allowed to use it, because it has the same connotation in India as the word "nigger." That is the man in whose hands their destinies were placed. Even the "Morning Post" says that if you are to go ahead with the dominion status declaration of the Viceroy, you will soon have to open a fund for Anglo-Indians; and by Anglo-Indians the "Morning Post" means Europeans living in India, but everyone there knows that it means Eurasians.
The "Daily Mail" points out that one-ninth of our exports go to India, and it asks us to keep a firm hand on India, and to rule India by force practically, so that we can get more exports to India. The best way to do that is to have a friendly India, an India that wants to trade with you. Now that their fiscal policy is in their own hands, we cannot force them. I spoke last night to an Indian official of some 20 years' standing about trade with India, and he said that in his own part of the country his was practically the only English motor car. He said that it is not that the Indians do not think English motor cars are good, but that the mood in India has been such that they will not buy a British thing if they can get another. That is very serious. What we want is a change of mind on the part of the Indians, and we can only get that

1531
if we have the spirit which is conveyed in the Viceroy's declaration and in the Secretary of State's speech in this House. It is no use if that spirit is only in the India Office and in. the Viceregal Ledge. It must go right dawn through all the officials in India, through all the local government, and through all the officials of the local government.
I would like to mention the case of sedition that has been referred to, and to say that many of the things objected to there were published in other journals in India, and the local government did not think it worth while—and very wisely—to go against the editors. In the Punjab the editor of the "People" of Lahore published many of the passages objected to. The editor of the "Indian Review" in Madras published many of the things that were objected to, and he has since been appointed by the Government a member of the Council of State. The Madras Government and the Punjab Government did not seem to think, therefore, that it would do very much harm. I hope we shall have that same spirit animating not merely the Secretary of State and the Viceroy but the Provincial Governments and the executive offices all the way down.
There is only one other thing to which I want to allude, and that is the question of sedition in India and what prosecutions can be brought. A very famous Section under which many of those prosecutions have been brought, Section 124a of the Indian Penal Code, has been quoted in full by my hon. Friend who moved the Motion, and so I shall not quote it again, but under that if you bring Government into hatred or contempt in India, or, indeed, if you bring any class into hatred or contempt, you can be prosecuted for it. If the "Daily Mail" of London had been published in India, its editor would have been had up for sedition for his leading article of yesterday. It dealt with the £6,000,000 of Indian Treasury Bills that we put upon the London market here. The leader was headed, "Do not lend the money," and said:
"This is the precise moment when the Indian Nationalists are threatening disorder and bloodshed if they are not given Dominion Home Rule in the New Year."
1532
That is absolutely false, and they know it is false, and any paper that writes that kind of thing at a time when we are trying to get better trade between this country and India—well, it is a pity we have not Section 124a here, because if the Government here could put the editor of the "Daily Mail" and its proprietor into the dock and put them away for three years, which is the penalty in India, I think it might do quite a great deal of good, and they richly deserve it for many of the things they say. They go on to say in that leading article that Dominion Home Rule must destroy the whole financial stability of India. If the "Daily Mail" wrote that about a commercial company that was advertising for £6,000,000 or £6,000, they could be brought up in the Law Courts and could be dealt with very severely for damaging it. They could not get away in India, and yet they are allowed to get away here. Under the wonderful regime under which we live, the "Daily Mail" can say almost anything it likes. Then they say:
"It is a disastrous mistake on the part of the Viceroy, Lord Irwin, to raise false hopes of Rome Rule by his rash declaration last October, and his irresolute attitude has strengthened all those subtle forces which, as Mr. Churchill said yesterday in his vigorous speech to the Essex Unionists, are now so busily at work undermining British authority in India."
I think that is trying to bring the Viceroy of India and the Indian Government into contempt, if not hatred. We owe a great deal to the Conservative party for having appointed Lord Irwin as Viceroy of India. I think there never was a Viceroy whom India appreciated better and who appreciated India better than Lord Irwin. He has got that insight, that imagination, that is so lacking in the West—at least unless you happen to come from Scotland or Wales.
Mr. DEVLIN: Or Ireland!
Major POLE: Or Ireland. I apologise. Ireland has imagination. I think our Secretary of State for India also has that imagination. He has got more of it lately, because he sits now for a Scottish constituency. I think those two together have done a tremendous thing, not merely for India and not merely for this country, but for the peace of the world. They are working together and we ought to do everything we can to back them up in that work, and to induce our

1533
friends in India, with whom our words can have any weight, to believe in their sincerity, to realise that they really mean this, that they are going through with it, and that they intend to help India in every way that India can be helped; further to bring the Indians to realise that the greatest of our difficulties are in India, and that we look to them to help us; and to urge them to come over here to this Conference, urge them to believe in us, urge them to co-operate with us. Those of us who can help in that way will be doing a tremendous work for the peace of the whole world.
Sir PATRICK FORD: Far be it from me to question the wisdom of the Chair in allowing debate to take any course that is not strictly within the four corners of the Motion, but having listened with great interest to the hon. and gallant Member for South Derbyshire (Major Pole), whom I have met in contest before now, I think I am justified in asking the Chair to accord to me a similar latitude if I seem to stray from the exact words of the Motion.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We usually give some latitude to maiden speeches.
Sir P. FORD: I would like to mention that it is not my maiden speech. The Motion seemed to me to be a very harmless and general sort of Motion, to which we could all agree, but whilst I congratulate the hon. Member upon a most interesting speech I must take exception to some of the implications in that speech. I do not think that anything done by the present Government or suggested by the Opposition has at all conflicted with the general idea of this Motion. If I am in order I will read it:
"To call attention to the political situation in India; and to move, That this House welcomes the evidence of the co-operation of Indian representatives in the settlement of the constitutional question and relies upon the Government of India to encourage good will by the sympathetic conduct of its administrative and executive functions, particularly in relation to the expression of political opinion."
Having read that Motion I feel confirmed in my belief that the whole discussion is rather beside the point, because there is no doubt that all that this Government and the previous Government and the Viceroy, who has been so justly eulogised by the hon. and gallant Member and who was appointed by the late Government—
1534
all that they have done has been, to my mind, to call rather too much upon the expression of opinion in India. If I arouse for a moment any harsh feeling by saying I think they may have done too much in calling upon the expression of opinion in India, I would like to point out that I have, through family relationships, been connected indirectly with the Government of India—through a cousin twice removed, I admit. A cousin of mine was not only a member of the Viceroy's Council but was successively the Governor of two important provinces in India. I believe he was the only Governor to whom in both of those Provinces the natives, if I may use the term, put up a statue in commemoration of the good work they consider he did for India.
I am a native of Scotland and I do not mind being called a native, and why the natives of India should object to being called natives I do not know. I am not, therefore, talking with any bias against those who were born in India, but when we talk of getting on as rapidly as possible towards Dominion status and as quickly as we can to changes in the constitutional Government of India, it must be remembered that the Indian peoples—because there is no single Indian people—are as old a growth in civilisation as our own, perhaps an older one, that there are thousands of different dialects, tribes and peoples in India, and we cannot assume, if we hand over the Government to a section that is more vocal than powerful, that we are doing justice to India. I think a great many people in this House do not recognise the vast size of India geographically, the differences of conditions, climatic, traditional, ethnic and otherwise, the vast difference there is between all the sections of the people of India.
To whom are you going to hand over India? Apparently, to the people who are most vocal; but what about the Ryots, the peasants of India? What about the Indian Princes, who have been very loyal to this Empire? Are the Bengalis, who are virtually the main spring of this agitation, the true representatives of Indian natives? We, who have vast responsibility, whether we obtained our Empire in India by influence or by conquest, or both, are left with a great trusteeship for law and order and equal justice. I would like to indicate this.

1535
There are the Ghurkas and other regiments of that type. I would like to give perfectly directly the opinion of the natives who belong to these hill tribes. There was an Indian officer whom I knew quite well in one of the native regiments and he was, as it were, a father and elder brother to his men. When he came to this country, they wrote to him and asked him to look after certain of their interests. Two of these men came to him and said: "We have a dispute about some land and would like a Sahib officer to give a decision." He said: "That is not my function at all; I am entirely in the Army. You go to the Civil Service Wallah." They said: "That is all right; if we can get a real Sahib we trust him. But we are poor men and we may have to go through a great many Civil Service Wallahs who are not Sahibs, and we cannot afford to do it."
That is the attitude of the least vocal but by far the greater number of the people of India. They do not believe in this Bengali attitude that you must have an Indian Civil Service running India. They believe in a Sahib, and if we withdraw that protection from what they well know is the danger of tribal or party feeling on the part of the native rulers of India, they feel that they will be deprived of their appeal to a justice which they regard as above suspicion. We must remember that, while it is perfectly right that the educated Indian, whether he be Mohammedan or Hindu of the North or the South, or any of the innumerable sects, castes and religious differences of opinion and tradition, should have a fair chance of representing his views, it is impossible in India to-day, and it will take years and generations before you can get a general belief in India in the rule of any one section of Indians. I cannot see how, in any Parliaments we might have there, you would get a belief, in the majorities that might arise in those Parliaments, that genuine justice would be done and that all the different sections would feel that they were properly represented. It is a different thing in this country because, making all allowance for differences of accent and intonation, we speak the same language, and have, broadly speaking, the same body of tradition; but in India there are traditions, religions and sections of opinion entirely different. The
1536
whole tradition of India has been government by a dominating race that has imposed equal justice, as far as possible, on all sections. None of the dominating races has gone so far as our dominating race has gone in giving incorruptible, even justice to men, women and children of whatever tribe, caste, religion or section they may be.
Therefore, I maintain that we are faced with a very difficult constitutional question in India, and only the efforts which, under us and by us, have been made for the real and genuine education—not merely a sort of babu type of education that produces a ridiculous false culture, but the real and genuine education of all the peoples of India—only the effort we have made and that has been made by the Indians themselves under our rule, has produced a real, widespread grasp of education and of the subjects that really affect India. We have in this country today a great electorate which really has, through the education which it has demanded for itself and which has been given to it, the intellect and the trained intelligence to grasp political questions. Until we had that state of affairs—which we are far from having in the teeming millions of India to-day—we have a mockery of democracy, and, what is more likely, a domination of the more lowly tribes and castes in India. If instead of a beneficent holder of the ring who sees fair play, we withdraw and precipitately give Dominion Home Rule to India, we do not get what are our western ideas of Dominion Home Rule, but we shall get chaos and domination of a far less fair-minded dominating class than we have got to-day. I admit the logic of the appeal which has been made to us from the opposite benches, but do not let us make the mistake of giving a gift before the people are sufficiently educated to benefit by its acceptance. Let us go slowly and carefully. There is nothing in the Motion we are discussing, as I read it, which is in any sense a censure upon the present Government or upon any past Government, but I do think that there is a distinct section of people who, however excellent their intentions may be, want to force the pace. You would not give a box of matches to a child to set fire to a heap of wood shavings if near those shavings there was a quantity of gun-powder; but when that child had acquired sense and wanted a

1537
good fire at which to warm himself, you might give him matches without any risk.
In matters of this kind you have to proceed slowly and carefully, and while I do not disagree with this Motion, I want to make it quite clear that it should not be interpreted in the sense which was suggested by the last speaker. It has been suggested we should co-operate as far as possible with all that is really representative, educative, and progressive in India, but we should not force the way before the great mass of opinion in India is educated up to a realisation of the great and responsible burden of Dominion status, which is one of the greatest responsibilities that can be placed upon any people.
Mr. THURTLE: I would like to take this opportunity of being the first hon. Member on this side of the House to extend my congratulations to the hon. and gallant Member for South Derbyshire (Major Pole) for the excellent speech which he has just delivered. It was an extraordinarily well-informed and able statement of the Labour point of view with regard to India, and I am sure that every hon. Member of this House will feel that the hon. and gallant Member will be a great acquisition to this House in our Debates on India which must take place in the clays to come. The hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Sir P. Ford) has been trying to establish two propositions. One of them was that British rule in India has conferred extraordinary benefits on that country. I understand that the hon. Member for North Edinburgh is a Scotsman, and therefore he must have a deep sense of nationality, but I wonder whether it has ever occurred to him that the Indian people and Indian nationalists may feel that bad self-government is preferable to the kind of government which they now possess.
Sir P. FORD: My argument was devoted to showing that while we may have to be divided into three kingdoms in this country, we still possess the status of nationality. On the other hand there is no Indian nationality.
Mr. THURTLE: The people of India include many different races, but they are living in their native country, and it seems to me that, diverse and scattered though they may be in character and
1538
race, they still have a better title to rule India than the British. The hon. Member for North Edinburgh argued that there was only a very small percentage of the Indian nation which was really sufficiently educated to be able to take charge of the Government of that country. I submit that, small as the number of the politically-educated and politically-minded Indian people may be, they are certainly much better equipped, and they have a much better title to govern India, than the people we send over to India from Whitehall and other places.
Mr. FOOT: Is that opinion fully shared by those who are called the Untouchables?
Mr. THURTLE: I am not qualified to express the views of the Untouchables. As far as I know I think there are about 40,000,000 of them in India.
Major POLE: About 28,000,000.
Mr. THURTLE: Twenty-eight millions is a considerable number, but that is only a comparatively small proportion of the whole, and the Untouchables apart, if we take all those peasants who are not politically educated and politically minded, we shall find that they will always follow the educated Indian in preference to the British. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] You only need to see some of the great demonstrations in Calcutta and Bombay to notice that although these people are not educated, the educated leaders are looked upon as expressing the hopes and aspirations of the great Indian masses.
I want to direct attention most particularly to the terms of this Motion. We welcome the fact that there is evidence of co-operation of the Indian representatives with those who are seeking to give India greater self-government, and that evidence has arisen because of the proposal to establish a round-table conference. I think that was a wise and necessary piece of statemanship, because it is an open secret that the Simon Commission, which went out to inquire into the constitutional position of India, did not command the confidence and support of the representative opinion of India. You can take the most extreme or the most moderate political organisations in India and you will find that all of them are united in resenting the fact that a Commission should he sent to

1539
India to find out how much or how little self-government should be conceded to the people of India.
The Indian nationalists say that they ought to have self-government as a right. They say: "We are prepared to join with you as equals at a round-table conference to find out the best means by which that right can be conceded to us." The present Government, with the assistance of the Viceroy, have seen the reason of that demand; they have seen the equity of it; and, because they realised that it was essential that the co-operation of all the organised opinion in India should be obtained, if any success was to come out of this inquiry, they have called this round-table conference. But even now it is not certain that it is going to be fully responded to by the representatives of Indian opinion. A very important conference is to take place at Lahore on the day after Christmas. There the great Indian National Congress is to decide whether or not it will take part in this round-table conference, and there are elements in that Congress which are suggesting that they should refuse to have any part or lot in the conference. The position has been complicated and made much more serious by some blazing indiscretions on the part of so-called responsible statesmen in this country. There was a Debate only a few weeks ago in another place, in the course of which a statement was made by an ex-Secretary of State for India, and, as an ex-Secretary of State for India, his words carry tremendous weight in India.
Mr. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that it is not in order to quote from statements made in another place.
Mr. THURTLE: I was only saying that a statesman who has held very high office in the Government of this country was responsible for a statement a few weeks ago to the effect that India—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now doing the very thing that I said he must not do.
Mr. THURTLE: I will put it in this way. It has become known in recent weeks in India that there are statesmen in this country of high standing—or perhaps I ought not to use that term in connection with the statesman to whom I am referring—there are statesmen well known
1540
in India who hold the opinion that India will not be fit for self-government for 100 years to come. To put myself perfectly in order, I would draw attention to the fact that the Leader of the opposition in this House a few weeks ago said that it would be many generations before the goal of Dominion self-government was attained by India. I want to submit to the House that, in the present critical situation in India such statements as that are highly mischievous, because you have in that country a great mass et ardent youth fired with this great ideal of national freedom, and you are telling them, from responsible mouths in this country, that not they in their generation, not their children, not their children's children, can hope to see the day when India shall be a free nation. I submit that for responsible statesmen in this country to talk in that fashion is to incite young Indian Nationalists to leave the path of constitutionalism and adopt other and much more deplorable methods.
It is a. remarkable fact that the great subject of study in India in these days, among the youth and the politicians of that country, is the subject of the struggles of Ireland for freedom. You find them reading all the details of the way in which Ireland, from 1914 onwards, fought and struggled by various methods and in various ways to achieve national freedom, and that is sinking into the minds of these young people. An Indian law student came to see me a few months ago. He seemed to be a very rational clear-headed young man, but he told me that he had been over to Dublin, and somewhere in Dublin, as I understand, there is a great cemetery where large numbers are buried who fell in the struggles for Irish freedom. He told me that he had been in that cemetery and, had seen those graves, and he said: "My opinion is that the British Government is not going to give us justice, and that we have got to pay the same price for our Indian freedom." I would remind the House that, if the unhappy day does Dome when the Indian people resort to the kind of things which happened in Ireland in the days that are past, the blood which will be shed in India will be a vast ocean compared with that which was shed in Ireland in those days.
As against this idea that India may have to wait 100 years or 10 generations

1541
for her freedom, I want to urge that there is no reason at all why India should not get her freedom within a comparatively short space of time. She did get one thing out of the discussion which took place recently in this House, and that was an honest admission from the Conservative side of the House that there was to be eventually absolute equality for India so far as Dominion status was concerned. The Leader of the Opposition himself admitted on behalf of the Conservative party that the idea of any inferiority in the status of India in the British Commonwealth of Nations is unthinkable. Therefore, it comes down to this, that the question which is dividing us is as to the time at which this status shall be attained, and I want to submit that, contrary to what has been said, there is nothing in the existing Constitution, there is nothing in the existing enactments, which would prevent India from getting Dominion status after the Simon Commission has reported. I know that that view has been questioned, but may I draw the attention of the House to the real facts of the case? This situation is governed by the Preamble to the Government of India Act, 1919, which speaks of:
"The gradual development of self-governing institutions, with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible government in British India as an integral part of the Empire."
It goes on to say:
"And whereas progress in giving effect to this policy can only be achieved by successive stages … it is expedient that substantial steps in this direction should now be taken."
It is, therefore, perfectly permissible to argue that that Act of 1919 was one substantial stage in the direction of Dominion self-government. Let it be remembered that nothing is specified as to the number of these successive stages; they may he 10, they may be only two. One stage was taken in 1919. It continues:
"And … the time and manner of each advance can be determined only by Parliament."
I submit that, if the representatives of India come to this round-table conference, as I hope and pray that they will, if they come there and argue their case for Dominion status, and are able to convince this Parliament of the justice of their demand, there is nothing at all in the constitutional situation to prevent
1542
Parliament from deciding in its wisdom that the very next step shall be the final step, and that, after that, India shall be a free self-governing partner in the British community of nations.
There is only one other point that I want to dwell upon and that is in connection with the last half of this Motion, which deals with the conduct of administrative and executive functions, particularly in relation to the expression of political opinion. Anyone who is familiar with the history of India for the last few years, must realise that things have been happening there which are not a credit to the British Parliament. It is a great boast of the British people that they believe in freedom of opinion. It is a great boast of the British people that they do not believe in clapping people into gaol and keeping them there without a fair trial. But in the past few years there has been a great deal of that kind of thing happening. People have been taken by the police, put into gaol and kept there two and three years without any sort, of trial. That kind of thing is altogether contrary to our ordinary conception of British justice. The excuse that was given in those days was that, if those men were released, great harm would come to the Government of India. In time all these people who were interned under the Bengal Criminal Ordinance have been released, and all these alleged potential criminals have been free for many months, and it is impossible for the Government of India to point to a single one as having taken advantage of his freedom and committed any act of violence or any seditious act.
That kind of treatment of the Indian people is bound to arouse intense resentment, and I support the appeal that has been made to the Secretary of State to use his influence in the strongest possible manner with the Government of India to get that sort of policy stopped. I should like to warn him that he is not likely to get much co-operation from some of the officials in India in this kind of policy, because in the past years officials have been saying to Indian nationals: "You may protest against this kind of thing, you may say it is due to a Conservative Government, but you will get no different treatment under a Labour Government." If only to keep up to that kind of attitude, there will be

1543
officials who will seek to thwart the Secretary of State if he attempts to introduce into the Indian system of justice a better conception of British justice.
10.0 p.m.
I assure my right hon. Friend that there is a desire on the part of the great bulk of the Indian Nationalist Movement to come forward and co-operate in getting self-government, but they will not do it unless they can be convinced that there is a different attitude of mind prevailing in the British Government now from what prevailed during the last Conservative Government. I should like to ask him to do one thing amongst others. There should expire at the end of this year an instrument of oppression called the Bengal Criminal Ordinance. I should like him to-night, before this National Congress takes place at Lahore, to announce that it is not the intention of the Government to have that Ordinance, which empowered the Government of India to imprison people without trial, re-enacted. I should also like him to assure us that he is going to consider the cases of those people who are at present suffering imprisonment and release every possible one who is imprisoned because of his political opinions. No one on this side asks him to release any man who has a case proven against him of violence. If he will release those who have been imprisoned purely for political opinions, I am sure he will create such a response as will decide the National Congress to send its representatives over to the round table conference and do their best to hammer out a constitution which will give India self-government.
Sir SAMUEL HOARE: I welcome the chance of saying a few words in this Debate, for I cannot help remembering that the most interesting and the pleasantest incident of the whole of my life was a visit I made to India by air two or three years ago, a visit very interesting in itself, but pleasant also for the fact that it gave me a chance of renewing on the spot many personal friendships that I made with Indians both at school and at the University. When I heard there was going to be a Debate this evening I was afraid we should have a second chapter of the Debate that ended rather hurriedly some weeks ago. I do not know how that Debate struck most Members, but it left
1544
the unpleasant impression upon me that for the first time for several years the unity of the party in front towards Indian questions had been momentarily broken up. I hope and believe this Debate is going to show India that the unity of parties towards Indian questions is reconstituted, and I hope it is also going to send to India a unanimous message of good will at a very critical moment in the history of both Great Britain and of India itself. I think the House can congratulate itself that the Debate up to this point has gone, on the whole, in the direction we all desire. We listened with great interest to the very able speech of the Mover. I cannot say I agreed with any detail in it, but I can tell him, and I am sure it was the opinion of everyone who heard it, that we were much struck by its ability and its sincerity. We were very much interested also in the maiden speech of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Major Pole). It was the kind of speech that makes us hope we shall often have an opportunity of hearing his interventions in debate in the future.
I can say for myself, and I believe for the Members of my party, that we are perfectly prepared to support the Motion. It is in two parts. The first states the satisfaction of the House at the increasing signs of goodwill and cooperation in India. There can be no differences of opinion upon a proposal such as that. The second half of the Motion I myself should have thought was quite harmless, and I should also have thought that it was unnecessary. It is something in the nature of a reminder to the Secretary of State and to the Viceroy to carry out their duties in a very responsible task. I should have much preferred to have left it to the Viceroy, without any reminder from this House, to deal in his own way with the question of political prosecutions and the kind of implications suggested in the second part of the Motion. I should have preferred that in this Debate nothing should have been said upon the question of these prosecutions, and particularly upon a trial that is actually sub judice. We are prepared, and I believe the great majority of the Members of this House are prepared, to leave questions of that kind to the discretion of the Viceroy. After all, the Viceroy is not a hard-faced, rigid, narrow-minded

1545
man. He is a man in whose judgment, sympathy and wisdom all of us have the greatest confidence. The hon. and gallant Member for South Derbyshire was amongst the first to pay tribute to those qualities in his speech this evening. It is certainly much better for us in this House not to attempt to interfere with the discretion of the Viceroy in questions of this kind. We have no reason to distrust him. It is much better to leave the subject in his hands and to trust to his wisdom and to his sympathy in dealing with it.
As the question has been raised, let me only say this, in addition to what I have just said. I would ask the Secretary of State for India when he comes to reply to make it quite clear in his speech, as I understand he has already made it clear in the answers to questions in the House, that he has no intention of bringing pressure from Whitehall to bear upon the Viceroy in dealing with the question of a political amnesty or the prosecution which is now actually sub judice. Hon. Members on this side of the House will be relieved to hear him repeat in this Debate the intention which he has already stated in answer to questions, namely, that he is prepared, as we are prepared, to leave this question to the uncontrolled discretion of the Viceroy and the Government of India.
I come to the first part of the Motion, the part which deals with the welcome signs of increasing goodwill and cooperation amongst representative individuals and representative organisations in India. I think that if I had been drafting this Motion I should have made it even wider, and I should have included in it not only the Indian representatives and the Indian organisations which are showing increasing signs of goodwill, but I should have included in it also the European association, the representative organisation of the British subjects who are living and working in India,. There is no feature in the present situation in India so significant as the remarkable unanimity which has been shown during the last few weeks upon the proposal made by the Viceroy for the Conference after the issue of the Simon Report; a unanimity, as I say, not only of representative Indian individuals and representative Indian organisations in British India, but a
1546
unanimity also of the Indian princes and of the European Association, the association which represents the body of British opinion amongst British subjects living and working in India. One and all have welcomed the proposal of the conference. One and all are agreed that the conference, if wise use is made of the opportunity that it affords, is going to play a most useful part in helping us to solve the difficulties with which we are confronted. I would suggest that, from the point of view of this House, and from the point of view of the British Parliament, we also can give the conference a unanimous and a very definite welcome. I believe that there are many questions which we shall have to discuss in the next year or two upon which the conference can give us very valuable help, questions that no doubt suggest themselves to many hon. Members, questions, for instance, like those dealing with the treatment of minorities, one of the most difficult of all Indian questions; questions, again, such as those connected with the relation of the provinces to the Central Government, and questions like those connected with the relations of the Indian States to British India.
On questions such as these it would be of the utmost value that we should have at our disposal, when we come to consider future legislation, the opinion of a representative body such as we hope the conference will mean, and particularly if that opinion is the agreed opinion of representative individuals and representative organisations in India. Indeed, so important does the conference appear to be, so essential a stage does it mark in the processes through which we must pass when we come to consider legislation in the next year or two, that I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India will seize the first opportunity of taking the House into his confidence with reference to the conference. I do not mean that here and now he should make a definite statement about the details of the conference. I agree that the time is premature for that. I do not mean to suggest that he should say anything that would embarrass the Viceroy in making the arrangements which he will have to make for bringing the conference into being, but I do say to him that he should, and I feel sure he will, as soon as a decision has been arrived at, take the House into his confidence

1547
and let us know the relevant details about the conference in time for the House of Commons to express its opinion upon them.
We do not wish to be faced at the eleventh hour with a decision given at so late a moment as to make it impossible for this House to express its opinion. We particularly want to know what the Terms of Reference will be for the Conference, what the representation will be upon it, and what will be its general procedure. I hope that the Secretary of State to-night will be able to tell the House, quite definitely and categorically, that he will give us information upon all these very important points at the earliest suitable opportunity. By that I mean at a time that will give the House a chance of expressing its opinion upon the decision at which he and the Viceroy will then have arrived. If the Secretary of State can give us that undertaking—an undertaking that I do not press him to carry out prematurely, and upon which I do not press him to make a detailed statement to-night—I see no reason why the message of this House to India to-night should not be a unanimous message.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition stated to the House the other day the views of the party that I represent towards the question we are now discussing. I can assure the Secretary of State for India that the members of the party for which I am speaking are only too ready to take their part, a sympathetic part, in helping to solve the difficulties with which Great Britain, the Empire and India are faced. On that account, I somewhat regret the attack that the Secretary of State made the other day, which was repeated to some extent by the hon. and gallant Member for South Derbyshire this evening, upon the administration of Indian affairs during the period that I was a Member of the late Government. The right hon. Gentleman will remember example after example which go to show that we were only too anxious to obtain the co-operation of representative Indians, whenever the opportunity arose. There was the case of the Central Indian Committee. We were glad to see that Committee set up. There were the Committees of representative Indians which were set up by the Provinces. There again, we were only too
1548
ready to welcome Indian co-operation. Looking back over those years I cannot remember a single case, whether it was at the League of Nations at Geneva or whether it was at the Imperial Conference, in which we were not ready, and in which we could not have been more ready than we were, to welcome, without any reservation, the presence of Indian representatives in our Conferences.
That, it seems to me, is an illustration of the way in which Conservatives look at this problem. No questions connected with the Empire interest Conservatives more than questions connected with India. Indian tradition and history appeal to us in a very distinctive and arresting manner. Holding these views, we are only too anxious to take our part tonight in sending a message of good will to India, and to help in the years to come, with Indian co-operation, to work out the framework for the future Government of India; to remove any suspicions which may at the present cloud the relations between ourselves and India and bring about a state of affairs which will not only mean prosperity to Great Britain and India but also strengthen the forces of civilisation throughout the whole world.
The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): We are all entitled to congratulate ourselves from the Indian point of view on the Debate to-night. I should like to thank the hon. Member for Leyton East (Mr. Brockway) for the terms in which he moved his Motion. I know how strongly he feels about some of these things, and I realise that in the interests of unity as between ourselves and India, and in the interests of the plans we have in hand at the moment, he was stating his case with great restraint to which I bear tribute. I will not dwell upon the brilliant speech of the hon. and gallant Member for South Derbyshire (Major Pole)—he is on his own ground in this Debate—but I should like to thank the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) for enabling us to say that the House of Commons is engaged to-night in the not unworthy task of showing by a unanimous Motion a gesture of response to that very remarkable spirit of unity which has been exhibited in India in welcoming the Viceroy's Proclamation, a welcome which was associated with a list of names so

1549
long and so diverse that I imagine it will be almost unparalleled in recent history.
There is a vast amount of good will in this country towards India. I do not suppose that they attach more than due weight to some of the newspaper articles which have been written about Indian affairs. I hope not. I do not think they are worthy of notice, except that it may be necessary to direct the attention of people overseas to the fact that they count for nothing in this country. The spirit of good will which exists is proved again in that remarkable manifestation at the recent meeting of the European Association, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, and also by the more recent happening, a few clays ago, when the Baltic Exchange for the first time elected two Indian members on terms of absolute equality with British members to the exchange. To this spirit of good will, which is the one thing at which we should aim, the unanimous passing of this Motion by the Imperial Parliament will make no mean contribution. The hon. Member for East Leyton and the hon. Member who seconded the Motion made reference to cases of political prosecution in India, and to cases in general. He laid stress particularly on the case of Mr. Ramananda Chatterjee, who was proceeded against in connection with a book called "India in Bondage." The character of that book is the subject of inquiry by the High Court, and, therefore, he will forgive me if I make no comment upon it, or, for the same reason, upon the Meerut proceedings.
As regards the other cases, he mentioned a recommendation of the Bengal Jail Committee and two other cases. I would say, as I am bound in any case to do, that I will go most fully into the matter if he will give me precise details of what he has in mind. I would like, in passing, to make this reply to my hon. Friend who seconded the Motion: There is no object of policy dearer to the heart of the Government of India than the promotion of a real trade union movement in India. It is a very difficult task. There is very little to work on. There are organisations which are more an ad hoc strike committee than a real union, but the work of the Whitley Commission, which we owe to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, will largely and mainly be
1550
directed to forming the basis on which a real trade union movement can be built up in India. It is no good attributing, as some people do, the riots and disorders in Bombay entirely to the wickedness of the Communists. Those who know sufficient, those who know the conditions under which labour lives and works in India, know that one has to go a good deal deeper even than the unwholesome activity of Communists to find the real causes and the real cure.
As regards the prosecutions in general, would remind my hon. Friend who moved the Motion that, in response to complaints which have been made about the treatment, not only of prisoners, but of those under trial, the Government of India have convened a conference between the provincial Governments and the Government of India, and that that conference is at present considering the matter in co-operation with unofficial opinion both of the Assembly and the Provincial Councils; so that the matter, which has been made the subject of much complaint at times, will, we hope, find a satisfactory solution. I am in great hopes that, with the new spirit abroad in India, we are closing what must be to us a very painful chapter. I am hoping that it is coming to an end. My hon. Friend and I are in agreement, and in agreement with Indian opinion, on two things at least: First of all we are all working to one definite, ascertained and advertised goal. That is to say that the difficult task of government is not merely a harsh and barren negative. We have the comfort of an active and responsive policy. The second point is this: Neither he nor I nor thoughtful Indian opinion desires this Government or any Government to weaken in the maintenance of peace. Especially at a time like the present, when constitutional changes of the greatest magnitude are being considered, it is essential that public order should be maintained. I believe that that statement will find a welcome and agreement widespread among Indians as well as ourselves. I wish that the task were not always on white shoulders, and I am glad to think that at this moment, in one Province at least, though only for a time—the Central Provinces —we have an Indian Governor who is charged with this difficult but necessary duty.

1551
But I recognise, and I know that my hon. Friend recognises, that the real basis of order is not the police. The real basis of order is public good will. In this country it is not the uniformed constable who keeps order, but every citizen in mufti who keeps order, and Government is maintained on the basis of the co-operation and good will of the people. I believe that we are moving towards this state of affairs in India also. In answer to a question put by my hon. Friend I may say that I am informed by the Viceroy that at the moment he sees no circumstances which necessitate the re-enactment of the Public Safety Ordinance. As regards freedom of expression of opinion, my hon. Friend is very jealous of that principle, and so am I. It is not only desirable that we should have the freest expression of opinion in India, but at the present time it is a most helpful thing. We need it for our assistance in the task which we have before us. But we will look at these political campaigns as they would appear to realists, and to realists I would say this to-day—the winning card is argument and the losing card is non-co-operation. The winning card is argument particularly at this moment, because, by a startling change in procedure, to which I will make reference later, the Government have called a conference and have invited the Indian peoples to use argument as the means of achieving the purposes which they have in view.
The goal of British policy in India has been declared to be the achievement of Dominion status, and it may well be said —and a passage from Mr. Gandhi has been quoted—that words are not enough. It may be asked: "Can you show us any deeds to prove the sincerity of the new spirit of which you speak?" With the leave of the House, I desire to answer some questions which have been put in the course of the Debate, and, for that purpose, I must trace briefly in outline the history of some Indian events in the course of the last 10 years. In 1919 plenipotentiaries on behalf of India signed the Treaty of Versailles, and India became, as a separate entity, an original member of the League of Nations. That was a very significant stage in her history. In 1919 also a joint Parliamentary Committee met to examine the Montagu-
1552
Chelmsford Bill and the Report of that Committee, which is not long, is well worth study. There are two passages to which I would draw special attention. They said:
"Only in exceptional circumstances should the Secretary of State intervene in matters of purely Indian interest when the Government and the Legislature in India are in agreement."
That is on the general question, and to that principle I have attempted to conform in all the administrative decisions which I have had to make. They went further than that, particularly in reference to tariffs. In regard to this matter they said:
"India should enjoy the same liberty to consider her interests in tariff matters as Australia, New Zealand, Canada or South Africa"
—mentioning each of the Dominions existing at that time. As an opponent of tariffs I would never stir one inch from that definition of principle, because the principle of self-government is far greater than what I would call a matter of fiscal common sense. Nor would any Secretary of State attempt to lay a finger upon this principle of tariff autonomy which has been established in practice for 10 years in Indian affairs. There is Dominion status in action. There is a Dominion attribute which has now become part and parcel of the rights of India.
Take again the question of purchase of stores on which I have been questioned several times. In 1921 it was moved in the Legislative Assembly that, in the purchase of stores, the Government of India should buy in the market that seemed to them best without regard to pressure from the India Office. That Resolution was accepted by the Government of India and was accepted by the Secretary of State and is a principle to-day. It is because of that Resolution that I have replied to those questions which have been put to me on this subject to the effect that, in this matter, India must judge in India's interest. Much as we would welcome work for our people, much as we believe, as one speaker has put it, that by having the good will of the Indian peoples we shall find a readier market than by keeping them down by force—much as all this is true, it is not for the India Office to exercise pressure in the British interest upon India, or to hamper or curtail

1553
India's freedom in making decisions in what she considers to be her own interest. In a word, the meaning of these things is this. They are not only Dominion status in action, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, but they show that the idea of the exploitation of India in the British interest has gone. It is past and done with. We have had 'some speeches quoted to-night by Members of this House, which I think were made a long time ago. I do not think you will find anybody in a responsible position to-day who will deny that in these domestic and economic respects to which I have referred India is already coming into possession, at a growing rate, of the attributes of Dominion status.
I do not know whether I ought to refer, as the Debate has been conducted upon what I am tempted to call a high level, to Lord Rothermere and the articles which have appeared in some of his newspapers, but I would like to say this, that if those articles were ever reprinted in book form—their merits hardly justify it—the book should be called, "How to lose India." There was one special article referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend to which I should like to make reference. The Government of India came into the market yesterday for £6,000,000 worth of 12 months' bills. Lord Rothermere publishes an article in his newspaper, the "Daily Mail," headed, "Don't lend the money." Who is asking for it? A part of the British Empire, and he publishes an article headed, "Don't lend the money." That is the new patriotism; that is the new Imperialism. I must mention the sequel Lord Rothermere has achieved considerable success in what I may call the humbler spheres of domestic literature. His advice to servant maids in love might be useful, might be amusing, his hints how to take stains out of table-cloths might be invaluable, but as for his financial advice, well—"Don't lend the money," says Lord Rothermere. What was the answer? £6,000,000 was asked for, £8,500,000 was offered!
Sir JOHN FERGUSON: How was the money to be spent? Perhaps he had in mind the fact that large contracts for rails and other railway material had gone to Germany, to the loss of about £300,000 in British wages.
Mr. BENN: I think the hon. Member could not have been in the House just
1554
now, because I was explaining that India already has the Dominion attribute of freedom.
Sir J. FERGUSON: That information was in reply to a question which I put to the right hon. Member a few days ago.
Mr. BENN: Now let me pass for a moment from these domestic and economic questions to try and answer the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend as to whether we can show Dominion status in action. India, as everyone knows, has in London, an Indian acting as High Commissioner, and is thus in the same position in that respect as the other Dominions. India has Indians in every part of the world, finding the Government of India a valiant champion of their interests as British citizens, and recently the Government of India sent out to South Africa, to negotiate in regard to Indians in South Africa, one of the most distinguished members of their Government, Sir Muhammad Habibullah. India has played a large part in international labour matters, and the record of labour legislation in India in the last 10 years is a remarkable one. Sir Atul Chatterjee, a most distinguished Indian, is the present High Commissioner in London. India has a seat on the governing body of the International Labour Office and her own delegation, and she is free to, and frequently does, take a view different from that of the British delegation if their interests happen to clash.
At the last gathering of the League of Nations, the late Government caused the Indian delegation to be headed by an Indian for the first time. I would add that the more Indians it is possible to have upon the delegation to the League of Nations, the greater weight will India pull at Geneva, and the more will her national status be raised. Let me give further recent illustrations in answer to my hon. Friend who asked with regard to Dominion status in action. There was last week an International Air Navigation Commission Indian representatives attended and received a separate vote, exactly as the representatives of South Africa, Canada and the other States received. There has recently been held in London a most important conference dealing with Dominion legislation. India

1555
was represented by a special delegation of its own, and sat side by side with Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, the Irish Free State and the rest of them, though in point of fact, at this stage there were only certain matters dealing with shipping that directly concerned the Indian representatives. In the next few weeks, when the Five-Power Naval Conference meets in London, India will be represented by her own delegation. It is true that I have the honour of being one of the British delegates, but I shall not be at the head of the Indian delegation. She will be represented by her own delegation, and will thus make her own voice heard.
Mr. BROCKWAY: These representatives of India are at present all appointed by the Viceroy in Council. Cannot the Secretary of State for India try to secure more adequate representation of India itself by giving the Indian Legislative Assemblies some power in the appointment of these representatives?
Mr. BENN: That is a suggestion that I will certainly note, and I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for raising it. In the meantime, do not let us miss the moral of what I am saying, that, just as in the history of every Dominion, it has not been a matter of legislative change, but of use, custom, want and tradition, which have built up these powers, the same procedure is proceeding rapidly in the case of India to-day. Therefore, I think I may say—and I am not speaking of our own administration, but of every administration as well—that in deeds as well as in words, we have tried to prove the sincerity of our faith when we say that we desire to see India reach Dominion status. People often ask, has there been a change in policy? To some extent I have answered that question in what I have just said, but there is, of course, the great change in procedure to which reference has been made by the right hon. Gentleman and many others—I mean to say, the calling of the Conference. In one sense there is no change. When the Prime Minister replied to the Leader of the Opposition in the published correspondence, he stated quite clearly that, as far as the Statute is concerned, there is no change. The Statute remains, and it is outwith the power of anyone except Par-
1556
liament, to change a policy which is embodied in a Statute.
In this matter of procedure there has been a great and important change which has been repeatedly asked for by leaders of Indian opinion in India, namely, this Round Table Conference. I was very glad indeed to hear the right hon. Gentleman exalt the importance of this Conference. He is right. It is a very important Conference. We are the servants, more particularly this Government are, of the House of Commons, and of course the House of Commons will be told timeously about the composition of the Conference, its terms of reference, and so on. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say, and I thank him for it, that he would not press me for more details at this moment, the reason being that plans are by no means complete. There are one or two things I can say about the Conference. We desire to see the Conference called at the earliest possible moment. At the same time, time is required for preparation. There is much matter to be received and to be considered. There is the Report of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) and his Commission, there are the opinions of the Government of India, there are the views of provincial Governments. All these matters must be duly considered, so that the Conference meets clothed with full knowledge. Let me make one thing clear about the Conference. It is partly in reply to the same question put by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
The Conference is to be fully and fairly representative not of one section but of all sections, so that we may have there a real representation of political opinion as it finds itself in India. The Conference will meet with free hands. Some one asked whether they would consider the Bill. They will not consider it, they will not even consider draft proposals. They will meet absolutely free, and the Cabinet will certainly decide, settle and propose to the Conference nothing. The Conference is intended to be a free conference which permits every section of opinion to come forward and express itself and support its views with whatever argument may appear to the speaker to be most impressive.
Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will there not be the recommendations of the Simon Commission which will have been considered by this Government and by the provincial governments? Will not that be the terms of reference of this conference, or are they to be left a completely open field to re-open the whole Indian question again?
Mr. BENN: The hon. and gallant Member is asking me the question which I could not answer for his leader. The clearest definition of the function of the conference which we have been able to arrive at will be found in the Viceroy's Proclamation. Of course the matter that has been referred to by the hon. and gallant Member will be available to the Conference. So will the report of the Indian Central Committee, and so will many other relevant documents, including the opinions of the Government; all those matters will be available for the conference to discuss, and to formulate its views.
Mr. BROCKWAY: And the report of the Nehru Committee?
Mr. SENN: And the report of the Nehru Committee most decidedly. All these matters will be available. This Conference is not intended merely to be a sop to Indian opinion, a sort of douceur to please India, but to bring the light of Indian opinion to bear upon the problem and to help us in the solution of our difficulties, and to help Parliament when Parliament comes to examine and pass the Bill. We invite the co-operation of Indian opinion in this Conference.
There is one concluding word. There are many difficulties to be faced; there are great differences of opinion, wide gulfs and divergencies, not here but in India. We regret the differences, they are obstacles on the path which we wish to pursue, but we cannot solve them, and I express the devout hope that when the time comes for the Conference it may have been found possible amongst the Indians themselves to compose their differences so that we may have gentlemen coming here speaking with authority and speaking with unity. It is only in that way that we may get the maximum assistance and guidance for this House in its difficult task. I believe it is not too much to say that in this matter we are entering upon a
1558
new era, we are attempting to enter what may be the greatest chapter in the history of the British Commonwealth, namely, a free and voluntary association of a great self-respecting nation in partnership with the British Commonwealth for the promotion of the good of the world.
Mr. WELLOCK: I have heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with great satisfaction. But we are facing a new situation in regard to India. I am one of those who believe that the situation in India is mainly a psychological question. The history of the last hundred years has been such that we have now a mentality in India that requires definite action of the kind taken by my right hon. Friend in order to bring about a friendly disposition. I have been very much afraid during recent months that a situation might arise such as existed from 1920 to 1923 or 1924. We all remember how on those occasions the Montagu Reforms were heralded by action which put India into a ferment. Conditions existed which engendered suspicion. We had the Rowlatt inquiries, the Press Acts, the refusal to permit assemblies in various parts of India and the prohibition of Indian people going into certain parts of the country. We had a situation where Indian leaders were put into prison in large numbers, and it was considered one of the most heroic things for a young man of that time to be put in prison. It has taken many years to get out of that condition, but in the last 12 months or so we have found ourselves getting away from it, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend has taken such action in India as has prevented a return to the conditions we had from 1920 to 1924.
I welcome this Motion, and particularly that part of it which rejoices at the cooperation that is taking place. I have found from my correspondence during the past few weeks that there is a very marked change in India. The atmosphere has very definitely changed, and I am quite sure in my own mind that the decision of India in the next few days will be such as we in this country are desirous of finding. No reference, I think, has been made in this discussion—and I think I have heard the whole of it—to the part of the Viceroy's Proclamation which deals with the question of Indian States. The Labour Government

1559
has enunciated for the first time a policy which brings India into the ambit of discussion and considers the question of India as a whole, and when this conference meets in London, as I hope it will, with a full representation from India, I hope the whole question, not only of Dominion status, but of bringing the Indian States into the ambit of that discussion, will he realised in a very complete way. If that view of the situation is cleared up the whole possibility of what can be done in India will be laid before us, and we know that nothing will be excluded from the conference, which will meet in the course of next year, or, possibly, the next few months, which concerns the future welfare of India. I hope that India will send to that conference the best representatives she can, and then I am sure we shall obtain better results from that conference than we have succeeded in doing in the past. I am sure that every hon. Member of this House will welcome the statement which has been made this evening by the Secretary of State for India, and we shall look forward to the time when India will send her representative to this country and when we shall be able to enact such laws and establish such relations between this country and India which will have the effect of solving permanently the vexed question which is in our midst to-day.
Miss WILKINSON: I want to raise a matter which has not been raised during this Debate. The discussion to-day has necessarily been confined to constitutional questions, but I think we might appropriately turn our minds to some of the social questions which are affecting India so much to-day. I think it is unfortunate that the health of the people and infant mortality throughout the whole of India has not received greater attention from this Government, and from the whole of the Indian administration. It is very extraordinary that infantile mortality in Bombay amongst the Bombay mill hands is little short of a tragedy and may be described as appalling. That is a terrible state of things, and while we talk about the constitution, it does seem to me important that we should consider these little ones who are dying off like flies. The condition of the mothers in India and the lack of medical attention are not pleasant facts which any Gov-
1560
ernment can contemplate. We have been the governors of India and complete autocrats there for 150 years, and it is a terrible commentary on our rule that in 1929 after 150 years of British rule, this appalling state of affairs should continue. While India is being made the shuttlecock of two opposing factions, and while I am in sympathy with the national aspirations of India, I feel desperately that more ought to be done to bring before the people of India the necessity for doing something more for the women and children.
Resolved,
"That this House welcomes the evidence of the co-operation of Indian representatives in the settlement of the constitutional question and relies upon the Government of India to encourage goodwill by the sympathetic conduct of its administrative and executive functions, particularly in relation to the expression of political opinion."

