Sitting of 17 April 1930

Preamble
The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For Borough of Fulham (West Division), in the room of Dr. George Ernest Spero (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Mr. Kennedy.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London Midland and Scottish Railway (No. 2) Bill.
Read the Third time, and passed.
Liverpool Corporation (No. 2) Bill (by Order).
Third Reading deferred till Tuesday, 29th April.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BRENTFORD AND CHISWICK AND RAMS GATE) BILL,
"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Brentford and Chiswick and Ramsgate," presented by Mr. Greenwood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitioners for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 174.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (AYLESBURY, CHESHAM, AND GUILD FORD) BILL,
"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Aylesbury, Chesham, and Guildford," presented by Mr. Greenwood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 175.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  TRADE BOARDS (CATERING TRADE).
  Mr. McSHANEasked the Minister of Labour whether she is yet in a position to make a statement with regard to
  3066
  the proposed establishment of a trade board for the catering trade?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): The results of the inquiries made into the wages and conditions in this trade are now receiving my consideration.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    NEWARK.
    Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELDasked the Minister of Labour if she will state the number of unemployed in the Newark Employment Exchange district for March, 1929, and March, 1930?
    Miss BONDFIELD: At 31st March, 1930, the number of persons on the registers of the Newark Employment Exchange was 706 as compared with 358 at 25th March, 1929.
    Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Is not the increase entirely due to the obsession and futility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Will the Minister say to what it is due? She is in charge.

    BENEFIT.
    Mr. SMITHERSasked the Minister of Labour if she will state what amount of money has been expended in unemployment insurance benefit for the last complete year to the last convenient date?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The amount of money expended in unemployment insurance benefit during the year ended 31st March, 1930, was approximately £45,910,000.
    Mr. SMITHERS: How does the Government expect this country to keep—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

    IMMIGRANTS AND EMIGRANTS (STATISTICS).
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can give the number of immigrants and their nationalities who came into this

    3067
    country during the years 1927, 1928, and 1929; and the number of emigrants who left this country during the same years?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): As the answer contains a number of figures I shall, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The Under-Secretary can tell us whether the numbers are increasing or decreasing. Will he give us a summary? He could do so quite easily.
    Mr. SHORT: It would be much better if the hon. Member would read the full answer. It is quite full.
    Mr. HALL-CAINE: Is the number increasing or decreasing?
    Mr. SHORT: I will read the answer:
    "During the year 1927 the total numbers of alien passengers excluding transmigrants, landed and embarked in the United Kingdom were 412,686 and 409,925. The corresponding figures for 1928 were, landed 439,419, embarked 432,853, and for 1929, landed 457,414, embarked 449,645. For further details and an analysis of the figures I would refer the hon. Member to the statistics in regard to alien passengers for 1927 and 1928 (Command Papers 3130 and 3332) and the Quarterly Returns of Alien Passengers for 1929 (Command Papers 3334 and 3334, I, II and III). As regards British emigrants I understand from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that figures will be found in the Board of Trade Journals of the 7th March, 1929, and the 6th March, 1930. I will send copies of the journals to the hon. Member."
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May I have a copy of those particulars?
    Mr. HALL-CAINE: Does it not appear from those figures that there are more people coming into this country and taking up their residence here than there are going out; and, in view of the appalling number of unemployed, will the hon. Gentleman consider the question of putting some restriction on foreigners coming into this country and residing here and taki ng British work away from British workers?
    Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend has these matters always under observation, and I would point out that at present no one can come into this country and take employment except with a permit
    3068
    from the Ministry of Labour. will certainly see that these particulars are sent to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams).
    Mr. KELLY: Do these figures include the Isle of Man?

    SCOTLAND YARD (PUBLIC CARRIAGE DEPARTMENT).
    Mr. JAMES GARDNERasked the Home Secretary why a chief inspector and three other officers in the Public Carriage Department of Scotland Yard have been reduced to the rank of constable; and will he make a statement in regard to the matter?
    Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend does not know what are the particular cases that my hon. Friend has in mind, but it is the fact that the conduct of certain officers connected with the Public Carriage Department has recently been the subject of disciplinary proceedings, arising out of their alleged improper relations with persons having business with the Department. As some of the officers concerned have not yet exhausted their rights of appeal my right hon. Friend regrets he cannot make any further statement at the present time.
    Mr. GARDNER: Are there so many of these cases that the hon. Gentleman cannot identify particular individuals; is he aware that there is great alarm among the public concerning the practice of this department in regard to licensing; and will he also state what circumstances led to the deposition of these particular officers?
    Mr. SHORT: As these officers have the right of appeal, and have not yet exercised it, I do not think that I ought to be pressed to make any further statement.