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, authorising the Farnham Gas and Electricity Company to raise additional capital for electricity purposes, which was presented on the 12th day of November, 1929, be approved."—[Mr. Ponsonby.]
  Commander WILLIAMS: On this Order I want to ask two questions. The Order authorises the Farnham Gas and Electricity Company to raise additional capital for electricity purposes, and I do not think it would be just or right that we should pass this Order unless we know exactly how much the existing capital is, and how much additional capital it is proposed to raise. I do not wish to make matters difficult; I feel sure that the purpose is a good one; but I think that the House, on all occasions when additional capital is being raised, should know the amount, and it cannot be of any value to know it unless it also knows what the original capital was.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Ponsonby): When the hon. and gallant Member has had an opportunity of looking carefully through the Order—he will find a copy of it in the Library—he will be able to see in it the particulars that he wants.
  Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is treating the House fairly. When questions are put across the Floor of the House, and a responsible Minister is in charge of an Order of this kind, I do not think I am unfair in saying that the Minister must give his explanation to the House. It is not fair that my hon. and gallant Friend should be referred to some document in the Library. We hope that the hon. Gentleman himself is aware of the contents of the Order, and, if that be so, I think he had better at once, in order to expedite the business, answer my hon. and gallant Friend's question.
  Mr. PONSONBY: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I had no intention
  of being at all discourteous to the hon. and gallant Member, and, if he raises any objection to this Order, I am quite willing to postpone it.
  Sir K. WOOD: This is a very simple matter. Cannot the hon. Gentleman answer my hon. and gallant Friend's question?
  Commander WILLIAMS: I accept the personal explanation of the hon. Gentleman that he does not wish to be discourteous, but really I cannot see why he cannot answer two perfectly simple questions which are the business of his Department and which he is paid by the country and the House of Commons to do. I never heard such a scandalous case before, and I am glad that I have raised it, if only to show how entirely lacking every member of this Government is in knowledge of their duty to this House.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 180; Noes, 46.

  Division No. 110.]

  AYES

  [11.4 p.m.

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

  Edge, Sir William

  Longbottom, A. W.

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

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Longden, F.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. v. (Hillsbro)

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Amnion, Charles George

  Elmley, Viscount

  Lowth, Thomas

  Angell, Norman

  Foot, Isaac

  Lunn, William

  Arnott, John

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Gibson, H. M. (Lanes. Mossley)

  Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

  Ayles, Walter

  Gillett, George M.

  McElwee, A.

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Glassey, A. E.

  McEntee, V. L.

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Gossling, A. G.

  McKinlay, A.

  Batey, Joseph

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  Mansfield, W.

  Bellamy, Albert

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Marcus, M.

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Mathers, George

  Benson. G.

  Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Matters, L. W.

  Bentham, Dr. Ethel

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Maxton, James

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Messer, Fred

  Bowen, J. W.

  Haycock, A. W.

  Middleton, G.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Milner, J.

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Bromfield, William

  Herriotts, J.

  Morley, Raiph

  Brooke, W.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

  Brothers, M.

  Horrabin, J. F.

  Mort, D. L.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Muff, G.

  Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph

  Muggerldge, H. T.

  Buchanan, G.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

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

  Burgess, F. G.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Burgin, Dr. E. L.

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

  Caine, Derwent Hall-

  Kelly, W. T.

  Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

  Cameron, A. G.

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Palin, John Henry

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

  Kinley, J.

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Chater, Daniel

  Kirkwood, D.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Compton, Joseph

  Lathan, G.

  Phillips, Dr. Marlon

  Cowan, D. M.

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Daggar, George

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lawrence, Susan

  Potts, John S.

  Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

  Lawson, John James

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Dickson, T.

  Leach, W.

  Raynes, W. R.

  Dukes, C.

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Duncan, Charles

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Ede, James Chuter

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

  Romeril, H. G.

  Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

  Walker, J.

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Wallace, H. w.

  Rothschild, J. de

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Watkins, F. C.

  Rowson, Guy

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Sanders, W. S.

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  Sandham, E.

  Sorensen, R.

  Westwood, Joseph

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Sexton, James

  Stephen, Campbell

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Strauss, G. R.

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Sullivan, J.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Shield, George William

  Sutton, J. E.

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Shlels, Dr. Drummond

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

  Wise, E. F.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Thurtie, Ernest

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Sinkinson, George

  Tout, W. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Viant, S. P.

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

  Whiteley.

  NOES

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut. -Colonel

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Albery, Irving James

  Fremantle, Lieut. -Colonel Francis E.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Gower, Sir Robert

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

  Balfour, Captain H. H. (L. of Thanet)

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

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. p. H.

  Heneage, Lieut. -Colonel Arthur p.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Somerset, Thomas

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Butler, R. A.

  McConnell, Sir Joseph

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Marjoribanks, E. C.

  Thomson, Sir F.

  Christie, J. A.

  Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Todd, Capt. A. J.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

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

  Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

  Dairymple-White, Lt. -Col. Sir Godfrey

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

  Penny, Sir George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Captain Austin Hudson and

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Remer, John R.

  Commander Williams.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, authorising the Farnham Gas and Electricity Company to raise additional capital for electricity purposes, which was presented on the 12th day of November, 1929, be approved."
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the rural district of Godstone, in the county of Surrey, which was presented on the 19th day of November, 1929, be approved."—[Mr. Ponsonby.]
  Commander SOUTHBY: Before the House agrees to this Order, I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman a few questions upon it. Is this the first Order which has been asked for in connection with this undertaking, or has there been a previous one? I should like to know a little more about the position of the undertaking if the hon. Gentleman will enlighten the House on the subject, and in particular I should like to know whether this electricity supply will in-
  1564
  clude Caterham in its usefulness and activities.
  Mr. SMITHERS: This Order really affects my constituency very much indeed. My own house is within a mile and a-half of the boundary of this rural district. There are talks of electricity development along the North Downs, where I happen to live and which adjoins the Godstone Rural District. I notice that in this Order it says "part of the rural district of God-stone," and I should like to know which part of it is affected? Is it the part near my constituency, or is it the part over Oxted and in the other direction?
  Mr. EDE: I gave my hon. Friend notice earlier in the evening that having previously accepted his advice to read this Order in the Library I had done so, and that there were one or two points which I desired to raise. I wish to ask my hon. Friend whether we may be assured that in future in submitting these Orders to the House adequate consideration will be given to the way in which they link up with the previous Orders which have been submitted in connection with the same undertaking. His late lamented Majesty King Alfred the Great, in mapping out the parishes in this rural dis-

  1565
  trict, detached a portion of the parish of Godstone and placed it next to the parish of East Grinstead, with the result that this rural district wanders about over the county of Surrey in a most irregular and sporadic way, to the great detriment of local government within that county. This Order links up with the Order for the urban district of East Grinstead, in the county of Sussex. There can be no greater insult offered to a man of Surrey—I speak as a native of that county—than to link him up with a man of Sussex, because the men of Surrey have an alliterative adjective which they place in front of the word "Sussex," which expresses their quite proper opinion of the men of Sussex.
  The serious point that arises is that these various Orders mature so far as their purchase rights are concerned at a fixed date after the granting of the Order. The East Grinstead Order has been in operation for a considerable number of years, and the purchase rights under that Order in respect of East Grinstead, in the County of East Sussex, will mature at a far earlier date than the purchase rights of the extended Order which we are granting to-night. It is desirable, if public control is to be obtained over these undertakings, as was promised by the Minister of Transport the other day, that these Orders should be so drafted as to make the purchase rights synchronise. The granting of this Order is so important for the future development of this district and for the immediate needs of the locality that I shall support the Government in the Division Lobby to-night; but I do want to be assured that before fresh Orders of this kind are brought in—there is another Order relating to another part of this very difficult and scattered rural district that may be in front of us a few nights hence—the points that I have raised will receive consideration in the drafting of the Order.
  Mr. PONSONBY: I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that the point he has raised is one to which the Minister of Transport attaches great importance. In this particular case I think that some objection was raised to this Order. Unfortunately, the objection has not reached the authorities early enough in the day, otherwise, in view of the procedure, the
  1566
  points raised by the objectors would have been considered and met, if possible. If the hon. Member for South Shields will inform those who are objecting on the grounds he mentioned, the matter will be reconsidered by the Ministry. There is only one point to which I must take very serious objection, and that was the hon. Member's reference to the inhabitants of Sussex, of which I am one. If I were to express the feelings that we in Sussex have in regard to the people who live in suburban Surrey, I think my hon. Friend would feel that he had better not have mentioned the matter. The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) is concerned about his house.
  Mr. SMITHERS: No. I am not concerned about my house, but I am concerned about my constituency. I want to know what part of the rural district of Godstone is going to be served by this scheme, and if it is the part that touches the village where I live, and my constituency.
  Mr. PONSONBY: The parish of God-stone which is affected, that, I take it is what the hon. Member is interested in, is Purley Downs Road, the parish of St. Paul, which very likely adjoins his estate—
  Mr. SMITHERS: On a point of Order. I object very strongly to this being made a personal matter. I have a very small house. I have no estate; and I object to these Socialist points being made against me.
  Mr. PONSONBY: I quite understand. I will withdraw the word "estate" and substitute the word "seat." I need not go further into details. I think I have satisfied the hon. Member with regard to this matter.
  Sir GEORGE PENNY: The Parliamentary Secretary has stated that objectors did not have sufficient time to lodge their Objections. Will he let us know what notice was given so that they could lodge objections?
  Mr. PONSONBY: That is not exactly what I said. The notices were issued in good time for objections to be sent in, but in the particular case mentioned by the hon. Member for South Shields a drafting objection was unfortunately sent in too late.
  Mr. REMER: Surely if we pass this Order to-night the opportunity of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will be lost. In view of the fact that there are valid objections which the Parliamentary Secretary himself has admitted ought to be considered, the obvious course is to withdraw this Order. If it is passed, the points which have been brought forward cannot be discussed. I do not know whether it is a good or bad case, but if we pass the Order now there will be no opportunity of discussing it.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: As a representative of a Sussex division, may I say that it is natural for hon. Members opposite to sneer at Sussex because of its political solidity?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Sussex is not mentioned in this Order.
  Commander WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned the County of Sussex in a rather sneering way and surely the representatives of that great county are allowed to rebut it.
  Mr. G. BALFOUR: It is really a, very simple matter to reduce the discussion to proper proportions. The real explanation is that the Minister in charge is not equipped with a proper answer to the question.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: The Minister mentioned the county of Sussex and so did an hon. Member opposite. I think I was perfectly entitled to mention the county in reply.
  Mr. G. BALFOUR rose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already spoken once.
  Commander WILLIAMS: May I draw attention to one point? The Minister never explained why the divisions were made under the Order.
  Mr. R. W. SMITH: The Minister told us that a copy of the Order can be found on the table in the Library. Is there more than one copy? A signed copy is always locked away, and it is very inconvenient for Members to see it, and when a Member has got it and is called away to a Division in the House he has to hand it back to the Librarian.
  Mr. G. BALFOUR: On a point of Order, and with great respect, Mr. Speaker, I think you were under a misapprehension just now. I was just starting a few observations when I was interrupted. Am I not in order in continuing my observations now? They are strictly relevant to the Order.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I thought the hon. Member had resumed his seat when he spoke last.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The last thing I would wish to do would be consciously to be out of order. I said that the whole difficulty had arisen because the Minister in charge was not in a position to give a simple and explicit answer to the question he was asked. It is well known to the older Members of the House that the procedure in connection with legislation of this kind is clearly laid down, and if the hon. Gentleman had given the simple explanation that all the questions raised by my hon. Friends were fully investigated by the Electricity Commissioners, with the right to further investigation by the Ministry, there would have been no difficulty. Though I am not familiar with the details of this Order, I have no doubt that every possible question has been explored. Listening to the Debate, I came to the conclusion that the difficulty in which the House finds itself arose not because there is any reason why the Order should be delayed and those responsible for it embarrassed, but because the Minister in charge could not explicitly answer the questions raised. That is possibly due to the fact that he has not had sufficient experience on the Front Bench in dealing with these matters. This Order follows the ordinary procedure, and I know of no special reason why it should not be passed.
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the rural district of Godstone, in the county of Surrey, which was presented on the 19th day of November, 1929, be approved."

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: Before we part with this Bill, I feel bound to make, from this side of the Table, a respectful but none the less firm protest against the circumstances which compel us to enter upon this stage of the Bill after eleven o'clock. I do not say that such a course is unprecedented, but I do say that it is highly exceptional and it is even more exceptional when one reflects that in the case of a large part of the money with which we are dealing, no consideration will have been given to the Estimate by this House at any time other than after eleven o'clock. In respect of about £3,500,000 out of the £5,400,000 comprehended in the Bill, every stage has been taken after eleven o'clock.
As this is the first Consolidated Fund Bill which some hon. Members have put through their hands, I may be permitted to observe that this is not an ordinary Consolidated Fund Bill. In the ordinary way such a Bill covers the supply of all the services of the country and gives wide opportunity for debate, enabling Members to discuss the whole conduct of those services and indeed all administrative matters. In this case the field is more restricted because the subjects comprised in the Bill are limited in character. Limited though they are, they range from such matters as the purchase of pictures for the National Gallery, a grant to the Radium Trust Fund, and a grant to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, to the cost of a county court at Harlesden and of diplomatic buildings at Riga. That is a sufficiently wide field to cover, but I propose to offer some observations only upon the largest item, namely, the £3,500,000 applied for the purpose of filling up the Unemployment Insurance Fund. For the benefit of those who did not take part in the proceedings in Committee, I may say shortly that we there ascertained that this money was necessary because the £3,500,000, added to the £2,500,000 unexpended borrowing powers, making a total of £6,000,000, would be necessary in order to prevent
1570
the Fund from running into deficit before the House met again next year. It was rather an involved subject, but I feel bound to say that personally I am much obliged to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for the way in which he explained it. He was perfectly frank with the Committee, and I cannot do better than tell the House exactly the way in which he put it. He said:
"The position is this, that if the live register remains at about what it is, this Vote will enable the fund to carry on until about the end of February. A corollary is that, if the live register is more, the fund will not last quite so long. But it will last quite long enough to endure into that part of the Session which begins in January. Unless, however, there is a very considerable fall in the live register, it will not last until the end of the financial year. That is why the Minister of Labour made it clear that there would be need for a further Supplementary Estimate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1929; col. 1157, Vol. 232.]
As the House will have seen, the hon. Member who gave that explanation very fairly said that the whole question of whether this £3,500,000 is too large, is enough, or is too little, depends upon the trend of the live register of unemployment.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence)indicated dissent.
Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Let me put it this way, that the point of exhaustion varies according as the live register increases or decreases.
Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: There are two amounts in question. There is the Fund and its power of meeting its liabilities, and there is the amount which the Exchequer pays into the Fund. During the last Administration there was no additional amount paid in, but the late Government borrowed £12,000,000 in the last year. This amount of £3,500,000 will be paid in order to fulfil the principle adopted in July, the principle of the equal third. The £3,500,000 is not paid as an Estimate in order to make the Fund last till the end of the year, but it is paid in accordance with the principle to which I have alluded.
Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am not going to quarrel over any pernicketty point, but what the hon. Gentleman said was that a corollary was that, if the live register was more, the fund would not

1571
last quite so long. The period at which a further Supplementary Estimate is required, or some means of filling up the gap, at any rate, will vary according as the live register increases or diminishes. We are at one about that, and I only mention it because I want to say that I was really accurate in assuming the hon. Gentleman having now confirmed that assumption, that it is the question of the trend of the live register that matters. He said, quite properly, that the balancing point, the point at which the fund began to go into deficit, was 1,090,000. Perhaps it would be germane to call attention to the fact that, by an error in the OFFICIAL REPORT, that figure appears as 1,900,000, instead of 1,090,000. It is an obvious misprint, but it ought to be corrected for the purpose of the record. Oddly enough, that balancing point is almost precisely the point at which the live register stood on the 3rd June, when the late Government went out of office. The balancing point is 1,090,000 and the live register at that date was 1,200,000. Having regard to the trend of the live register, and its implication with regard to the question whether this money is adequate or not, I feel bound to refer to an answer given yesterday by the Lord Privy Seal. The right hon. Gentleman was asked by my hon, and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury) this supplementary question:
"Is the Lord Privy Seal satisfied with the results of the schemes, seeing that unemployment figures are rising so rapidly every week?"
To that question the Lord Privy Seal made this answer, to which I call the special attention of the House:
"I am never satisfied while there is any unemployment. It is quite true that the figures have risen, but it is equally true that they are nearly 200,000 better than they were on 31st December last year."— [OFFICIAL, REPOPT, 17th December, 1929; col. 1174, Vol. 233.]
I have had some experience of dealing with statistics. Twenty-five years ago, in this House, I was in the middle of the Tariff Reform and Free Trade controversy, and I remember how we used to throw statistics at each other. I know something of what can be done with statistics, but never in the course of my experience have I seen such an exhibition of brazen effrontery as this statement of
1572
the Lord Privy Seal. I propose to ask the attention of the House to the facts. I am not dealing with the question whether the right hon. Gentleman's policy is right or wrong, but let the House realise what his statement was. It was that the figures are nearly 200,000 better than they were on 31st December last year. So far as the figures are concerned —and this is why I said what I did about statistics—the statement is perfectly true. In fact, it is rather under the truth. If the Lord Privy Seal had quoted absolutely accurately, he would have said the figure was something like 218,000. What was the implication of that answer, what was what the lawyers call the innuendo which the right hon. Gentleman desired to convey to the House? What he desired to convey was that he was not satisfied with the progress as a whole, but that the results compared favourably with the results of last year. That is the meaning which hon. Members opposite attached to it, because they cheered the statement. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is what they are here for"] My hon. Friend has a curious conception of his duties. It is idle for the Lord Privy Seal to expect to get away with a statement like that.
Let the House apply itself—still considering the question in the light of the trend of the live register—to the actual facts. When you are making comparison, the first essential is that you should compare like with like. Is the comparison made by the Lord Privy Seal a comparison of like with like? It makes no mention of the fact that this year there has come into force the system of de-rating which we introduced. Hon. Members may have their own views on the effects of de-rating on unemployment, and this is not the time or place to argue about it, because time will show whether we were right in our belief that this is a great contribution towards solving—or alleviating, at all events—part of the problem. Time will show, and as time goes on and we are able to build up a volume of testimony from employers and trade unionists hon. Members will be able to judge whether our forecasts were right or wrong. But I do not ask the House to look at the statement of the Lord Privy Seal from that angle. Anyone looking at the figures of the live register over a period of years will see that there are seasonal fluctuations. It tends to grow in the winter, of course,

1573
and to decrease in the summer, and there are also seasonal fluctuations which take place regularly in the weeks before Christmas.
If hon. Members will look at the figures over the past three years they will see that the point I am making is a good one. The hundreds are omitted, for the sake of easy comparison, and I am quoting only millions and thousands. I will take the year 1926. In the week ending 6th December, the number on the live register was 1,506,000; 13th December, 1,410,000; 20th December, 1,309,000. There was a progressive fall. After Christmas came a seasonal rise. On 3rd January the figure had risen to 1,495,000. The same experience is found in 1927: 5th December, 1,149,000; 12th December, 1,125,000; 19th December, 1,100,000. These are the figures for 1928 3rd December, 1,350,000; 10th December, 1,320,000; 17th December, 1,271,000; and on 31st December, the figure mentioned by the Lord Privy Seal, 1,520,000. The figures I have given for each of the three years show regularly a downward trend in the first three weeks of December. In 1926, between 6th and 13th December, the numbers on the live register fell by 96,000. In 1927, between 5th and 12th December, the fall was 24,000. In 1928, between 3rd and 10th December, the fall was 30,000. This year, the figure on 25th November was 1,285,000, on 2nd December, 1,302,000, on 9th December, 1,309,000. This year for the first time, the trend has been reversed. Instead of falling in the first weeks of December, the figures have this year risen. [Interruption.] That is a sufficiently serious matter, but that is not really the gravamen of the charge I am making against the Lord Privy Seal. What I am complaining of is that, knowing these facts, the Lord Privy Seal does not compare like with like. He compares last week, which ought to be one of the lowest weeks, where the curve is lowest before Christmas, with the week after Christmas, when the figure is at its highest. That is a thoroughly vicious comparison, rendered the more vicious when the House remembers that in that particular week last year, namely, 31st December, the whole of the West and South of England was afflicted with the biggest blizzard within living memory. For the Lord Privy Seal to come down and ask the House to believe that he is
1574
making a fair comparison on which the House can form a proper judgment, is one of the greatest examples of political mendacity which I have ever come across.
Captain BOURNE: I do not wish to pursue the subject raised by my right hon. Friend. As this Consolidated Fund Bill covers very few subjects, it gives one the opportunity to put certain questions to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury which might not be raised on an ordinary Consolidated Fund Bill covering a much wider range of subjects. I should like to call attention to Clause 1, which makes grants for Supply, and Clause 2, which authorises the Treasury to borrow certain moneys. There is a discrepancy between the amounts which are granted under Supply and the amounts which the Treasury is authorised to borrow. I believe it is due to one Supplementary Estimate which is covered by the Bill, namely, that for the Scottish Board of Health, but I should be very grateful if the Financial Secretary would explain the discrepancy when he comes to reply. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland read a statement on the subject at a- very late hour the other evening, but, although I listened very carefully to every word that he said I must confess that I was still somewhat uncertain on the point. Clause 2 says that the Treasury may borrow by means of Treasury Bills or otherwise, and that the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland may advance such sums. I quite understand that the formula used is that which has been used in Consolidated Fund Bills for a very long time, but in recent years Southern Ireland has become a Free State. I wish to know whether, in point of fact, there is any modern practice which prevents the Bank of Ireland advancing money on Treasury Bills. I do not know whether it is still done, but I do think in view of the alteration in the constitution as between this country and the Irish Free State some explanation should be given.
I wish also to raise the question of the denomination of Treasury Bills. Under the Sub-section in Clause 2 dealing with this matter, Treasury Bills can be issued to be repaid not later than 31st March, 1930. I have looked up the Treasury Bills Act of 1887. I presume the Treasury does not expect that any of the bills which are issued under this Act

1575
will be redeemed much before 31st March, 1930. Therefore, there is no point in regarding any of these bills as re-issued from the point of view of this financial year. I understand that it is the custom of the Treasury to issue bills in denominations of not less than £5,000. Why do not they issue bills in rather smaller denominations! There is no statement in this Bill as to the rate of interest at which the Treasury borrows on Treasury Bills. Sub-section (3) says:
"Any money borrowed otherwise than in Treasury Bills shall be paid interest not exceeding £5 per cent. per annum."
I cannot help thinking that, especially on a very short-dated security like this, the Treasury might very easily borrow money at a very much lower rate than 5 per cent. if they issued the bills in much smaller denominations. After all, a very large number of hon. Members have had experience in these matters. A sale takes place, and we are paid, say, 10 per cent. We cannot invest that money in long-term securities, and it has to be put in the deposit banks at a rate of 2½ per cent. There seems to me to be a large number of cases of trustees who want to put money at what I should not call a very short call and who would like to invest in Treasury Bonds and save 3½, per cent. These are excellent securities; and I think that we might do something to relieve the very heavy strain which is placed upon this country and the taxpayers if Treasury Bills were issued in small as well as large denominations.
I do not know why a much smaller sum has not been issued available for those who want to put a small amount on deposit for periods like six months. If the Treasury had done that, it would have been a great convenience, and I think, if the Treasury adopted that course, they would be able to relieve the rate of interest on Treasury Bills. I would like to ask if what is proposed includes borrowings through Ways and Means advances, and, if so, what is the amount outstanding at the present moment? If this means borrowing through Ways and Means, it seems to me that one Department might borrow from one account at 5 per cent. in order to finance another Department. That is one of the things which we have not had an opportunity of discussing, and
1576
therefore some explanation from the Financial Secretary is desirable.
Sir K. WOOD: I share the regret which will he felt in many parts of the House that we have to deal with this Bill at this time of the night. That is not a subject of complaint from this side of the House alone, because political fortunes are uncertain, and hon. Members opposite will find that it is unfortunate that an important Bill of this kind covering many very important subjects is being considered under such adverse circumstances. This is the only opportunity which hon. Members will have of raising the important questions which are covered by this Bill, and it is very unfortunate that we should be obliged to deal with them so late at night. I want to say a word or two in reference to the statement made in regard to the amount of money required under this Bill in respect of unemployment.
12 m.
I was surprised when I heard that statement across the floor of the House, and one might easily go away with a wrong impression of what was the exact state of affairs. I do not think the Lord Privy Seal need apologise or endeavour to put forward anything but the real facts of the case. I have often thought, when I have endeavoured to put myself in his place, that really the only thing he has particularly to apologise for at present is the misrepresentations that were made as to what he and his party would do in reference to this matter, and in that respect he has inherited a very unfortunate legacy, but as regards his methods or that sort of matter, that is not a subject for criticism on my part to-night.
In aid of what my right hon. Friend has said with regard to these figures, I should have thought that in the week that is approaching there ought, if there is any sign of revival at all, to be a very large drop in the unemployment figures, because we are approaching the time when a larger number of people are taken into temporary employment. During the next week or so the General Post Office will be employing a very large amount of additional labour. There will be something very wrong in the existing condition of affairs if the unemployment figures in a week's time do not show a very considerable drop indeed. When you compare the figures with last year,

1577
and remember the great suffering that the country underwent, particularly the unemployed, by the very severe storm of January last, you find that immediately after it there was a very considerable fall. The more you examine the figures, the more unfortunate it is that the Lord Privy Seal should not take the very highest point of employment and compare it with a totally different period of the month. I do not think it was creditable or desirable from the point of view of the office he holds and the efforts he is making.
Mr. BUCHANAN: That seems to me a very serious charge to be made against a Cabinet Minister by an ex-Minister. May I ask you, Sir, if that is not a slanderous remark?
Sir K. WOOD: I chose my words very carefully indeed. The statement which my right hon. Friend has made, and which I have supported, has been simply a statement of the figures as they are, and we are simply relying on those figures to speak for themselves in order to correct what may be a very grave misapprehension caused by the statement of the Lord Privy Seal. I only regret that we are doing it at this time of night in such a small House. I hope the OFFICIAL REPORT will be read and circulated throughout the country.
I want to deal with another matter which has aroused a considerable amount of interest, not only in the House, but outside, in relation to a considerable sum of money for the National Radium Fund. There has been a great deal of interest in connection with this effort in respect of the National Radium Trust. In the time of the last Government, following the report of a very expert and representative Committee, it was decided to form a trust to the maximum of £100,000 for augmenting the supply of radium for use in relation to the treatment of the sick and the advancement of knowledge of the best methods of rendering such treatment. It says a good deal for the national sympathy of large numbers of people that, almost immediately after the "Times" newspaper opened its great appeal, this large sum of money was subscribed, and we are deal-ling with the matter in this Bill because the Government of that day—in this respect the policy has been adopted by the present Government—said that for
1578
every £1 subscribed voluntarily the Government itself would put By that means this very considerable sum of money has been brought together. This is almost the last opportunity we shall have for some time of putting questions about the administration of this fund before we finally pass it in the Bill. A large number of people have looked with the greatest hope, many of them with a good deal of anxiety, to the use to which this fund will be put. I am not questioning the belief that a great deal of good may be accomplished by the use of this large sum of money. I suppose cancer is one of the most terrible diseases that afflict mankind. The use of radium in the treatment of cancer, at any rate in its early stages, is one of the most hopeful methods that we have. To a large extent medical men are able, in many cases, to put the use of the knife on one side and to adopt the use of this almost miraculous substance in order to alleviate and, in early cases, to cure this very dreadful disease. This considerable sum of money has been vested in the hands of specially constituted trustees. I think they have been very carefully chosen, and I have not seen a word of criticism in relation to the men who are serving as trustees of this great fund. The purpose for which the public subscribed this sum of money was very largely to purchase, on behalf of this country, sufficient radium in order, by means of this provision, to make it available to the poorest people in the country. That was the object of the appeal that was made, and, indeed, one of the main reasons why the fund was raised. I admit at once, in putting the question as to what has been done and what purchases of radium have been made, that there is very great difficulty in relation to the purchase of radium in this country at the present time. Not only is the substance very rare, but it is consequently very costly. I understand that the only place to which the trustees can go in order to purchase radium for use in this country is the Belgian Congo. That raises a very important point of view as to the limitations of the trustees. I agree that unless they are very careful they may very well be held up and have to pay a very high price for radium.
Mr. KELLY: Why not go to Canada?
Sir K. WOOD: That is one of the difficulties of the position. It stated in the report upon which this question was largely founded that attempts were being made to find radium in other countries in the world, and hopes were held out that radium might be found in some of the British Dominions. I think that there could be nothing better for mankind, especially mankind suffering from a terrible disease of this nature, if it is possible to find radium in other countries in addition to the one I have mentioned. [ Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will give me their attention for a minute, because this is a matter of considerable importance, and this is the only opportunity that we shall have of discussing it. If the hon. Gentleman who interrupted does not feel any sympathy with, or interest in, the subject he need not stay. I say that it would be one of the finest things in the interests of suffering humanity if radium were discovered in other countries than the one to which I have referred.
I want to know how much money has been expended in the purchase of radium in this country and whether it has been possible to obtain radium in any of our Dominions or in any foreign country other than the Belgian Congo. I do not want anything to be disclosed that should not be disclosed, but if any radium has been purchased on behalf of this country I should like to know whether it has been purchased at such a price as the Trustees think not unreasonable and not unduly high. The danger of the present situation is that we have raised this very large sum of money for this particular purpose and there must be a natural anxiety to obtain for Great Britain a sufficient supply of radium, consequently there must be considerable pressure upon the Trustees to purchase it. I can well understand that when there is only one source of supply from which to make our purchases we may be held up so far as price is concerned. It may be that the Trustees have been able to make other arrangements in regard to securing a sufficient supply of radium without having to make a purchase of the kind to which I have referred, but I do not think that hon. Members will complain that I am raising this matter, even at this late hour, because a very large amount of public interest has been taken in the matter and
1580
a very large sum of money has been subscribed by the public. Moreover, there is natural anxiety on the part of large numbers of people who themselves or some member of their family are afflicted with this disease.
There is scarcely any family in the land which has not been in some shape or form affected because of some relative suffering from a disease of this kind. I hope that we may have some statement from the Government, although it may have to be circulated later, as to how we stand in this matter. The Trustees will have the support of the House and the country, and I feel sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will give us the information at her disposal in order that the House and all those who are interested may have up-to-date information, this being the only occasion on which we can raise the question for some time.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): I cannot reply at any length on this question. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the Radium Trustees are not appointed by the Ministry of Health but by Royal Charter. Therefore the Ministry of Health is not responsible for the work of the Radium Commission in so direct a way. It is an independent body set up by Parliament, and will present an annual statement and accounts in a short time. In reply to the specific questions which have been put by the right hon. Gentleman, we have agreed to purchase ten grammes of radium at fifty dollars per millegramme from the Union Minerale of Belgium, and we have another four grammes already in our possession, with option to purchase. All the radium has been purchased from the Belgian company.
Mr. MacLAREN: The right. hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) gave the Government a warning from which I hope they will profit. It was that if it was known that it is possible to find radium anywhere in the Colonies the owners of the land would take advantage of the public demand and "spoil the Egyptians." When we use that argument in another connection the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to see it quite so clearly as he does now. His speech was interesting, especially when

1581
he referred to the pathological condition of a cancerous growth, but I was amazed that he was not called to order for ambling into the realm of unemployment. There is one item of expenditure which has not been discussed. Strangely enough I get the feeling that hon. Members opposite have not referred to it because they are responsible for throwing this little debit at our heads. It is a sum of £106,000 to the Trustees of the National Gallery. Nothing has been said about that. [HON. MEMBERS: "We are going to discuss it."] Perhaps my intervention now will allow us to get home early. The responsibility for that little account rests with hon. Members opposite. It is the contribution which the State had to make towards an enormous sum for the purchase of two pictures in the National Gallery. The purchase was made and the money paid before this House was consulted. We were told at the time that the pictures had to be purchased in a secretive manner because, like radium, if the owners of the property got to know that the State were after them the price would have been exorbitant. Despite the fact that the deal was said to have been carried out in a secretive manner, the fact remains that the picture dealers knew all about it and sky-high prices were demanded. Hon. Members opposite are responsible for this amount of money and I am intervening now in order to make sure that no succeeding administration will enter into any more of these secret agreements enabling picture dealers to foist on to the State at exorbitant prices so-called masterpieces. The Canaletto picture is not a masterpiece; and in my opinion is dead now. I hope the present Government will not pursue the same policy. I am told that there are something like half a dozen masterpieces in this country and so terrified are the picture dealers that American connoisseurs may take them out of the country at exorbitant prices that they are hoping that secret negotiations may be commenced between the Government and the sellers in order to keep them for the National Gallery.
I hope that this process will not be adopted, because it is putting the taxpayer's money at the command of a crowd of charlatans in Bond Street and elsewhere. I should like to go into the question of the so-called masterpieces of art foisted on the State at exorbitant
1582
prices, not only in the National Gallery, but also in the municipal galleries of the country. There is only one subject that makes me more afraid to hear politicians discussing than art, and that is the fiduciary issue. Poor politicians who like to talk deliberate nonsense about art are easily taken advantage of. I hope, therefore, that those responsible for the Treasury now will cut short these secret arrangements. If these things come to light again, I shall have something stronger to say than I am saying now. It is a scandal, and I hope that it will stop. It was done in a most unconstitutional manner, and I hope that it will not be pursued. As this is the last opportunity for saying anything on this item, I have said what I have said, not with the same venom as if I thought those responsible for their actions knew what they were doing.
Mr. SKELTON: I propose to speak on another subject, but I cannot leave altogether aside the very interesting remarks of the hon. Member who has just spoken. So far as he is protesting against the unjustifiable prices levied by the middleman in artistic production transactions, I am entirely with him. There is not a single department of trade in this country in which we do not find that this country is a paradise for the middleman and exactly the opposite for the producer. If, on the other hand, the hon. Member is going to raise the large and difficult question of how far the resources of the. State, even in these troublous times, should be devoted to the preservation of great artistic products, I rather fanny that I should be at cross purposes with him. My own view is that these opportunities of getting into permanent safety and the national possession all these great gifts of artistic geniuses of past times are opportunities. that the State cannot afford to miss. Though I am rather inclined to think that his view of an artistic masterpiece is more futuristic than my own, when you have an artistic masterpiece it is worth while spending some of the resources of the State on it.
Mr. SULLIVAN: If you can afford it.
Mr. SKELTON: We have been told from the opposite side of the House that the country can afford anything it wants. The other point is the very interesting question raised by the hon. and gallant

1583
Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), the question of Treasury bonds and bills. If he is right that they are issued only in very large denominations, it would be a question well worth the attention of the Treasury to consider and, if necessary, to alter. I do not suppose that any social change which has occurred since the War is more remarkable than the expansion of the investing public. Before the War those who interested themselves in the investment of capital were restricted to a very narrow class of the community. That investing public has enormously increased, and I venture to suggest that it is worth while the Treasury bringing itself up-to-date and giving that enormously increased investing public the opportunity of investing in Treasury bills and such like securities. To-day, when a large proportion of the population—the size of which we do not fully recognise—is interested in investing, it is of not inconsiderable national importance that they should have the opportunity of investing in comparatively short-term absolutely secure investments of a national sort.
If it was open to them to invest in these short-term Government investments, issued in small denominations, it would raise, in a way that has never been raised before, the question of the ludicrous return given by the Post Office. If you had these Treasury bills issued in amounts of £10 or £50, the Post Office could not continue its vicious policy of returning to the small investor of this country a return of only two-and-a-half per cent. Although this is not the time for a full discussion of the subject, I do most earnestly appeal to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to look at the question from a modern point of view. There are administrative difficulties and, I believe, it is said that if you did do what I propose there would be a collision between these investments and National Savings Certificates. I do not believe that that would be the case, because those who invest in National Savings Certificates are a totally different class. I believe that it is an example of the close liaison that, even in these democratic days, exists between the Treasury and high finance.
HON. MEMBERS: Speak up.
Mr. SKELTON: Yes, it is an important matter and one on which it is
1584
worth speaking up. In my judgment—and, indeed, times without number I have ventured to say so in this House—one of the main problems in this assembly is in every way to secure the development of a property-owning democracy. The wider and more extensive the relation of the bulk of your people is to property-owning, the more secure are the foundations of your State, and that kind of consideration should not be absent in the financial administration of the Treasury. To give to the small investor a more open opportunity of investing in these short-term investments is another method of arriving at that result. For these reasons, I have risen, and I am glad to have had the opportunity also of saying a word in consonance with the hon. Member on the other side whose artistic skill and interest are well known to the whole House.
Captain CROOKSHANK: I do not want to keep the House very long from the reply of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. [ Interruption.] I am quite prepared to do so. I want to ask him whether, on another occasion, he will adopt the suggestion to make the text of the Bill a little more clearer to hon. Members who have not time to make extensive researches in the Library. The first Clause asks for a grant of supply of £5,416,670. If you look you will find that the total of the Supplementary Estimates for this year is in excess of that sum. The reason is that some of these estimates have already been dealt with, and the Estimate for the Lord Privy Seal's Office does not come in this Bill, because it has not yet passed its Report stage. Therefore, hon. Members must have either very accurate memories or else add up these various figures themselves in order to decide which Estimates are covered.
I put it to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for his consideration that, whereas the main Consolidated Fund Bill of the year covers the great bulk of the ordinary Estimates, when we came to these smaller Bills, it should be done in another form; there should either he a schedule or an explanatory memorandum, pointing out the sum total of the Supplementary Estimates as covered by the sum mentioned in the first Clause of the Bill. That would be very helpful to many hon. Members when these Supplementary Estimates come up for discussion. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-

1585
Belisha), I know, gave notice yesterday that he proposed to raise a question today as to the non-reception of a deputation by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but that is a matter that is quite out of Order. It was done under a complete misapprehension. It would, therefore, be very helpful if we had this explanation for which I ask.
Hon. Members who are here now, are aware, for example, that the National Gallery Supplementary Estimate is one of those which comes under this Measure. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) has gone from the House, as I should have liked to have said a word in reply to his speech.
Other hon. Members will also be aware that the Supplementary Estimate for the National Radium Trust is covered, and the £3,500,000 Supplementary Estimate which we discussed, and on which I had something to say, the night before last. Over and above that, there are still four more Supplementary Estimates covered, on which nothing is said; £500,000 for the Dominion Services, covering the whole question of the Irish Grants Committee; Miscellaneous Local Buildings (Great Britain), and Public Buildings (Overseas), and also Grant to Rating Authorities (Scotland)—a rather technical subject which was explained in some detail the other night. That leaves actually, the Estimates that I have mentioned, plus the Unemployment Insurance Estimate and the Department of Health (Scotland) Estimate, which has already been fully discussed this week. If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would help us in future, we would be grateful, and I would be grateful, personally, if he would explain a purely technical matter as to how it comes about that when you take merely token Votes of £10 they are brought into the total only at that sum. It is hardly necessary to do that.
I want, again, to enter my protest against taking these large financial commitments at this hour of the night. This is the third night this week that this has been done. We had a Supplementary Estimate for £3,500,000, which has to be found by the taxpayer. Although some hon. Members seem to have considerable disregard for the hardship inflicted on the taxpayers, they are, after all, the only representatives of the taxpaying community. We had the Committee stage,
1586
the Report stage, and now we have the Consolidated Fund Bill, Second Reading, after Eleven o'clock. It is incumbent upon those who have any pretence to financial purity to protest. The Financial Secretary himself has the highest credentials in that direction for he has served his apprenticeship to his present office in those Committees which deal with Estimates and public accounts. Il e has now reached the office he holds, and I put it to him that he should exercise his influence so that in future sessions there is no recurrence of this sort of thing.
I wish to answer—if I may presume to do so and in the absence of any representative of the Foreign Office and with only the First Commissioner of Works present—one or two remarks which I had not the opportunity to answer when the Supplementary Estimates were before the House at an earlier stage, arid when it was not possible for me to rise. These remarks concerned the question of legation and embassy houses abroad. it comes within the token vote of £10 and is more especially connected with the legation at Riga. It is within the knowledge of the House that, when we take the main Estimates in Committee and on Report, it is, in fact, impossible to raise any question of detail. Any questions of detail which hon. Members may desire to raise, or to receive information about, have to be raised in Committee on Estimates or in the Public Accounts Committee. As Members of the House are well aware, when Supply does come on, and a Vote is put down, it is always—at least it has been in the last four years, and I do not think the present Government will break the precedent—an important question of policy that is raised. When the Foreign Office Vote is taken you do not begin to discuss salaries and whether there should be a legation here or there. One does not begin to discuss these details, but matters such as Russia, France, and Germany, or any other big matter of major policy. It is only when we are fortunate enough—if I may use the word—to have Supplementary Estimates on small matters that we are able to raise the principle behind the establishment of these buildings. On the Supplementary Estimate for legal buildings we had raised the question whether a county court should be renovated or placed elsewhere.

1587
It was contended that it was very wrong for us to set up an elaborate legation at Riga. I was astonished—having been five years connected with the service—to hear one of my hon. Friends speak of a "palace" at Riga. Those who have travelled abroad know that there have been no palaces raised anywhere for the sum of about £15,000. That is a fantastic use of words. As a matter of fact, those who have travelled the world over have found rather the other thing. I am not encouraging the expenditure of further money at the present stage, but, taken by and large, our missions, embassies and legations are not by any means all of them houses which are adequate to the needs of those who have to work there, or consonant with the dignity of those sent there to represent this country. We can on an occasion like this attract through the channel of a legation the attention of the Office of Works to the many criticisms elaborated time and again by all sorts of trade representatives and others, as well as missions which go to foreign countries. If we can do this, I think we shall have done something to justify this discussion on Riga. The First Commissioner of Works will correct me if I am wrong, but I think he said that in the legation being erected there there will be found an office for the Minister, for the diplomatic staff and commercial staff, and room available for such purposes as a temporary exhibition, for example of anything which the commercial secretary thought might be a good line in order to advertise British goods. They would be placed in glass cases and so on. That, I understand, was to be arranged for at this legation. I hope that will be his policy with regard to all other buildings where he finds it possible so to do. That is my point with regard to the different Capitals in which we have to keep these missions. This is the only opportunity that we have of putting forward such matters. I hope he will not create the sumum bonum of his work in Hyde Park. He should look for opportunities in Rio de Janeiro, Mexico City, Constantinople and such places to do what he says he is doing with regard to Riga, and concentrate in the mission building all the British activities of the city concerned. It has been tried. The Consul-General in New York tried to bring them together.
1588
I would particularly commend this suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. SPEAKER: The buildings in these places are not provided for in the Consolidated Fund Bill. The only building included in the Consolidated Fund Bill is at Riga.
Captain CROOKSHANK: I was only trying to expatiate upon the principles. If you wish me not to do so I shall naturally bow to your ruling. The funds for Riga, he said, were going to be found on the savings at Washington and Tokio. But I will leave this subject. These problems, after all, are interesting, and hon. Members opposite do not seem to realise that British employés overseas, who have no representatives in this House, have no vote in this House. I myself have served on two of these missions, and we had large staffs in both of them, and they had no opportunity of bringing their views forward in this House. I consider I am entitled to bring them forward on their behalf in order to show the conditions under which these men live and have to work. In many places, and certainly at Washington, where he is seeking to effect savings, the accommodation is poor, and it is in order to direct his attention to that point that I have ventured to intervene in this Debate and trespass upon the attention of the House. The First Commissioner of Works with his very kindly and benevolent attitude towards those who serve under his auspices will perhaps take these matters into account. Having corn-mended this very necessary improvement in the conditions under which so many of our employees work to the attention of the First Commissioner of Works, I would merely ask, in conclusion, that the Financial Secretary—[Interruption.]
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crook-shank) is quite within his rights on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Captain CROOKSHANK: The trouble is that we are being asked to take this Bill at this extraordinary hour of the night. If those responsible for business had put. it down at a reasonable time of day, am quite sure that hon. Members who are objecting to statements that are being made would have been only too glad to listen to them. It is not my fault that we have to consider the spending of over £5,000,000 of public money at this time

1589
of the morning. As hon. Members are so interested in the remarks that I have been making, I am prepared to amplify them almost indefinitely. I have, as a matter of fact, a great many notes on all sorts of subjects which are raised by these Estimates, but I do not want to take up the time of the House. [ Interruption.] I have always made it a practice of speaking definitely to subjects of which I have personal knowledge. That is why I ventured to intervene in regard to the buildings and legations of this country abroad. I hesitate to embark upon subjects of which I know little, and that is why I have refrained from speaking on the National Gallery, and so on. I do not intend to do so unless hon. Members opposite provoke me sufficiently, but, if they do, I am quite prepared to go into considerable detail concerning every single one of those subjects.
I recognise that in a Second Reading Debate it is only possible for hon. Members to speak once, and this is the only opportunity that I have of once again registering my protest at taking up the time of the House at this hour in the morning, with a Vote of £5,000,000 in connection with the Consolidated Fund Bill. I emphatically register my protest that this is the third night running upon which we have been called upon to deal with a subject like this. I would ask the Financial Secretary to see to it that we are not asked to do this sort of thing again. It is entirely without precedent. A great number of hon. Members cannot be heard on Wednesdays, and that is why the hon. Gentleman has been subjected to the criticism that he might easily have avoided. I also ask him, when he submits a Bill of this kind again, to put forward some memorandum as to details.
Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: With regard to the point raised by the late Postmaster-General the right hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson) and which has been referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), it will be agreed by hon. Members in all parts of the House that wherever business can be taken before eleven o'clock it should be taken before that hour everybody in the House understands that this Bill has come on after Eleven o'clock owing to pressure of business—
Sir K. WOOD: Mismanagement.
1.0 a.m.
Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: This method of dealing with the Consolidated Fund Bill is not unprecedented. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir Kingsley Wood) himself reminded the House of that fact. It was because of exceptional circumstances that it was found necessary to take after Eleven o'clock matters which we all agree it would have been better to take earlier, but I do not wish to stress the point. I will deal with the point about Riga, raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). The hon. and gallant Member 'did not hear quite accurately what has been said. The position is that independently of this Embassy there is a Consul and Consulate in Riga. The building which we are discussing was bought for £15,000, and it will, if necessary, provide a room for a commercial secretary, if such an official is posted there. That is the long and the short of it. One word with regard to the question of unemployment: I do not complain at all of the speeches made, but, of course, in strictness the Vote which is embodied in this Consolidated Fund Bill has nothing whatever to do with the solvency of the fund, or any particular set of figures. This, as I have explained several times, simply embodies the principle, and that is all. There will be an opportunity to review the matter later, and that will be the proper time to raise questions with regard to the live register and the solvency of the fund.
Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. Member will realise that I was objecting to the Lord Privy Seal's figures being taken at their face value.
Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: All I say is that I do not propose to reply now. These are all the points other than the purely financial ones that I am called upon to answer. T will deal with two points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough, Who criticised the inclusion, in the total, of the token Votes.
Captain CROOKSHANK: I asked about it.
Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I think, if the hon. and gallant Member will consider the matter, he will see that we have no option but to do it. If we had

1591
done it in any other form, we should have been taken to task. The other point raised is one of greater substance. It is as to whether by means of a Schedule or some other words in the Bill reference can be made to the particular Vote covered by the Consolidated Fund Bill. In reply, I will only say that this Bill is in the usual form, but the point will be considered, and, if it be found desirable to make the change which the hon. Member suggests, some such change can be made. With regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), who asked about the discrepancy in. the particulars in Clause 1 and Clause 2. It is the Vote for the Scottish Grants, and the reason for the discrepancy is simply this. He will remember that there was originally during the late Parliament a Vote taken for the sum of money required for the grant as it was originally proposed. Later it was decided to change the dates for which this sum of money would apply. In order to implement that, it was necessary to take a further Supplementary Estimate. But power to borrow the money had already been taken, and, though it was necessary to pass a fresh Supplementary Estimate, it was not necessary to take borrowing powers for the money for the second time.
The next point raised was with regard to the Bank of Northern Ireland. I am not prepared to say definitely that it will necessarily come in, but there are reserved services with regard to Northern Ireland which do from time to time require the Bank of Ireland to be joined with the Bank of England. The only other point is with regard to Treasury bills. The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford quoted the large sum of Treasury bills. I think the sum was overstated. It is certainly very much smaller than £150,000. But whether the amount should be reduced is a matter that no doubt can and will be considered. The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) suggests that the amount of Treasury bills should be brought down to £5 or,£10. If he will bear in mind the kind of thing that Treasury bills are, he will see that any suggestion of that kind is quite outside the bounds of possibility. The point that will be considered is whether there should be some change or not.
Mr. SKELTON: Does the hon. Gentleman think it is possible to bring them within the range of the small investor?
Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I do not think Treasury bills are suitable instruments for investors of the small class to which the hon. Member refers. The only other point is about Treasury bills being paid off by the 31st March. That is the end of the financial year, and the assumption is that they will be covered by the revenue of the year.
Commander WILLIAMS: I would like to ask one point of the hon. Lady who represents the Ministry of Health, and that is with regard to radium. At the present time, we are spending vast sums of money on the unemployed, but I believe we are finding very little, if any, radium within the Empire. I believe there is a distinct possibility of finding it in Cornwall, and I would like to ask if the hon. Lady will get into touch with the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the organisation on the unemployed question arid see whether it might not be possible to put forward some scheme of work in that county so that we might endeavour to get a certain amount of radium in this country. The other question with which I wish to deal is the statement of the Financial Secretary of the Treasury that these things come on under exceptional circumstances. Well, the exceptional circumstances are these: It is quite true that you have taken one on other stages of these Supplementary Estimates at a late hour, after Eleven o'clock, and I am raising a formal protest on behalf of a great many of my party that these Estimates have been taken throughout all their stages late at night, and I can only say that the reason is the absolute incompetence of the Government.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Thursday).
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Wednesday, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order,
Adjourned at Twelve Minutes after One o'Clock.

  EXPORT CREDITS.
  EXPORT CREDITS.
SCOTLAND.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  MENTAL DEFECTIVES
  MENTAL DEFECTIVES
  GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (VISA FEES).
  GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (VISA FEES).
  RUSSIA (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  RUSSIA (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  WEST AFRICA (SPIRITS).
  WEST AFRICA (SPIRITS).
  PALESTINE (TAXATION).
  PALESTINE (TAXATION).
  IRAQ (LEAGUE AGAINST IMPERIALISM).
  IRAQ (LEAGUE AGAINST IMPERIALISM).
  COMPULSORY LABOUR, BRITISH EMPIRE.
  COMPULSORY LABOUR, BRITISH EMPIRE.
  DEPENDENCIES, AFRICA (ADMINISTRATION).
  DEPENDENCIES, AFRICA (ADMINISTRATION).
  EAST INDIANS, BRITISH DOMINIONS.
  EAST INDIANS, BRITISH DOMINIONS.
  IRISH GRANTS COMMITTEE (AWARDS, PAYMENT).
  IRISH GRANTS COMMITTEE (AWARDS, PAYMENT).
  ANGLO-EGYPTIAN RELATIONS.
  ANGLO-EGYPTIAN RELATIONS.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
  TERRACE (DECK GAMES).
  TERRACE (DECK GAMES).
  LEWERS (STAMPING).
  LEWERS (STAMPING).
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, CREWE.
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, CREWE.
  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (STONEWORK, SALE).
  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (STONEWORK, SALE).
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, BLACKBURN.
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, BLACKBURN.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  HUTMENTS, WOOLWICH AREA.
  HUTMENTS, WOOLWICH AREA.
  NEW BUILDINGS, WHITEHALL AND EDINBURGH.
  NEW BUILDINGS, WHITEHALL AND EDINBURGH.
  TAX INSPECTOR'S OFFICE, LANARK.
  TAX INSPECTOR'S OFFICE, LANARK.
  ENEMY DEBTS DEPARTMENT.
  ENEMY DEBTS DEPARTMENT.
HOUSING.
  MONMOUTH.
  MONMOUTH.
  GREATER LONDON.
  GREATER LONDON.
  STOWMARKET.
  STOWMARKET.
  GUNNERSBURY PARK (GAMES, SUNDAY).
  GUNNERSBURY PARK (GAMES, SUNDAY).
INDIA.
  KING'S COMMISSIONS.
  KING'S COMMISSIONS.
  INDIAN COMMUNITIES OVERSEAS.
  INDIAN COMMUNITIES OVERSEAS.
AVIATION.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  AIRSHIPS (COST).
  AIRSHIPS (COST).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  BENEFIT.
  BENEFIT.
  THAMES CATCHMENT AREA (DRAINAGE SCHEMES).
  THAMES CATCHMENT AREA (DRAINAGE SCHEMES).
  UNEMPLOYMENT FUND.
  UNEMPLOYMENT FUND.
  COASTWISE SEEIPPING (GRANTS).
  COASTWISE SEEIPPING (GRANTS).
  BOLTON.
  BOLTON.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  TYNEMOUTH.
  TYNEMOUTH.
  HOSPITALS (INSURED PATIENTS).
  HOSPITALS (INSURED PATIENTS).
TRANSPORT.
  LONDON TRAMWAYS (ALL-NIGHT SERVICE).
  LONDON TRAMWAYS (ALL-NIGHT SERVICE).
  OMNIBUS SERVICES (FARES).
  OMNIBUS SERVICES (FARES).
  LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY EMPLOYÉS (CONDITIONS).
  LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY EMPLOYÉS (CONDITIONS).
  VICTORIA DOCK ARTERIAL ROAD.
  VICTORIA DOCK ARTERIAL ROAD.
  HIGH STREET, ELTHAM (WIDENING).
  HIGH STREET, ELTHAM (WIDENING).
  MOTOR CYCLE NUMBER PLATES.
  MOTOR CYCLE NUMBER PLATES.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS, PADDINGTON.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS, PADDINGTON.
  SAFETY EQUIPMENT, MOTOR OMNIBUSES.
  SAFETY EQUIPMENT, MOTOR OMNIBUSES.
  MINES (GOVERNMENT POLICY).
  MINES (GOVERNMENT POLICY).
COAL INDUSTRY.
  ACCIDENTS.
  ACCIDENTS.
  FOREIGN COAL.
  FOREIGN COAL.
  AUTOMATIC FIREDAMP DETECTORS.
  AUTOMATIC FIREDAMP DETECTORS.
  MINERS' WELFARE FUND.
  MINERS' WELFARE FUND.
  ROYAL NAVY (IRON CAULKERS).
  ROYAL NAVY (IRON CAULKERS).
  EDUCATION (COST).
  EDUCATION (COST).
  CADET AND OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS.
  CADET AND OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS.
  BOYS (BIRCHING).
  BOYS (BIRCHING).
  VIVISECTION.
  VIVISECTION.
  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL, NORTHERN IRELAND.
  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL, NORTHERN IRELAND.
  PLAYING FIELDS, STAFFORDSHIRE.
  PLAYING FIELDS, STAFFORDSHIRE.
AGRICULTURE.
  SPANISH POTATOES.
  SPANISH POTATOES.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it will perhaps be within the recollection of your Lordships that at the beginning of business yesterday there was left a certain ambiguity in the arrangements for the remainder of the sittings of the House before the Recess, and the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House was good enough to say that I might confer with him privately upon the subject. I have been able to exchange a few words with him and I think your Lordships will be very much obliged if he would say how the situation strikes him after that conversation.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Marquess. I think it is of great assistance in every way in the conduct of our business that we should consult together from time to time. The first question which arises is whether the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill can possibly be finished to-night. I do not think it can. Of course if it could be finished, that would be an end of the difficulties regarding future arrangements. Assuming that it is not finished to-night, I think the debate on the very important Bill which is in the hands of my noble friend Lord Arnold on Second Reading to-morrow will be finished before eight o'clock, so that, if necessary, I suggest that we might sit after dinner to-morrow in order to make certain of getting through the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill before we go away for the Christmas vacation. I hope that will not be too great a strain. I am sure it is extremely important that it should be done. We made every effort to have this Bill introduced in your Lordships' House and the discussions in Committee have been extremely satisfactory, but it is important that we should get to the end of the Committee
1462
stage before we go away for the Christmas vacation. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has pointed out, it is very desirable that the Bill should be reprinted with the Amendments introduced in order that it may be carefully considered before the Report stage. If necessary I will make that proposition for to-morrow.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, of course there is no objection whatever to sitting after dinner to-night. It was quite understood that we should do so and no doubt we shall make very considerable progress with the Bill to-night. As the noble and learned Lord said, to-morrow is primarily devoted to the discussion of the Second Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill. It is quite impossible for me to say straight off how long that debate will take. I have not yet heard the number of noble Lords who are likely to speak, but no doubt there will be several and the speeches will be, I will not say very long, but full speeches upon a topic of such great importance. Whether it will be possible to conclude the debate before dinner to-morrow it is impossible to say, but I have no doubt that if that debate cannot be concluded before dinner the noble and learned Lord would wish us to sit after dinner in order to finish it. It is quite clear in the face of that uncertainty as to what may happen, that it may be a little difficult to say if an after-dinner sitting to-morrow will be available for further progress on the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill.
I do not know how it will work out, or what noble Lords would prefer to do, but no doubt we shall be able to get an expression of opinion in the course of the evening from all parts of your Lordships' House. Whether noble Lords would prefer that course rather than to sit for a couple of hours on Friday I do not know. That is a matter which must wait until we can get an expression of opinion as to the convenience of noble Lords. One thing I think we may take positively from the noble and learned Lord, and that is that in no circumstances will your Lordships' House be sitting after the close of this week.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow me to say that we on these Benches

1463
shall do everything we can to assist His Majesty's Government in regard to the Road Traffic Bill. For a great many years it has been the custom of the noble Marquess to express the wish that Governments would introduce important Bills into your Lordships' House at an early part of the Session. His Majesty's Government have been good enough to do so on this occasion, and I think we ought to have given them a great deal more assistance in passing this Bill than we have given up to the present. It would have been quite unnecessary, I think, to ask us to sit on Friday if unfortunately it had not been for the refusal of the noble Marquess to sit late on various occasions.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not recollect them.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: On Thursday evening we might very well have sat after dinner, and we might have sat on Friday. I think His Majesty's Government intimated their readiness to sit on Thursday night and also on Friday. On Monday we were allowed to sit in the evening, but last night we were not. I venture to say that there was not a single member of your Lordships' House who was present here last night who would not have wished to sit after dinner. The noble Marquess was good enough the other day to make some reference to my absence on Monday night. He himself was absent at the adjournment of the House yesterday evening.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl is inclined to be a little personal. The truth is that I was here until half-past seven, and I think that, if we were to east up the balance between the noble Earl's attendances and my own, I need have no fear of the result.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I did not begin to be personal. It was the noble Marquess himself. He sneered at me on Monday night for my absence on that day.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It was evident that the noble Earl had been enjoying himself.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: And the noble Marquess himself last night. If the noble Marquess begins to talk like this, we are bound to point out that it is very easy for those who have command
1464
of large battalions, who can order attendance in your Lordships' House one night and tell their followers to go away another night, to be able to be present exactly on those occasions which are convenient to them, but it is very much more difficult for members of your Lordships' House who, for many week past, have made engagements of a public or semi-public character, to throw them over at the very last moment. I regret very much the fact that your Lordships' House was not allowed to sit either on Thursday night after dinner or on Friday or after dinner last night. I believe that every body who was here would have been ready to sit on. To-day, unfortunately, as the result of this refusal to sit—.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am quite unaware of this refusal of which the noble Earl speaks. I do not recollect that I ever did anything of the kind.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: But we know quite well that there was a discussion between the two noble Lords only the other day as to what had been understood in conversations which had taken place privately. The result, at any rate, is that we are being asked to do what is really the most inconvenient thing of all—namely, to sit both early and late to-day. I venture to think that it would have been a great deal better if we had sat on those occasions when His Majesty's Government asked us to do so during the last few days. We should have been able to make very much better progress with the Bill than we have made, and I am bound to say that, on the whole, it is no encouragement to His Majesty's Government on future occasions to bring forward Bills early in this House if they are not allowed to take the Committee stage as and when they like. I only wish to say to the noble and learned Lord opposite that I am quite ready, speaking for my friends and for myself, to sit whenever it is convenient to your Lordships and to be present as often as we possibly can in view of the engagements that we may have made some time ago.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for what he has said, and I am also really much obliged to the noble Marquess for the assistance that he has given us from time to time in getting on with the business of this House. I do not desire to be a critic in any sense. As the noble Earl

1465
properly says, if we desire to make this House an important element in our legislative system, we must take the opportunity, when important Bills are brought here at an early stage, to deal with them in a business-like manner and give them sufficient time. This, as I have said more than once, has been our endeavour and was one of the motives for the introduction of the Road Traffic Bill in this House. It is not a political Bill in any sense, but it is a Bill with which this House is admirably suited to deal, for it involves an, immense amount of discussion and detail. Any one who has followed the discussions that we have had can only come to the conclusion that this House has done its work in an admirable manner. That, at any rate, is my opinion.
Now for the future. Matters are arranged for this evening, and I do not think anybody can say until after this evening, when we know how far we have got with the Amendments, what further time we shall want. Of course, I wish to make it quite clear, as the noble Marquess has said, that the chief business to-morrow is the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill. There will be no desire on our part, and certainly no attempt, in any way to cut short the discussion upon that extremely important Bill. Beyond that, if we can get time to-morrow after dinner, I shall ask the House to sit and, if possible, to finish the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill. If it is necessary to sit on Friday morning, I hope that the noble Earl and the noble Marquess will assist mo in finishing the Committee stage before we rise for Christmas. I do not want to be too definite, because nobody can tell exactly how long these discussions may take, but that is our expectation, and I know that I shall have the help both of the noble Marquess and of the noble Earl.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, if your Lordships would allow a quite unofficial member, who speaks for nobody except himself but who has taken considerable interest in the Road Traffic Bill, to express an opinion, I personally hope that, if it is a choice between sitting after dinner on Thursday and sitting on Friday, we shall sit on Friday. I believe, though I admit that your Lordships are capable of doing your work admirably at any time, that you do better before dinner than late in the evening.
1466
That is only my impression, perhaps founded on purely personal experience. In any case, I certainly hope that nothing that your Lordships have done will discourage this Government—I am sure it ought not to do so—from introducing important Bills into your Lordships' House.
EARL HOWE: My Lords. I hope I may be forgiven if, like my noble friend who has just spoken, I make a submission upon this point. Like him, I have tried to take as great a part as I could in the discussions on the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill, and I agree with him, if it is a choice between sitting after dinner tomorrow and sitting on Friday, in hoping that we shall sit on Friday. As a matter of fact, in my own case, I have a public engagement tomorrow night. This was made when I understood from the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House what the business of the week was to be. I hope, therefore, that, if it is possible to meet on Friday morning instead of after dinner to-morrow, this will be done. After what the Leader of the Liberal Party has been saying about those of us who were ready to sit on last night, I think I might remind the House that there was at least one rather important engagement after dinner last night which might have attracted some of your Lordships.
LORD PARMOOR: Let me make it quite clear. I think we shall want both Thursday evening and Friday morning. If there is a choice between the two, I will consider carefully what noble Lords have said.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (BOOTLE WATER RATE) ORDER, 1929.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ARNOLD): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name upon the Paper.
Moved, That the Local Government (Bootle Water Rate) Order, 1929, dated 26th September, 1929, made by the Minister of Health under Section 130 of the Local Government Act, 1929 (19 & 20 Geo. 5, c. 17), for the removal of difficulties arising in connection with the application of certain provisions of that Act to the City of Liverpool and the County Borough of Bootle, which was

1467
presented on the 29th October, 1929, be approved.—(Lord Arnold.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BRISTOL AND ROSS) WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Preamble, page 1, line 5, after ("which") insert ("as amended").
Clause 1, page 1, line 13, after ("Orders") insert ("as amended and").
Schedule, page 9, line 17, after (" that ") insert (" (a) The total quantity of land acquired under this article by the undertakers for the purpose of the protection of waters shall not exceed twenty-five acres; and
(b)").
Page 14, line 11, after ("purposes") insert ("as amended by Section seventy-seven of the Local Government Act, 1929")
Page 22, line 46, leave out ("such") and insert ("the domestic")
Page 22, line 46, leave out ("is to") and insert ("will")
Page 22, line 46, leave out ("does not convey") and insert ("is not a main conveying")
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Arnold.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DEFENCE CRUISERS.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government—

1. Whether, in consequence of the reduction announced in the number of cruisers to be maintained, the Board of Admiralty has been relieved in any way of its responsibilities for defence; and

1468

2. Whether the cruisers so reduced will be found from those allotted to the Battle Fleets or from those guarding the trade routes;

and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I feel that I need make no excuses to your Lordships for bringing before the House the matters that I have placed upon the Paper. This House has always taken a very particular interest in all that concerns the Navy and the overseas trade which that Navy guards. So long ago as the beginning of the eighteenth century I find in the Journals of this House a rather curious entry to the effect that—
"a petition of several merchants on behalf of themselves and others, traders of the City of London, was presented to the House whereby they complained of great losses by the ill-timing of convoys and for want of cruizers; so that they durst no longer engage the remainder of their estates, to carry on their several trades unless immediate care was taken to remedy these two main causes of their misfortunes."
The predecessors of your Lordships appointed a Committee to go into those matters, and in the end a long Address was presented to the reigning Sovereign. I will only read to your Lordships a passage from it:—
"May it please Your Majesty, it is a most undoubted maxim that the honour, security and wealth of the Kingdom does depend on the protection and encouragement of trade and the improving and right managing the Naval Strength."
Coming to much more recent times, just eighteen years ago it was by the action of this House, and of this House alone, that the ratification of the Declaration of London was stopped—an Act on the part of this House which proved of great benefit not only to this country and to the Empire, but to our Allies and associates, in the Great War.
The Motion which I have placed on the Paper with regard to cruisers I move with no Party motives and with no hostile intent. I am purely out to seek information. I may say quite frankly that I am in favour of a reduction of armaments as great as is compatible with our security and our responsibilities, and I hope, as I believe all your Lordships hope, that the forthcoming Naval Conference may be able to arrive at an agreement satisfactory to all parties. But perhaps I may be allowed to utter one word of caution. Even if we obtain full

1469
agreement between the five major Naval Powers who have been invited to this Conference, we shall not obtain a satisfactory reduction of armaments unless we succeed in getting all other nations, even if they have only small navies, also to agree to limitation. Germany was not invited to the Washington Conference, and of course she is not in any way bound by the limitations which those Powers who attended the Conference agreed to for themselves. Therefore, quite legitimately, she has recently built a 10,000-ton ship of high speed, well armoured and carrying 11-inch guns. That ship is too fast to be caught by any battleship, and she is too powerful to be dealt with by any cruiser built under the limitations of the Washington Conference. The only type of ship which could deal with that German ship is, I believe, a battle cruiser. Therefore, your Lordships will realise that if we and other Powers have to maintain in the future battle-cruisers, it will be necessary for us to keep a larger number of capital ships than otherwise might be necessary.
I think I shall obtain general agreement with the statement that it is for the Government, and for the Government alone, to lay down policy, and I hope I shall obtain equal agreement when I say that a wise Government consults its experts as to the instruments which are necessary to carry out its policy; and that if it is unable or unwilling to provide those instruments, then a wise Government changes its policy. I am quite sure I shall obtain agreement from the noble and gallant Lord opposite, because he put that statement in an admirable phrase when he addressed your Lordships last week. He then said:—
"There is an old saying about strategy, and that is that strategy and policy go hand in hand. If strategy and policy do not go hand in hand, then the Government of the country where that mistake is made is bound to suffer."
The history of this country, I think, shows the correctness of that statement. Unfortunately, the history of other countries shows that it is not only the Government which suffers, but the country itself.
What has been the policy of the Governments of this country in the past, at any rate since the signing of Peace at the conclusion of the Great War? The policy of successive Governments has been
1470
solely one of defence and of the preservation of peace. The reason is adequate and convincing. It is that no country stands to gain so little by war as this country, and no country runs the risk of losing so much. This policy, so far as the Admiralty is concerned, has been the defence of the coasts of the whole Empire, and the freedom of sea-passage to and from all its parts. The instruments which naval experts have consistently recommended to carry out this policy have included among other things a minimum of seventy cruisers. At the very last Board meeting which I attended we were considering a Memorandum on the policy of the Admiralty drawn up by the Naval Staff, and in it I well remember a phrase in which it was stated that seventy cruisers were required for the necessities of the Empire. That Memorandum was agreed to unanimously by the Board of Admiralty, and I think every one of us except, I believe, the Financial Secretary, was present at that meeting.
I am sorry that I have had to postpone this debate from last week, because my noble friend Lord Bridgeman would then have been able to be present, whereas to-day he is unfortunately unable to attend by reason of a previous engagement of a public character. He would have been able to tell your Lordships that those seventy cruisers included ships belonging to navies of the Dominions, and also ten ships over age. That was agreed to at the Conference at Geneva in 1927, and it has been the policy of the Government since that date. Four months later, that is, instead of May this year, in September, there appeared in the Press what seems to have been an authoritative statement. At any rate it was one which has not been denied. I will quote the gist of it from The Times of September 17, in which it was stated that the position which had been reached was that Great Britain would be perfectly content with fifteen 8-inch gun cruisers of roughly 10,000 tons, and thirty-five cruisers of approximately 6,500 tons each and carrying 6-inch guns—a total of fifty cruisers instead of seventy. The article added that in the view of the Government and of the Admiralty this would be a sufficient force to meet all our responsibilities.
I should like to ask whether this number of fifty is an inclusive figure, as was the seventy. Does it include the ships belonging to the navies of the Dominions, and does it also include those which we could retain although they had reached the age limit, and were indeed past it? If it is an inclusive figure it is obvious that the responsibilities for which fifty cruisers were considered sufficient in September must be less than the responsibilities of providing adequate security for British territory and the freedom of sea passage to and from all parts of the Empire, for which seventy cruisers were considered necessary in May. I submit that the country is entitled to be told what has been the change of policy. I hope that the noble and gallant Lord opposite will also be able to clear up the point as to what it is the fifty cruisers do and do not include. Your Lordships will, I think, agree that we ought to be clear on that point, and at any rate you will agree that if we sign our names to an agreement only to maintain fifty cruisers, that will be the total number which we can at any time maintain. There could be no question, if unfortunately a situation arose which might perhaps become strained, of our then delaying the breaking up of cruisers, or of hurrying forward the building of those which were already under construction. To do anything of that kind would obviously place us in the wrong, and might even lay us open to the accusation of being the aggressor State, and, in any case, is directly contrary to the method by which England in the past has fulfilled her engagements.
May I say a few words as to how this figure of seventy cruisers was arrived at. It was not based on the strength of any other navy, or of the navies of the world, but on our experiences in the Great War and the experiences which we learnt at manœuvres. There is no secret about the normal allocation in war-time of those cruisers. It was stated quite clearly by the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Jellicoe, speaking for New Zealand and, of course, also for the rest of the Empire, at the Naval Conference at Geneva in 1927. He said that twenty-five cruisers would normally be operating with the Battle Fleet and forty-five would be allocated to the trade routes, of which at any given time twelve probably would be away refitting and refuelling.
I speak with great diffidence as a landsman, and particularly so in the presence of my noble and gallant friend on the cross-Benches [Earl Beatty], but I believe I am correct in saying that the greatest danger which the battleship has to meet is a determined attack by a flotilla of enemy destroyers. It is a far greater danger than an attack by submarines, and it is an infinitely greater danger than an attack by aeroplanes. A submarine can only operate in daylight, and the answer to the submarine is very largely the scouting aeroplane and other methods which we have found suitable and satisfactory. As regards the aeroplane, that, of course, is unable to operate in the dark, and in any case it only drops one bomb or one torpedo against the very large number which are discharged by destroyers. Those of your Lordships who have seen an attack delivered by destroyers will realise how great the danger is. The answer to that danger is, and must be, cruisers; and therefore I am very doubtful whether you will find any naval officer who will agree that any great reduction can be made in the number of the cruisers allocated to the Battle Fleet.
Similarly in regard to trade protection. A commerce-raider may be a converted merchantman. There is no difficulty whatever in knocking out a converted merchantman. Any cruiser carrying a 6-inch gun is more than a match for any merchantman, however well it may be fought, and that for many reasons. The cruiser has ammunition hoists and armour, and—more important than that—it has suitable range finders, and, still more, instruments for gunnery control. The difficulty, of course, is to be able to find the commerce-raider at all. It took twenty-three ships to catch the Emden, and your Lordships will realise how difficult the task of a cruiser guarding the trade routes is when I say that the thirty-three cruisers which were all that could be allocated out of the seventy then built, gives them an average of 2,500 miles of trade routes to guard; in other words, there would only be three cruisers between here and the Cape. Your Lordships will realise that if there is to be a reduction of twenty cruisers from the seventy, that will either mean reducing the thirty-three cruisers on the trade routes to thirteen only, or practically taking away all cruisers allo-

1473
cated to the Battle Fleet. I think your Lordships will agree that the country should be told what is the policy of the Government in this matter, and that we should be able to understand what it means. To me it seems obvious that there has been some change of policy, and if that is the case then I hope the Government will agree to produce a White Paper, so that the country may be able to understand clearly what is this change of policy, and what are the implications which it involves. I beg to move.
EARL BEATTY: My Lords, the question which has been raised by the noble Earl is in no sense a political question or a Party question, but it is an Imperial question, and therefore I feel that, having spent something more than seven and a half years as the principal naval adviser of four successive Governments, I am justified in rising and addressing your Lordships' House in support of the noble Earl. The Question on the Paper is one of what is the responsibility of the Admiralty. The responsibility of the Admiralty is to provide the naval strength adequate to carry out the policy of the Government. But, above that, it lies with the Admiralty to provide a sufficient strength to protect the sea communications and the trade routes, and to protect the Dominions and the Colonies from oversea attack. That is a responsibility which has been laid upon the Admiralty by successive Governments for very many years. It is a responsibility not only to His Majesty's Government but to the Empire, and it is for that reason that we require to know, and what we are concerned with is, that nothing has been done, that nothing is being done, and that nothing will be done at the forthcoming Conference which will in any way weaken the hands of the Admiralty in carrying this very heavy burden.
The Conference, we understand, will concern itself chiefly with the cruiser question. As was pointed out by the noble Earl, that is, a question which is very vital, because it is with cruisers that the defence of our trade and sea communications is primarily concerned. If we consider the enormous length of our communications and the immense volume of trade which is spread over it we will recognise that it is impossible to meet our requirements in that direction
1474
without an adequate provision of cruisers. The length of those lines of communication, where most of the British ships are found, is no less than 80,000 miles, and on a typical day in the year 9,500,000 tons of British ships, exceeding 3,000 tons of individual tonnage, will be found on those lines. Nine and a half million tons over 80,000 miles!
I will not trouble your Lordships with analyses of those statements or by quoting a large number of figures; but the main figures will impress your Lordships with the tremendous responsibility resting on the Admiralty to find adequate protection over such a vast area. As has been pointed out by the noble Earl, the number of cruisers hitherto required for the protection of our trade and for other purposes has been seventy. This requirement of seventy cruisers has actually been in being for the past ten years.; that is to say, practically since the signing of the Peace. The noble. Earl has informed us that this figure was confirmed no later than last May. Again, it is as well to analyse what the duties of those cruisers are. As was pointed out by the noble Earl, they have two duties to perform. First, they have to form a tactical part of the Battle Fleet. Secondly, they are required for the protection of the trade routes and sea communications. As regards the first, the number required is based upon the size of the Battle Fleet. The Battle Fleet is the covering force for all naval endeavour in the defence of the Empire. The Battle Fleet is the massing of battleships, the number of which was settled by the Washington Agreement. As stated by the noble Earl, the smallest number of cruisers required to work with the battleships, the number of which was assessed at Washington and cannot be altered, is twenty-five. You cannot get away from that figure in any circumstances whatsoever. That twenty-five must remain so long as the Battle Fleet consists of the number of battleships which was assessed at the Washington Conference. This, as the noble Earl has pointed out, leaves but forty-five. Taking away twelve refitting and refuelling, as pointed out also by the noble Earl, you are left with thirty-three to protect 80,000 miles of sea communications and trade routes.