    RUSSIAN SUBJECTS (RECALL AND DEPORTATION).
    Mr. MARJORIBANKSasked the Home Secretary whether he has yet received any further information as to the Russian subjects ordered by the Soviet Government to return to Russia, who are liable to be punished capitally under the laws of the Soviet Union, either for non-compliance with such order or for other reasons?
    Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend has now received a list of the names of the persons dismissed from Soviet organisations in this country, and the inquiry into the position of these persons is being pursued.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will the hon. Gentleman consider ordinary reasons of humanity in deciding whether to renew these permits or not?
    Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend is known to be very humane, and I have no doubt that all these considerations will be taken into account.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: Is it proposed to make an early statement in the House on this matter?
    Mr. SHORT: I should not like to pledge myself, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down a question after the Easter holidays.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What has happened to the campaign to clear out the Reds?
    Mr. DOUGLAS HACKINGasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the present difficulty of deporting Russian nationals back to their own country even when in possession of a passport, he will issue orders that no more be allowed to land in this country until more satisfactory arrangements are concluded which will enable him to deport any who may be considered undesirable?
    Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any difficulty having arisen where the alien is already in possession of a valid passport. In these circumstances the second part of the question does not arise.
    Mr. HACKING: Surely it is a fact that the individuals referred to in question 16 had valid passports to return to Russia?
    Mr. SHORT: I think the right hon. Gentleman is in some confusion on this matter. As far as I am aware, there is only one case. I think that happened in 1926, and, as a result of representations, made through the usual channels, the difficulty was overcome.
    Mr. HACKING: Have not those Russians valid passports to return to Russia who are under a threat of the death penalty if they do return?
    Mr. SHORT: The right hon. Gentleman is now seeking to get me to say something in connection with the inquiry which is going on in relation to these matters. I think that is hardly fair.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: What happens if they have not valid passports?

    WINDOW SLASHING, LONDON.
    Mr. HACKINGasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the window slashing which has recently taken place in Sloane Street; whether he will consider the advisability of offering a substantial reward to anyone giving such evidence as will lead to a conviction; and, if so, whether he will give wide publicity to such an offer?
    Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend has seen newspaper accounts and has received a report. He could not consider the offer of a reward. There are serious objections to the offer of such rewards, and in any event there are no funds for such a purpose.
    Mr. HACKING: Is it not the case that there has been a great deal of window slashing in London and that the culprits have not been discovered; and can the hon. Gentleman assure me, without going into any details, that he has this matter under constant observation and that he has hopes of finding a means of catching these people?
    Mr. SHORT: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that every effort is made to ensure the capture of these people and to prevent this practice as far as possible.
    Mr. DAY: Has there been an increase or decrease in the number of these cases?
    Mr. SHORT: My hon. Friend ought to put down a question.
    Mr. HACKING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that windows were slashed all down one side of Sloane Street on Sunday night and that considerable damage was done?

    WORSTED AND WOOLLEN INDUSTRIES.
    Mr. WOMERSLEYasked the Home Secretary the number of woollen mills working in the West Riding in 1919; and the number of woollen mills working there at present?
    Mr. SHORT: The number of woollen mills on the Factory Registers at the end of 1929 was 1,242. No similar figure is available at the Central Office for 1919, but inquiry will be made to see whether figures can be obtained from the district offices. The hon. Member may be interested to know that in 1904 when a return of woollen mills was got out for the purposes of a Parliamentary Return, the number registered at that time in the West Riding was 1,315.
    Mr. WISEasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the failure of the employers in the worsted and woollen industries to carry into effect the recommendations of various committees and commissions of inquiry as to the necessity of comprehensive reorganisation, the Government propose to take any action in order to avoid further reductions in the wages of the workers in the industry, or have sought or obtained the advice of the Economic Advisory Council in the matter; and, if so, what was the nature of the advice given?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I am not sure to what specific recommendations my hon. Friend refers, but I would refer him to the reply which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave him on the 1st April, endorsing the suggestion in paragraph 62 of Lord Macmillan's Report, that possible sources of economy of the kind he has in mind should be examined further.
    Mr. WISE: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any steps are being taken by the employers to examine those sources of economy before pushing down wages?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I am not aware of that, but I know that the employers in the West Riding of Yorkshire are very difficult people to deal with, and that a great many unsuccessful efforts have been made to carry out the reorganisation of the industry.
    Mr. WISE: Does not the Government think that the measures taken, or proposed to be taken, for the cotton industry ought to be considered in the case of the woollen and worsted industries also, before wages are reduced?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I have told the hon. Member that a good many efforts of that sort have already been made, but, unfortunately, they have not been successful.
    Mr. BRACKEN: Is it worth while to refer this matter to the Economic Advisory Council, staffed as it is by guinea pigs?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Perhaps if there were a few less guinea pig directors in our industrial concerns, the latter would be much more efficient and prosperous than they are to-day.
    Mr. T. SNOWDEN: May ask where the right hon. Gentleman ascertained that the employers in the West Biding were very difficult to deal with?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: As an employer in the West Riding, my hon. Friend will, I am sure, sympathise with the view that I express.
    Mr. WOMERSLEYasked the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department whether he will arrange to pay a visit next month to Bradford and Huddersfield, and bring before local labour leaders a suggestion for an investigation into the causes of the decline in the export trade to South America of woollen textiles of inexpensive quality?
    Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I do not think the time is opportune to act on the suggestion put forward by the hon. Member.
    Mr. WISE: Is it not the case that one of the main difficulties is the inefficient and expensive marketing methods?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The question only refers to a visit to Bradford and Huddersfield.