1475
I turn to the statement which has been quoted, in which it is said that we are approaching the Conference on a basis of 50 cruisers composed of fifteen 8-inch ships and thirty-five 6-inch ships, the latter being approximately of 6,500 tons. If you analyse that statement it will be found that not only is this an enormous decrease on our proposed cruiser strength, but we are to go to a Conference on a total cruiser tonnage of 339,000, which includes fifteen 8-inch ships with a total displacement of 146,800 tons. That means that the remaining thirty-five ships cannot be of the new 6,500 ton type. That is a very important point because it means that when the time comes to replace the large number of small cruisers (that is, the small wartime cruisers) the tonnage figure of 339,000 tons will be insufficient to maintain even fifty cruisers. We are, therefore, approaching this Conference with figures which represent a dangerous minimum. We have to-day fifty-nine cruisers built and building, and this does not include the two cruisers of the 1928 programme which have been suspended, or the ships of the 1929 programme which the Prime Minister informed the House of Commons was also suspended. Of this number, fifty-nine, thirty-five will fall out from age during the next ten years. To maintain the number at fifty we must lay down, therefore, during the next few years 26 cruisers. A steady building programme is essential for this purpose. Yet the 1928 programme is suspended and, so far as is known, nothing has been done as regards the 1929 programme.
This cruiser situation is indeed serious. We have dropped our numbers from seventy to fifty. We are entering the Conference with an extremely low limit of cruiser tonnage. At the same time, there is at present no indication that a proper provision is being made even for the reduced figures and tonnage which have been put down. The noble Earl referred to what happened in the War. It is not so long ago that we can afford to lose sight of its lessons, and if we look them up we shall see that in the period from August 4,1914, until November 9,1914, the "Emden," which was being pursued by eighteen ships, captured twenty-nine ships with a total tonnage of 119,690; and that the "Karlsruhe" captured between August 4,1914, and November 4,1914, nineteen ships with a
1476
total tonnage of 83,701. There is an example of what two small cruisers can do in the face of the very large preponderating force of cruisers that we had out looking for them. In the case of the "Emden," no less than twenty-three ships were looking for her and so far as the "Karlsruhe" is concerned, forty-one ships were definitely warned and went out of their way to look for her. Is it surprising that there should be apprehension among those who have given thought and consideration to this vital question, that there should be dismay amongst those who cannot understand how parity in cruisers can be arrived at unless it is to be a parity having regard to the commitments and obligations of our nation? I think it can be agreed that there is no nation whose naval commitments and obligations are so great and complicated as those of the British Empire. It is inconceivable that there should be anybody who would be opposed to arriving at agreement with the United States, or any other nation, but surely it is equally inconceivable to think that anybody would lose sight of the fact that this Empire of ours is one which is bound by the sea, whose communications between the parts of the Empire are the sea, and it is on the protection of the sea that they depend.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON): My Lords, we are accustomed to a certain elasticity in our debates on any given topic in this House, and it has always seemed to mo to be an excellent custom that that elasticity should prevail, but I must confess that I have seldom listened to two speeches in this House which have strayed further from the two points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, in his Motion. The noble Earl began his remarks by expressing his fervent hope that a reduction of armaments would be effective, and of the general desirability of reaching understandings all round with other Naval Powers. His mind, however, appeared to be clouded at the same time with a certain amount of doubt, misgiving, and suspicion. Nearly every word that fell from him after the expression of that hope was such as to make one think that we, as a nation, should do everything in our power at the approaching Conference to make a reduction of armaments as difficult as possible.

1477
He quoted me as having talked about the relationship that should exist between policy and strategy. I do not vary that statement one iota; but I submit that what he did give us himself was a sort of lecture on naval strategy, and what he was asking from the Government was not an exposition of their policy in regard to the defence of the Empire but an exposition of their naval strategy. He even went so far as to quote, almost textually, the opinions expressed at a meeting of the Board of Admiralty in support of a certain figure of seventy cruisers which, at the time that Board met, was considered, according to the opinion quoted by the noble Earl, as the absolute minimum number of cruisers requisite for the defence of the British Empire; and he appears to assume that no matter what happens, what our relations may be with foreign countries, what arrangements we may enter into, that seventy is graven in tablets of stone, and is to stand like the laws of the Medes and Persians for ever and for ever. I may remind the noble Earl that the opinions of naval experts have often been abated, that some of the most eminent naval experts have recognised that there is a gap between theory and practice, that they have recognised that though from a naval point of view it might be absolutely ideal to have 120 cruisers, still, like sensible men, they also recognise that their coat must be cut according to their cloth, and that, above all, our relations with foreign countries may justify a diminution of the figure.
As regards the Questions that were put to me by the noble Earl, I can assure him of this, that the policy of His Majesty's Government, so far as the security of the Empire is concerned, has not been altered in one single point. The policy of His Majesty's Government is, in other words, to provide for the absolute security of the British Empire in all its aspects. If, as he seems to assume, there is any suspicion in the minds of some people that His Majesty's present Government have acted without consulting the Board of Admiralty, he is entirely mistaken. Throughout the life of the present Government the Board of Admiralty has been consulted as much as it ever could have been consulted before. There has been no omission of what is the obvious duty of a Government in that respect.
1478
As everyone knows, the object of the approaching Conference is a reduction of armaments. The delegates to this Conference from Great Britain are not, as they sometimes have been, naval experts. They are to be accompanied, however, by naval advisers. This change in the character of our delegation is, if I may express my own opinion with the utmost diffidence, an admirable change, a change for the better. It has always seemed to me that to put a technical expert in the position of a delegate to such a Conference is to put him in a false position. These questions can better be approached from the angle of statesmanship, because, in point of fact, what we are putting first is policy, and it is quite obvious that this Conference will be entirely abortive and ineffective unless we can reach some understanding with the Naval Powers of the World which will achieve the object of all such Conferences, a reduction of armaments.
As regards the responsibilities of the Admiralty, to which the noble Earl himself, and the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Beatty, have referred, I can only say that if that Conference takes the course which every believer in world peace and every progressive person must fervently hope it will, His Majesty's Government feel absolutely confident that the Admiralty will be abe to continue adequately to discharge their responsibilities to the Government of the country for naval defence. That, I hope, meets the first part of the noble Earl's Question. I really cannot follow him into the details of naval strategy.
The second part of his Question asks for information and details about facts and figures which are the subject of negotiation at the coming Conference. Quite obviously, it is impossible for me to give him the information that he seeks. I can only say that any observations coming from the noble Earl on this subject, both on personal grounds and in view of the fact that he occupied a very distinguished position at the Admiralty in the last Administration, will be noted very carefully by His Majesty's Government, but it is impossible for me in present circumstances even to deal with the facts and figures that he has mentioned and about which he requires further information. I believe that in that figure of fifty, two Australian cruisers are included,

1479
but that is about the only further information I can give to the noble Earl. I hope that in these circumstances he will not press for Papers. I have no Papers to give him except absolutely secret papers which are the subject of negotiation, or rather will be at the approaching Conference. It is, therefore, with the hope that the noble Earl will not press his Motion for Papers that I repeat my assurance that his remarks will be carefully noted by the Government.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, you will have observed that my Question was in two parts. The noble Lord did not deal with the first part in any sort or kind of way except to say that there was no change of policy in regard to defence between the last Government and this Government. He then went on to say that the Conference about to be held was to be on questions of change of policy. How he reconciles those two statements I am unable to understand, and I doubt whether the House will understand either. As regards the second part, there I ask where the reduction of cruisers was to take place, whether in those allocated to the Battle Fleet or to the trade routes. There was no secret about that when the matter was discussed quite openly in 1927, and why a Government which professes to disagree with secret diplomacy should endeavour to hide every atom of information not only from your Lordships but also from the country as a whole, I fail to understand.
I think, perhaps, I do understand the reason, which is that they are not prepared to say either that the cruisers allocated to the Battle Fleet are insufficient or that those allocated to the trade routes are insufficient. It is obvious that if you make a reduction of twenty from one or the other, or both, the numbers are going to be insufficient and everybody will realise it. I do not want to press for Papers because, as the noble Lord says, apparently these are of a secret nature. Therefore I do not propose to proceed with my Motion further, but I do trust that before the Government go into the Conference they will take their own countrymen into their confidence because only so will they arrive at an agreement which will stand and, above all, arrive at a situation in
1480
which confidence and trust replaces suspicion and possibly a feeling of un-settlement which is the very worst foundation on which the peace of the world can rest.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SINGAPORE BASE.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE rose to ask His Majesty's Government how far and in what respects the scheme for the Singapore base has been delayed or postponed; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I apologise for again addressing the House. I had hoped that my last Motion would be entirely of a non-Party character and that is why I separated it from the question of Singapore which unfortunately, as I think, has to some extent taken a Party character. There have been several debates in your Lordships' House in recent years on the new base and I do not propose to traverse ground which has been covered on those former occasions. I may perhaps be allowed to remind the House, however, that the Imperial Conferences of 1923 and 1926 took note in identical terms of "the deep interest of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, and India in the construction of a naval base at Singapore, as essential for ensuring the mobility necessary to provide for the security of the territories and trade of the Empire in Eastern waters."
Mr. Bruce stated in 1926—he was then, of course, Prime Minister of the Commonwealth—
" I can only say that Australia believes that the Singapore base is absolutely essential."
Those views are not surprising when we remember that the coasts of India are practically undefended and that it is common knowledge that we should be unable to send our Battle Fleet to the defence of Australia or New Zealand unless and until a base has been constructed at Singapore. At the present moment, with the exception of the floating dock which has recently been installed in the Old Strait, not a single dock east of Malta exists that is capable of taking a modern bulged capital ship. The noble Lord last week made an analogy in this

1481
House between the Airship R 101 and an ordinary ship, and he said that the airship shed was to the airship as a dry dock is to a ship and the mast to an ordinary dock. By an ordinary dock I suppose he meant a basin. He stated that the analogy was not very close but that it was fairly close. There I disagree with him entirely, but the analogy is one that he drew and it is for him to explain it away now if he so desires. But I should like to ask him whether he would think of sending an airship out to Australia or even to India in the event of war if he had no shed in which to do repairs should they become necessary?
In spite of these facts, which we all know, His Majesty's Government announced in another place on November 13 that they had decided that work already contracted for should be slowed down as much as possible, that all work that could be suspended should be suspended, and that no new work should be embarked upon pending the result of the Five-Power Naval Conference. Why should you wait for the Naval Conference before proceeding with work that does not concern in the least the Five Powers attending that Conference? Why that should be so I am unable to understand, unless it is that the Government are actually bartering the security of the Dominions in the hope that they may be able to obtain a reduction of a few cruisers. The Government appear to think that we alone are constructing or improving a naval base. Surely noble Lords opposite know that a very large amount of construction and improvement work has been carried out in recent years in the naval bases in Japan and in Pearl Harbour in the Hawaiian Islands belonging to the United States. Of course we have made no remarks on that work. It is solely a matter concerning those two Powers. Why they or any other Power should think that they have a right to make any remarks as regards what we do at Singapore, equally outside the area which came into the Washington Conference, I am unable to understand. In point of fact neither of these Powers have done so and why the Government should think they should entirely passes my comprehension.
So much nonsense has been written and spoken about Singapore that perhaps I
1482
may be allowed to say exactly what Singapore was intended to be. It is not a second Portsmouth with a large number of docks, with barracks, with very big workshops employing thousands of men. It was designed as an extremely small base. It was designed to have one floating dock capable of taking a capital ship with its attendant floating crane. The floating dock and the floating crane are already in the Old Strait. It was further designed to have one and only one graving dock, a wharf wall alongside which ships could lie, and a small basin capable of accommodating steamships taking out naval stores to the base. In addition there were to be only sufficient workshops for use with the docks, a very small supply base and a magazine capable of taking the ammunition from ships which were in either the floating dock or the graving dock. In addition, of course, houses are necessary for the accommodation of those working at the base, together with the necessary extension of the railway, roads, and water supply.
I think your Lordships will realise from this how very small this scheme for the naval base really is. In addition to the naval side, to which alone I have so far referred, both the Army and the Air Force come into the scheme to a minor extent: the Army to provide for shore defences and the Air Force to provide an aerodrome and its ancillary buildings. The total cost for all three services, exclusive of the floating dock, which, of course, can at any time be towed elsewhere, was estimated at a little over £11,500,000. This figure has been stated over and over again in another place and elsewhere. Of this £11,500,000, which was the total expenditure, Hong Kong, the Federated Malay States and New Zealand had contributed, or were in process of contributing, £3,250,000. The £8,000,000 odd which this country had to find was to have been spread over a period of nine years, and in no year would the expenditure which this country had to find for all three Services have exceeded, roughly, £1,300,000.
And yet the Government proposes to postpone some works and to stop others. It says to India and to the Dominions: "It is quite true that, by the alteration of a single clause in one Bill, we have incurred an annual expenditure of

1483
£4,000,000, but we are not prepared to spend £8,000,000, spread over a period of nine years, in order to obtain security for you and for your trade. It is quite true that you gave unstintingly of money and of men to render us assistance in the Great War, but we are not prepared to give even the small expenditure which would enable us to send a Battle Fleet to your assistance should the need unfortunately at any time arise."
I think the House would like to know what work has been slowed down and what has been suspended. The contract for the construction of the dry dock, the wharf walls and the basin was signed by me last September on behalf of the Government. That contract came to more than half the expenditure on the naval side of the base. The work was to be completed in seven years, and this period was selected as being that which was most economical for working and best not only for the Government but for the firm that was doing the work. Indeed, one firm that tendered stated that, if they got the contract—they did not get it—they would prefer to do the work in quicker time, as being more economical. I should like to ask whether this contract has been interfered with and, if so, whether the Government have received any assurance from the contractors that the work will not in consequence cost more than it would have cost under the contract that was approved? The workshops that were to be completed by Departmental labour were not due to be begun for some years, and therefore there can be no question of postponement in their case, but other works are being done by Departmental labour, such as the building of houses for those employed at the base. I should like to ask the noble Lord opposite whether the work on these houses is still being proceeded with or if the staff has been reduced or is going to be accommodated in temporary buildings instead of in the proper houses that were being erected for their accommodation?
As regards the connection with the railway, the roads and the water supply, I imagine this work must be very nearly completed, but I should like to have the assurance of the noble Lord on that point. The magazine, as I have stated, was designed to take ammunition from ships that were put into the graving dock or
1484
the floating dock. Your Lordships will, of course, realise that ammunition ought to be taken out of a ship when she is opened up or put into a dock, whether floating or otherwise, and it is really essential, therefore, that a magazine should be constructed in order that this ammunition may be safely housed underground while the ship is being dealt with, even now, at the floating dock. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether the magazine is being proceeded with and whether the work in regard to the armaments supply depot is going ahead. Work was also being done at the aerodrome and on the jetty, barracks and buildings connected with it. Perhaps the noble Lord can give us some further information on that point also.
What I should particularly like to ask him is whether work on the military defences has been stopped or not? Speaking on the Singapore question on July 1, 1925, the noble Lord said:—
"Presumably from the moment work is started at the Old Strait some measures will have to be taken for defending that locality."
The work is proceeding, or at least has begun, at the Old Strait, and I should like to ask the noble Lord whether this is still his view and whether the measures necessary for the defence of the locality are still proceeding. I do not think that there are any other points that I wish to ask the noble Lord about, but I hope that we shall obtain definite information on the various points that I have raised, in order that the people of this country and of the Dominions may know what the policy of the Government in regard to Singapore actually is.
LORD THOMSON: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Earl detailed information in regard to every one of the buildings and appliances in Singapore that he has mentioned. There was no indication in his Question that he required such detailed information as that. If I had known, I should certainly have obtained it for him, but I trust that he will not suspect me of discourtesy in not giving him all the information that he asks for. I think he will agree that there was a great deal of detail in the form in which the Question was put in his speech. I will do my best. The Question that stands on the Paper is:—

1485
"How far and in what respects the scheme for the Singapore base has been delayed or postponed."
An answer was given in a speech from which the noble Earl himself quoted, or rather on the day on which that speech was made, which I cannot improve upon. With the permission of the House I will read it. The answer was given in another place, and was to this effect:—
"In all the circumstances, the Government has decided that the work already contracted for at Singapore shall be slowed down as much as possible, that all work that can be suspended shall be suspended, and that no new work shall be embarked on pending the results of the Five-Power Conference."
That answer really covers a great deal concerning which the noble Earl is seeking information.
I would lay special emphasis on the fact that this decision is reached pending the results of the Five-Power Conference. I must again insist that the Conference is designed, if it is humanly possible and consistent with the security of the British Empire, to achieve a reduction in armaments. I am not going now into the category of armaments—that is not my function at the moment—but I am sure that the noble Earl and your Lordships will agree that, if we can be successful, it is obvious that in respect of an enormously expensive dock like Singapore dock—a scheme like that may he modified in essential respects, with consequent saving of money to the taxpayer, and, it may be, a saving of provocation to other nations throughout the world. It is a purely tentative decision. It is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to go into this Conference and use the Singapore dock scheme as a bargaining counter. We are going into this Conference with absolutely clean hands and a definite policy—a policy which has been repeated and reiterated countless times. If we achieve the results which we hope for, then, without using Singapore in any sense at the Conference, we shall quite obviously be able to apply some of the results of the success of that Conference to the modification of the Singapore scheme.
I think perhaps I may explain some of the details of that answer which I read out. The question of the main contract, that is, graving dock, reclamation, wharf walls, etc., is now under consideration. I think the noble Earl said that he
1486
wanted to know what was the last arrangement between the Government or the Admiralty and the contractor. I am afraid I cannot tell him. That is not a detail for which I was prepared. I am not at all sure that it would be possible for anybody to get that information, unless it was specifically asked for. I submit that it is not covered by the noble Earl's Question.
EARL STANHOPE: I must remind the noble and gallant Lord that I gave him private notice with regard to that contract.
LORD THOMSON: I acknowledge with gratitude the courtesy of the noble Earl, but I must confess that I never noticed that he asked for the actual arrangements reached between the Admiralty and the contractor since this tentative suspension. Unless I am very much mistaken that was not mentioned in the noble Earl's letter. I have a very clear recollection of what he said in the letter, and I am grateful for his courtesy in sending it to me, but he did not mention this particular point. I certainly looked up the question of the main contract, and that is why I have had it written out by those best qualified to write it out for me. The question of the main contract, the graving dock, reclamation, wharf walls, etc., is now under consideration. It is not His Majesty's Government's intention to prejudice the date of completion of the base if the decision to proceed with it should eventually be taken. That in a sense answers the noble Earl's Question about the contractor. It is not the intention of the Government to prejudice the date of completion by anything they are doing at present. The decision does not affect maintenance and other services, which must continue.
The noble Earl has had the advantage of spending four years at the Admiralty, and is more conversant with these details than I am. I do not know whether that answer meets him. If I had only been prepared for these questions a little more thoroughly, I would certainly have done my best to get the information asked for, but I hope I have satisfied the noble Earl. The items to be deferred include some which the last Government decided to put in hand in 1930, the most important of these being the armament depot, which I think will account for £150,000 in next year's Estimates. Such items as water

1487
supply, workshops, store-houses, offices, residence, etc., are being carried out independently of the main contract, and are intended to be completed at various dates as required, during the period of the completion of the base as a whole. I think that covers many of the buildings which the noble Earl referred to. In certain cases where works are well advanced they will not be interfered with. Of the remainder, it is proposed to defer certain items of work. I have a summary of this answer which I think covers most of the ground. It is as follows:—The naval base is being slowed down by the suspension of such items outside the main contract as can be suspended and non-commencement of new items. The noble Earl with his knowledge of this base will perhaps be able to fill in the gaps. I regret that I cannot give him at this moment many of the details he asked for.
EARL STANHOPE: Can the noble and gallant Lord give us any information as regards the Air Force?
LORD THOMSON: As regards the military side of the base the situation is for all practical purposes as the late Government left it, and the whole question is under review. A sum of about £2,000,000 is, I think, to be expended on the War Office side, and a good deal of that was on account of coast defence. That question is under review at the present moment. Generally speaking, the situation is as it was left by the last Government. As to the air base, it is in no way affected by this decision. The air base is proceeding. I observe the noble Earl laughs, but he presumably admits the value of the air base.
EARL STANHOPE: I admit the value of all three.
LORD THOMSON: There is one other statement which I would like to make with the permission of the House, although I do not know that it was directly referred to by the noble Earl. It concerns the Dominions. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom do not regard His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions as in any way committed by the provisional conclusions which have been reached pending the results of the Five-Power Conference which is to take place in London next month. Any proposal affecting this scheme as a whole, or the
1488
date of its conclusion, would be made the subject of full consultation with them and the fullest consultation would also take place with the Governments of Malaya and Hong Kong. I do not think that there are any other points that I have left uncovered, although I candidly confess that I have not covered them in the detail which the noble Earl appears to have expected. I hope he will accept my regrets. As regards the laying of Papers, here again I must appeal to the noble Earl. I do not know what Papers he expects me to lay. He has given full explanation of a great deal about the base to the House already, and there is nothing that I can lay in the way of Papers which would give much more information. Such Papers as there are I am afraid I cannot lay at present. I therefore trust that he will not press his Motion.
EARL STANHOPE: I am much obliged to the noble and gallant Lord opposite for the information which he has given. I would only have liked it to have been somewhat fuller, but of course I appreciate the fact that he has not been in as close touch with these matters as it was my lot to be for a very considerable period. I beg to thank him for the answer he has given and to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Second Report by the Select Committee.
The Committee reported:—
1. MESSENGERS OF THE CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS' DEPARTMENT.
The Committee authorised a rise (as from the 1st July, 1929) of £10 a year in the basic salary of head messengers in the Judicial and Committee Offices.
2. SECURITY FUND.
The Committee considered the relation of the House of Lords' Security Fund to the House of Lords' Fee Fund, and authorised the transfer from the Fee Fund to the Security Fund of sums which were required to place the Security Fund on a proper basis.
3. LORD GREAT CHAMBERLAIN'S DEPARTMENT.
The Committee considered an application for a rise of salary from the Resident

1489
Superintendent, and authorised an increase on his salary of £50 from the 1st April, 1930, and an annual rise of £10 to a maximum of £400.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL Of DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now considered and adopted.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (MEDICAL SERVICE) ADDITIONAL GRANT BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House again to be put in Committee read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (EARL RUSSELL): My Lords, I beg to move that this House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, and I should like to call your Lordships attention to the fact that there is a very large number of Amendments still to be got through. I understand that we are going to sit late to-night, and I hope that we shall also sit late to-morrow, but it does not seem certain that that will finish the Bill. I cannot complain in the least of the progress that has been made. There has been no obstruction of any sort, but there has been a great deal of discussion on the various clauses, and I hope your Lordships will do what is possible to finish to-morrow night; but, if not, we should certainly have to sit on Friday, and I am not even sure we should finish it then unless we took a long sitting.
Moved, That the House do resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Russell.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, may I assure the noble Earl that in anything that the Government do to expedite matters we shall be only too ready to help them, but I hope we may finish to-morrow night. If not, I am certain it would have been better to have met last Friday than to meet this Friday.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORK in the Chair.]
Clause 34:
Requirements in respect of policies.
34.—(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Part of this Act, a policy of insurance must be a policy which—

(a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer within the meaning of this Part of this Act; and

(b) insures such person, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the policy in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle on a road:

Provided that such a policy shall not be required to cover—

(i) liability in respect of the death in the course of his employment of a person in the employment of a person insured by the policy or of bodily injury sustained by such a person in the course of his employment; or

(ii) except in the case of a vehicle in which passengers are being carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons being carried in or entering or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which the claims arise.

(2) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, the expression "authorised insurer" means an assurance company or an underwriter in whose case the requirements of the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, as amended by this Act, with respect to deposits by assurance companies and deposits and guarantees by underwriters are complied with.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment, a person issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall, subject to any conditions contained in the policy, be liable to indemnify the persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability against which they are insured by the policy.
LORD LUKE LORD LUKE moved to insert, before the proviso to paragraph (b) of subsection (1), "and insures to any hospital treating any such bodily injury payment of the cost of such treatment up to a maximum payment of twenty-five pounds." The noble Lord said: During the year 1927 the hospitals of the provinces treated 26,000 in-patients and 39,000 outpatients in their wards as the result of

1491
motor accidents. The cost to those hospitals was approximately £230,000. The actual money recovered from insurance offices and from the patients was £26,000, so that to the extent of eight-ninths of the cases the hospitals bore the expense. If these cases were divided over all the hospitals in the Kingdom evenly probably it would not be so unfortunate for the few hospitals which now receive these cases in excess—the hospitals which are near to the great trunk roads. All good motorists will pick up an injured person and take him to the nearest hospital, but the cure is, I am afraid, usually at the expense of that hospital, and the chairmen of hospitals and hospital charities are continually saying that these casualties from the roads are using the beds that have been provided in local hospitals for local needs.
The maximum payment that I propose of £25 is based on £4 a week for six weeks. That £4 is supposed to cover the out-of-pocket expenses of a hospital treating such a case, and the figures I have quoted will show that usually the average expense would not be greater than about £4 in all. With regard to the cost of premium for any one insuring against this risk an insurance company recently agreed to issue a policy at the cost of 5s. and that would include all the expense of an individual policy. But if such a risk were added to the present risk in anyone's policy the insurance people say that the cost would be only about 1s. or 2s. It seems only reasonable that hospitals should have this first charge on the insurance, because if the hospitals were not handy to try and remedy the results of accidents motorists would be in a very difficult position. This question of the hospitals which have suffered in this way has been dealt with very freely in the Press and recently in an article by Sir Charles Harris in The Times, so I need not make a long statement about the matter. Also there are many noble Lords in this House to state the case, and they probably will take the opportunity of doing so to-day.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 35, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Luke.)
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: Of course, this Amendment will not deal with all the accident cases brought to hospitals through motor accidents. It would only deal with those where the man is insured against third-party risk, and where the accident is due to his negligence. It seems really unfair that if a man is injured in an accident and is taken to a nursing home and treated by a doctor the insurer should pay the expenses as a liability in consequence of his negligence, but that if the same patient is taken to a hospital the insurer is not liable because the hospital has no legal claim to recover the costs incurred by it. In fact, the insurance company might refuse to pay it as it was not a legal liability, and they would be justified from the point of view of their shareholders.
I want to emphasise the fact that, although the treatment of these cases has increased enormously, and although this is a very serious burden on the hospitals, we make no complaint of that. They are there to help these people who are injured, and we are only too glad that the first question asked when anyone sees an accident is, "Where is the nearest hospital?" But we do think it unfair that, because the person is treated in a hospital, the hospital should not get any part of the expense which is incurred. You may ask: "Why don't you get it from the patient? "It is hardly the time to bargain with a patient when he is brought to your doors smashed to pieces as the result of a motor accident. I have had the misfortune to be run over and nearly killed—I think I was dead for some time—by a motor trolley. I was taken to a hospital. They did not ask me how much I would pay to be treated there and, of course, nothing was paid for my treatment at that hospital by the villain who ran over me. I did not feel that I could claim anything very serious from him because the greatest damage he did was to make me deaf. That prevents me having the great pleasure of hearing your Lordships' speeches and the retort, if I had claimed for that as damages, was rather too obvious. My noble friend Lord Luke has put the cost down at £25; that is the maximum cost which a hospital might recover, though it might have to spend a considerable amount more upon treating a patient. I am sure that this is

1493
a fair Amendment. I know that the country expects us to deal fairly by these hospitals upon whom this great burden of expense has come and who are very ready and, as I said before, make no complaint at having to meet it.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: Having been connected for over thirty years with three central funds, the Saturday Fund, the Sunday Fund and King Edward's Hospital Fund, I desire to support this Amendment. I do not think that any more figures are needed to show the expense to which hospitals are put by motor traffic; but I should like to refer to the report made last year by the Voluntary Hospitals Commission in which they say:—
"This charge "—
referring to the charge put upon the hospitals—
"ought not to fall upon funds derived largely from the generosity of the charitable, whose gifts are intended for the relief of persons who have not the means to provide institutional treatment at their own cost."
The report says further:—
"We recognise that the proposal would involve legislation, possibly of a controversial character, but we can see no other way of imposing the charge on those by whom in equity it should be borne."
This was the unanimous recommendation of the Commission, and it is their desire and the desire of many of us here to-night to put the hospitals in a position to claim payment out of the insurance. I would venture to appeal to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, which he has conducted, if I may say so, so ably, to give this measure of justice to the hospitals. I believe he will find it quite easy and well within his power.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had given Notice to move to amend the proposed Amendment as follows: After" hospital "insert" or surgeon or medical practitioner rendering first aid."The noble Viscount said: I thoroughly agree with the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Luke, but I should like to move an Amendment to it, not as printed on the Paper but in the following form: After "injury "insert" or to any surgeon or medical practitioner rendering first aid." One often reads letters of complaint in the Press from doctors who live near the scenes of frequent accidents, that they are
1494
scandalously treated by persons who not only do not pay them but who go away with articles which have been lent to them and do not return them. For that reason I beg to move this Amendment to the Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
After ("injury") insert ("or to any surgeon or medical practitioner rendering first aid.").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I should like to support the Amendment though not the Amendment to the Amendment. It is clear that this Amendment only deals with an admitted liability on the part of the motorist who does injury. If the person who is injured has no claim against the motorist, no liability will be incurred and no risk run by the insurance company which has insured the motorist. It is only in the case where the injured person has a legal claim against the motorist that the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Luke comes into operation. There is, I think, a distinction between a hospital and a medical practitioner. In the event of an accident for which a motorist is responsible, the person injured would have a claim against that motorist for personal injury and also, of necessity, for the cost of the treatment of that personal injury. If this proposal is not adopted, the Common Law remedy still remains for the injured person to sue the motorist for damages and the costs of the medical treatment. There are, however, a certain number of motorists who are not worth powder and shot and the proposal here, like the proposal of the Government, is to provide some remedy for persons injured by motorists who are not worth powder and shot.
At present a person is obliged to insure against claims for personal injury. The Bill does not deal with claims for injury to property, and therefore I will not touch upon that point; but it does provide that motorists shall insure against injury to the person in life and limb. If the injured person was taken to a medical practitioner, as is suggested in the Amendment to the Amendment, the claim of that medical practitioner would be part of the damages to be paid by the motorist and would be a proper claim against the insurance company. It is not the same

1495
in the case of hospitals, I understand. Hospitals are voluntary associations and as such cannot institute an action or make a legal claim against the injured person or against the person who causes the injury. They must depend upon the voluntary payments of the person brought to them for treatment or the person who caused the injury. I see that a very much better authority on the law than I am shakes his head and I withdraw that point; but I would like to make another.
A great number of these hospitals are local hospitals maintained by the localities for their own neighbourhoods. This is not the case of a great London hospital which is supported by a large number of contributors throughout the country. It is not a case of the London Hospital, University College Hospital, St. Thomas's Hospital or St. Bartholomew's. It is the case of the small hospitals maintained out of the comparative lack of affluence of the localities which maintain them. It is a very serious burden to cottage hospitals situate upon main roads where these accidents very largely happen, to have constantly a substantial number of beds occupied by patients who, in fact, whether in law or not, do not pay and on whose account the persons who inflict the injury upon them do not pay. It is a matter which can be covered by a very small amendment. I urge that it would be a proper thing to give this remedy not to the great hospitals in the first instance, not to those who are affluent, but to the somewhat struggling hospitals with which many of us are closely associated and which we find some difficulty in maintaining in view of the constantly increasing cost of upkeep. If in future we are to deal voluntarily with injuries done by motorists, I think some of the small hospitals may find even greater difficulty in carrying on than they have at present. I beg to support the Amendment.
LORD ATKIN: As the noble Lord kindly made a reference to me I should like to say a word or two about this Amendment. While in sympathy with the object I see a difficulty in accepting the words exactly as they are proposed. The policies, as proposed, have to insure motorists against any liability incurred by them in respect of the injury, and then
1496
they would go on and insure "to any hospital treating such bodily injury payment of the cost of such treatment…" As I understand it the object of this insurance clause has been not to interfere with the ordinary principles of insurance. The policy is to be left as it is between the insurance company and the insured. I do not know of any policy by which the insurance company promise, not to indemnify the motorists against the liability to him, but to pay some third person direct something for which the motorist is not liable. It interferes with the principle of insurance, which is the principle of indemnity. Now if the hospital has a right to make a charge against the injured person for the services which it renders to that injured person there is no difficulty. In such a case the hospital can make the charge against the injured person, and the injured person would necessarily recover that sum from the motorist and, through the motorist, from the insurance company, as part of his damages. The hospital will, in other words, pay the costs of the medical attention.
It is plain to my mind that in a great many cases hospitals are in a position to make a charge against the patients who come under their control. One knows that hospitals have private wards and charge for them. A great many cottage hospitals charge for every bed; in fact so much so that I remember very well, shortly after I went into the Court of Appeal, we had a case which turned upon the measure of damages where the injured person had been treated in the cottage hospital, and where the cottage hospital had adopted a somewhat remarkable procedure, because they had two scales of charges—a lower scale where the patient himself paid, and a higher scale when the charges were to be paid by a third party, or an insurance company—and there was a very substantial difference, which, I am sorry to say, was not allowed. So there is no difficulty. The noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, speaks with much more authority on this than I do, and it may be found there are insuperable difficulties in a hospital making a charge against a person who comes for attention and who is treated by them. At present I do not know what they are in law, and I see no reason why a hospital should not hold itself out to people as saying: "We will make a charge for any

1497
party who comes to us who is injured in a motor accident, and remit that charge if, in fact, it is not covered by insurance. "There is no reason why that should not be done. If so the object of this is dealt with.
If there are insuperable difficulties, the real remedy is by making some such provision as that any person who has been injured by the negligence of a motorist shall be entitled, as part of his damages, to recover a reasonable sum, not exceeding £25, which he may have paid, whether legally liable or not, to a hospital for attention to his injuries. That would enable him to recover from the insurance company. I doubt very much whether that would mean any increase in the premium, because medical attention is always one of the elements in the damages which the insurance company lay themselves out to pay. I venture to think that this particular form of provision—that the policy should involve an obligation upon the insurance company direct to any hospital not named—would be contrary to the whole principle of insurance, would be contrary to the policy of the Act, and, as far as I know, would be very difficult to enforce, because it would be difficult to say there was a contract between the hospital and the insurance company which the hospital could enforce.
LORD DANESFORT: I hope the noble Earl will see his way to accept this Amendment. Since the advent of the motor voluntary hospitals have been placed in a totally new position. They have a large and continually increasing number of patients of an entirely new kind. In former days, apart from London and the big hospitals in central places, the local hospitals chiefly treated patients from their own locality. They were equipped for that, and their resources were sufficient, or at any rate those who managed them tried to make them sufficient, for the treatment of local patients. Now, especially on the main roads and on some of the new roads which are being made, which will probably be a source of great danger owing to the speed at which people will travel upon them, but especially on the main roads, the hospitals which are situated there have to treat an enormous number of patients coming perhaps from a great distance and having nothing to
1498
do with the locality whom they never had to treat before.
The figures which were given by the noble Lord were really remarkable. I think, if I remember right, the figures he gave were that in 1927 the cost to the hospitals of this new class of patient—those injured by motors—was something like £230,000 and the amount they received from patients only £26,000. I need hardly say that voluntary hospitals in all parts of the country have already, and had before the advent of the motor, considerable difficulty in raising funds in order to meet their liabilities and carry out those duties which they were only too anxious to perform. Since these new patients have come their difficulties have been immensely increased. My noble friend said that they did not complain in this sense, that they are always ready and willing to do their utmost in the way of benevolence to help the people injured; but, if I may mention the case of a hospital with which I am particularly acquainted—that is the York Hospital—I have seen some of the figures and have gone into some of the new liabilities which were thrown upon that hospital in consequence of taking patients who have been injured by motors. This has created an exceedingly serous position, and those who are managing that hospital have made exceptional efforts to cover this new expenditure, partially with success, partially I am afraid without success.
Therefore, from the point of view of the hospitals, I venture to think it is an unanswerable claim that if the injured persons do not pay them for the treatment they receive, which they generally do not, the hospitals should be reimbursed in some other way, and the way it is proposed by this insurance clause is what is described in the Report of Royal Commission in these terms:—
"We can see no other way of imposing the charge on those by whom in equity it ought to be borne."
In equity they think it ought to be borne by the persons who are treated. There is the view of the motorist. Can anyone say it is unfair on him that he should be called upon to pay a very small additional fee in the way of premium of 5s. a year, or possibly much less, in order to insure against this just claim—I do not say legal liability, but this just claim of the hospitals? Surely motorists who go 300

1499
or 500 miles in the day, often at an excessive speed, would be willing, and indeed anxious, if the Legislature told them to do so, to pay this extra sum as insurance to meet the claims of the hospitals. They would be anxious to pay. At any rate they have no ground for objection. May I say one word about the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin? The point he raised is quite a good technical point, but it is really only a technical point. All that would be necessary would be to change the form of Amendment and what we are talking about is the substance of the Amendment and not its form. I am sure he would only be too glad to suggest or acquiesce in a change in its form. Indeed, he did suggest a form that would carry out the intentions of the mover of the Amendment.
LORD EBBISHAM: May I say a word in support of the Amendment as I have some experience in connection with four small hospitals in Surrey? We found that in the last completed year an expenditure had been made for patients injured by motors but resident outside our locality of at least £2,000. A great injustice is being done to all hospitals throughout the country. Whatever happens to the Amendment—and I hope the noble Earl will be able to accept it—the fact that this question has been ventilated will be of the utmost value when the Bill reaches another place. With regard to the question of the right to recover stated charges for attendance where the patient is resident outside the area of the hospital, in that connection would the noble Earl consider, if he has to refuse the Amendment, the possibility of supporting the hospitals in making such stated charges? There is a parallel for doing this. In the Town Clauses Act, 1827, and the Public Health Act, 1875, local authorities are empowered to make a reasonable charge for fire brigade services rendered outside their rateable areas on the owner of the land or buildings on which the fire occurs. I do hope the noble Earl will be able to accept the original Amendment or, if not, to consider the possibility of treating these hospitals with some sympathy and consideration in the difficult position in which they are now placed through the great increase in motor traffic.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I have been aware of the grievance of the hospitals in this matter. It is a grievance which has grown much more acute in the last two or three years. One of the principal grievances—and a most legitimate grievance—is in regard to the comparatively small local hospital, which is provided by the money of people in the locality with the intention that it shall be available for the treatment of people in the locality and which finds its beds filled by people not from the locality owing to motor accidents, and thus those for whose benefit the hospital was founded are often unable to get admission. It is obviously a grievance and I recognise they have a good deal of reason to complain. As regards this particular Amendment in this particular part of the Bill this is not the way to remedy that grievance. It would be inconsistent with the general scheme of insurance in Part II of the Bill and it would really not be by any means the best way to do it. As has been pointed cut it would not include all cases.
There seems to be in your Lordships' House a practically unanimous feeling that something of this sort should be done. I would suggest that the proper way to do it would be to draft a separate clause which would provide in one way or another, not for the insurance only of some persons who are injured, but for the insurance of all persons who are injured, at any rate of all motorists, so that none of them escape. It seems to me there are many ways in which that might be done if Parliament thought proper to do it. You might impose a levy of 5s. on every man who took out a licence. You are not under any obligation, unless you thought it the cheapest-way, to pass that 5s. over to an insurance company; you could pass it to a central fund to be administered for the benefit of the hospitals. It wants further consideration as to what the best method would be. Certainly this would not be the best method. It would be a very clumsy method and it would not fit in with this Bill. If Lord Luke, who moved the Amendment, and Lord Knutsford, who knows all there is to be known about hospitals, would confer with me and my advisers before the Report stage, I will see if a separate clause can be drafted to meet this case and I will

1501
have it very carefully considered to see if it does what we want.
There is, at the moment, a difficulty in that a hospital has no legal claim, and therefore no legal contract or liability arises. I do not know if it is possible for hospitals to obtain a legal claim by altering their rules, or whether in the clause you would have to give them a legal claim, or how it could be met. These are all points to be considered. There is only one word of warning that I would say and that is for those interested in hospitals to consider. If once a hospital which is a voluntary hospital begins receiving contributions from any source in a manner which is not voluntary, it seems to me to be altering its character in a way which might be embarrassing and might in the end, if the income from that source was considerable, be exposing it to some form of public management. That would be for those who desire this course to consider. For the reasons which my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin gave, this Amendment would be quite out of keeping with this part of the Bill. It would have to be a separate clause. It would require a great many more provisions than this to make it a workable clause. I am willing to consider such a clause and to allow the Minister of Transport or, if he does not agree with it, those interested to bring up a clause on the Report stage.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: On behalf of the British Hospitals Association I would like to say that I hope he will approach this matter from the point of view of the Amendment and from no point of view like the imposition on motorists of 5s. a head to raise a fund. That would be very unfortunate indeed. What is needed is to enable the hospitals to do what the ordinary doctor or the ordinary nursing home can do. As noble Lords know I have had much experience of litigation of this kind. If a person is injured and taken in hand by a doctor or nursing home, he can recover those costs from the person who has injured him or from the insurance company. What is wanted is that exactly the same position should apply in the case of voluntary hospitals. We want no collection of 5s. from motorists or otherwise. We want to put hospitals in the position of the ordinary nursing home. I am sure that is the view of my noble friend Lord Knutsford.
1502
The noble Earl has promised to meet Lord Knutsford and his friends and I want him to meet them from the point of view of getting as near this clause as he possibly can.
EARL RUSSELL: I was proposing to consider this matter with a perfectly open mind and to consider any suggestions from those able to make them with the view of producing the best agreed clause possible if such a clause can be drawn.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I totally disagree with the noble Viscount on this matter. There are three separate heads of grievance. There is a grievance, and a very serious one in the country districts, that hospitals which are provided for the locality are in fact utilised by the motorists. They will not be dealt with in any way, I am afraid, from the manner in which you are approaching this matter.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Why?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Because the beds are actually filled. That is the real point you have to deal with. Country doctors will tell you pitiful stories of how the poor are utterly unable to get hospital treatment because the hospitals are absolutely filled up with motorists at a certain period of the year. I have heard many stories of that kind. That is one grievance. The second grievance is that even where there is liability to pay for the accident because there has been negligence the hospitals can get no payment if they have treated the victims of the accident. That case solely is dealt with by this Amendment. The third grievance is one which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, very properly referred to—namely, the case of injury to a person who is treated by the hospital, when nobody is liable for the expenses incurred by the hospital because technically or legally there was no negligence. But it is just as great an evil to the hospital and the locality that, owing to the unfortunate circumstances attending this business of motoring, they have in fact to incur enormous expense and to fill up all their beds without being able to obtain any alleviation whatever. It is that part of the case which I trust the noble Earl will persist in considering with an entirely open mind as well as the specific point raised by the Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Will the noble Earl also consider the point raised by me in my Amendment to the proposed Amendment—namely, the protection of doctors who are left without payment?
EARL RUSSELL: I think they are protected, if they can sue. That is to say, an injured person can recover damages which include medical fees, but I am told that in some cases where a patient has been treated at a hospital, although he recovers damages that include medical fees, they are not always necessarily paid over to the hospital. But I am going to consider everything that any person interested in the matter represents to me.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not want to trouble your Lordships with a long speech, but I want to point out that in conjunction with my noble friend behind me, I sat upon the Voluntary Hospitals Commission which sat for some years and went into the matter and recommended that some form of insurance should be instituted for this purpose. We specially drew attention to the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, that this was a matter which was felt with special severity by hospitals situated near main roads. I happen to be President of one—the Surrey County Hospital—where we suffer very much because we are just on the Portsmouth Road. It sometimes happens that people actually knock up against the hospital. We have had a great deal of work in attending motorists in that hospital. I should like to support the Amendment from that point of view because it was supported by the Voluntary Hospitals Commission.
LORD LUKE: The noble Earl usually puts his refusals so very pleasantly that I was a little nervous when he was speaking lest we should get nothing, but I rather gather that a clause will be submitted at some time or other to the noble Viscount and myself and others interested and will be brought before your Lordships to carry out the suggestion more or less. In other words, we are to get something. If that is so, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment, but the approval voiced in many speeches in favour of the Amendment has been so spontaneous that it makes me think that I should not withdraw unless the noble Earl is prepared to do that.
EARL RUSSELL: I have endeavoured to make my position clear and I thought I had succeeded. I am not an expert in hospitals and I do not know the best way to do this thing, but I have said that I am perfectly willing to consult with those who do know and try to arrive at an agreed clause. Of course, if the Minister of Transport does not approve of it, it can be moved by some other noble Lord.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD VISCOUNT BRENTFORD moved at the end of subsection (2), to insert:—
"or a person using or causing or permitting any other person to use a motor vehicle or motor vehicles who has deposited, or keeps deposited with the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court, for and on behalf of the Supreme Court, the sum of fifteen thousand pounds in respect of such use."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment raises the point which was discussed by the noble Earl in his speech last night, that is, the question of the arrangement to be made in the case of big concerns who can and do insure themselves. The noble Earl seemed to think that if you take, for instance, one of the big railway companies, the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, which owns a lot of vans, or one of the great omnibus companies or great carrying companies, that they with all their vast resources should go to an insurance company and get a guarantee of their own solvency. It does seem to me that to ask a great railway company to pay a premium every year to an insurance company perhaps one-tenth its size and with resources one-tenth as great as those of the railway company is really quite unnecessary. I want the noble Earl to consider this, though I do not want to hold him to the exact wording of this Amendment. He said, I think, that no one could say whether any company was sufficiently solvent to carry out its obligations and that the Minister would have difficulty in allowing any particular company to run its own insurance instead of insuring with an insurance company. But really if you go to an insurance company the position is no better because then it will become a question of the solvency of the insurance company. A railway company might go to a quite small insurance

1505
company whose solvency was nothing like so good as that of the railway company itself. In the case of the P. & O. Steamship Company I believe it is well known that that company does not insure at Lloyds but carries its own insurance. If a company like a railway company or a great carrying company has sufficient resources to insure its own risks, as many of them have done to my knowledge for many years past, they should not be required to pay a premium to insurance companies. The best proof of solvency would be that they are prepared to make some deposit. The noble Earl tells me he will accept this and, therefore, I think I need not take up more of your Lordships' time.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 16, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Brentford.)
EARL RUSSELL: I did not mean that I could accept this Amendment here and now in this form. In the first place the amount will have to be £25,000 instead of £15,000 to agree with the rest of the Bill. But with the, observations of the noble Viscount as to railway companies I must say I really am in agreement. It is rather absurd that a company with vast resources should be expected to go to insure its risks with a company when its own resources are at least equal to those of the company which would carry the risks. There are, however, as the noble Viscount will appreciate, some technical difficulties, because when you deposit money with the Accountant-General you have to make clear under what rules and under what management the deposit is to be held. But we will consider how to give effect to the object of the noble Viscount and before the Report stage we will consult with the Board of Trade and see that the matter is in order.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Should it not be the deposit of securities to the value of £15,000 or £25,000?
EARL RUSSELL: We will consider that. I am not accepting the Amendment at the moment. I am simply saying we will bring up a clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "subject to any conditions contained in the policy." The noble Earl said: My purpose in moving this
1506
Amendment is really to ask the Minister what is intended by the inclusion of these words. It seems to us that these words by their very inclusion in the clause may enable an insurance company materially to modify its policy. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 19, leave out (" subject to any conditions contained in the policy ").—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: The object of the words that the noble Earl wishes to omit is to interfere as little as possible with insurance companies in their present way of conducting their business. As I have pointed out, there may be various conditions. One may be that only the owner shall drive. In such a case he very often gets a reduced premium. It may be a condition that only the owner or one named person shall drive. In the insurance of private motor cars there is always the condition that the car shall be used as a private motor car and not for commercial purposes. All those conditions are part of the normal contract between the insurer and the insured. We are anxious not to disturb the normal contract in any way, but to keep it as it is.
EARL HOWE: May we take it from what the noble Earl has said that the presence of these words would not enable an insurance company to alter its benefits?
EARL RUSSELL: I do not quite know what the noble Earl means by "alter its benefits."
EARL HOWE: By reducing them.
EARL RUSSELL: The insurance company will have to issue a policy which will guarantee that a person who suffers in life or limb is compensated. That is all we are trying to do in this Part of the Bill. So long as that is done, we do not mind what else is provided.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert as a new subsection:—
"( ) Where in an action for damages brought against an insured person such person has put in a defence of 'diplomatic privilege' the plaintiff may by leave of the Court substitute the authorised insurer as the defendant in place of the insured person."

1507
The noble Viscount said: Your Lordships may remember quite recently a case in which an insurance company, relying on a clause in the policy issued by them to a foreign diplomat, sought to avoid payment of damages because he did not raise the plea of diplomatic immunity. He had undertaken to raise any defence open to him. That diplomat, of course, behaved in a proper manner, but I believe there have been cases where foreign representatives have acted differently, and it is to cover such cases that I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 22, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: I do not think it is at all desirable to interfere with anything that has to do with diplomatic privilege. Diplomatic privilege is itself an exception to the general law which is for the general convenience, and I do not think we want to do anything to interfere with it. The noble Viscount's Amendment suggests that in any action, if the plea of diplomatic privilege is put in, the plaintiff may substitute the authorised insurer.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: By leave of the Court.
EARL RUSSELL: It does not follow that there will be an authorised insurer. If the person driving the car is entitled to diplomatic privilege, he is not bound by the municipal regulations and would not be compelled to have an insurance policy in the first instance. Diplomatic privilege is an exception to the usual law, and I really think we had better not interfere with it.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Did not the noble Earl see the case? A case was brought against a diplomat who did not plead diplomatic privilege. The insurance company tried to get out of paying the damages because he did not plead diplomatic immunity. There was a clause in his policy to the effect that he should raise any defence that they told him.
EARL RUSSELL: In rare cases, of course, it does happen that diplomatic privilege is abused. The recognised remedy in such cases is to desire that person to be recalled to his own country.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: In that case he did not plead diplomatic immunity.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36:
Forgery of certificates.
36.—(1) If, with intent to deceive, any person—
(a) forges within the meaning of the Forgery Act, 1913, a certificate of insurance or certificate of security; or
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), after "1913", to insert "or alters or uses or lends or allows to be used by any other person." The noble Viscount said: Similar words are employed in Clause 100, which deals with forgery of licences, and it occurs to me that, if they are necessary there, they are equally necessary here.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 41, after ("1913") insert ("or alters or uses or lends or allows to be used by any other person").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: I am glad to be able to accept this Amendment. It follows in substance the provisions of Clause 100.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38:
Production of certificate of insurance or certificate of security on application for motor vehicle licence.
38. Provision may be made by Regulations under Section twelve of the Roads Act, 1920, for requiring a person applying for a licence under Section thirteen of the Finance Act, 1920, as amended by any subsequent enactment, to produce a certificate of insurance or certificate of security:
Provided that nothing in the regulations shall require that the policy or security to which the certificate relates shall be a policy or security continuing in force for the whole of the period for which the licence is to be issued.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, before the proviso, to insert:
"and the issue of a licence under Section thirteen of the Finance Act, 1920, for a vehicle shall be deemed to be evidence that there is in force in relation to such vehicle

1509
until the date of the expiration of the licence such a policy of insurance or security in respect of third-party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act."
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is to try and clear up the procedure in connection with the certificate of insurance. It is suggested that the carrying of the licence which you obtain only after you have shown the policy of insurance, should be sufficient for the purposes of the police or of any one else who has authority to demand it.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 38, at end insert the said new words.—(Earl Howe.)
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Perhaps it would be convenient if I asked the noble Earl another question on this clause before he replies. Has he considered what arrangements can be made in respect of the large companies of which I have been speaking on a previous clause, which employ a very large number of drivers? It would be quite impossible for each of those drivers when he gets his licence to carry with him the policy of insurance. The point has only to be stated to show how impossible it would be. I want to ask the noble Earl whether he has considered—if not, I am sure he will do so—what arrangement could be made, either in the Bill or by regulations, to enable the company itself to give the necessary certificate enabling the man to get his licence, so that he shall not be prosecuted for travelling without the certificate of the insurance company?
EARL RUSSELL: To reply first to the noble Viscount, we have already considered this question and we have been in preliminary touch with some large concerns whom it may affect. I believe we are perfectly clear that, by suitable regulations, this might be done. It might even be proper to make special regulations for every ease, but I think we have very little doubt that the thing can be done with the minimum of friction and trouble to the people concerned by proper regulations. With regard to the Amendment of the noble Earl, I told your Lordships on the Second Reading that it was not until we bad avoided tying up the insurance with the licence—that is, making them run together and expire on the same date—that we were really
1510
able to make any progress with a practicable scheme. His Amendment again ties up the insurance with the licence. This is contrary to the whole of this scheme, and it will not do. The suggestion is that the licence shall be evidence that the insurance policy is in force. That, of course, it cannot be unless the insurance policy runs for exactly the same time as the licence, or longer. All we have suggested about the licence here is, as I said before, that at least once a year, or once a quarter, whenever a man goes for his licence, he has to show that he has at that time a policy in force. The aim of the Bill is not to link the two things together, but merely to make certain that there is one time when the certificate of insurance has to be produced, whether a policeman has asked for it on the road or not. The Amendment ties the two things together in a way which is contrary to the whole policy of this Part of the Bill, and therefore I regret that I cannot accept it.
EARL HOWE: I understand the noble Earl's explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39:
Requirements as to production of certificate of insurance or of security.
39.—(1) Any person driving a motor vehicle on a road shall, on being so required by a police constable, give his name and address and the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and produce his certificate, and if he fails so to do he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds:
Provided that if the driver of a motor vehicle within three days after the date on which the production of his certificate was so required, produces the certificate in person at such police station as may have been specified by him at the time its production was required, he shall not be convicted of an offence under this subsection.
(3) If in any case where, owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road, an accident occurs involving personal injury to another person, the driver of the vehicle does not produce his certificate to a police constable, the driver shall report the accident at a police station as soon as possible, and in any case within twenty-four hours of the occurrence of the accident, and there produce his certificate and if he fails so to do, ho shall be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds:
Provided that a person shall not be convicted under this subsection of the offence of failing to produce his certificate if within three days after the occurrence of the accident, he produces the certificate in person at such police station as may be specified by him at the time the accident was reported, or produces it on reporting the accident at a police station.
LORD SWAYTHLLNG LORD SWAYTHLLNG moved, in the proviso to subsection (1), to leave out "three" and to insert "seven." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is similar to that which was moved on Clause 4 and was accepted. I propose in this clause to make it seven days instead of five days, as in Clause 4. I think seven days will be better in this clause, because the driver might be stopped in one part of the country while the owner was in a different part of the country and it might not be easy to communicate. I think seven days is a reasonable time to allow for the production of the certificate.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 10, leave out ("three") and insert ("seven").—(Lord Swaythling.)
EARL RUSSELL: We will accept "five," and it will then agree with the other part of the Bill. I think there is no reason to make a change in this place.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 10, leave out ("three") and insert ("five").—(Lord Swaythling.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SWAYTHLING LORD SWAYTHLING moved, in the proviso to subsection (1), after "person, "to insert" or by his duly authorised representative." The noble Lord said: This is a similar Amendment to one moved on Clause 4 by Lord Howe, and on that clause the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said he would consider the Amendment, because there was a question of identification. In this case I do not see that the question of identification arises.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 12, after ("person") insert ("or by his duly authorised representative").—(Lord Swaythling.)
EARL RUSSELL: I cannot accept this now, because the Home Office has to be consulted. The question is being considered, and I hope to be able to give a definite answer on the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3), after "certificate" to insert "on being so required." The noble Viscount said: These words appear in similar circumstances in Clause 19 of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 27, after ("certificate") insert ("on being so required").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: This Amendment is not necessary. He has either got to produce his certificate to the police constable and if he does so the police constable takes the particulars, or if he prefers not to do that he can stop at the next police station.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 35, leave out ("three") and insert ("five").—(Lord Swaythling.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 40 and 41 agreed to.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, after Clause 41, to insert as a new clause:—
"This Part of this Act shall not extend to public service vehicles within the meaning of Part IV of this Act but the Commissioners within the meaning of Part IV aforesaid when granting a road service licence in respect of any public service vehicle shall satisfy themselves that, and may in addition to the conditions which may be attached to the Licence under Section 62 (Road Service Licences) of this Act, attach a condition that the applicant for the licence will effect and keep on foot an insurance with an authorised insurer or a security within the meaning of this Part of this Act against, or make other adequate financial provision for meeting, any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of any injury or damage occasioned by such public service vehicle to any person or property and if any policy of insurance or any security effected by the applicant in order to comply with any such conditions aforesaid at any time lapses or otherwise becomes invalid the road service licence granted in respect of the public service vehicle to which the policy relates shall thereupon become void."
The noble Earl said: I do not know whether it would be for the convenience of the House that I should read this Amendment. If not, I would like to explain its purpose. The purpose is really to avoid hardship which might be placed upon substantial omnibus companies which at present either put aside a proper reserve for meeting third-party

1513
claims, or have entered into mutual undertakings to indemnify each other against third-party claims. It is not quite the same case as was mentioned in Lord Brentford's Amendment or in Lord Newton's Amendment just now. There are companies like the British Electric Federation who do not actually own any omnibuses themselves, but they own about forty subsidiary companies, and if the Bill passes in its present form each one of those companies would have to take out an insurance policy or have to make a deposit of £25,000. This, of course, is not a very large sum in itself, but when multiplied in the case of this one undertaking by forty it amounts to a very considerable sum indeed. The purpose of my Amendment is to try to get over the difficulty, if it is at all possible.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 9, at end insert the said new clause.—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: This new clause is to provide that this Part of the Act shall not extend to public service vehicles within the meaning of Part IV, but the Commissioners when granting a road service licence shall satisfy themselves, and attach a condition, that the applicant for the licence will effect and keep on foot an insurance with an authorised insurer, or provide a security within the meaning of this Part of the Bill against, or make other adequate financial provision for meeting, any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of any injury or damage to third parties. That presents the very difficulty to which I referred before, as to a Minister having to choose which company is solvent and which is not. The words "adequate financial provision" really mean that the Commissioner is to sit in judgment on the financial position of these companies. It also quite unnecessarily and improperly separates public service vehicles from other vehicles which are to be insured. The insurance of all these vehicles is a general matter, and it does not follow that what is a public service vehicle may not be a contract carriage another day. I cannot accept the Amendment.
EARL HOWE: May I press the noble Earl a little upon this point? Can anything be done to get over the difficulty of a company such as I have described?
1514
If something could be done, even on the Report stage, to get over this difficulty, would the noble Earl be prepared to consider it?
EARL RUSSELL: If the noble Earl will give me fuller particulars of his difficulty, I will certainly consider the matter. It seems to me that if the holding company were really responsible for all the companies it might be possible for it to make a deposit. I will consider the matter if the noble Earl will give me the case which he has in mind.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42:
Issue by Minister of directions for guidance of users of highways.
42.—(1) The Minister shall as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act issue such directions as appear to him to be proper for the guidance of persons using roads.
(2) The Minister may from time to time revoke, vary or amend any directions issued by him under this section.
(3) The Minister shall cause the directions for the time being in force under this section to be printed and put on sale at a price not exceeding one penny for each copy, and the directions so in force shall be called "the highway code."
(4) A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of the highway code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind, but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under this Act) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or to negative, any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD VISCOUNT BRENTFORD moved, after subsection (2), to insert as a new subsection:—
" (3) Such directions and any revocation, variation or amendment thereof shall not be valid for any purpose unless and until a Resolution approving of the same shall have been passed by both Houses of Parliament."
The noble Viscount said: Lord Howe has asked me to move this Amendment on his behalf I withdrew my own Amendment in order that it should not fetter consideration of the full clause. I think there should be some Amendment on which full consideration of this new code should be given by the House. The new code was discussed on the Second Reading, and it is a very important proposal made by the Minister. Of course much depends upon whether the new

1515
code is to have legal force, or whether it is to be merely a model code of suggestions which it is piously hoped all motorists, drivers of vehicles and pedestrians will carry out to the best of their ability. I think there would be a very great advantage in the noble Earl propounding some such code as that. I am not going to trouble the Committee by discussing the individual suggestions made by the Royal Commission. We have all seen the Report and can see that it is a very widespread code, which would affect all drivers of vehicles and the ordinary foot passenger using the roads of the country. If anything like the code laid down by the Royal Commission were carried out it would in many cases affect the existing highway law, also a great deal of the Common Law of the land.
If your Lordships will look at subsection (4) your Lordships will see that while any failure on the part of any person to obey the code is not to be the basis of a criminal charge, at the same time the second part of that subsection gives the code a very real legal significance. Under it one or other of the parties in a criminal charge or civil action might be cross-examined, and a counsel might ask: "Did you observe Rule So-and-so of the Minister's code? Did you fail to carry out suggestion No. So-and-so of the Minister's regulations for motor cars and foot passengers?" That would inevitably in the eyes of the jury give a semi-legal significance to this code. It is quite impossible for an ordinary jury, when a man is cross-examined in the case of a charge, not to be influenced by the questions of counsel. An astute counsel asks: "Did you observe such-and-such a clause?" The man says "No." "Did you walk on the left side of the road before the accident occurred?" The reply is "No; I do not think I did." At once the counsel looks round to the jury with a significant expression, and says: "Did you hear that? He really is guilty of negligence himself." That cannot possibly be permitted unless the code is passed by Parliament.
I am at present moving the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Howe but, if I may be allowed to say so, there is a very much better Amendment to Clause 99, by Lord Askwith, because that Amendment,
1516
which Lord Askwith proposes to apply to regulations made under the authority of this Bill, could be utilised better than Lord Howe's Amendment, by making this new code and any alterations in it come before both Houses of Parliament, and both Houses of Parliament must then approve the draft of the new code with or without modification. That is a much greater power and gives to both Houses the opportunity when this new code is produced, of saying: "We like nine-tenths of this code, but we should like to alter Regulation No. 27 or No. 28." In all these debates one is not asking that the noble Earl should accept the ipsissima verba of any particular Amendment, but I should like the noble Earl and Lord Howe to consider whether they would accept Lord Askwith's suggestion, which is wider and better. If it were accepted it might be possible to allow the latter part of subsection (4) to remain in the Bill, but I am quite certain that it would be wrong to allow the latter part of subsection (4) to remain in the Bill unless these regulations were subject to the authority of Parliament. We discussed the question of the authority of Parliament yesterday, and I think the House takes, and will take in coming years, an increasingly strong view that Parliament must be consulted on this question of regulations. This is not a question of regulation of familiar forms, it is a question of a new code altering the law. I am glad to see that the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, is for once with me in this matter, and I am quite sure that, as I have his support, the noble Earl will be very wise to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 18, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Brentford.)
LORD ATKIN: I should like to support very strongly the Amendment that has been proposed, and indeed I should like it in its strengthened form. It seems to me to be necessary. This code will probably serve a very useful purpose—I can quite understand that—and a great deal of it, if it follows the suggestions that were made in the Report of the Royal Commission, would be advisory, and would contain, no doubt, very useful advice. Subsection (4) provides that a breach of the provisions of the code is to be taken into account in determining either the criminal or civil liability of any person under this Bill, or indeed

1517
generally. The result of that is that a breach of this code would be treated as evidence of negligence, either to support a criminal charge or to support civil liability. The degree or measure of care that has been required of drivers on the one hand and of pedestrians on the other has been the subject of discussion in the Common Law for generations, and the rights of pedestrians have been well established for generations. This is a provision that the Minister may, by a direction which does not come before Parliament at all, make a regulation which may seriously affect the well-established right of pedestrians on the one hand and drivers of vehicles on the other affecting the use of the highway, which has been, as I say, the subject-matter of legal decision for untold years.
Now, it appears to me quite impossible that Parliament should submit to the law of the highway being altered by any Minister, however well advised, merely by direction. It ought to be done, if it is done at all, by Parliament. And also, I venture to suggest, it would be very inconvenient, if the House comes to that conclusion, that Parliament should only have the right to say that it either accepts or rejects the regulations as a whole. There ought to be a power of qualifying the regulations, because it may very well be that objection could only be taken to two, three, or four of the regulations, and that they could quite easily be modified. But Parliament ought to have the voice and the power of decision as to what that modification should be. I think this provision as to the code is one of the most important and far-reaching provisions of this Bill. On those grounds it seems to me of great importance that Parliament should retain a control over the eventual form that these regulations take.
EARL RUSSELL: I think our discussion upon this code must depend upon what view we take of it. The noble and learned Lord who has just sat down has spoken all the time of altering the highway law and as if this was a new code of law. My own view of it has always been, as I think I told your Lordships before, that it was merely to be general directions as to what it would be desirable for people to do upon the roads, but without any authority. Of course,
1518
the view that has been taken by the noble Viscount opposite is due, no doubt, to the last five lines of subsection (4). I was going to propose to leave out those words from "but any such failure" to the end of that subsection, because my own view is that this should be, as I said before, a code which lives merely by its own inherent authority and reasonableness and by its general acceptance by the public. If you are going to make it, as now seems to be contemplated, anything like a code which is binding upon people or has legal effect, I think you should do even more than is proposed in the Amendment which has now been moved by the noble Viscount opposite. If you are going to make this legal and binding upon people you should not merely submit it to Parliament and take an approving Resolution, I think you should really have the cods itself drawn up by a Joint Select Committee if it is to represent the opinion of Parliament.
There are two possible views. The one is the view that it is to have legal effect and the other is the view that it is to have only moral effect. My own view has always been that it should only have moral effect, that it should be a code issued by the Minister saying that such and such things are desirable and that by the general consensus of opinion amongst those who use the roads, be they motorists, pedestrians or others, there would arise a custom and convention by which this was thought to be a reasonable code which people would follow. If it is to have legal effect it will want very much more careful consideration, and I think it likely that you will not be able to put into it a great many desirable things that you could put into it if it consisted largely of moral exhortations.
I should be glad to know which view your Lordships propose to take. As I have told your Lordships my own view was always in favour of the moral effect, leaving out the words at the end of subsection (4). I am not sure—probably the noble and learned Lord will say if there is any legal alteration—whether that might make any difference. Your Lordships will remember the illustration that I gave was to the effect that if the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club joined forces and represented

1519
one motoring body obviously any code issued by them would have very considerable moral weight and would, no doubt, be accepted because it would be supported by the opinion of the public which had to be controlled by it. If it is suggested that this is to be a legal code I cannot help thinking that in many ways it will be of much less use because of the difficulty of putting into a code which is to have the force of law all those suggestions and all those bits of advice and so on which you could put into a code which is really only good advice and not good law. I should be much obliged if the Committee would consider what view it would take of this matter.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: There is a great deal of force in what the noble Earl has said as, indeed, there always is in what he says. At the same time I cannot help feeling that he is striving for something which is unattainable. If you put any provision into this Bill giving power to the Ministry to draw up a code of advice, call it what you will, it must have an immense effect in any legal proceedings that are taken under the measure. I think it is much better to recognise that, and to have it done with all the sense of responsibility and care which would be achieved if you had to bring this thing before both Houses of Parliament; subject if you like—I am content to take either Lord Askwith's words or the words on the Paper—to modification and addition as well as to assent. I think that is of the greatest importance.
The noble Earl will forgive me, but I am a little afraid of just letting any Department issue advice in that kind of way under the authority of an Act of Parliament without any control by Parliament at all. After all, it might mean that they would put into it some things which the noble Earl would think very desirable and which very likely I should think very desirable, but which other people would not, and that would bring the whole thing into disrepute. Whereas if it has to be brought before Parliament there is a guarantee that the elected representatives of the country and your Lordships are of opinion that it is a reasonable thing. It gives it much more authority. On the other hand, it makes it far less liable to casual experiments by any enthusiast, if there ever should be such a thing as an enthusiast at the
1520
Ministry of Transport, which I cannot say I think very likely. It might happen, one never knows; the most astonishing things do happen. I certainly very strongly support the Amendment of which notice has been given and I confess that though I am very much moved by anything that falls from the noble Earl, I think in this case he will make a grave mistake in not accepting the Amendment.
Then he says they will become really rules and not advice. Is not that rather a desirable thing? Is it not really rather desirable from the point of view of the motorist as much as the other person to know the kind of conditions which at any rate as a minimum he ought to fulfil in order to be a careful and proper driver? I think it is very desirable. The certainty of the law is the thing that really matters. I occasionally hear from some of your Lordships a desire greatly to increase the penalties on offenders, to have exemplary punishments for people who drive recklessly and wickedly. I agree that may be desirable, but I do not think it will do much to increase the safety of the roads. What is really essential is that any infringement of the law, any dangerous or careless driving, should always be punished. It is certainty in the law that matters far more. I am sure my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin would agree with me that it is the certainty of punishment much more than the extent of the punishment which diminishes crime. That seems to me to be one of the most elementary principles of law which has been constantly exemplified. Therefore, I am all for anything which will make more precise, more clear, and more certain the rules of law which are to be observed.
For that reason I should like to see this provision, with the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Brentford has moved. I think it will be an immensely valuable provision. Indeed, I think it will be the most valuable provision in the whole Bill. It is the only thing which reconciles me to a great many of the provisions which I think are very much less than are required by the terrible circumstances we have to meet. If you can get a real code which will be effective and binding on all motorists and which will have some chance of being really enforced, I think you will have made a great step forward towards

1521
safer driving. We talk of reckless motorists, dangerous driving and that kind of thing. In reality that is not the real danger. The number of reckless, wicked motorists is very small—I make a present of that to my noble friend. There are very few of them; they are extremely rare. The great mass of the accidents are clue to the nature of the case, to the fact that you are now running on the roads amongst traffic, pedestrian and other of a very different character, a new kind of traffic much more rapid, much more dangerous in the sense of being much more likely to do grave injury if there is an accident, and you have not made the same kind of provision that you make in order that things shall be safe on the railways, for instance, on the sea, or on the tramways. You have not the kind of guarantees and precautions that you have enacted in order to make rapid and heavy traffic safe in other conditions. That is the real cause of the great mass of the accidents which occur. It is not recklessness. It is not wickedness. If it was it would be much easier to deal with. It is from the nature of the case, and it is for that reason that I support most warmly this provision, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Brentford will stick to his Amendment which seems to me vital to its real effectiveness.
EARL HOWE: This suggestion of a code of the highway was first put forward before the Royal Commission on Transport, according to the first Report, by the Chairman of the Royal Automobile Club, Sir Arthur Stanley, on behalf of a conference of motor organisations. I should like to say, so far as I am concerned, I most warmly support the noble Viscount in everything he has just said. I believe that until we get some sort of code of the highway which does really have the force of law we shall not have done anything. We shall not have put a line in this Bill, for instance, to reduce the appalling casualties on the road to-day. For information as to what a code of the highway is likely to contain, we turn to the First Report of the Royal Commission on Transport. The first part deals with drivers of motor vehicles, the second part deals with horses and horse-drawn vehicles, the third part with pedal cyclists, and the fourth with pedestrians, and there is a summary at the end.
1522
I think it is absolutely essential that in the interests of public safety all forms of traffic on the highway should be regulated by law. It is not only the motor traffic that requires regulation by law, but I think the pedestrian traffic, in the interests of public safety, ought to submit to reasonable regulations such as have been found necessary in practically every other country, including our Dominions overseas. It is absurd to lay out great expenditure upon providing footpaths and refuges in our public streets when their existence is completely disregarded by pedestrian traffic. You put up notices all over London "Please cross here," and you see them more honoured in the breach than the observance. I hope that all these forms of traffic which use the highway will be regulated by a form of law, and that is why I welcome the Amendment which Lord Askwith has down on the Paper, and which I most gladly accept. I entirely support what the noble Viscount has said.
LORD HANWORTH: May I add a word or two to reinforce the views expressed by the last two speakers? I understand Lord Russell to say that what are going to be issued are mere directions which will not have the force of law, but will, after a certain time, be gradually accepted as a code to which drivers ought to conform. If you will turn to the clause itself it is to be observed that in the next subsection these directions are to be called "the highway code," and in a further subsection they may be relied upon—although they are not to be the basis of criminal or civil proceedings—by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or to negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings. You may say they are only directions, that it is only hoped they will be a code; but visualise a case which is brought into Court, either for civil or criminal liability. The code is produced. It will be issued by the King's printer. It will be evidence and it could be relied upon to impose a liability or to negative a liability which is sought to be imposed in those proceedings. Can anyone suppose that code will not be treated as having been issued under the Act and having all the force of law? When you come to look at what the provision for the user is in the clause it is almost idle to contend that they are mere direc

1523
tions and not law. They will have the force, and can be used as having the force, of establishing or negativing a liability. In those circumstances I should have thought it was of the highest importance that Parliament should have the opportunity of considering the nature of those directions, and I hope the noble Earl will accept the Amendment. Certainly I think it is one which the House ought to insist upon.
LORD DANESFORT: I hope this Amendment may be accepted. It does not seem to me to matter whether you call it moral exhortation or code or anything else, if it is issued under the authority of the Minister it will, as has just been said, have very great weight in any civil or criminal proceeding. One of the first questions which the defendant will be asked will be: "Are you aware you have violated one of the provisions of this code?" If he says he has never read the code he will be told it was a very gross omission on his part; he will be told he had no business to go on the road without reading this code. If, on the other hand, he says he has read it, and then admits that he broke it, perhaps it will be a little worse for him. It really does not matter what you call it. It is going to be a list of directions or declarations of the utmost importance, and I do urge most strongly on the Minister that a code of that importance should not be issued by him without the authority of Parliament. Whether it has legal significance or not does not matter: it will have a great effect and Parliament should have a voice in framing that code. The noble Earl talked of leaving out the last four lines of subsection (4). I do not think that would have the slightest effect, because the code would be used against the defendant either in criminal or civil proceedings without the four last lines being inserted in the Act.
EARL RUSSELL: I am still afraid your Lordships are making a mistake in taking this view of the code, but we shall have a clear month to think it over. I still think that the code would be far more useful as a recommendation without any legal force than as a set of laws. It is quite obvious that if it is a set of laws you have to be extremely careful what you put in it, and extremely precise in your definitions, because there is to be a penalty for breaking it. That seems to
1524
me a little as if you took a sermon containing a great deal of moral advice, couched in vague and general terms, and tried to turn it into an Act of Parliament. It would not have the same effect. My own view was that a code should be a sermon not an Act of Parliament. Your Lordships, apparently, take the other view. I hope you will consider very seriously in what form the code is likely to do most good, but if it is to be, as your Lordships seem to think, a code of law, then I have no objection to the words that the noble Viscount has moved, and, at any rate at this stage, I will accept them.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I am much obliged to the noble Earl.
LORD SANDHURST: The proposed Amendment to Clause 99, I see, relates to regulations, and this clause does not deal with regulations, but that is a minor matter, and can easily be corrected when we come to it. But the remark I have to make is this, that if this be a code of law it ought to be embodied in the Bill—in my submission in a Schedule to the Bill. On the other hand, if it is not to be a code of law, then I would suggest that we should not use the word "directions" or "code" but merely the word "recommendations." If we strike out the lines at the end of the fourth subsection then I am inclined to agree with the noble Earl that his method is the better one. It does seem to me that in an experimental matter—and this will be largely an experimental matter—there ought to be a considerable amount of elasticity. For example, recommendations to pedestrians in a town like London or in a large city would be quite inapplicable to the pedestrians in a country lane. Therefore there needs to be a good deal of elasticity, and, as the matter is in an experimental stage, I should think that it would be better not to deal with it as a code of law.
LORD DARLING: I should like to say a word on what the noble Earl said just now. He said we shall have a month or some such time to think this over and that he hopes that within that time those who are thinking will come to the conclusion that it is much better to leave it as he is proposing, not as a law but as what he calls something of moral obligation. Well, when a moral obligation has been acted upon for a consider

1525
able time, even lawyers themselves cannot distinguish between that and the law itself. The noble Earl must know, because he is a lawyer himself, that the greater part of the law of England depends upon no surer foundation. Communis error facit jus. The mistake of the mob becomes the law of England. I translate freely for the benefit of those outside. When this has been enforced before magistrates and by juries for a considerable time, it would be useless to say: "This is not the law; you are not breaking the law. These are only put in by Ministers as bits of advice which are moral obligations." It will not have been in action long before everybody will think it is the law and those who are administering the law, at all events except the Court of Appeal and this very room, will treat it as if it were the law and people will be punished for breaking what is only, in the opinion of the noble Earl opposite, a moral obligation.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: There is only one word I would like to say as the noble Earl has appealed to us to treat this as a form of sermon. He is at liberty tonight to preach a sermon. He or the Minister can issue a code, but the moment he issues a code with the authority of an Act of Parliament it will be treated as part and parcel of the Act of Parliament. I have no doubt the Minister of Transport will head it. "Code issued under the Provisions of the Road Traffic Act." If it is not done so the first day it will be done the next by an officious clerk and it will be treated as part of the Act. The noble Earl must make up his mind. He may preach his sermon if he likes, but, if it is to be preached under the Act of Parliament, then, with great deference, we must see the sermon. The noble Earl has said that he will accept it, and in order that he may not preach a sermon which has not been approved by Parliament, I will move my Amendment in this form:—
"Before such directions are issued under this section, they shall he laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament and such directions shall not be issued unless both Houses by Resolution approve the draft either without modification or addition or with modifications and additions to which both Houses agree, but upon such approval being given the Minister may issue the directions in the form in which they have been so approved."
1526
As the noble Earl says he will accept it I hope your Lordships will approve. This will give the noble Lord time for a month or so to consider what form of sermon will be preached.
Original Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 18, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Brentford.)
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I think that is all right. There may be a little alteration in the draft, but that can be considered. I would like to express my great joy that the noble Earl has found sermons so very effective in the past.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43:
Power to restrict use of vehicles on specified roads.
43.—(1) The Minister may, on the application of the council of any county or county borough and after holding a public inquiry by order prohibit or restrict, subject to such exceptions and conditions as to occasional user or otherwise as may be specified in the order, the driving of vehicles, or of any specified class or description of vehicles, on any specified road within the area of the council in any case in which it appears to him, having regard to the result of the inquiry, to be proved that any such vehicles cannot be used, or cannot without restriction be used, on that road without endangering the safety of the vehicles or the persons therein, or of other persons using the road, or that the road is unsuitable for use or for unrestricted use by any such vehicles:
Provided that where the application is an application solely for the restriction of the speed of motor vehicles, the provision in this subsection shall have effect as if references to a public inquiry were not contained therein.
(2) The Minister may on the application of the council of any county or county borough, or of any borough, not being a county borough, or urban district having a population of over twenty thousand according to the last census for the time being and after holding a public inquiry, by order prohibit, subject to such exceptions and conditions as may be specified in the order, the driving of vehicles on any specified road within the area of the council otherwise than in a specified direction.
(3) The Minister may at any time after giving notice to the council on whose application an order under this section, or an order under the corresponding provision of any enactment repealed by this Act, was

1527
made and after considering any objections made by that council and, except where he thinks that the case is one in which a public inquiry should be held, without holding any public inquiry, revoke, vary or amend the order.
(6) Any person who uses or permits the use of a motor vehicle in contravention of an order made under this section shall be guilty of an offence.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (1), after "county borough," to insert "or of any authority, company or person owning or working any tramway (which expression shall in this Act include a light railway constructed in a road) under the authority of any special Act of Parliament or order having the force of an Act." The noble Lord said: This is somewhat the same point that I raised at another place and as the noble Earl said he would produce a redraft at another stage I trust he will take the same view in this case.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 33, after ("county borough") insert the said words.—(Lord Askwith.)
EARL RUSSELL: This is intended to give these private concerns working for profit on a tramway the same Power as a local authority.
LORD ASKWITH: Under the authority of any special Act.
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, but it is to give them powers which are really only proper to a local authority. I think it is quite unreasonable that they should be given powers, as is suggested here, to apply to the Minister to restrict the driving of other vehicles on the public road.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to omit the proviso to subsection (1). The noble Earl said: This clause gives a Minister power to make orders restricting traffic on certain roads. The proviso which I propose to omit says that the Minister need not hold a public inquiry where the application is solely for making a speed limit for motor vehicles. I submit to the House that the view is most strongly held by the motor organisations that there ought to be a public inquiry in such a case and that the proviso ought therefore to be omitted. A public inquiry has,
1528
I believe, always been necessary up to now in such cases, and on the whole has worked very well. There is no reason for avoiding a public inquiry where it is thought that a speed limit should be imposed, and I hope the Minister will consider my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, leave out lines 8 to 11.—(Earl Howe.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: In order to protect Earl Russell's Amendment I will put the Question "That line 8 stand part."
EARL RUSSELL: I remember, perhaps better than the noble Earl, these inquiries in earlier days on the question of speed limits, when the whole country was speckled by anxious towns with speed limits which, so far as I know, have never been observed by anybody. In those days the principle was much the same. There were a great many cases where no public inquiry was held, and on the other hand public inquiries were held where the representative organisations objected. In those days it was the Local Government Board that made the order. I believe inquiries were always held when it was really necessary, but there does not seem to be any necessity for holding a public inquiry if there is no strong representation that the proposed limit is an improper one. I quite agree that it would not be reasonable for the Minister to restrict speed on a large number of main roads without giving people an opportunity of being heard: but it never has been done before. People always have had full opportunity of being heard and I really think it is unnecessary to order a public inquiry in every case. I hope the noble Earl will withdraw the Amendment.
EARL HOWE: I think after what the noble Earl has said that I will withdraw the Amendment, provided that it is quite clear that in ease of objection being taken the Minister will hold an inquiry.
EARL RUSSELL: I have already said more than once that the Ministry of Transport is the most reasonable Ministry in existence.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: There is one point which I think should be considered, and that is how is a reasonable person to find out whether the Ministry is going