  EDUCATION.

    SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE (SLAFFING).
    Mr. SMITHERSasked the President of the Board of Education what will be the extra number of certified teachers

    3073
    required when the leaving age is raised to 15; and what steps he is taking to ensure that the requisite number will be forthcoming?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): I cannot at present add anything to the answer which I gave recently to the Noble Lady the Member for Kinross and West Perth (Duchess of Atholl), of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
    Mr. SMITHERS: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any protest from any association of teachers, because, if this Bill is passed, it will—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not putting a question.

    MILK SUPPLIES.
    Mr. ROSBOTHAMasked the President of the Board of Education how many scholars in the elementary schools of England and Wales are being supplied daily with milk; is he satisfied with the Reports received as to the benefits derived; and, if so, will he give every encouragement to local education authorities to extend the system?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: The National Milk Publicity Council estimate that about 350,000 school children are now receiving milk under their schemes. I am not able to say how many children are receiving milk under arrangements made by the Local Education Authorities, but I am taking steps to obtain this information. The reports received as to the benefits derived by the children are very satisfactory. I am anxious to give every encouragement to the extension of the movement in the schools, and I am now considering the most effective means by which I can do so.
    Mr. McSHANE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any grants for this purpose have been made from the Exchequer?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: Certainly, where the local authorities have spent the money, they have got the grant.
    Mr. SMITHERS: What steps are being taken to see that this milk is free from tuberculosis?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I believe that the National Milk Publicity Council are very particular about that matter.
    Mr. FREEMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman in favour of every child having this daily supply of milk?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I should be very glad to see it.

    NON-PROVIDED SCHOOLS.
    Mr. A. SOMERVILLE (for Captain CROOKSHANK)asked the President of the Board of Education if he is now in a position to make a statement regarding his conversations with representatives of the Church of England and of the Roman Catholic Church on the subject of raising the school age?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: Yes, Sir; I am happy to be able to inform the House that the conversations which I have had with representatives of the Churches, the local authorities, and the teachers, have been animated throughout by a spirit of good will on all sides, and that, as a result, a considerable measure of agreement appears to be obtainable. I propose within the next few days to issue a White Paper indicating the special circumstances which have led His Majesty's Government to take up this question at the present time and the proposals which seem to them to be most likely to obtain general acceptance.
    Mr. HARRIS: Would legislation be involved in order to alter the present law in any way?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: Yes, legislation would be involved.
    Mr. BRACKEN: Are the special circumstances the Roman Catholic vote?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: No, Sir.
    Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether these conversations have been directed to the further provision of public money without public control in schools, and, further, are they concerned with the revival of tests?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I think my hon. Friend had better wait until he sees the White Paper, and then he will see exactly what has been done.
    Mr. KNIGHT: Are we to understand that the matters to which I have referred are not included in the White Paper. If

    3075
    they are, why does not my right hon. Friend deal with them now?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: If I were to give a piecemeal account of what I have done, an entirely wrong impression would be created.
    Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: Is it not a very happy circumstance that such a degree of agreement has been arrived at?

    ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (HEATING).
    Mr. MARJORIBANKSasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has obtained records for consideration as to the effect upon the health and vitality of the children of central heating, open-fire heating, or no heating, respectively, in elementary school rooms?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have not obtained records on these points, and I should doubt whether they would lead to any modification of the now generally accepted view that, in normal circumstances, some form of central heating is the most suitable system for schools.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKSasked the President of the Board of Education whether his Department has issued instructions as to the methods of warming elementary school rooms; and whether he proposes to reconsider and improve upon them at an early date?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: Apart from the general suggestions contained in the Building Regulations, 1914, the Board have issued no instructions in regard to the heating and ventilation of elementary schools. The question has received the constant attention of local authorities and of the Board, and the Board's officers are always ready to advise on particular proposals; but as the problem is affected by a number of highly technical and varying factors I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by the issue of instructions at the present time.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    SMALL-POX AND VACCINATION.
    Mr. FREEMANasked the Minister of Health the death rate per million from small-pox, with the percentage of the population vaccinated in all countries for which this information is available during the last known year?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): The information at my disposal does not enable me to answer the question put by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. FREEMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the action of the German Federal Medical Council who have recommended the total abolition of compulsory vaccination throughout Germany owing to its failure to prevent small-pox?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that that arises out of the question.
    Mr. FREEMANasked the Minister of Health whether he will arrange for an independent medical examination to be provided for all infants before being compulsorily vaccinated to certify that they are in a fit state to withstand the effects of the operation?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Under the Vaccination Acts certificates of postponement of vaccination must be given in the case of infants who are not in a fit and proper state to be vaccinated, and the instructions to public vaccinators emphasise that only infants in a fit state of health must be vaccinated. I see no reason, therefore, to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. FREEMAN: In view of the information which the right Ion. Gentleman gave me last week, namely, that more children in this country died last year as a result of vaccination than from small-pox, is it not desirable that an independent medical examination should be given?

    MILK SUPPLIES.
    33. Mr. SMITHERSasked the Minister of Health whether he will inform the House of the progress that is being made to ensure that milk supplied to the public shall be free from tuberculosis; has he consulted members of the medical and veterinary professions; what other inquiries has he made; and will he state briefly the present position and what further action he proposes to take?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I understand that an increasing number of local authorities are carrying out regular veterinary inspections of cattle and having samples of milk tested for tubercle bacillus, with

    3077
    a view to the exercise of their powers under the Milk and Dairies Act. I am not proposing to introduce any further legislation on this subject at the present time, but I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, with a view to the issue of a circular to local authorities indicating the further steps which they might advantageously take under existing powers. For this purpose I shall, of course, have regard to the views of the medical and veterinary advisers of the two Departments, as well as those of other members of the two professions who have communicated with my right hon. Friend and myself.
    Mr. SMITHERS: In view of the national importance of getting the milk supply free from tuberculosis, especially for the children in school, will the right hon. Gentleman take what steps he can to speed up this inquiry, and to ensure that the milk supplied should, as far as possible, be free from tuberculosis?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I hope the circular will be issued to local authorities very shortly.

    REFUSE DISPOSAL.
    Mr. MUGGERIDGEasked the Minister of Health when the Departmental Committee's Report on the disposal of house and trade refuse, following on the Report of the Department's inspector, will be available?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I understand that the Committee may be expected to make their Report at an early date.
    Mr. MUGGERIDGE: May we know whether that will be followed by prompt action? This Report has been held up so long that I would like an assurance from the Minister, if possible.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May we conclude from the lack of an answer that there will be no promptitude?

    CHINESE EGGS.
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAMasked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that the imports of liquid and dried eggs from China are free from contamination and without danger to public health; what is the value of such eggs annually imported in these two forms;
    3078
    and for what purposes are they chiefly used?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: So far as I am aware, these imports are free from contamination, and if they arrive in good condition are without danger to the public health. They are required to be free from preservatives, and in common with other imported foods they are subject to inspection at the port of entry and may be seized and destroyed if they are found to be unsound, unwholesome, or unfit for human consumption. The value of such eggs imported from China during the year 1929 was £3,574,640. I understand that these eggs are mainly used by the baking trade for cake making.
    Mr. SKELTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what class he himself prefers?

    SEWAGE DISPOSAL (MITCHAM AND DISTRICT).
    Mr. MELLERasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the inadequate provision made for the disposal of sewage in the districts of Mitcham, Beddington and Wallington, and Merton and Morden, inasmuch as the present works are only capable of dealing with a population of 80,000, whereas the population is now approximately 115,000 and is rapidly increasing, particularly in the district of Merton and Morden, which contains a part of the St. Heliers estate; that a scheme to enlarge the works has been under consideration by the Ministry since June last and is still awaiting sanction; can he give any reasons for the delay; and will he see that steps are immediately taken to safeguard the health of the districts affected?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am aware of the need for improvement of the arrangements for disposing of the sewage of the districts in question, and I have under consideration a scheme for this purpose, the estimated cost of which is £174,000. In view, however, of the inquiry which is now proceeding into the whole question of sewerage and sewage disposal for the Greater London area, the present scheme must be regarded as part of a larger problem, and I am anxious that no expenditure on works at the present site should be incurred which can be avoided by the substitution of alterna-