1529
to act or not. I well remember the old question of speed limits, but the difference between the noble Earl and myself is that I tried to carry them out. I do not remember any such words as these in any Act of Parliament dealing with the matter. If you are going to have words saying that a public inquiry shall not take place I think there ought to be some provision for the Minister of Transport to give notice that he is considering an application made by the council of such and such a county and that objections may be lodged. Otherwise motorists may not know about the matter.
EARL RUSSELL: I will consider the point. I am not sure what kind of notice was given in the old days but I know the matter was brought to notice. I do not think the words would prevent the holding of a public inquiry. They merely say it is not necessary. However I will consider the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in the proviso to subsection (1), to leave out "motor." The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 9, leave out ("motor").—(Earl Russell.)
EARL HOWE: May I make one observation on this? I want to say how pleased I am that the noble Earl is at last trying to include other vehicles.
EARL RUSSELL: I thought the noble Earl would be.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out subsections (2) and (3). The noble Lord said: I desire to move the omission of these subsections which give the Minister power on the application of the council of any county or county borough to prohibit vehicles driving on any specified road within the area of the council otherwise than in a specified direction. That may be perhaps all right in Piccadilly, though personally I do not think the roundabout traffic system has been any use at all except to be extremely dangerous to pedestrians. Pedestrians were in a bad position before, but since roundabout traffic has been introduced they are in a
1530
still worse position. But consider what may happen presuming, unfortunately, that the Minister in whom the noble Earl has so much faith is no longer Minister. The Minister may say that on a county road—take any county you like, say Wiltshire—that on a county road perhaps leading from Swindon to Devizes traffic may only go in one direction. Surely it cannot be intended to give the Minister power to do a thing of that sort? In those circumstances I hope your Lordships will support my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 12, leave out subsections (2) and (3).—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
EARL RUSSELL: It always may be possible that on a road outside a borough boundary this arrangement may be desirable. Suppose there are two ways into a town. It may be for the convenience of traffic that one road should be used as the way in and the other as the way out. No one can tell how much more congested our roads are going to get than they are now, or how much regulation may be necessary. Has the noble Lord realised at all what will happen? Nothing happens unless and until the Minister is moved by the local authority. The local authority representing the people in the district have to make up their minds that there is a prima facie case for doing this. Then they approach the Minister. Then the Minister has to hold a public inquiry, at which all objectors can be heard, and it is not until after the matter has been fully gone into that an order is made. I am sure that much as the noble Lord dislikes motors he would rather that they should proceed in the easiest and most orderly way where there is congested traffic.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I do not know why the noble Earl says I dislike motors. I have never said so.
EARL RUSSELL: I had gathered it.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The noble Earl must not gather things in that way, or else he may fall into traps which he has up to the present time avoided. It is quite true that a Minister cannot do anything unless an application is made by a county council or county borough council, but has the noble Earl much confidence in county borough councils? I have none whatever. They do all sorts of extremely foolish things,

1531
they are full of the importance of their little office and they are quite likely, possibly in order to annoy a neighbour or to show how important they are, to make representations to the Minister, and if we are so unfortunate as not to have the present Minister nobody knows what may happen. Personally I should like to press the Amendment if I had any support.
EARL RUSSELL: I have heard people rash enough to say that Parliament sometimes does foolish things.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Oh, very often, especially now.
EARL RUSSELL: All I can say is that local authorities represent the people in the district and all Parliament can do is to trust them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "motor." The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 39, leave out ("motor").—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, at the end of the clause to insert:—
"No order made under this section shall apply to the driving of any tramcar or trolley vehicle in pursuance of the powers of any special Act of Parliament or order having the force of an Act."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
EARL RUSSELL: I can accept this Amendment.
EARL HOWE: May I ask the noble Earl whether the effect of this Amendment would not be to permit tramcars to go in both directions while other forms of traffic were compelled to go in one direction only? I understand Parliament has already refused to grant this privilege in the case of Private Bills. I have encountered one or two such cases myself in certain provincial towns where trams have been going in the opposite direction to the general run of traffic. It has led to a great deal of confusion and actually to accidents.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Earl is quite correct. That may be the effect of the Amendment. Where you are trying
1532
to get a one-way traffic system trams would continue to run the wrong way. The reason is that a tramway company is a statutory company with statutory powers and the Minister thinks that where a tramway company is required to divert very expensive tracks the matter should more properly be done by negotiation and agreement than by issuing an order to say they must go another way.
LORD ASKWITH: Or by another Act of Parliament.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I do not want to prolong the discussion, but is it not rather rash to allow tram-cars to go at any speed in this case? Are they, because they are constituted under the authority of an Act of Parliament, to be quite free from any control under this clause? I understand that control must not be so exercised as to make the tramways useless, but, as the noble Earl has said several times, the Ministry of Transport is a most reasonable authority and is not likely to use powers to that extent.
EARL RUSSELL: Tramways are controlled by the Tramways Act, 1870, and orders made under it, and that includes limits of speed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 44:
Erection of notice boards, etc.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to notices prohibiting or restricting the use of bridges, no such signal, warning sign post, direction post, sign, or device as aforesaid other than such as comply with the regulations under this Part of this Act shall be erected, placed or displayed upon or adjacent to any road or otherwise than in conformity with any such general or special directions as aforesaid, or by any person other than the highway authority or a person authorised by the highway authority.
(3) The highway authority shall by notice in writing require the owner or occupier of any land on which any such signal, warning sign post, direction post, sign, or device as aforesaid is erected or displayed to remove it if it is not authorised by the highway authority, and if any person fails to comply with such a notice the highway authority may themselves effect the removal, doing as little damage as may be, and may

1533
recover summarily as a civil debt from the person so in default the expense incurred by them in so doing.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved to add to subsection (2):—
"Nothing in this subsection shall apply to any signal, direction post, sign or device erected, placed or displayed by the owners or workers of any tramway in pursuance of powers conferred by any special Act of Parliament or order having the force of an Act."
The noble Lord said: I move this for the reason that otherwise there would be power to interfere with special Acts of Parliament.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, after line 23, insert the said words.—(Lord Askwith.)
EARL RUSSELL: I had rather not accept this Amendment offhand, but I am with the noble Lord on the principle of the Amendment. I think we ought to have some proviso that these signals should not interfere with any new signals used on the roads, so that there shall be no confusion, but I am with him on the general point that the tramways, being worked under statutory authority, have to be excluded and ought not to be interfered with. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to consider the point.
LORD ASKWITH: Would the noble Earl accept the Amendment as I have moved it and put in a proviso on Report?
EARL RUSSELL: If the noble Lord prefers it, I will accept the Amendment now and amend it afterwards.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3), after "land," to insert "or building." The noble Viscount said: In moving this Amendment I have in mind two enormous notices on a factory just this side of High Wycombe on the Oxford road. The first notice warns you that there is a very dangerous entrance, but the second one almost amounts to insolence, because it says a few yards further on: "You have been warned." It is to provide for the removal of such notices that I put this Amendment down. Usually notices are on boards placed in the ground, but this one is actually on the wall, and I want to be sure that such notices can be taken away.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 25, after ("land") insert ("or building").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: The Amendment is quite unnecessary. "Land" includes buildings.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE: Before we pass from this clause, which refers to special legislation in connection with tramways, light railways and so on, I should like to ask the noble Earl if we are going to allow the situation to remain as it is, or will legislation be proposed in future to bring tramways and light railways more or less into line with common practice? It may be that, as conditions on the roads get more difficult, this question will be found very much more urgent. I hope that we shall not for ever have a special law exempting tramways, light railways and so on from the operations of this measure.
EARL RUSSELL: I am not quite sure that I understand the noble Earl's question, and I certainly cannot answer it properly without notice. If he will write to me and tell me exactly what he has in mind, I will have it enquired into and give him a reply at a later stage.
EARL HOWE: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45:
Penalties for neglect of traffic directions.
45. Where a police constable, or a person duly authorised by a chief officer of police, is for the time being engaged in the regulation of traffic in a road, or where any signal or sign approved or prescribed by the Minister has been erected by lawful authority for the purpose of directing the movement or line of movement of traffic, any person driving or propelling any vehicle who neglects or refuses to stop the vehicle or to make it proceed in or keep to a particular line of traffic when directed so to do by the police constable or other person so authorised in the execution of his duty, or to conform to the indication given by the signal or sign aforesaid, shall be guilty of an offence.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, before "neglects," to insert "wilfully." The noble Lord said: Some people think that the insertion of this word would make the clause more clear.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 10, after ("who") insert ("wilfully").—(Lord Askwith.)
EARL RUSSELL: I hope your Lordships will not insert this word. It does not add to the meaning of the clause, and Acts of Parliament are better without it.
EARL HOWE: I should like to point out to the noble Earl that the word "wilfully" does appear in Section 9 of the London Traffic Act, 1924, from which this particular clause is actually taken.
EARL RUSSELL: If that is so, I think it shows that they thought it advisable not to put it in here.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I hope my noble friend will not press his Amendment, which might lead to a very awkward position. Somebody refuses to obey a police signal and does not stop. He says: "I did not do it wilfully. It was accidental. I was looking the other way "—or something of that sort. I do not like often to support the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill, though I have been unfortunately obliged to do so on two or three occasions, but on this occasion I should certainly support him.
LORD ASKWITH: I do not agree with the noble Lord's view of what "wilfully" means, but from the legal point of view I do not think it is very important, and I will not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46:
Leaving vehicles in dangerous positions.
46. If any person in charge of a vehicle causes or permits the vehicle or any trailer drawn thereby to remain at rest on any road in such a position or in such condition and such circumstances as to be likely to cause danger to other persons using the road, he shall be guilty of an offence, but a conviction for such an offence shall not render the offender liable to be disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence under Part I of this Act.
EARL RUSSELL: I have a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 19, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to insert as a new subsection:—
"(2) The driver of a motor vehicle shall not during the hours of darkness stop his vehicle or leave it standing on a road so that the white lights on the vehicle are showing towards vehicles approaching on the same side of the road and any person offending against this provision shall he guilty of an offence under this Act."
The noble Earl said: I should like to submit to your Lordships that this Amendment is really most urgently required. It will be within the experience of many of your Lordships, driving at night, to come across a motor vehicle facing the wrong way with its lights on and, if you are endeavouring to be considerate to other road users and are not actually using your headlights and the lighting of the road is not very good, you are apt to think that the car drawn up the wrong way with its lights facing you is in fact on its own side of the road, with the result that you steer to the left, go on the foothpath and perhaps run into somebody there. This is not an exaggerated statement because I believe this happened in the case of a very serious accident the other day at Maidenhead, where at least two, or it may even have been three, people were killed, and this was the actual cause of the accident. I earnestly hope that the noble Earl will be able to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 23, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: All that the noble Earl says about the danger of cars in this position at night is perfectly true, but it is fully covered by the clause as it is. If your Lordships will look at line 17, you will find the words:
"….to remain at rest on any road in such a position or in such condition and such circumstances as to be likely to cause danger to other persons using the road…."
This covers not only this case but all other cases where a stationary vehicle is so left as to be dangerous.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: If the noble Earl says so, we should, of course, accept it, but I confess that on reading the words I should not have thought that they necessarily covered the case of cars drawn up on the wrong side of the road with lights burning. I have

1537
had letters about this question of lights which show that it is a very serious matter. There is no doubt that a great number of accidents are caused in this way. I hope the noble Earl will look into the point again, if it is not asking him too much, in order to be quite sure that the point is covered.
EARL RUSSELL: I think the noble Viscount cannot have any doubt that such conditions as have been mentioned would be "likely to cause danger to other persons." I can assure; him that there would be no difficulty in getting a conviction.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: This time I do not agree with the noble Earl. I do not think that Clause 46 covers these cases. The case mentioned by my noble friend Lord Howe Actually occurred, and I have knowledge of a similar case. A person is driving along the road on the near side. He sees in front of him the headlights of a car. He thinks that the car is coming towards him and he moves still further to the near side. The result is that he gets on the footpath and kills somebody, and the excuse is that he saw the lights but thought the car was moving towards him and naturally turned to his near side. This clause does not really deal with the question, because it refers only to any vehicle which is caused—
"to remain at rest on any road in such a position or in such condition and such circumstances as to be likely to cause danger…."
What my noble friend wants is to define exactly a very dangerous practice which has resulted in the death of certain people.
If the Amendment is superfluous, there is no harm in putting it in. Why not insert it and make it quite clear? Then, when a motorist reads the Bill, instead of seeing a vague statement about a dangerous position he will see clearly that, if he pulls up on the wrong side of the road with his lights on, he is committing an offence, and that he must turn round and put himself on the near side, where he should have been in the first instance. I earnestly hope that my noble friend will proceed to a Division if this Amendment is not accepted. Considering the way in which we have endeavoured to help the noble Earl by withdrawing our Amendments or not moving them, it is a little hard that he
1538
should turn round and say he will not accept a reasonable thing like this.
LORD SWAYTHLING: As one having sympathy with the noble Earl who moved the Amendment. I would point out that the new subsection does not mention headlights but white lights, and if a car pulls up on the wrong side of the street, even in London, the driver will have committed an offence under this Amendment. I think that would be too drastic a remedy.
EARL HOWE: With reference to the remarks of the last speaker, in Paris, as no doubt he knows, a car is not in any circumstances allowed to draw up on the wrong side of the street. If it is quite clear from what the noble Earl has said that this point is covered in the Bill, I will gladly withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, after Clause 46, to insert as a new clause:—
Motor vehicles to carry sound warning instruments.
. Every motor vehicle when used on a road shall carry a bell or other instrument or mechanical device capable of giving audible and sufficient warning of the approach and position of the motor vehicle and the driver of the motor vehicle shall whenever necessary give such audible and sufficient warning by sounding the bell or other instrument or mechanical device.
The noble Earl said: On studying this Bill I could discover no clause which necessitated the carrying of horns or other means of giving audible warning of the approach of a motor car. Motor cars have been governed since 1896 first by the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, and afterwards by the Motor Car Act of 1903, and both required the carrying of a bell or other instrument for giving adequate warning of approach. I understand that this Bill repeals the existing laws, and therefore I beg leave to move my Amendment,
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 23, at end, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Earl has been very industrious in helping the Minister to make regulations, but I think he has overlooked that this Amendment is not necessary. The regulation as to

1539
sound warning is now under Article 4 of the Motor Cars Use and Construction Order, 1904, and this Bill gives adequate power to make regulations which will cover this. It will be something equivalent to a new Use and Construction Order.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47:
Provisions with respect to stretching of ropes, &c., across roads.
47. Any person who for any purpose places or causes to be placed any rope, wire or other apparatus across a road or any part thereof in such a manner as to be likely to cause danger to persons using the road shall, unless he proves that he had taken all necessary means to give adequate warning of the danger, be guilty of an offence.
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE moved to leave out the first "road" and insert "public highway." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment in order to ascertain whether "road" here includes roads on the property of a dock and harbour authority.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 26, leave out ("road") and insert ("public highway").—(Lord Ritchie of Dundee.)
EARL RUSSELL: A road is defined in the Bill as including a public high way or any roadway to which the public have access. If the public have access to a dock company's premises, then it is proper that the public should be warned of a hidden danger. Either the Bill does not apply because it is not a public place, or if it is a public place the Bill ought to apply.
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE: The public have access, but it is not a right of access, and I was proposing to move later to add the words "right of access."
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON moved, after "thereof," to insert "without proper authority." The noble Lord said: The clause which I seek to amend makes any one guilty of an offence who places a wire across a road without giving adequate warning of the danger, and the penalty for the offence under Clause 101 is, unless otherwise stated, a fine not exceeding £20. Your Lordships will observe also that no attempt is made in this clause to restrict the
1540
placing of wire across a road. The interest I take in this clause is due to the fact that I remember that in July of last year a lady and her maid and chauffeur, the last named a very steady driver who had been with the family for years, were instantaneously killed by a wire stretched across the road by a private contractor, who had bought some logs at the side of the road. The coroner's jury found the men guilty of manslaughter, but at the Assizes they were acquitted on the ground that they were acting under the orders of their employer. Shortly afterwards a similar case occurred. I cannot remember the facts, and I only mention it to show that the first case was not an isolated one. This stretching of wire across a road was, as I understand, a recognised method of killing people during the Irish troubles, and it kills here, and what I want to ask your Lordships to do is to try and persuade the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to restrict this practice to cases of necessity. I have put down an Amendment to say that it is not to be done without proper authority, and in a subsequent Amendment I have made it an offence if it is done. I do not know whether my suggestions are really suitable, but I hope your Lordships will assist me in trying to restrict this highly dangerous practice.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 26, after ("thereof") insert ("without proper authority").—(Lord Hunsdon of Hunsdon.)
EARL RUSSELL: I wrote to the noble Lord in connection with this and his subsequent Amendment, to point out to him that they really weaken the clause instead of strengthening it, but I do not seem to have convinced the noble Lord. As the clause stands, it makes it an offence for anybody to stretch a wire right across the road, unless there is proper protection and warning given. The person who does so has to prove that he has taken all necessary means to give adequate warning of the danger and if he has not he is guilty of an offence. The noble Lord's Amendments provide that if he kills someone by this means he is to be liable on conviction to six months imprisonment.
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON: I have not moved that Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL: No, but I am taking the effect of these Amendments together. I do not know why that should be the case, because that considerably weakens the clause. If he kills anybody now he is guilty of manslaughter, for which he will be awarded any imprisonment that is suitable. If the object of the noble Lord is to prohibit the stretching of wires or ropes across a road then I am afraid he is asking for something which is not possible, because I understand that in removing large trees it is sometimes necessary for a short time to obstruct the highway by stretching a wire rope across it. Another of the noble Lord's Amendments speaks of "proper authority," but I do not know who the proper authority is, or who, indeed, has authority to authorise obstruction of the highway. I think this clause does the best that can be done, because it provides that if anybody does do this he must take proper steps to give warning. That surely satisfies the condition of public safety. If he does it longer than is necessary he is guilty of the offence of obstructing the highway, and can be summoned under the old Act of 1835. I really think the noble Lord will fail to achieve his object by the Amendments he desires to put in.
EARL HOWE: Is the noble Earl really satisfied that there is sufficient protection for road users in motor cars by the expression "to give adequate warning of the danger "? It seems to me that this is very vague. Would it not be possible definitely to lay it down that the warning sign shall be at not less than a certain distance, or that there shall be some sort of recognised sign, or that there shall be a man stationed on the road? The risk may be very great indeed if the wire is stretched across the road just round a bend, so that it is quite impossible for anybody to see it. I have myself seen ditches dug by public authorities across a highway, and very often they do not trouble to put the red flag at any distance where the warning would be of some use. What they do is just to stick a red flag alongside of it. That is considered by them to be sufficient warning. Could we not strengthen that in some way or other?
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Earl makes the mistake of thinking that by putting in particular words he strengthens
1542
the clause. He weakens it. The phrase used in the clause is "unless he proves that he had taken all necessary means to give adequate warning of the danger." What is adequate must depend on the circumstances. No definite or specified distance can be adequate in all circumstances. It may be proper in certain circumstances that the warning should extend round the next corner so that people may be warned. These wider words are much more likely to protect the public.
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON: The noble Earl said he thought I wished to prevent drawing a wire across a road altogether. It is not in the least my wish. I wish it to be done by the proper authority for the very purpose, as the noble Earl said, of removing trees from the road—which of course must be done. What I wish to do is to restrict it to necessary cases. I do not know who the proper authority is, but the proper authority should restrict it to those cases, and should not allow anybody who likes to stretch a wire across the road and kill people without any penalty whatever—because that is what has happened. I did not speak to my second Amendment at all. The noble Earl did. I suggested that anyone who did not give adequate warning should be liable on conviction to imprisonment for six months. I do not know whether that is the right form of the Amendment, but what I suggest is that if a man sets a death trap on the King's highway—for that is what it is—and does not even take the trouble to warn people of the danger, he ought to suffer a greater penalty than a fine not exceeding £20. If your Lordships think that is all right I have nothing more to say.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: The particular Amendment which the noble Lord has moved would surely greatly weaken the clause. To insert the words "without proper authority" would mean that with proper authority he was entitled to place a rope in such a manner as to be likely to cause danger to persons using the road. The question of strengthening the penalty is a different matter.
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON: I certainly did not want to say anything about fatal accidents. That is a mistake. What I wish to do is to strengthen the

1543
penalty, and I submit that that ought to be done. A fine not exceeding £20 is really derisory.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Does the noble Lord press the words "without proper authority "?
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON: No.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 agreed to.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved, after Clause 47, to insert the following new clause:—
Removal of obstructions.
" . If any obstruction to the running of any public service vehicle within the meaning of Part IV of this Act is caused by the breaking down of or any load falling from any other vehicle, or by the falling of any tree, or by any other thing whatsoever, the owner, the driver or the conductor of such public service vehicle shall be entitled to remove the vehicle, load, tree or thing causing the obstruction and to provide and use all such plant and apparatus and take all such steps as may be necessary for the purpose of removing the obstruction."
The noble Lord said: This is merely an Amendment to enable a driver to remove an unexpected obstruction. I understand that in ordinary circumstances he is not entitled to do it, and would have to wait until the local authority does so.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 30, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Newton.)
EARL RUSSELL: I should like to know a little more about the meaning and object of this rather remarkable clause. First of all, it is only to apply to a public service vehicle, and not to any other vehicle, and if a man meets an obstruction due to
" the breaking down of or any load falling from any other vehicle, or by the falling of any tree, or by any other thing whatsoever, the owner, the driver or the conductor of such public service vehicle shall be entitled to remove the vehicle, load, tree or thing causing the obstruction and to provide and use all such plant and apparatus…"
As the clause is drawn it would enable a person who was driving an omnibus, and who found even a local authority's notice on the road in its way to take it up and move it, to remove a telegraph linesman's hut, or anything he did not like on the road. He has no obligation even to go round it if it is an obstruction in the place where he usually runs.
1544
So far as it concerns a fallen tree, surely it is already perfectly clear that anybody who finds the road blocked by a fallen tree does not need any authority to remove it. That has been the law for ever so long; at any rate nobody has ever interfered with him. I rather think this clause is one that has been taken from a Tramway Act. In the case of a tram-car running on fixed lines it might be proper that they should be able to remove something which was on their lines, and which they could not get round, but it is quite inapplicable to ordinary traffic on the road, and I have not really understood from the noble Lord what the circumstances are in which he thinks it would be proper.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49:
Power to transfer toll bridges to highway authorities.
(2) Where the right to charge tolls is so transferred the local authority or authorities may continue to exercise the right but for such number of years only as may be allowed by the Minister.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved, in subsection (2), after "only", to insert "not exceeding five years." The noble Lord said: This is only to fix a time limit.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 12, after ("only") insert ("not exceeding five years").—(Lord Newton.)
EARL RUSSELL: I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. Five years might be, and in most cases probably would be, a perfectly reasonable time, but there are some cases where it might be too short a time, and where it might be proper to give them a rather longer time in which to recoup themselves. If you insist on this absolutely hard and fast line it may in some cases prevent local authorities purchasing a toll or ultimately purchasing it, which would be a pity. The Minister hopes that more latitude will be given.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD AUCKLAND LORD AUCKLAND moved, in subsection (2), to leave out" allowed by the Minister "and insert" prescribed in each case. "The noble Lord said: I suggest this Amendment because I am of

1545
opinion that, power to authorise the extension or curtailment of the collection of tolls should not be vested in the Minister, but should be prescribed in each ease. That would give Parliament some control. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 13, leave out ("allowed by the Minister ") and insert (" prescribed in each case ").—(Lord Auckland.)
EARL RUSSELL: This is a proper and usual thing for the Minister to do; but there is one point in this Amendment which I might accept and that is the insertion in line 13 after the word "Minister" of the words "in each case." It is intended, of course, that the Minister shall consider each case on its own merits. This is clearly a thing for the Minister to settle; he settles much more important matters than this.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I understand that the Amendment will be moved in the form suggested by the noble Earl.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 13, after (" Minister ") insert (" in each case ").—(Lord Auckland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50:
Provisions us to extraordinary traffic.
50.—(1) Where as respects any road it appears to the highway authority by a certificate of their surveyor that having regard to the average expense of repairing the road or other similar roads in the neighbourhood extraordinary expenses have been incurred by the authority in repairing the road by reason of the damage caused by excessive weight passing along the road, or other extraordinary traffic thereon, the highway authority may recover from any person (hereinafter referred to as "the undertaker") by or in consequence of whose order the traffic has been conducted the amount of such expenses as may be proved to the satisfaction of the Court having cognizance of the case to have been incurred by the highway authority by reason of the damage arising from the extraordinary traffic:
Provided that if before traffic which may cause such damage commences the undertaker admits liability in respect of such traffic, the undertaker and the highway authority may agree for the payment by the undertaker to the highway authority of a sum by way of a composition of such liability, or either party may require that the sum to be so paid shall be determined by arbitration; and where a sum has been
1546
so agreed or determined as aforesaid the undertaker shall be liable to pay that sum to the highway authority, and shall not be liable to proceedings for the recovery of such expenses as aforesaid.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (1), after "highway authority," where those words first occur, to insert "or to any company, body or person charged with the maintenance of any portion of a road." The noble Lord said: The importance of this Amendment lies in the words "with this maintenance of any portion of a road." The clause as it stands allows the highway authority, on the certificate of its surveyor, to get back extraordinary expenses incurred by reason of extraordinary traffic. In many cases half the road, or perhaps more, is under the control of a tramway authority who have to run their trams. They may be inconvenienced or more than inconvenienced by extraordinary traffic, but the highway authority will say: "This is not under our jurisdiction and we cannot do anything to help you." They will not move through their surveyor and the tramways company may find it very difficult to get any remedy at all. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 23, after ("highway authority") insert ("or to any company, body or person charged with the maintenance of any portion of a road").—(Lord Askwith.)
EARL RUSSELL: The clause as it stands in the Bill is a re-enactment. The Amendment proposed by the noble Lord would, again, give tramway undertakers the same rights as highway authorities. There is a certain amount of force in the ease he makes that they are liable for the repair of a certain portion of the road and may in fact be damnified by extraordinary traffic, although I am told that the cases in which they have been so damnified are very few. I think one can hardly give them the powers of the local authority in regard to extraordinary traffic, because the provisions that are here re-enacted were all passed after the Tramways Act of 1870 which placed upon them the duty of repairing the centre of the road. It may be that at some time or other all this obligation on tramway authorities may properly be reconsidered. I think the obligation to repair the road may very possibly be reconsidered at some time or other But in my opinion it

1547
would be going contrary to the principle of the tramway enactments to give these undertakers the powers of the local authority as regards extraordinary traffic, and I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD ASKWITH: I understand the noble Earl to suggest that if a remedy was desired against excessive weight or extraordinary traffic it would have to come in a separate Act or some amendment of the Tramways Act. There is no doubt that since 1870 a very great change has taken place in the kind and weight of traffic that goes over the roads. However, if the noble Earl says that it is not cognate to the purpose of this Bill I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Lord Fortescue gave notice of a manuscript Amendment in line 6, on page 38. I do not know whether that is being moved.
EARL FORTESCUE: No.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD VISCOUNT BRENTFORD moved, after subsection (2), to insert:—
"Notwithstanding anything in this section, no claim shall be made by any highway authority under this section in respect of the user of any highway by any stage carriage or express carriage (within the meaning of Part IV of this Act) for the purposes of any regular service run by the owner of the stage carriage or express carriage in accordance with the requirements of the Commissioners (as defined in Part IV of this Act) or for the purposes of any other requirement of the Commissioners or of any local authority."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment arises out of the extraordinary traffic clause and I should like the noble Earl to consider it. One knows the ordinary provisions of the law regarding extraordinary traffic and the liability to extraordinary traffic. But under the next Part of the Bill we are erecting or proposing to erect Road Commissioners who will decide what services shall be run on the road, and their frequency, as well as the weight and construction of the carriages and so forth. I suppose that the Road Commissioners will take into consideration all the points as to the weight of vehicles and the impact of vehicles on the road before giving a certificate to enable services to be run. The object of this Amendment is to suggest to the noble Earl that the Commissioners
1548
should in effect have the necessary responsibility of deciding in regard to the public services which they authorise, whether they be public services by a local authority or services by a private company, the question of extraordinary traffic. As the noble Earl knows the question of extraordinary traffic is a very difficult one indeed and there are constant fights in the law courts about it.
It would be a very great convenience both to road authorities and to the owners of public vehicles if, before a licence was granted to run new services, the Commissioners, who are the responsible parties from henceforth—there has been nobody in their position before—inspected the roads, as I have no doubt they will, before new services were authorised. If they decide that in all the circumstances of the case a new service shall be run at certain times, with a particular frequency and so on, because they will have the power to decide what the frequency shall be, they will have power to say to the undertakers: "You shall not have a licence to run this service unless you run so many vehicles at such and such intervals in order to meet the requirements of the people of the locality." If the Commissioners put upon the undertakers a responsibility of that kind, I think in return they should be freed from the necessity of dealing with cases of extraordinary traffic. The noble Earl knows that cases of extraordinary traffic do not occur, as a matter of fact, on main roads. These services would be run on main roads, roads leading in and out of the town, for the benefit of the inhabitants of the town. I would ask him, therefore, to consider this Amendment, which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 18, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Brentford.)
EARL RUSSELL: Extraordinary traffic is, of course, really an anachronism. It has gone out of date now, as I think the noble Viscount will agree.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Practically.
EARL RUSSELL: There are very few cases in which you can properly claim for extraordinary traffic, and the circumstances which gave rise to the original provisions in the Acts hardly apply. The noble Viscount's Amendment, as I am

1549
sure he feels himself, presents a good deal of difficulty. It seems to me that it would go as far, I do not know whether he intended it to go as far, as to negative what are called adaptation clauses which have been put into Private Bills from time to time. I do not know whether that is his intention, but I think it would be rather a strong measure, without an inquiry similar to that which imposed them, to cancel the adaptation clauses recently put into Private Bills by Parliament. I should like to consider that before thinking it was even a proper thing to do. I cannot think that claims for extraordinary traffic are very likely to arise. Nowadays the matter surely is more a theoretical than a practical one. I am perfectly willing to consider what the noble Viscount is aiming at here; but I doubt whether anything can properly be done. I do not like the idea of giving the Traffic Commissioners power really to prevent a local authority from claiming something which, under the existing law, would be justly due to them, however out of date that existing law is.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Perhaps the noble Earl will consider it. I agree with him that extraordinary traffic is dying out.
EARL RUSSELL: Yes.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: At the same time one does not want claims of this kind if they can be avoided. I will withdraw my Amendment if the noble Earl will consider it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved, after subsection (2), to insert as a new subsection:—
"(3) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the carriage of timber from any plantation, provided that it shall be incumbent upon the undertaker to take every reasonable precaution against causing any avoidable damage to the road."
The noble Viscount said: My noble friend Lord Lovat asked me to move the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper. I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will be able to see the justice of the Amendment. In the case of extraordinary traffic, where you have parts of buildings, or electrical machinery, or any heavy traffic along the road, and where extraordinary damage is done, I think it
1550
is justifiable that the local authorities should receive the additional expense incurred over and above the ordinary expense of keeping up the road, but in the case of timber being removed from plantations a very different case occurs. Plantations have been paying rates over a large number of years, sometimes up to fifty, sixty, ninety and 100 years according to the age of the timber which is being removed. It does not seem fair, when that timber is removed, if there is a little additional damage to the roads, that the undertaker of that timber should be mulcted in special and additional cost. I ask the noble Earl to consider this Amendment from that point of view, and see whether it is not possible to do justice in this case.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 18, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Elibank.)
EARL RUSSELL: When I read the noble Viscount's Amendment it seemed to me at first that if there was a case where it was a reasonable thing to claim in respect of extraordinary traffic when the whole road had been cut up, that case was timber carrying. There seemed to me to be more justification there than there is in many other cases for saying that was extraordinary traffic, and that it ought to pay the special damage it had done. I am bound to say, however, I am very much struck by the ingenious suggestion of the noble Viscount that during the eighty years, or more that the timber has been growing the timber has, so to speak, been accruing a right to injure the highway and suddenly does the whole injury in one swoop. That seems to me rather an attractive argument. I should like to fall in with the idea if I could, but I do not think I must. I do think where somebody is moving timber upon a public road and causing special damage he must pay for it, if the damage is caused by excessive loads and possibly by hauling at an improper time. After all, he is making a profit out of it, even if in these days it is a small profit. I think it is not legitimate that the inhabitants who are now paying rates should pay for it. If the timber owner has paid rates, he has not only had the use of these highways but he has also been able to get to his timber and look at it and has had the general use of the roads. I am sorry I cannot

1551
accept this, because I think there are many other cases which might be put on all fours, such as quarries.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I think the class of road which this timber is carried upon is usually a poor kind of road, certainly it is so in many parts of Scotland. In the Highlands and other parts, these plantations are situate on what are called unclassified roads. Most of those roads are already in a very bad condition indeed. It is extremely difficult to say how far these roads would be further injured by the carriage of this timber. The noble Earl says my argument is an ingenious one. I do not think he has really answered it. The actual approach to these plantations is usually by people on foot, and not by people in motor cars or any horse-drawn vehicle. Therefore the actual approach to these plantations during these many years has not been by individuals who damage the road, and the timber itself has not caused any damage to the road until it is actually carted away. I am sorry the noble Earl is not able to accept this Amendment. Perhaps he might see his way to consider reducing the rates on timber.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, after Clause 51, to insert as a new clause:—
Provision of footpaths.
".—(1) It is hereby declared to be the duty of a highway authority to provide wherever necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of foot passengers proper and sufficient footpaths by the side of roads under their control.
(2) Before sanctioning any works for the widening or improvement of any existing road or for the making of any new road, a highway authority shall consider whether it would be possible and desirable to include footpaths in such works and if so, shall not sanction such works unless such footpaths are included.
(3) If the provision of footpaths is not proposed as part of such works no advance shall be made from the Road Fund towards the cost of such works unless the Minister is satisfied that such footpaths are not possible and desirable."
The noble Viscount said: This is a point I ventured to raise in the debate on the Second Reading, and it is, I am quite satisfied your Lordships will agree
1552
with me, a very serious matter, particularly in some of the country districts. There is no doubt that the lack of footpaths is serious, particularly for children going to school, where they are compelled by law to go over these main roads. You see considerable improvements being carried on in order to make the roads fit for traffic, and it is extremely hard that the interests of the pedestrians who are compelled to use them, whether they like it or not, should not also be considered. I know that my noble friend rather suggested in his speech on the Second Reading that there was no necessity for any further provision, that the law was already sufficient.
I must admit that it is very difficult, unless you are an expert in that branch of the law, to be quite certain what is the highway law of this country, but I did take some pains to ascertain it, and I could not find—I dare say it was owing to my ignorance and stupidity—any provision which put upon the local authority any duty to provide footpaths. What they have to do is to provide highways. There are a variety of duties laid upon them in that respect, but there is no substantial duty that I can find, even where it is necessary and desirable, for the highway authority to provide foot paths. They can do so, because they can treat it as part of the highway, and can make a part of the highway into a footpath. That is the law as I understand it, but I may be wrong. It seems to me it would be a good thing when we are reviewing this question of traffic on roads, to have it distinctly laid down in an Act of Parliament as part of the duty of the highway authority to consider whether a footpath is not necessary, particularly when they are carrying out any widening or improvement of the highway.
That is what I suggest in the first subsection:—
" It is hereby declared to be the duty of a highway authority to provide wherever necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of foot passengers proper and sufficient footpaths by the side of roads under their control."
Then I suggest—this I am afraid my noble friend will not regard with much enthusiasm—that it might be a good plan for the Road Fund to use more vigorously than as far as I can learn it does at present, its power when asked for assistance for a road widening or improvement

1553
—it is not so much a question of new roads—and say to the local authority: "Well, really, have you considered this question of the footpath? If there is any doubt we would like to send somebody down to look at it. It really is a serious matter. If the road traffic is so great as to require a widening, which we are going to assist you in meeting, you ought to spend some of that money in making a new footpath." I think that is a matter with which motorists would be quite as much in favour as pedestrians. It is one of the many occasions on which our interests are identical.
EARL RUSSELL: If the noble Viscount compels them to walk on the footpath.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I understand that is going to be part of the provisions of the highway code. I look with some anxiety as to what will be the fate of the pedestrian when the highway code is enacted. But it would be proper to have a provision of that kind. It is something to have the footpaths, and as far as the children are concerned they are continually being warned by their parents, and now by schoolmasters, to take great precautions, and I think they would use footpaths if really good footpaths were provided for them. Sometimes you see a footpath at the side of the road which it is really a very difficult thing to walk on. It is so badly paved and so wet in bad weather that really it is an invitation to go on to the road. I will not detain your Lordships any longer, but hope you will be able to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 35, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: I hope this Amendment will be accepted because the fact that there is a footpath is an invitation to walk on the footpath. Many of those who are deaf, like myself, are compelled to walk on the side of the road facing the traffic in order to see what is coming and we are told that is the wrong side on which to walk. If you give us a footpath, we will walk on the footpath, though we know we have as much right on the road as the motorist.
EARL HOWE: I would like to support the Amendment. I do not know that I can support it in every detail because I
1554
do not know how far it goes. I do not know if it is designed to deal with all classes of roads. It would not be reasonable to compel local authorities to construct footpaths on Class 2 and Class 3 roads.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Only where desirable.
EARL HOWE: It would be very desirable on certain classes of roads. As to the expense, I heard with some misgivings a reference to the Road Fund. At the same time, if the Minister in giving grants can secure the provision of footpaths with a suitable surface—because there are many cases all round London where pedestrians refuse to use the footpath because of the state of the surface which is either rough or sloping—I am entirely in favour of it.
EARL RUSSELL: For some extraordinary reason, as the noble Lords have said, a local authority nearly always makes a foothpath so disagreeable that people will not walk upon it. I do not know what the reason is and I think some improvement could be achieved by the Ministry of Transport with the influence they now have with the local authorities. I agree that it is most desirable that footpaths should be provided. If they were provided and pedestrians habitually walked on them, it would do a great deal to avoid accidents, particularly in narrow and winding roads. I do not think the Amendment will do as it is put down here. It begins by saying it will be the duty of the highway authority to provide footpaths wherever necessary or desirable. Who is to be the judge? Is the local authority to be the judge?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Yes.
EARL RUSSELL: Well, that is not clear. If it is not the local authority, then the local authority would be exposed to being condemned for a breach of duty for not providing footpaths when someone else thought they were necessary and desirable. The noble Viscount must also have regard to the fact that roads are nowadays classified. There are Class 1 roads, to which the Ministry of Transport contributes 60 per cent. of the cost of maintenance, and Class 2 roads to which they contribute

1555
50 per cent. Probably, though I could not say off-hand, these grants apply equally to the footpaths at the sides of the roads. So it is perfectly obvious that the Ministry of Transport can exercise a fairly considerable influence on the local authorities in this manner. On the second branch of the Amendment, I told him, and I believe it to be true, that in any widening of importance and on any new road footpaths are provided.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Not in all new widenings.
EARL RUSSELL: I may be mistaken but that is my impression. Even so, I am not certain that they are always sufficiently attractive to make them useful. As to the third part, it provides that no advance shall be made from the Load Fund unless the Minister is satisfied that footpaths are not reasonable or desirable. Those who administer it will be glad of any excuse to save a portion of it because the demands on it are much greater than can be fulfilled; but I think this would be rather difficult. If the noble Viscount will allow us to consider what can be done in the matter, I think that possibly some declaratory clause making fairly clear the class of roads to which it applies, and some words of more certain definition than these and some linking up with grants from the Ministry may achieve the object he has in view. These words will not do. I would be very glad if he will consult me before Report stage as to whether anything to this end can be achieved. We all recognise that footpaths make both for the safety of pedestrians and the advantage of motorists by taking pedestrians off the road. We would all be glad to see footpaths provided.
LORD DANESFORT: In this connection, will the noble Earl consider the possibility of providing some place at the side of the slippery roads where a horse can travel without danger to itself or its rider? I speak with considerable feeling because I have had two or three falls from riding on roads which, however suitable for motors, are exceedingly unsuitable for a man riding a horse when the roads are slippery. After a little rain these roads are almost impassable for horses. Thank goodness horses do go on roads still. They go to meets and
1556
on other occasions. Unfortunately, my experience is that, when roads are widened, the grass on which we used to ride is either taken away or covered with litter and débris of various sorts so that it is impossible to ride upon it. I do not know if this point is germane to this Amendment, but if the noble Earl is thinking of making a footpath for pedestrians he might make one for horses.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am much obliged for the way in which the noble Earl has received this Amendment, and of course I am ready to withdraw it. May I give two instances of the kind of thing I have in mind? In Sussex, where I live, there has been a great improvement at a curve by erecting a bank to prevent motorists going over the curve. The top of that bank is a yard wide and more or less flat but it has not been made into a path at all. That is the sort of thing that seems so foolish as a great opportunity was lost there of making a footpath. Similarly, in the Lake country, where I was recently, I observed great works being carried out on a road making it straighter and widening it considerably, but no footpath was provided, although it was a place where there is much foot-passenger traffic. Those are cases which any member of your Lordships' House can multiply indefinitely all over the country. It seems to me that something should be done. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment and I trust the Ministry of Transport will be asked to draft a suitable clause.
EARL RUSSELL: I should like to give the noble Viscount the assurance that, so far as anything can be done by administrative action in advance of any clause of this kind, I will consider it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 [Regulations]:
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to insert as a new subsection:—
" (3) Before making regulations under this Part of this Act the Minister shall consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit."
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is obvious. The reason why it is moved is that the motor organisations consider that Part III covers some very essential portions of this Bill. It

1557
includes the erection of notice boards and signs, the Ministry's code of the highway, and all sorts of matters like penalties for neglect of driving directions and so on. The motoring organisations are anxious to do everything in their power to help the Minister and therefore I move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 10, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Howe).
EARL RUSSELL: These regulations under Part II are quite different to the previous regulations and it is not really necessary that these organisations should be consulted in regard to the making of them. I think the noble Earl is wrong as to some of the things he said were included, such things as notice boards. Since the Minister will consult, as he has always consulted, representative organisations—and, as I believe the noble Earl is in touch with motoring organisations, he probably knows that at this moment the Minister is consulting them—I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
EARL HOWE: After what the noble Earl has said I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54:
Application of Part IV and classification of public service vehicles.
54.—(1) This Part of this Act applies to public service vehicles; that is to say, motor vehicles (other than tramcars and trolley vehicles) used for carrying passengers for hire or reward, except that it shall not apply to contract carriages as hereinafter defined adapted to carry loss than nine passengers.
(2) Public service vehicles shall, for the purposes of this Part of this Act and the regulations made thereunder, be divided into the following classes:—

(a) Stage carriages; that is to say, motor vehicles carrying passengers for hire or reward at separate fares (any or all of which are less than sixpence or such greater sum as may be prescribed), stage by stage, and stopping to pick up or set down passengers along the line of route, and any other motor vehicles carrying passengers for hire or reward at separate fares and not being express carriages as hereinafter defined:

1558

(b) Express carriages; that is to say, motor vehicles carrying passengers for hire or reward at separate fares and for a journey or journeys to some one or other common destination specified beforehand, and not stopping to take up or set down passengers other than those taking the specified journey or journeys, and motor vehicles carrying passengers for hire or reward at separate fares, where no fare is less than sixpence or such greater sum as may be prescribed:

Provided that a motor vehicle adapted to carry less than six passengers shall not be deemed to be an express carriage by reason only that on special occasions it is used to carry passengers at separate fares.
(3) Where a person uses or allows to be used without reward for carrying nine or more persons as passengers any motor vehicle ordinarily used for the purposes of agriculture, trade or business, then, except where the persons so carried are workpeople in his employment being carried in the course of or to or from their employment, the vehicle shall for the purposes of this Part of this Act he treated as if it was a contract carriage, and the provisions of this Part of this Act and the regulations made thereunder shall apply accordingly.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "nine." and insert "seven." The noble Lord said: This section deals with the classification of public service vehicles and my Amendment concerns what I venture to call unfair competition. The Committee is probably aware that at the present moment large numbers of private vehicles are used for public service purposes. The ordinary large motor car seats six people besides the driver and this sort of vehicle is constantly used when favourable opportunity arises for public service. It stands to reason that these private vehicles are in an extremely favourable position as compared with the legitimate public service vehicle and if they are employed on public service it seems to me only reasonable that they should come under the same regulations as genuine public service vehicles. With that object I move that the number "nine" should be reduced to "seven."
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 8, leave out ("nine") and insert ("seven").—(Lord Newton.)
EARL RUSSELL: I do not quite know why a vehicle should not be legitimately used because it happens to be smaller than the large omnibus. In the provinces as the noble Lord said old

1559
Daimlers and large old cars of that sort when they have long passed their first youth are used as taxicabs and for the conveyance of passengers. They carry seven at least. I am prepared to meet the noble Lord to this extent—which I hope will satisfy him—that I would agree to insert "eight" instead of "nine," but we cannot disqualify this class of vehicle from carrying passengers and not being treated as an omnibus.
LORD NEWTON: I will accept the noble Lord's offer and move the Amendment in that form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 8, leave out ("nine") and insert ("eight").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH had on the Paper an Amendment to substitute "shilling" for "sixpence" in subsection (2) (a). The noble Lord said: I do not move this Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL: But I am prepared to accept a shilling there. I hope Lord Askwith will move.
LORD ASKWITH: I shall be delighted, if I am allowed, to move it.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 15, leave out ("sixpence") and insert ("one shilling").—(Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON had given Notice of an Amendment in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), after the first "journeys," to insert "from one or more points specified beforehand in a particular town or place. "The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the next three Amendments which I have placed on the Paper all hang together, and I have an idea that the noble Earl is in communication with the people concerned in this particular matter. Perhaps it would be more convenient if I did not move the Amendment if he would undertake to consider the point and bring up an amended clause on Report.
EARL RUSSELL: I am afraid I cannot undertake to bring up an amended clause, but I will consider any representation made to me. The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be to define an express carriage in such a way that a
1560
coach running from Newcastle to London would not be an express carriage if passengers were picked up at any intermediate point at all. I do not think the noble Lord could have intended that.
LORD NEWTON: The object is to distinguish between what are called stage coaches, that is to say omnibuses, and motor coaches. The remark which I made in moving my previous Amendment applies in this case also. There is unfair competition, because motor coaches have now developed into omnibuses running short journeys and picking up people, although they are not subject to the same control as the legitimate omnibus. My object is to define more clearly the difference between the two classes of vehicle. Do I understand the noble Earl will consider the matter?
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, I will consider any representations made, but I am afraid I am not quite clear what the point is.
LORD NEWTON: Then I will not move my Amendment.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), to leave out "sixpence" and insert "one shilling." The noble Lord said: This is the sixpence that I really want changed into a shilling if possible. The point is that there may be a line of tramcars or trolley vehicles running from A to B at a statutory fare of 8d. or 9d., and they can be cut into by a private vehicle or express carriage charging a fare of 6d. or even 4d., which is rather unreasonable.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 31, leave out ("sixpence") and insert ("one shilling").—(Lord Askwith.)
EARL RUSSELL: I would rather accept the words of an Amendment standing in the name of Lord Newton—"one shilling for a single journey." I do not know whether that would satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD ASKWITH: I will accept that now and if it is not quite satisfactory I will raise the matter again on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 31, leave out ("sixpence") and insert ("one shilling for a single journey").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON had given Notice to move in subsection (3) to leave out "nine" and insert "seven." The noble Lord said: La view of what was done on my previous Amendment I am willing to take "eight."
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 2, leave out ("nine") and insert ("eight").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Traffic Commissioners]:
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved, after subsection (3), to insert:—
" Provided that no person who shall be or become interested in the operation of public service vehicles in any traffic area either as a director of, or holder of any securities in, any company, or as a member of any authority or body, for the time being operating or having power to operate any public service vehicle within that area shall be capable of acting as a Commissioner for that area."
The noble Lord said: I formally move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 16, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Newton.)
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Lord has not said anything about this Amendment but as it is worded the effect would be—I do not know whether it is the noble Lord's intention—to exclude members of a town council which was running omnibuses from being on the panel from which the Minister is to select the two local persons who are to act as Commissioners. I am afraid we cannot accept that. To speak of persons who have a direct pecuniary interest is one thing, but persons who are members of an authority and are interested in providing services are in another case. In busy and populous towns this would include practically every town council. The Minister is going to appoint Commissioners, and it is obvious that he would not appoint anyone who was interested, if he could learn about it. If the noble Lord desires to move the Amendment later in an amended form, so as to prevent any person acting who has a real financial interest, I should be perfectly willing to consider it if he thinks
1562
it necessary, but it is obvious that the Minister will take great care not to have any person who has any financial interest or even who has taken a strong line in public as to the running or not running of public service vehicles.
LORD NEWTON: I will bring the point up again on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57:
Procedure of Traffic Commissioners.
(2) Not less than two Commissioners shall be present at the hearing of any application, and if where an application is heard by two Commissioners only there is a difference of opinion between them, the matter shall be determined by the decision of the third Commissioner.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved, in subsection (2), after "Not less than two Commissioners" to insert "one of whom must be the Chairman or the person for the time being acting as deputy to the Chairman." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is moved because, as I under-stand it, the Chairman is appointed by the Ministry of Transport, and therefore he is in a different position from that of the other persons, who represent the local authority.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 18, after ("Commissioners") insert ("one of whom must be the Chairman or the person for the time being acting as deputy to the Chairman").—(Lord Newton.)
EARL RUSSELL: All the Commissioners are appointed by the Ministry of Transport, but the clear and definite intention, in order that there may be no mistake about local representation on the Commission and in order that local authorities may be satisfied that they are properly represented, is that, if ever there is a difference of opinion, the two other Commissioners shall be able to out-vote the Chairman. It is not intended to make the Chairman master of the whole situation whatever the other people may think. What we are hoping will happen in practice—and there is some warrant for that hope in the experience of the London Traffic Advisory Committee, which includes many more

1563
people and more diverse interests than these Commissioners, appointed for this particular purpose, will include—is that there will never be any difference of opinion, but that there will be a general continuous policy, and in all probability there will never be any occasion to take a vote. I do not think we can accept this Amendment.
LORD NEWTON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clauses 58 and 59 agreed to.
Clause 60:
Public service vehicle licences.
(2) If any person causes or permits a public service vehicle to be used in contravention of this section, he shall be guilty of an offence:
Provided that where in the case of a service of stage carriages no fare is less than threepence or such greater sum as may be prescribed, it shall not be an offence to use on that service a vehicle licensed as an express carriage if consent in writing to such use has been obtained from the Commissioners of each of the traffic areas in which the vehicle is so used.
EARL RUSSELL: I have three drafting Amendments to this clause.
Amendments moved—
Page 43, line 41, leave out ("has obtained") and insert ("is the holder of")
Page 44, line 5, leave out ("has obtained") and insert ("is the holder of")
>Page 44, line 8, leave out ("has obtained") and insert ("is the holder of").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved, in the proviso to subsection (2), to leave out "three-pence" and to insert "one shilling for a single journey." The noble Lord said: I think this is consequential. It has been settled.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 14, leave out ("three-pence") and insert ("one shilling for a single journey").—(Lord Newton.)
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Lord is mistaken in thinking that this is consequential. These are established services, run with vehicles of the express type, which pick up and set down passengers only at intervals. With a minimum fare of threepence it might be a hardship on
1564
the persons who operated them to compel them to change their vehicles. The fact that they have to obtain the consent of the Commissioners is sufficient guarantee against any abuse and, as a matter of fact, the Amendment would make the proviso rather meaningless. There would be a contradiction in terms. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment. When he reconsiders it, he will find that it is by no means the same as the other one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 61:
Certificates of fitness.
61—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section relating to vehicles in respect of which a licence to ply for hire has been granted before the commencement of this Act, a licence to use a vehicle adapted to carry nine or more passengers as a stage carriage express carriage or contract carriage shall not be granted unless a certificate (hereinafter referred to as a certificate of fitness) has been issued by a certifying officer that the prescribed conditions as to fitness are fulfilled in respect of the vehicle and such a certificate is in force in respect of the vehicle:
Provided that the Minister may by regulations extend the provisions of this subsection to stage carriages and express carriages adapted to carry eight passengers or any smaller number of passengers specified in the regulations.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON had given Notice to move, in subsection (1), to leave out "nine" and to insert "seven." The noble. Lord said: I propose to move this in the form acceptable to the noble Earl.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 23, leave out ("nine") and insert ("eight").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON had given Notice to move, in the proviso to subsection (1), to leave out "eight" and to insert "six." The noble Lord said: Does the noble Earl accept this?
EARL RUSSELL: I accept it if "seven" is substituted for "six."
LORD NEWTON: I beg to move in that form.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 33, leave out ("eight") and insert ("seven").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 62:
Road Service Licences.
(2) Every person applying for a road service licence or applying for the backing of such a licence shall submit to the Commissioners—

(a) in the case of regular services, the time tables of the services which it is proposed to provide under the licence; and

(b) in any other case, particulars as to the frequency of the services and The Times to be taken on the journeys included in these services;

and the Commissioners shall not grant the licence unless they are satisfied that the time tables and other arrangements are such as to secure that suitable services will be established and maintained, and that the provisions of Part I of this Act relating to the maximum speed of vehicles will not be contravened.
(7) A road service licence in respect of any route shall be required notwithstanding that the provision of a service of stage carriages or express carriages is authorised by a special Act or an order having the force of an Act of Parliament, but a licence shall not be refused if the route is specifically authorised by or under Part V of this Act or by or under any special Act or order:
Provided that notwithstanding any restriction to the contrary, whether contained in this Act or in any other Act or in any order having the force of an Act or elsewhere, it shall be lawful for the Commissioners to grant a road service licence in respect of any route or any part of a route to any person applying for such a licence, and it shall be lawful for that person to operate a service in accordance with the licence so granted to him.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (2) (a), after "tables," to insert "and fare tables." The noble Earl said: This is a necessary addition.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 20, after ("tables") insert ("and fare tables").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to omit from paragraph (b) of subsection (2) all words after "case" and to insert "particulars of the purposes for which and the conditions under which the vehicle, in respect of which application for or the backing of a road service licence is made, is to be used." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment stands in my name in addition to that
1566
of the noble Lord, Lord Newton. As I am somewhat weak-willed, the noble Lord approached me last night and asked me to allow him to put down my name to his Amendments. I consented on condition that I got a proper brief. I have only just received that brief, and I am afraid I cannot make much of it. The case is this. The present wording of paragraph (b) does not seem to be particularly apt and the wording proposed submits an alternative which, it is suggested, would be more effective and more applicable. It is presumed that paragraph (b) is aimed at motor coaches which do not provide a regular service but which run trips and excursions at irregular times, so that it would be inaccurate to say that they provide a service of any frequency at all. Under paragraph (a) those providing regular services are required not only to submit their time-tables but their fare tables, following the Amendment of the noble Earl, and in order to prevent abuses, corresponding clauses should be sought for those running motor coach services. The wording of the Amendment is accordingly framed more widely, so that full particulars of the purposes for which, and the conditions under which, the vehicle is to be used may be ascertained by the Commissioners.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 23, leave out from ("case") to the end of line 25 and insert the said words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: I think this Amendment would be undesirable and really unnecessary. Under Clause 71 the Minister has power to prescribe what particulars applicants for licences are to furnish. We do not want to define them too rigidly, because we might want to prescribe other things that the noble Lord has not mentioned. The reason for putting in the time-tables and fare tables is their special importance. Any other information that is relevant can be obtained from the persons who apply for licences or can be prescribed by the Minister, so that I do not think the Amendment is necessary.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment so that, possibly on Report, somebody better versed in the subject may be able to move it again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL RUSSELL: My next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 27, after ("tables") insert ("and the fare tables").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 32, after ("table") insert ("and of every fare table").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASKWITHmoved, after subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection:
"( ) The Commissioners on receiving any application for or for the backing of a read service licence shall

(a) exhibit a notice of the application at their head office and keep such notice so exhibited until the application is heard, and

(b) publish notice of the application in one or more local newspapers circulating in their traffic area

and such application shall not be heard prior to the expiration of fourteen days after such notice has been so exhibited and published."
The noble Lord said: I suggest that it is a reasonable proposition that notice should be given and should be exhibited and published a little time beforehand in the daily papers.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 15, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Askwith).
EARL RUSSELL: This again is unnecessary. Under Clause 71 the Minister has ample power to prescribe by regulation the way in which all these things shall be done, and I have little doubt that there will be detailed regulations with far more than is provided here. Those may very well be subject to change. We do not want to have them in a fixed form because it may be found that one form is better than another.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, after subsection (6), to insert as a new subsection:—
"( ) In relation to the granting of road service licences in respect of any route in the City of Oxford the Commissioners shall be bound by and shall observe the restrictions, provisions and conditions contained in the Agreement set forth in the Schedule to the Oxford and District Tramways Act,
1568
1914, as amended by the Oxford Motor Services Act, 1921, and the Agreement set forth in the Fourth Schedule to the Oxford Extension Act, 1928."
The noble Marquess said: This Amendment concerns the City of Oxford, and I have been asked to put it down as an Amendment to the Bill. In the City of Oxford the undertakers are in a very peculiar position, because owing to an arrangement which has extended over a period of something like twenty-two years, they have a monopoly of the services. To obtain this monopoly they have paid certain sums of money, and there is a possibility that under this Bill the rights which they have acquired can be taken from them. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill has been good enough to correspond with me on this particular subject, and he has made a special point that he thinks it unwise that competition should be curtailed in this way; but I am given to understand that by reason of there being no competition it is possible for the undertakers, not having to cut their prices, to run a much better service for the outlying districts than would be possible under another system. That is a minor matter. I venture to ask the noble Earl if he can further consider this measure. It seems to me to be one of considerable importance, because after all Parliament has given sanction to the arrangement which has been come to, and by the action of the Commissioners it may be possible to override an arrangement to which everybody has agreed.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 2, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Marquess will not complain, I am sure, when I say that we have had such very short notice of the Amendment that I have hardly had time to go fully into it. I confess that personally I know little about the rights and wrongs of the matter. The case seems to be a very peculiar one, and I do not know how it ought to be dealt with, but I think it ought to be looked into, and it shall be looked into.
THE LORD CHAIEMAN: Perhaps I ought to say a word upon this, because it is a very peculiar matter and I remember its being before the House some years ago. I think I am not being indiscreet in saying that this was part of

1569
a special bargain by which Oxford got rid of the trams. The trams had a monopoly, and the omnibuses which took their place were given a monopoly. Since then one or two other towns have claimed the same right, on the ground that they were like Oxford, and I have invariably rejected their claim.
EARL RUSSELL: I am very much obliged to the Lord Chairman for his statement, because any information one can get with regard to this bargain, and how it was arrived at, will be useful in determining what arrangement should be made.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (7), to leave out all words preceding the proviso after "Parliament." The noble Lord said: Why should a particular licence be given to one set of people and not to another?
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 7, leave out from ("Parliament") to the end of line 10.—(Lord Askwith.)
EARL RUSSELL: The joint effect of this and the next following Amendment would be that so far as Local Acts are concerned the Comimissioners would have to have regard only to those by which special protection or a quasi monopoly is conferred on a particular undertaking. The intention of the subsection is that the Commissioners shall not be able to refuse the licences necessary to enable a service authorised by Statute to be run, but should not necessarily be precluded from granting licences to other operators to run on the same route if this course is desirable in the public interest. You want to save the statutory rights, and not to prevent competition if it is proper there should be competition.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL RUSSELL: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 22, leave out from ("police") to ("and") in line 23, and insert ("and every local authority in whose district or area the service is to be operated").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTONmoved to insert the following new subsection:—
1570
"( ) Notwithstanding anything in this section it shall be lawful for a person who is the holder of a road service licence issued under this Part of this Act by the Commissioners of any traffic area to run the stage carriage or express carriage to which the licence relates through any other traffic area without the licence having been backed by the Commissioners for the other traffic area if and so long as the carriage is not used for the taking up or setting down of passengers within such other traffic area."
The noble Lord said: As Clause 62 is at present drawn, a proprietor of a stage carriage or an express carriage running such vehicle from, say, London to Scotland, would be compelled to secure, before he could undertake this work, road service licences for all the traffic areas through which he passes, even though he were not undertaking the work of dealing with the passenger traffic of such areas, and it is submitted that following the present practice, where a vehicle neither picks up nor sets down passengers in a licensing area, it should not require a licence in respect of that area. The only object served under the Pill by a licence in respect of through transit would be to enable the Traffic Commissioners to prescribe the route to be followed, but it is thought that it might be assumed that in respect of through transit, only first-class or important second-class roads would be employed, and to set up machinery to secure control in respect of such a minor matter would seem both unnecessary and costly, and a cause of delay.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 38, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Newton.)
EARL RUSSELL: For the purpose of a through route all the vehicle requires to do is to get a licence backed by the other Commissioners through whose area it goes. I do not think we can possibly say that the area Commissioners have no interest in a vehicle running through their areas simply because it does not take up or set down passengers. One of the great functions of the Commissioners is going to be to regulate the general traffic of the country. I do not think I can accept the Amendment that these vehicles should be entirely free from control simply because they do not happen to take up or set down passengers in that area. There might be any number of them congesting the streets, and, although it might be assumed that they

1571
were going over the main road, that is by no means necessary. They might go by a road that is not desirable. I am afraid we must retain the control of the Commissioners over this through traffic.
LORD NEWTON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended at eight o'clock and resumed at twenty minutes past nine o'clock.]
Clause 63:
Drivers' and conductors' licences.
(3) A licence to drive a public service vehicle may be limited to such type or types of vehicles as may be specified in the licence.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Viscount said: The suggestion is that it should not be necessary to limit licences to drive a particular type or types of vehicle. I can understand when invalid carriages are limited; but once it is a motor of a certain weight in proportion I do not think the limit is necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 16, leave out subsection (3).—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: I think that this is really necessary in the interests of public safety. There are some quite light types of public service vehicles, and the man who has only had experience in driving those might be rather dangerous in charge of a char-a-bancs holding forty or fifty people, if he had not had a little more training. I think on the whole it would be wise to retain that if your Lordships have no objection. It is in the interests of public safety.
EARL HOWE: May I conclude from the noble Earl's remarks that he now looks with more favour upon training for driving?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Duration of licences]:
EARL RUSSELL: These are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 49, line 33, leave out ("suspended or revoked in the meantime") and insert ("previously revoked")
Page 50, line 7, leave out from ("to") to the end of the subsection, and insert ("one or more particular periods or occasions").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to add to the clause:—
" (3) Where a licence under this Part of this Act is suspended under the provisions of this Part of this Act, it shall during the time of suspension be of no effect."
The noble Earl said: I might explain that the object of this Amendment is to make it clear that when a public service vehicle or road service licence or any other licence under this Part has been suspended, it shall be of no effect during the time of suspension.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 8, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clause 67:
Duty to give notice of failure, damage and alteration.
67—(1) It shall be the duty of a driver of a public service vehicle on the happening to the vehicle of any failure or damage of a nature calculated to affect the safety of the passengers or of persons using the road, forthwith to report the matter to the Commissioners for the traffic area in which the failure or damage happened.
EARL RUSSELL: The first three Amendments in my name are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 50, line 28, leave out ("a driver") and insert ("the holder")
Page 50, line 29, after the first ("vehicle") insert ("licence")
Page 50, line 29, after the second ("vehicle") insert ("in respect of which the licence was granted").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out "failure or damage of a nature calculated to affect the safety of the passengers or of persons using the road" and to insert "accident of any such class or classes as

1573
may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister under this Part of this Act." The noble Viscount said: My noble friend Lord Newton has again prevailed upon me to move this Amendment in his stead. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has already introduced Amendments to Clause 67 to remove the duty from the driver to the holder of the licence in respect of the vehicle, so that the major objection to this clause is now met. At the same time, the duty is in respect of any happening to a vehicle Involving failure or damage of a nature calculated to affect the safety of the passengers or of persons using the road, and the words are of such a general character that it must be assumed that practically all accidents are to be reported to the Traffic Commissioners. Unless the accidents are to be more closely defined there will be a tendency for the number of accidents reported to be extended from time to time. There is no desire to withhold from the Traffic Commissioners particulars of any accident in respect of which they can take useful action, but it is thought that the definition in the clause should be narrowed. The Amendment suggests that it should be left to the Minister by regulation to prescribe the class or classes of accidents to be reported. It will be observed that failure to report involves the commission of an offence, and it would be unfair to attach a penalty to the non-observance of a regulation which is so vague and uncertain in form as subsection (1) of Clause 61.
Amendment moved.—
Page 50, leave out lines 30 and 31 and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: The Amendment of the noble Viscount would still leave it to the Minister to prescribe what class or classes of accidents should be reported, and I am not sure what he could say better than the words in the clause itself, which are that they are of a nature calculated to affect the safety of the passengers. He could not possibly go detail by detail over each part of the mechanism, and say the failure of this part or the other part is to be reported. I think these general words give the effect that is required very match better than any special words the Minister could devise. The man is a competent driver and knows perfectly
1574
well what sort of accident is serious, what accident is worth reporting and what is not. I do not think there will be any difficulty in finding the proper one to report. It is obvious no prosecution would ever follow unless there had been some definite wrongdoing on his part and some attempt to conceal the accident.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: From what the noble Earl has said does it not leave a, loop-hole for the driver not to report a serious accident?
EARL RUSSELL: There must be common sense about these matters. In a sense you cannot call it an accident if a tyre came off. No sane driver would think of reporting that to anybody, except to his master if he had to use a new one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL RUSSELL: The next Amendment in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 32, leave out ("forthwith") and insert ("as soon as may be").—(Ban Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 68:
Suspension of vehicle licences for defects.
68.—(1) If on the inspection of a public service vehicle it appears to a public, service vehicles examiner that the vehicle, owing to any defects therein, is or is likely to become unfit for service until the defects have been remedied, he may suspend the public service vehicle licence in respect of the vehicle:
EARL RUSSELL: This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 2, leave out ("vehicles") and insert ("vehicle").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "unfit for service" and insert "unsafe for use." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment because from the wording of the Bill it seems rather hard that a vehicle should be suspended for such general reasons. Surely, if it is only a question of a minor defect, it ought to be sufficient if some representation is made to the owner to give him a chance of putting it right. If a vehicle is suspended, I know it is very

1575
difficult to get the suspension removed, and in case of an appeal the company are all the time losing the money which the vehicle ought to be earning. I submit that if the words I propose are adopted it would be clear that the power of suspension would only be used where it is necessary to protect the public from the risk of injury. I hope the noble Lord will see his way to accept the Amendment because the Omnibus Owners' Association looks upon it as a most important Amendment. If he cannot accept it, will he consider it between now and Report stage?
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 4, leave out ("unfit for service") and insert ("unsafe for use").—(Lord Newton.)
EARL RUSSELL: The words suggested in the Amendment are not appropriate as compared with those in the Bill. If your Lordships can imagine a London General omnibus—of course it would not happen in London—or any other omnibus which was perfectly safe for use but had the tops of several windows broken, I should not call that vehicle fit for service at this time of the year. It is not by any means a question of being safe. These are passenger vehicles and they have to be up to a certain standard of decency and comfort to make them fit for use. The proviso says:—
"Provided that where in the opinion of such examiner the defects are such as can be remedied within forty-eight hours, and are not defects which involve danger to the public, the suspension shall not operate before the expiration of forty-eight hours, nor shall it operate after the expiration of that time if the licensee before the expiration of that time furnishes evidence to the satisfaction of the examiner that the defects have been or are in the course of being remedied."
Supposing the examiner sees an omnibus with two or three broken windows and says, "You cannot go on running your omnibus in this weather like that" and gives the owner notice of suspension, and the man says, "I will have them mended when the omnibus comes home to-night," then the suspension will not operate. The words "unsafe for use" are too limited in the circumstances of the case.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 69 to 74 agreed to.
Clause 75 [Appeals to the Minister]:
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved to insert the following new subsection:—
"( ) Where a person providing transport facilities has appealed to the Minister under this section against the grant or backing of a road service licence or any condition attached thereto, the licence or the backing of the licence shall not come into force until the appeal has been disposed of."
The noble Lord said: I do not want to stop the spate of apparently immaculate clauses, but there is a point here on the question of appeal. You do not want a kind of in-and-out owing to an appeal. The delay is in the decision which rests on the Minister and not in the appeal.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 37, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Askwith.)
EARL RUSSELL: I do not know if the noble Lord has fully considered the effect of this Amendment. It would really be unreasonable in practice. This-is a subsection which deals with an applicant for a new licence who on the date of his application is the holder of a licence and who appeals on the ground that his application has been refused. His licence can then continue in force until the appeal has been disposed of. If you do not provide that, it will be obvious that a man with an established service which has been running for the past year can be stopped by some appeal against the grant of a licence to him by a competitor and his service would thus be upset although in the end he got his licence. I do not think the noble Lord intends that. Even if it were limited to new services it would not be necessary because a person is not likely to start a new service until the appeal about his licence has been disposed of.
LORD ASKWITH: This is not a case of a person applying for a licence, but where a person providing transport facilities has appealed against the grant or backing of a road service licence.
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, I think that is just what I said.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL HOWE: Before we pass from this clause—I do not want to delay in any way the passage of the Bill—could the noble Earl tell us why it has been laid down that an appeal should be to the Minister? I cannot help feeling some

1577
doubt about the advisability of the Minister being the appeal court in this instance. After all, the Minister appoints one of the Commissioners in each case. There are a number of people who feel considerable doubt as to the appeal from the Commissioners being necessarily to the Minister, Could the noble Earl give us a word of explanation as to why the Minister and not some other authority should be the appeal court?
EARL RUSSELL: The best reason of all is that precisely similar appeals at this moment do go and have for a long time gone to the Minister—appeals from the grant or refusal of licences—and the principal object of continuing that practice is not that the Minister has any particular desire to be bothered by these appeals, but that by decisions in cases where questions of principle are involved the Minister may gradually establish some sort of uniformity of practice and co-ordination of traffic all over the country. That is the reason why these appeals to the Minister are continued. I dare say some equally good tribunal could be devised, but it would merely mean additional expenditure. The staff and the knowledge are at the Ministry of Transport and it is better that appeals should go to the officials concerned.
EARL HOWE: I merely raised the point because in one or two cases in London of appeals from the London Traffic Advisory Committee which have had to go to the. Minister the appellant has not been at all satisfied with the decision given. However, I quite understand the position and I thank the noble Earl for his explanation.
EARL RUSSELL: It sometimes happens that people are not satisfied with the judgment of the tribunal. I have had in my short experience to decide one or two of these appeals myself, and I can only tell the noble Earl that I did my best and so, I am sure, does the Minister.
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clauses 76 and 77 agreed to.
Clause 73 [Salaries and expenses]:
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "including charges in respect of separation allowances and gratuities payable on death or retirement." The noble Earl said: These words in the Bill apparently had a
1578
rather paralysing effect on The Times newspaper which treated them seriously and seemed to think there was some intention to mix this up with some other form of eleemosynary grant. It was, of course, a misprint and this drafting Amendment is intended to put it right.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 36, leave out from ("expenses") to ("of") in line 38.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 79 agreed to. Clause 80:
Stands and stopping places.
80.—(1) A local authority may make orders for determining the routes to be followed by public service vehicles in the area or in any part of the area of the authority and for fixing stands and stopping places for public service vehicles and as to the manner of using such stands and stopping places.
(8) Nothing in this section shall empower any local authority to make any order under this section with respect to a stand in any railway station or in any yard adjoining or connected therewith without the consent of the railway company.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "routes to be followed" and to insert "routes which may be used." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that the orders made by local authorities are not intended to fix routes for particular services but only to preclude the use of roads which they consider unsuitable. The orders do not have effect until the Minister of Transport confirms them. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, has an Amendment on the Paper to alter "may" to "shall not." If that course is adopted it would mean that some local authorities might have to schedule a large number of residential streets and by-roads in their orders. I think it is much better that the Amendment should be in the affirmative form which I have suggested rather than in the negative form suggested by the noble Lord.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line, 7, leave out ("routes to be followed") and insert ("roads which may be used").—(Earl Russell.)
LORD NEWTON: I do not move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: My next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 14, after ("stand") insert ("the site of which is owned by a railway company").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLWYD LORD CLWYD, moved at the end of subsection (8), to insert "or on any part of the estate of a harbour or dock authority constituted by Act of Parliament without the consent of that authority. "The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee, who is unable to be here and has asked me to move the remaining Amendments that stand in his name. This clause enables local authorities to make orders with reference to stands. Subsection (8) exempts railway stations and yards from the operation of the clause. The object of this Amendment is to extend the exemption, I think rightly, to the estates of dock and harbour authorities.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 16, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Clwyd.)
EARL RUSSELL: The subsection as it stands is only a re-enactment of part of the Town Police Clauses Act, and it is more appropriate to the premises of railway companies, where common stands for public vehicles are usual, than to dock or harbour authorities. If the noble Lord attaches importance to this Amendment I will certainly consider it before Report and see whether it will be possible to accept it either in this or some other form.
LORD CLWYD: We do attach some importance to it, and I shall be glad if the noble Earl will consider it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE: I do not want to delay the passage of this clause, but it deals with a most important point—namely, the fixing of stopping places. It must have been the experience of many of your Lordships all over the country that many of the stopping places for public service vehicles are extremely inconvenient to other traffic. For instance, you will often find omnibuses and trams stopping almost abreast of one another, or right on a corner. I should like to ask the noble Earl if he can say what
1580
sort of policy he will pursue in this, matter? Will he be able to see to it that stopping places are so arranged that omnibuses and trams do not stop abreast or, let us say, within 40 or 50 feet of a corner? I gather from the drafting that the Minister has full powers, and I should like a word from, the noble Earl on that point.
EARL RUSSELL: In London, of course, this question of stopping places is the affair of the Commissioner of Police, as the noble Earl knows. London does not come within the provisions regarding Area Commissioners at the moment. In other parts of the country it is primarily the business of the local authority, who-are responsible for the general good working and management of the town. It is true that the Minister has to approve what they arrange and, no doubt, if complaints are made to him he will withhold his consent to an order or suggest any change that should be made-with regard to stopping places. I think the noble Earl will probably agree that, in the first instance, the local authority charged with the management of the district is the proper authority to settle these stopping places.
EARL HOWE: Do I understand that, if representations are made to the-Minister, he will take them into consideration in the event of any disagreement?
EARL RUSSELL: Of course.
Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 81 and 82 agreed to.
Clause 83:
Protection of public interests.
(2) In the event of any undertaking by which a service of public service vehicle is-provided being purchased compulsorily by any local or public authority, that part or the value of the undertaking attributable directly or indirectly to this Act shall not be taken into account.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "directly or indirectly to" and to insert "to any licence granted under this Part of." The noble Viscount said: Clause 83 is intended, perhaps quite rightly, to prevent vested interests growing up in respect of the grant of road sevice licences under Clause 62. Subsection (2) of Clause 83 provides that, where the local

1581
or public authority purchases compulsorily any public service vehicle undertaking, no part of the value of the undertaking attributable directly or indirectly to this Act shall be taken into account. Surely those words are too wide. What would be an indirectly attributable value? I think this would almost certainly involve grave injustice. The proper test is that proposed by my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 22, leave out ("directly or indirectly to") and insert ("to any licence granted under this Part of").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: I am not able to tell the noble Viscount at once what is exactly the meaning of the words "directly or indirectly, "but I can tell him this, that the subsection follows substantially the wording of Section 13 subsection (2) of the London Traffic Act, 1924, and they seem to be the appropriate words. The words which the noble Viscount proposes look as if they might at first blush mean the same thing, but I hesitate to accept them now. If he can suggest any way in which the words in the Bill do any harm I will consider the matter, but these words have the force of having already been in an Act of Parliament for some time.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I do not think that that is any answer, because there are many bad Acts of Parliament. Perhaps the noble Earl will allow these words that I propose to be inserted now, and they could be taken out on Report if that action were found to be desirable. Otherwise I must press my Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL: I do not think I could accept them now, because I think I should find that the words already in the clause are to be found over and over again in similar sections. I think it is better they should be retained, and that we should not accept new words which might cover the same ground.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: If the noble Earl is going to look into the matter I am quite satisfied with that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 83 agreed to.
Clauses 84 to 91 agreed to.
Clause 92:
Power to run public service vehicles.
92.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a local authority having power under any local Act or order to carry on either a tramway undertaking, a trolley vehicle undertaking or an omnibus undertaking may, as part of that undertaking, run public service vehicles—

(a) on any road within their district; and

(b) with the consent of the Traffic Commissioners for the area in which any other road is situate, on that road;

and may purchase and maintain such: vehicles as may be necessary for the purpose.
(2) The Traffic Commissioners for any area shall, in considering whether to grant or withhold their consent to the running by a local authority of public service vehicles on any road outside the authority's district, have regard to the extent to which the requirements of the authority's district will be served thereby, either directly or indirectly, and shall not unreasonably withhold their consent, but they may attach to their consent any reasonable conditions, and any question whether or not their consent has been unreasonably withheld, or whether or not any condition attached to their consent is a reasonable condition, shall be determined by the Minister.
LORD CLWYD LORD CLWYD moved to insert as a new subsection:—
"(3) Nothing in this section shall empower a local authority to run public service vehicles on any road forming part of the estate of a harbour or dock authority constituted by Act of Parliament except with the consent of that authority."
The noble Lord said: The object of the Amendment is to exempt from the operation of the Act roads forming part of the estate of a harbour or dock authority. This exemption is provided for in many other Local Acts, and it is thought important that the exemption should apply to the estate of dock and harbour authorities, as in other Acts.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 9, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Clwyd.)
EARL RUSSELL: I notice that this subsection is limited only to a local authority, and does not deal with public service vehicles in general. I am not quite clear what exactly is the position of the road on which these vehicles run. It is not, I gather, a public road, repairable by the public, and a highway in the ordinary sense. It is a road belonging to a dock company. Is there such a road so open to general public use that omnibuses could be run upon it? If it is

1583
private property, have not the owners power to close such a road against vehicles as it is? I would accept it at this stage subject to reconsidering it. I think it is really covered.
LORD CLWYD: I am very much obliged for what the noble Earl has said in regard to accepting the Amendment upon those conditions. There has been a doubt and a difficulty in regard to roadways which are used by, and belong to, dock and harbour authorities. In the past when Bills of this kind conferring rights on local authorities to run tramways have been considered it has been thought desirable to make it clear that these roads belonging to dock and harbour estates should be exempted from any possible invasion of those rights.
LORD ASKWITH: I think this is a most reasonable Amendment—at any rate, the principle of it. These dock and harbour authorities particularly require these roads to be kept under some sort of control, and if you allow outside authorities to interfere with the traffic it might be very awkward indeed.
EARL RUSSELL: All I suggest is that they already have the right of the owner of the land to control it. But I have already accepted the Amendment. Unless some objection is found to it later, I do not see why it should not be inserted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD VISCOUNT BRENTFORD moved to leave out Clause 92. The noble Viscount said: We have now arrived at a very important Part of the Bill. I do not know whether the noble Earl would like to take it to-night, or whether he is prepared to adjourn. I am moving this Amendment on behalf of Lord Banbury. It will raise the whole question of the extension of municipal trading.
EARL RUSSELL: I think we might at any rate begin the discussion to-night.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Your Lordships know that municipal trading is only permitted to-day in accordance with various Acts of Parliament, which have been obtained from time to time by different municipalities. Tramway undertakings, omnibus undertakings, trolley vehicle undertakings and all forms of traction are now allowed in certain localities
1584
by the authority of Private Acts of Parliament, and Parliament has not allowed these municipalities to enter into a great extension of municipal trading without the whole matter being considered and discussed by Committees of Parliament. This is a Bill for the regulation of the traffic which is upon the roads to-day. We have discussed, amicably I hope and with benefit to the Bill, a very large number of proposals during the last few days, and we have now passed nearly the whole of the Bill with considerable Amendments.
By this particular Part of the Bill, Part V, any local authority which has power to carry on a tramway, trolley or omnibus undertaking may now as part of that undertaking, if this Bill is passed in its present form, run public service vehicles on any road within their district, and, "with the consent of the Traffic Commissioners for the area in which any other road is situate, on that road." The town council of Derby or Leicester, let us say, which has authority to run municipal tramways, may now open tram way, trolley and omnibus routes throughout any part of their borough, and may then, without any consultation of Parliament go to the Traffic Commissioners and get from them permission to run services of motor coaches, tramways and omnibuses to the East Coast, London, Manchester, and, in fact, all parts of the country. I do not know whether the noble Earl will say that is not intended, that it is only intended to run short extensions beyond the borough boundaries, but that is really an answer which I am afraid we could not accept, because we know that the appetite grows with what it feeds on, and if we give compulsory powers of this kind to these various municipalities there is no doubt whatever about what will happen. If I were a Socialist member of the council of one of these municipalities I should say at once to my colleagues: "Parliament has given us power to run a series of chars-a-bancs to Yarmouth for the benefit of our people. Let us do this. Never mind whether other undertakings are or may be in existence, we prefer a municipal series of omnibuses and motor coaches and we prefer them under our own control. That is in accordance with our principles and there is no reason, now that Parliament has given us permission, why we should not do it."

1585
If your Lordships go further on you will find in Clause 93 a wholesale power to purchase land and erect buildings. Clause 94 gives power to enter into working and other agreements with other bodies, to run public service vehicles and to use and maintain depots, buildings, property and so on. I need not read the whole of it to your Lordships. Clause 95 gives power to borrow the moneys necessary for the purposes of these great undertakings, which I do not say that the Minister would, stand up and state that he proposes or even hopes will be carried out, but which power is to be given to these authorities to carry out. I suggest to your Lordships that that is not a matter dealing with the regulation of traffic on the roads of this country. This is a Bill for the regulation of road traffic. If the Government of the day think it right to go in for the large extension of municipal trading which this would involve—the buying of land, putting up of buildings, entering into agreements with other parties and so forth—let them bring in a Bill boldly and bluntly saying that in future any municipality may in fact do it, subject to the decision of these Commissioners altogether outside the control of Parliament. Then we shall be prepared to meet them.
Those who agree with municipal trading will vote for that Bill. Those who disagree in toto with all forms of municipal trading will disagree with it. We have not to decide that point to-night. What we have to decide is whether it is right and proper to include in this Road Traffic Bill these clauses which have nothing to do with the other Parts of the Bill, which have nothing to do with the regulation of traffic on the roads, with the new code of laws which the noble Earl is going to set out for our benefit, with the alteration of the licensing powers, or with compulsory insurance; which, in fact, have nothing to do with the Bill at all except that they are "lugged" in, if I may respectfully say so, as an afterthought in order to placate certain municipalities and local authorities who want to get this power unfettered by the duty, which is not a very onerous one, of coming to your Lordships' House and getting that power in the ordinary way as they have done
1586
for many years through the agency of appearing before a Private Bill Committee.
I do not pretend to say in what way your Lordships will view this, but I thought that as my noble friend Lord Banbury was not here to move his Amendment and as I have very strong views on the subject of municipal trading, at least you would forgive me if I moved Lord Banbury's Amendment to strike out Clause 92. If your Lordships agree that it is undesirable in the Bill it will be followed by Amendments striking out the remaining clauses to clear away Part V of the Bill. With great respect to the noble Earl, I suggest that he would be well advised to lighten the Bill. We have not fought the Bill in any Party spirit. We agreed and admitted from the first that it was not a Party Bill; that it was a Bill upon which all Parties in the country and in this and the other House could unite to make a really good code for the regulation of traffic of all kinds on the road and, in particular, to do what we could to stop the holocaust of lives which are lost and of men and women who are and have been injured through motor traffic. This Part has nothing whatever to do with that. There will not be a single person saved or a single injury less if this Part of the Bill is incorporated and passed into law. It has really nothing to do with the real, main purpose of the Bill and I beg to move the Amendment. I leave it to your Lordships, but I hope you will say that there is a distinction between this and the other Parts of the Bill and will ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill not to press it.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 92.—(Viscount Brentford.)
LORD DYNEVOR: I only wish to say how strongly I support my noble friend Lord Brentford, and unless the Government accept the Amendment to delete this clause I hope he will go to a Division.
EARL RUSSELL: I think we might bring this back into proportion again. What the noble Viscount says is perfectly true—a municipality is empowered by this Part of the Bill, so far as that goes, to run any distance. So far as the mere giving of the power goes they are empowered to run any distance. But I

1587
would remind your Lordships of several things which, I think, will make it fairly clear how that power is to be exercised. First of all I would remind your Lordships that this power is not given to all municipalities. It is given to the municipalities which already have statutory transport powers. I pointed out to your Lordships on Second Heading that omnibus powers have been obtained by a very large number of municipalities by Private Bills promoted in Parliament in the ordinary way, and that these powers have been given under every sort of different condition, some two miles beyond the borough boundaries, some five miles, some ten miles, some few unlimited, and that these conditions have proved, not unnaturally, very embarrassing, and very tiresome often, in the case of local authorities who wanted to co-ordinate their services.
I remember a definite instance of one which came to Parliament for new powers in consequence. It was a case in which two big boroughs were within eight miles of each other. One of them had power to run five miles beyond its boundary, and the other had power to run five miles beyond its boundary, but neither of them had power to run as far as the boundary of the other borough, and, therefore, it was impossible for them to establish a joint municipal service between those two boroughs. That field was left for the private competitor, because the councils could not serve it except, by a change in the middle. That does not seem to be a reasonable state of things. If you are to allow municipalities to exercise these powers at all, there is no reason why they should be hamstrung in the method in which they exercise them.
As regards the diversity of the decisions which have taken place I should like to remind your Lordships, if I may, of the quotation I gave your Lordships from Mr. Macmillan's speech. I shall not read it again, but I should like to remind your Lordships of one or two of his expressions. He says, and this is true of other things, that when Parliament sees that the Statute Book is becoming encumbered with a great mass of divergent legislation, causing inquiries both local and central, when, after what you may call the tentative period of legislation, all sort's of different persons are promoting what they think right, he
1588
suggests the time has come for Parliament to take the situation in hand and regularise it.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: May I ask the noble Earl to say whether that was a speech by counsel promoting a Bill for more power?
EARL RUSSELL: No, it was a speech made on behalf of a railway company against an omnibus power.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: It was by a counsel at all events.
EARL RUSSELL: Certainly it was by counsel, and what he said is true. We have seen it in other cases where, after conflicting Private Bill decisions, there has been evolved a model clause or model clauses or something of that sort. We are trying to do that. Here you have all these varying powers, some going one length, some going another, and, as I pointed out, nearly all the model powers subject to the consent of the Minister of Transport as to routes outside the borough. Parliament has, I think, wisely come to the conclusion that instead of defining a particular route in the Bill as a route that a municipality may take for the services, the safest and wisest thing is to allow them to make their case before the Minister of Transport, and let him give the authority. We will delegate to him the supervising of the details. It is not much more than that that is happening here.
The Minister of Transport, through these Area Commissioners, will be exercising the powers of deciding what it is wise and right for these municipalities to do and I should like to call your Lordships' attention to subsection (2) of Clause 02 which says that:—
"The Traffic Commissioners for any area shall, in considering whether to grant or withhold their consent to the running by a local authority of public service vehicles on any road outside the authority's district, have regard to the extent to which the requirements of the authority's district will be served thereby, either directly or indirectly, and shall not unreasonably withhold their consent, but they may attach to their consent any reasonable conditions."
That shows that they are to have regard to whether the authority's district will be served thereby. It may perfectly well be that there may be a big recreation ground or football ground or there may even be, on the borders of some great city, a sleeping

1589
ground for workers of that city five, six or seven miles from the city. It would not be at all unreasonable that the municipality should provide services to that place, assuming and remembering always that they have already got from Parliament the right to supply these services at all.
What does the noble Viscount say ought to take place? He says: "No, if you do this, you will be giving the local authorities powers far beyond what they ought to possess. Parliament will have no control over what the Commissioners do. How do you know they will not have a right to run omnibuses up to London, to race meetings, to the seaside, anywhere?" First, you must remember that the ratepayers will have to pay for these services. The ratepayers will elect the councillors and they will elect only those who carry out their wishes and, if the councillors do something they disapprove of, the ratepayers will soon turn the councillors out. That is the very first check on expenditure. Then you have to go to the Minister to get power to borrow money for your omnibuses. Really, when the noble Viscount talks about these powers to acquire land and so on, he knows very well that it only means to acquire land for your garages. There is nothing terrible about that. Ultimately you have to go to the Area Commissioner and it is obvious that one of his stock questions must be: "In what way does this serve the interests of your borough? Show me how it is connected, directly or indirectly, with the interests of your borough? What benefit is it going to be to the inhabitants who pay the rates and provide these services? "He will want evidence of that. Finally, you have the possibility, if anyone thinks the Area Commissioner has been too easy, of appealing to the Minister to settle the question. With all these precautions you are not running such a terrible risk as the noble Viscount makes out.
What is the alternative? He says the alternative is that in every case where a borough now has power to run five miles outside its boundaries and for the convenience of its inhabitants it is found desirable it should run ten miles outside, it must come to Parliament to get powers. He talks as if it were perfectly easy and simple. Everybody knows that it costs a very great deal to get a Private
1590
Bill through. The cost has to be added to the fares of the municipal services; they have to pay for it. I ought to add this, and the records will bear me out, that the powers have not been refused by Parliament of recent years. They have been freely granted on reasonable terms to boroughs who have asked for them during recent years.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: If I may say so, very rarely unlimited—only in one or two cases.
EARL RUSSELL: I agree, and neither am I suggesting that in practice there is the remotest chance that they will be unlimited. The noble Viscount shakes his head. Does he seriously suggest that Liverpool (shall I say?) will start running a fleet of omnibuses to London? If he seriously suggests that, does he suggest that that will be done in opposition to the wishes of the inhabitants of Liverpool? If it is done in consonance with the wishes of the inhabitants of Liverpool, why should they not be allowed to do it? He knows perfectly well that that sort of thing is not likely to happen. Why should these people be compelled to come to Parliament for a little thing like that, spend thousands of pounds and suffer a year's delay? And let mo add another consideration. This may be one of the reasons why the noble Viscount and his friends oppose it. Every private competitor who is not a statutory undertaker, who has to get nobody's leave to borrow money, who has to get nobody's leave to set up a service except that of the Area Commissioner, would be entitled to get an order from the Area Commissioner and establish a service in some suburb, as I suggested, of a large town, and get the goodwill of the service for a year, or more likely two years, before the borough is able to get statutory powers to do it.
I am bound to say I think this Part of the Bill is eminently reasonable. It does provide a sort of standard for these various powers and it does give you an opportunity of those powers being exercised under most reasonable conditions, with the possibility always, in the end, of an appeal to the Minister and of course, finally, of the Minister's decision being questioned in Parliament. I do hope your Lordships will not be so extremely—what shall I say?—unwise as to reject,

1591
these very simple powers. The noble Viscount says: "Let a separate Bill he brought in for that purpose." A separate Bill for that purpose has, I believe, been introduced in another place. I do not gather that when it comes here it will get any different reception from the noble Viscount because it is a separate Bill.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I did not say it would.
EARL RUSSELL: I must ask your Lordships to agree to this Part of the Bill and personally I shall regret it very much if your Lordships throw it out.
LORD NEWTON: This Amendment has been described—no doubt correctly—as a very important one. I am inclined to think that description is perfectly true, and therefore I venture to suggest that it does not seem, with the House composed as it is at present, very desirable to take a Division on a question of such importance. I would suggest to my noble friend the Leader of the House that the debate should be adjourned and resumed at the earliest possible opportunity when it is to be hoped there will be a more representative attendance.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know whether my noble friend's appeal was made to me. It seemed to be addressed to me, but I am not the Leader of the House. I have always thought that your Lordships' convenience in these matters ought to be suited, when it is a question of whether we should sit late after dinner, but I thought there was a great deal in what the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, said earlier in the evening, that we ought not to show reluctance to get on with the business which the Government have laid before us, and especially in the case of this Bill which has been so admirably conducted by the noble Earl. I really do not see any reason why we should adjourn at a quarter past ten. I should have thought the matter was ripe for decision. After all, this is a question of principle. It is not as if we, were engaged in questioning the noble Earl's very wonderful efforts to save the lives of people on the roads. There is no question about that. That is a totally different matter. If I may say so, it really does not belong to the main current of the Bill at all. I should have thought the matter was one for your Lordships to decide.
EARL RUSSELL: If I may say a word on that, I think that is really a matter for your Lordships to consider. If we adjourn now until to-morrow I understand, from the business that is set down for to-morrow, that we should be hardly likely to resume the discussion on this Bill until nearly dinner time.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Certainly not before then.
EARL RUSSELL: That would mean that we should be sitting after dinner. The alternative to sitting after dinner to-morrow to finish the Bill would be to discuss it on Friday morning. I very much doubt whether that would be convenient to your Lordships. I am quite in the hands of the House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Let us go on.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I venture very respectfully to make an appeal to my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill not to press these clauses, though not because I have any particular feeling about municipal socialism, for I feel strongly that it is rather too late to raise that question. These powers have been granted to a number of municipalities. The question of principle does not really arise in these clauses, and I doubt whether I should be disposed to come to any decision on that point against them. What is the case that is really made for them? They are in the nature of a Clauses Bill, very similar to the Railway Clauses Bills and other measures dealing with waterworks, gas and so on. Here are matters which have been handed over to a number of municipalities on various conditions, and the time has now come to codify those conditions and to have a system in regard to these clauses. I think that is a powerful case for a Bill.
But I am terribly frightened at the extent and complexity of this Bill. I am very anxious indeed that it should become law. As the noble Earl knows, I do not think it goes quite so far as I should have liked it to go, but I do believe that it will do a great deal to improve the safety of the roads. Throughout this discussion I have been thinking that, if your Lordships have spent several days in Committee on this Bill, it is very likely that in another place a very long time indeed will be spent on it. I had

1593
the honour of sitting in the other House for a considerable number of years. I took rather an active part in discussions there, and sometimes I was accused of obstruction. It was always untrue, but I have known the accusation to be made. I think I know a little about the methods of obstructionists and what really operates in their minds. Suppose there be in the other House a body of gentlemen, as there are, who take very much the views that my noble friend Lord Brentford takes—not views that I could always share.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: We used to share the same views.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I know. I have learned. I respect those views very much. They are perfectly reasonable and honourable views and there are a number of people who hold them. These people, seeing a Bill with this bundle of clauses in it at the end, will take a certain course. They will say: "This will not be a very easy issue to fight in itself and we would rather avoid doing that, but we want to prevent this happening and we will take care that the discussion is so prolonged on the earlier clauses of the Bill that this matter will not be raised in the House at all and the provisions will not be passed." That may sound a very cynical and uncharitable view to take of these things, but it is not really so, as any one who has sat in the other House will agree. That is the kind of way in which things are worked, though it may be a very bad system of legislation. What I feel is that here is a Bill which presents immense opportunities for prolonged discussion. It has 109 clauses, it has immensely elaborate provisions and, if anybody wished to obstruct it, he could do so. Personally I should like Part IV to be left out for the same reason. I think it is a good Part, but I think it is too elaborate considering the immense urgency of getting legislation for the safety of the roads. Therefore I very earnestly beg the Government not to insist upon Part V. If they do, they will imperil the Bill. After the warning given from the Front Opposition Bench of the feelings which many of that Party hold with regard to this question, they will imperil the Bill; and quite apart from the merits, which may be as great as they say, I feel that they will be very
1594
wisely guided if they say that, being anxious to get the other Parts of the Bill, they will not insist upon Part V.
LORD SANDHURST: I only intervene because I do not quite follow what the noble Earl said about the right of appeal to the Minister. I observe that there is an appeal to the Minister, but it appears to be a unilateral appeal. The Commissioners are to have regard to the extent to which the requirements of the authority's district will be served, and shall not unreasonably withhold—not give—their consent, but they may attach to their consent any reasonable conditions and any question whether or not their consent has been unreasonably withheld—not given—or whether or not any condition attached to their consent is a reasonable condition, shall be determined by the Minister. So that the municipality seeking powers, if it has an adverse decision, may go to the Minister, but in the contrary event (and I find no directions as to when the Commissioners are to hear) it looks as if the opposition would have no appeal to the Minister.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: When I listened to the, as usual, moderate and very eloquent speech of Earl Russell, I confess that I was almost convinced until he got to the very last few sentences of his speech, when I think he showed us the mailed fist beneath the velvet glove. He showed us that it was in order that private enterprise might be crushed out of existence. He told us that it was possible for two municipalities to be able to run their omnibuses or trams within ten miles of etch other. He then said that private enterprise might be running an efficient service between the two-points, and that the whole object was that muncipalities might be able to run in competition with the private enterprise which was already carrying out its work very efficiently, and by the aid of a subsidy from the rates crush the private enterprise out of existence. What Lord Sandhurst has said strengthens that view. There is an appeal, but no power is given to any omnibus company, or even railway company, to appeal to the Minister if they feel aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioners. I hope your Lordships will resist the whole of this Part of the Bill.
I am not an out and out opponent of municipal enterprise. On occasions I

1595
feel it is necessary, but I am convinced that this is not the Bill where these things should be encouraged. The whole way through the Committee stage of the Bill the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has refused to accept any Amendment which had nothing to do with motor cars. Lord Howe proposes to move that the Bill shall be called the Motor Act, but if this Part of the Bill is carried I think we should propose to alter it to the Motor Traffic and Municipal Trading Advancement Bill. I hope that your Lordships will not accept this Part of the Bill, and if it goes to a Division I shall certainly support the Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Does the noble Earl really suggest that thousands of pounds are to be expended by municipalities because they want to advance their tramways a few miles?
LORD ASKWITH: I cannot agree with the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, that this is an attempt by one municipality, with the help of another municipality, to squeeze out an intervening district, and to make a huge network of municipalised undertakings over the country. That could not be done by this Bill. Neither do I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, in saying that this Part of the Bill could possibly mean the municipalising of the whole vehicular traffic of this country. I am much more inclined to agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, when he says that this is a portion of a great subject which might well be dealt with in another Bill and stand by itself without the additions that have been interpreted into it. I cannot see in reading it that it really allows such powers as are suggested to municipalities and local authorities which have gone to Parliament in the ordinary way and obtained certain powers, or those which might go in the ordinary way and are able to obtain ordinary powers, for running their own vehicles, for purchasing lands and buildings, for entering into working agreements with minor authorities, and for borrowing money for that purpose. Really to say that this is the municipalisation of the undertakings, and that it is intended to squeeze out, on the extreme socialistic doctrine, an intervening authority so that two municipalities, say Liverpool and Manchester, can unite together to say that there shall be
1596
nothing intervening between them, appears to be perfectly absurd. But I do think that this portion of the Bill could be much better and more simply dealt with separately, and without rousing the sort of feeling which would be aroused, both here and in another place, by its inclusion in this Bill.
EARL HOWE: As an unrepentant Tory I am entirely opposed to municipal trading, root and branch, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, I am not too much impressed with the theory that Part V will lead to an enormous extension of municipal trading. I am perfectly certain that the difficulties the municipalities would encounter with the Commissioners and so on would probably prevent that. But there is certainly a danger in it. I do not know whether Sheffield has power to run motor omnibuses in the way described, but, if it has, I am sure it would not be long before we had an attempt by Sheffield to run motor omnibuses to Blackpool, or anywhere. And as for the noble Earl telling us that the ratepayers would be protected because they are public bodies, I do not think those who know anything about Sheffield would attach very much importance to that.
What I am chiefly concerned with is the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. To anybody who dislikes any portion of this Bill this is a godsend from the point of view of opposition. By skilfully using all the arts of an opposition in another place I am perfectly certain it would be very easy indeed to prevent this Bill passing. Here is a Part of the Bill which does not in any way affect the great question. The real reason for this Bill is the prevention of the appalling number of casualties on the roads. It is the urge which has been created by that which has really produced this Bill now; otherwise, I am certain it would not have seen the light of day so soon as it has. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill has, I think, agreed to that already on one or two occasions. It has not been faced with any sort of opposition from the people who, like myself, have placed a number of Amendments on the Paper. I could have spoken at great length on many of those Amendments on the question whether the clause should stand part or not. One could speak for hours on such points. We

1597
have not done that. We have done everything we could to help the passage of the Bill. I ask the noble Earl to consider whether he cannot respond to the appeal made with such force by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, to delete this portion of the Bill which really does not in any way affect the rest of it. It would be a thoroughly good Bill without it and it would go through and would be perfectly certain to reach the Statute Book. With this Part in it I think there is an element of doubt whether it will ever reach the Statute Book. We have to think of the appalling list of accidents and casualties on the roads to-day. We want to do something to stop that state of things. I ask the noble Earl, therefore, to see whether he cannot respond to the appeal that has been made to him.
LORD AMULREE: I submit that many of the speakers take an exaggerated view of the scope of this Bill. First of all, the Bill provides that municipal undertakers which already have powers to run tramways or trolley vehicles or omnibuses may run public services on any of the roads in their districts. There is no objection to that, surely. Secondly, with the consent of the Traffic Commissioners for the area in which any other road is situated, to run them on that road. Those are the two conditions that attach to the powers sought to be extended by this Part of the Bill. The other clauses in this Part are supplementary. It cannot be said in reference to these limited provisions, first of all of running public service vehicles on any road within their own area, that there is an extension of municipal trading in the sense in which it was mentioned this evening, or secondly, in the fact that they may extend their powers outside their area with the consent of the Traffic Commissioners.
So far as I can see it is mainly putting a municipality in the same position as any public service company which may be established pursuant to this Bill. That service company would apply to the Traffic Commissioners for permission to run particular road services. In these circumstances I submit that the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Brentford about the extension of municipal trading are somewhat exaggerated and that all that is sought by this Part of the Bill is to confer powers
1598
analogous to what may be conferred upon public service companies, subject in all these cases to the consent of the Traffic Commissioners.
LORD CLWYD: Like the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, I have had considerable experience of the other House, and understand, what may happen in the circumstances in which this Bill may reach that House. But we have nothing directly to do with that. We have to decide the question upon its merits in this House. I regret—and I say it openly—that this particular Part of the Bill has been included in it. The Bill is an effort to secure greater safety for road traffic and it is impossible to find a logical connection between the extension of the powers contained in this Part of the Bill and the main object of the Bill. I regret therefore that there has been this attempt to legislate on this particular matter, which has nothing whatever to do with the main object of this measure. On the other hand I see the powers given are certainly limited. I hope the noble Earl, when he replies to the speeches that have been made, will give a definite explanation of the point raised by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst in regard to the one-sided appeal. I think it is very important it should be made clear that not only those in favour but also those opposed should have a similar light of appeal. I have not gone closely into it, but it seems to me they have not that right. Although I personally am sorry the Government have incorporated this new Part in the Bill, speaking for myself I am prepared to support the Government with the assurance, which I hope we shall be able to receive from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, that the point raised by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst and other points in regard to the limitation will be made clear, at all events before the measure reaches its final stage in the other House.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, seemed to think the appeal was one-sided, but if he will look at the top of page 55 he will see that any person, being a person providing transport facilities, who has opposed the grant of a road service licence, if he is aggrieved by the grant, may appeal to the Minister, so that people who are

1599
against the grant of these licences can appeal to the Minister in just the same way as those in favour.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: That has nothing to do with this.
EARL RUSSELL: Certainly it has. A person who has opposed the grant of a road service licence may appeal to the Minister. Not one of these municipal services can be run without the grant of a road service licence and any person who has opposed that can appeal to the Minister. Clause 75 deals with appeals in regard to road service licences and there is no question about the right of appeal to the person who has opposed the grant of a licence.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I differ from the noble Earl's interpretation. Under Clause 92, if these Commissioners give their permission, a local authority may purchase and maintain vehicles, and whether, when they come afterwards to get a licence for a particular vehicle, someone has to appeal is not the question. There is power given under Clause 92 to buy vehicles and erect garages for them.
EARL RUSSELL: What on earth is the good of purchasing vehicles until they have got road service licences? They cannot run them until they get the road service licences. Then there is an appeal either against the grant or refusal of road service licences.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: If the noble Earl will look at subsection (7) of Clause 62 he will see that it says:—
"A road service licence in respect of any route shall be required notwithstanding that the provision of a service of stage carriages or express carriages is authorised by a special Act or an order having the force of an Act of Parliament, but a licence shall not be refused if the route is specifically authorised by or under Part V of this Act or by or under any special Act or order."
EARL RUSSELL: Is there anything in Part V of this Bill which specially authorises a route?
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Yes, that is the whole purpose of it.
EARL RUSSELL: I see nothing about specially authorising a route. Some routes are specially authorised by name in Private Acts. What he refers to is the saving of those routes. It is clear in
1600
any case that a road service licence is subject to appeal. I was rather interested to hear some of the violent observations about that old bugbear, municipal trading, which is another word for objecting to the community doing what it thinks will be useful for itself. I wonder if noble Lords who spoke so violently, particularly the noble Lord on the Back Benches, would be interested to hear what took place at the Association of Municipal Corporations, which held an annual meeting on November 27, over which Mr. Neville Chamberlain presided, and which passed this resolution:—
"That this Association approves the principle of the Bill to enable local authorities to provide and run omnibuses within and without their districts."
They seem to have been presided over by a good friend of noble Lords opposite, but he does not seem to have expressed any dissent to the Resolution.
If this Part of the Bill is now for the first time to be regarded as in any sense a political question, your Lordships know that the Royal Commission is still sitting and the Minister thought it proper to ask the Chairman to bring this matter before the Royal Commission and take their views on it. Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen has written a letter under the date November 27, as follows:—
"The Royal Commission has had under consideration the question which you brought before me—namely, the proposal to include in the Road Traffic Bill a clause which would enable any local authority already possessing transport powers of any kind to operate omnibus services either inside or outside its area, thus obviating the necessity of the authority going to Parliament for an extension of its existing powers. This is part of a larger question with which the Commission had already decided to deal, after further consideration, in the final Report, but my colleagues see no reason why this broad proposal should not be included in the Bill. The result would be to place those local authorities which at present possess limited powers to provide transport services in a position of equality with other operators when applying for a licence to the Traffic Commissioners and it should further enable such authorities to substitute omnibuses for tramways if they considered it to be in the public interest so to do."
That was the considered opinion of the Royal Commission. Your Lordships will see it is not a Party issue but a matter of ordinary common sense. I am afraid I cannot accept the suggestion to withdraw

1601
this Part of the Bill. It is killed by the knife of the noble Viscount opposite and it is killed by the kindness of the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches. It is with us a matter of principle and a matter of good administration. I also
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clauses 93 to 98 negatived.
Clause 99:
Provisions as to regulations.
99.—(1) Any regulations made under this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation shall be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of new regulations.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD VISCOUNT BRENTFORD moved to leave out subsection (1) and to insert:
"(1) Before any regulations are made under this Act they shall be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament and such regulations shall not he made unless both Houses by Resolution approve the draft either without modification or addition or with modifications or additions to which both Houses agree but upon such approval being given the Minister or the Commissioners by whom the regulations are proposed to be made may make the regulations in the form in which they have been so approved and the regulations on being so made shall be of full force and effect."
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move this Amendment which is on the Paper in
1602
take this view and if he presses his Amendment we must go to a Division.
On Question, Whether Clause 92, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 11; Not-Contents, 24.

CONTENTS.

Beauchamp, E.

Amulree, L.

Riddell, L.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Arnold, L. [Teller.]

Stanley of Alderley, L.(L. Sheffield.)

Russell, E.

Clwyd, L.

Allendale, V.

Marks, L.

Thomson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Salisbury, M.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Dynevor, L. [Teller.]

Faringdon, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Glanely, L.

Howe, E.

Brentford, V.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Chaplin, V.

Lucan, E.

Churchill, V.

Newton, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Knutsford, V.

Redesdale, L.

Onslow, E.

Somerleyton, L.

Plymouth, E.

Auckland, L.

Wavertree, L.

Stanhope, E.

the name of Lord Askwith. I do not know whether the Government will accept the proposal to omit subsection (1) in order to put in the stronger form which we agreed to when discussing rules and regulations earlier. The stronger form is more in accordance, I think, with the modern view of the rights of Parliament as against regulations made by Ministers. I will not weary your Lordships by repeating the arguments used earlier, but will merely say that I think the subsection on the Amendment Paper is much better than the one in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 85, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Brentford.)
EARL RUSSELL: Like the noble Viscount, I will not argue this question again, but I would point out to noble Lords opposite that they are possibly laying up a whip for themselves when we change sides again.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The noble Viscount said that this Amendment was in accordance with modern views. That is quite true, but they are not very modern views. It is not quite in accordance with the views that the noble Viscount held when he was in office.
EARL RUSSELL: Hear, hear!
EARL BEAUCHAMP: It is in accordance with modern views since he has

1603
changed from one side of the House to the other, and is now opposing the powers to be given to the bureaucracy of which he was in favour when he was in office.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Like my noble friend who dealt with the matter before the noble Earl was back from another place, I have learned.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, after subsection (1), to insert as a new subsection:—
"(2) Before making regulations under this Act the Minister shall consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit,"
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is obvious. The Minister, I know, makes great use of the motoring organisations. Perhaps he would feel able to accept this Amendment, These organisations are particularly anxious to do anything in their power to help him in the administration of this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 6, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: A similar provision is found in Part I, where it is really appropriate. I think it is less appropriate to this Part. If there were occasion for consultation, of course the Minister would consult them. I do not think it necessary to direct him to do so.
EARL HOWE: I do not wish to press the Amendment, so long as it is clear that the Minister will consult them. The associations thought the point important since this Part is a general summary, but it does not matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 99, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 100 to 102 agreed to.
Clause 103 [Expenses of Roads Department]:
EARL RUSSELL: I have a drafting Amendment here.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 25, leave out from ("of") to ("as") in line 27 and insert ("superannuation and other allowances and gratuities payable on death or retirement ").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 103, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 104.
Clause 105 [Special Provisions as to Scotland]:
EARL RUSSELL: I have several drafting Amendments to this clause.
Amendments moved—
Page 71, line 3, leave out ("as respects Scotland")
Page 71, line 10, leave out ("in Scot-land.")
Page 72, lines 1 and 2, leave out ("in Scotland.")
Page 72, After line 9, insert the following new subsection:—
( (8) "This section shall extend to Scotland only.")—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 105, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 106 agreed to.
Clause 107:
Interpretation.
107.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:—
"Road" means any public highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes:
(2) Parts I and III of this Act, other than the section of this Act making provision with respect to extraordinary traffic, shall, subject as hereinafter provided, apply to vehicles and persons in the public service of the Crown, and in the case of any such vehicle the person whom the department in whose service the vehicle is used names as the person actually responsible shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be the person who causes or permits the vehicle to be on any road:
Provided that—

(a) the Minister may by order, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order, vary in relation to vehicles used for naval, military or air force purposes the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act; and

(b) the restriction imposed by this Act on persons under twenty-one years with respect to the driving of heavy locomotives, light locomotives, motor tractors or heavy motor cars, and the provisions of the section of this Act limiting the time for which drivers of certain vehicles may remain continuously on duty shall not apply.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), to insert "'Licence' includes provisional licence. "The noble Viscount said: If this Amendment is not thought advisable I will not press it.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 29, at end insert ("' Licence ' includes provisional licence").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: No, it is not necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE moved, in subsection (1), in the definition of "road," to leave out "public," The noble Lord said: The object of the Amendment is to provide for a definition in legal language. The definition of "road" is "public highway." To speak of a public highway is redundancy. A highway is a public way and I suggest for the sake of precision of language that the word "public" be omitted. I agree there are Statutes where the expression is used, but I suspect it is due to oversight.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 31, leave out ("public").—(Lord Amulree.)
EARL RUSSELL: Of course the noble Lord is perfectly right. The word "public" is redundant and the only excuse is that it is to be found in the Motor Car Act, 1903. I will do whatever the Committee desires.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: We always talk of a public highway.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CLWYD LORD CLWYD, on behalf of Lord Ritchie, moved in subsection (1), in the definition of "Road," after "has," to insert "the right of." The noble Lord said: It is only a question of drafting, but it was thought very desirable that there should be no doubt what public access to a road means.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 32, after ("has") insert "the right of").—(Lord Clwyd.)
EARL RUSSELL: I think there are objections to this Amendment. This description of "road" goes back to 1903—"any public highway and any other road to which the public has access." It is a very much easier thing to ascertain the fact whether the public-has access than it is to ascertain the legal fact whether there is a legal right of access; and I think we had better retain words which deal with the facts rather than insert words which deal with the legal right, which may be doubtful. The
1606
object is that where the public has access and the motor cars require regulating they should be regulated.
LORD CLWYD: The noble Earl will realise the kind of case in which the difficulty may arise. This Amendment is put down mainly on behalf of the dock and harbour authorities. In their case there may be roadways, pending upon public highways, in regard to which there may be doubt as to the public right of access. They take access, they go along these roadways, and it is thought that it would be helpful to have those words put in the Bill. Of course if the noble Earl, says he cannot accept the Amendment I will not press it.
EARL RUSSELL: If the dock and harbour authorities have got on for twenty years with the definition as it is they do not appear to have suffered much damage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CLWYD LORD CLWYD, on behalf of Lord Ritchie of Dundee, moved to add to the definition of "Road" "'Bridge' includes a floating railway." The noble Lord said: This is a question of the powers which the bridge authority may have in regard to a bridge, and, as there are many cases in which the functions of a bridge are carried out by a floating roadway, I feel sure there will be no objection to accepting it.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 33, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Clwyd.)
EARL RUSSELL: I do not see sufficient reason for accepting this. I do not quite know, if it is not a bridge and if it is a boat, why the provisions of the Bill should apply to it, or why it should toe included here. It seems to me to be inappropriate.
LORD CLWYD: Perhaps the noble Earl will consider it if certain information as to the difficulties that have arisen is put before him.
EARL RUSSELL: Most certainly, if the noble Lord sends us a note of any difficulty we will see what can be done.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ON SLOW THE EARL OF ON SLOW moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Earl said: I only move this in order to clear up the

1607
position of drivers of vehicles belonging to the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. Drivers in uniform both of vehicles which belong to the Department and of vehicles such as the Territorial vehicles, which have to have a local government licence, come under the category in regard to which I wish to ask the question. I wonder whether those are affected or not affected by the Bill? That is the point I want to raise.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 1, leave out subsection (2).—(The Earl of Onslow.)
EARL RUSSELL: This was intended to make the Act apply, as the Act of 1903 did, to servants of the Crown as a general rule, but to exempt the armed forces of the Crown. It has not, I think, been drawn very successfully, because it does not refer to armed forces but to the public servants of the Crown and it might possibly include postmen. It might even, I think, include a civil servant driving his car. But it has been the subject of communication with the War Office, and I think we shall have to bring up some Amendment of it on Report. It certainly is intended to cover the Territorial forces, but only, I suppose, while they are in uniform or in training.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: But not in uniform as regards the dockyards?
EARL RUSSELL: I am afraid I cannot say, but, anyhow, the clause has to be reconsidered.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in proviso (a) to subsection (2), to leave out "order," and to insert "regulation". The noble Viscount said: The object is to suggest that orders are only to be made for the purpose of manœuvres.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 11, leave out ("order") and insert ("regulation").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, if the noble Earl prefers it, but it might quite well happen that you would have to make several regulations. The circumstances might change.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE had on the Paper an Amendment to omit proviso (b) of subsection (2). The noble Earl said: The
1608
point is really the same as that raised by Lord Onslow. I do not wish to press the noble Earl if he is going to produce a new clause on Report.
EARL RUSSELL: No, as I think it is going to be considered we might as well leave it.
Clause 107, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.

LIMITS OF SPEED.

Maximum Speed—

Class of Vehicle.

Miles per Hour.

3. Heavy Motor Cars and Motor Tractors.

(1) Passenger Vehicles—

(a) If all the wheels are fitted with pneumatic tyres and not drawing a trailer

30

4. Motor Cars and Motor Cycles.

(1) Passenger Vehicles—

(a) If all the wheels are fitted with pneumatic tyres, not drawing a trailer, and constructed to carry not more than eight persons in addition to the driver

No limit

LORD MARKS LORD MARKS moved, in 3 (1) (a), after "trailer," to insert "except in the Metropolitan Police area in which area the maximum speed shall be twenty miles per hour." The noble Lord said: It is thought that in the Metropolitan Police area public passenger vehicles travelling at thirty miles per hour would increase the congestion which is already bad enough, and the suggestion has been made that we should test that point here as to whether there should be an exception made in London, seeing that the congestion there is greater than in any other part of the country. Whatever may be decided elsewhere, it is proposed by this Amendment that the speed should be twenty miles per hour in the Metropolitan Police area. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 20, after ("trailer") insert ("except in the Metropolitan Police area in which area the maximum speed shall be 20 miles per hour").—(Lord Marks.)
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: The limits of the London County Council do not extend, of course, to the whole of the Metropolitan Police area. The County Council has to consider the question of traffic within the Administrative County of London. I have an Amendment to line 9 on page 78 limiting the speed within the County of London to thirty-five miles an hour. The question of passenger vehicles was not raised. I do not think that they thought that of very great importance, but felt that there should be some general limit placed on the speed of motor cars within the County of London.
EARL HOWE: On that particular point I cannot help thinking that it would be very inadvisable to have special limits for special areas. There are quite sufficient complications in the Bill already. The London County Council area which has just been mentioned begins somewhere in the middle of King's Street, Hammersmith, and the moment it crossed the border, which is a hypothetical line somewhere there, the traffic could at once speed up or, coming the other way, it would have to slow down. Exactly the same considerations will arise in connection with the Metropolitan Police area. The noble Lord opposite is very well acquainted, I believe, with the East Grinstead road. Part of the area over which he has jurisdiction is comprised in the Metropolitan Police area and part in the Surrey Police area. When you cross the border you find everything sprinting up and going a little faster or going slower when it is going the other way. It would be very difficult for a driver to know what to do. It might mean a multiplication of signs. There are enough of those for the driver of a motor vehicle to look out for already. I hope the House will not agree with any such artificial provision.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: The noble Earl knows that he has only to put his foot a little harder on the accelerator when he is going one way and to slacken speed when he is going the other way. It would be quite simple to mark the place where the thirty-five mile limit began and there would be no difficulty in the driver finding out where it was.
EARL HOWE: It is exceedingly difficult to put up a sign which the driver of a motor vehicle would be able to see
1610
quickly. The background is either shops or houses, and if a driver is to drive properly his attention ought to be concentrated on his work and not on the signs at the side of the road. Therefore this suggestion would not work.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I think this Amendment is a misconception of the principle of the Bill. We have taken out the speed limit, not to authorise a man to drive at thirty-five, forty, fifty or seventy-five miles an hour, but to drive at a speed which is safe. There is no suggestion that thirty-five miles an hour is safer than forty miles. But placing a particular speed limit in an individual county is against the whole principle of the Bill and the foundation on which the noble Earl made his speeches on the earlier stages.
EARL RUSSELL: I think this matter ought not to be pursued after the discussion we have had. As the noble Viscount has just said it is contrary to the whole idea of the Bill to have special areas speckled with special speed limits, with the suggestion that that is the safe limit for the area. We decided that was not to be the principle. We decided to go on the principle that no limit was safe and no limit was dangerous. It always depended on the circumstances of the case. Here there is a limit of thirty miles which the noble Lord is seeking to reduce by this Amendment to twenty miles. I hope your Lordships will not alter it. The thirty miles is a concession because they are using pneumatic tyres and are doing less damage to the roads and it is a reasonable speed for these vehicles. As to the smaller speeds as to which there are many Amendments on the Paper I said I hoped we were going to coalesce these in the Schedule but we have not been able to do it. It was not worth doing in detail till the Government put down their Amendments.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: That being so I hope noble Lords will refrain from moving Amendments now on the understanding that we shall have a new Schedule on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Your Lordships will help me by telling me if there are any more Amendments to be moved. I understand Lord Howe does not move.
EARL HOWE: I want to move my Amendment on page 78, line 9.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I prefer to move my Amendment and leave it to the Committee to decide. I do not wish to withdraw it.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Earl Howe's Amendment comes before that.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE had an Amendment in the paragraph referring to passenger vehicles, to leave out "No imit" and insert "40." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is one I actually moved at an earlier stage in Committee but when a Division was challenged my attention was distracted and I did not challenge again. I wish to apologise to a number of your Lordships who asked me what I was going to do about it. I said I was going to a Division and I intended to do so, but as I have said owing to my attention, being distracted at the critical moment I did not challenge till the moment to do so had passed. I am not going to rehash the arguments I then used. I only speak on this Amendment to make clear to your Lordships who were inconvenienced by my action at that time what happened.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble Earl has explained, but does not move his Amendment.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved in paragraph (a) to leave out "No limit" and to insert "(i) Within the administrative county of London….35; (ii) Elsewhere…. No Limit." The noble Earl said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 9, leave out ("No limit") and insert ("(i) Within the administrative county of London…35; (ii) Elsewhere…No limit").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
EARL RUSSELL: I have already said all I need say on this.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third Schedule [Traffic Areas]:
EARL RUSSELL: I beg to move a number of Amendments, one in manuscript and the others on the Paper.
Amendments moved—
Page 83, line 5, leave out ("Elgin") and insert ("Moray")
Page 83, line 6, after ("Zetland") insert ("Kincardine")
Page 83, line 8, leave out ("South Western") and insert ("Southern")
Page 83, line 12, leave out ("Hadding-ton").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule:

FOURTH SCHEDULE.

Enactments Repealed.

Session and Chapter.

Short Title.

Extent of Repeal.

24 & 25 Viet, c. 70.

The Locomotives Act. 1861.

The whole Act, except sections one, two, ten and fourteen.

LORD CLWYD LORD CLWYD moved, in the reference to the Locomotives Act, 1861, to add the word "seven" after the word "two." The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to preserve the protection afforded by Section 7 of the Locomotives Act, 1861. It is an important protection against damage by locomotive action.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 36, column 3, after ("two") insert ("seven").—(Lord Clwyd.)
EARL RUSSELL: The effect would be to continue in force Section 7 of the Locomotives Act, 1861, which relieves persons liable to repair damage from any repair for damage caused by a locomotive and makes the owner of the locomotive liable to reimburse the owners of the bridge or any persons for damage caused to them by loss of tolls or obstruction. In 1861 the locomotive was regarded as a fearsome and noisome beast and punished for being on the bridge at all. That is not the modern view. It is expressly provided in Clause 24 subsection (2) that the penalties for driving a motorcar over a bridge in contravention of the notices shall be without prejudice to the owner's civil liability. The provisions of Section 7 are out of date and I must resist the Amendment.
LORD CLWYD: Would a motor vehicle be a locomotive?
EARL RUSSELL: Yes.
LORD CLWYD: Then that meets the case practically.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Fourth Schedule agreed to.

FLIGHT TO AFRICA: AIRMEN KILLED.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I am afraid the Secretary of State for Air has some bad news to impart to your Lordships and, therefore, to put myself in order, I will formally ask him if he has any news as to the non-stop flight to Africa?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON): My Lords, I am sorry to say I have just heard that the Fairey-Napier monoplane crashed 20 miles south of Tunis and both the occupants
1614
were killed. I have no further details. The report is undated, but that report comes from the British Consul-General at Tunis.

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.

LANARKSHIRE TRACTION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past eleven o'clock.