    3079
    tive arrangements to those submitted. My decision is, therefore, being deferred pending the result of further investigations. I am not aware that there is danger to health, but the hon. Member can rest assured that there will not be any avoidable delay in dealing with this difficult problem.
    Mr. MELLER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has been under consideration since June last, that during that time the population has increased considerably, and that during the next few months we may expect to see the population rising considerably higher than it is now; and is he satisfied that the health of the public will be safeguarded by the postponement of this scheme until he can bring in a very much larger scheme than that which is contemplated by the local authority?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: It is not a question of a larger scheme; it is a case of protecting the local authority from spending nearly £200,000, which might be quite useless in a very short space of time, because there may be further development.
    Mr. MELLER: But surely a space of nine months is sufficient time to consider the scheme!

    HOUSING.
    Miss RATHBONEasked the Minister of Health what interpretation is placed by the Ministry upon the term working classes in administering the Housing Acts of 1890, 1909, 1923, 1923 (No. 2), 1924, 1925, and in the Bill now before the House?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The term "working classes" is generally well understood, and I am not aware of any practical difficulty in its interpretation. The term has not been defined for the general purposes of any of the Acts mentioned in the question, and I do not propose to attempt a definition which Parliament and previous Ministers of Health have refrained from giving.
    Miss RATHBONE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how he expects local authorities to know what classes of persons should be admitted to the houses subsidised by the State if the Ministry have no accepted definition, and whether
    3080
    he is aware that large numbers of persons are taking advantage of subsidised houses and asking leave to build a motor garage?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The local authorities have never found any practical difficulty in defining it for themselves.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any reason why a working man should not have a motor car and a motor garage?

  POOR LAW.

    TEST WORK.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Health whether stone-breaking as test work is still being continued; whether he has yet reached any conclusions on the reports of the inspectors of the Ministry on test work; and whom he proposes to make available to the House the contents, or a suitable summary, of such reports?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first and third parts of the question is that the report on test work will be published in due course, and deals with the matter referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. As regards the second part, I would refer to my answer to a question by the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Shakespeare) on the 13th ultimo.
    Sir K. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this report will be available during the next few days, in order that we may have it before the Debate when we resume our proceedings after Easter?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I think it has gone to the printers to-day. If it is possible to have it early, I will see that it is done.

    RELIEF TICKETS.
    40. Mr. HARRISasked the Minister of Health whether there is any form laid down by the Ministry for relief tickets; whether he is aware that in London no provision is made for the person receiving assistance drawing supplies of potatoes and vegetables; and whether, in the interest of the health of the recipients of relief, he will issue a standard as to what relief in the form of relief tickets should include?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and to the second part in the affirmative. As regards the third part, I think the matter may suitably be left to the discretion of the new authorities.
    Mr. HARRIS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable in these days that, if tickets are to be issued, they should be made available for vegetables and potatoes, because a vegetable diet is to be encouraged for people receiving relief?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I should imagine that in most cases the tickets do include vegetables.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in London they do not include them?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: So I understand.

    INSURANCE (NATIONALISATION).
    Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the resolution recently passed at Blackpool by the National Union of General and Municipal Workers Approved Society, calling upon the Government to introduce legislation for the nationalisation of national insurance; and whether any action is to be taken in the matter?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I do not appear to have received a copy of this resolution.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not familiar with this Resolution, and does he not think he might spend the Easter Recess in drafting a few of these Bills in order to carry out his undertakings?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I cannot be familiar with it until I see it.

    LONDON NAVAL CONFERENCE.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether, in discussing the so-called Safeguard Clause in the Three-Power Naval Treaty to allow for additional warship building for the Royal Navy, in the event of accelerated shipbuilding by the Continental nations, the strength of the French and Italian navies in combination is to be considered?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The Clause will not be aimed at any special fleet or combination of fleets.

    LAND VALUES BILL.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to afford facilities this Session for the Land Valuation Bill?
    Captain MARGESSONasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Taxation of Land Valuation Bill before the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: As I announced in the Budget speech, a Bill to provide for land valuation will be introduced forthwith in view of the importance of beginning the work of valuation at the earliest possible date.
    Sir K. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to my question as to whether he proposes to give facilities this Session? In other words, is this Measure to have precedence of the Trade Disputes Bill, the Raising of the School Age Bill, etc.?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman had better wait and see.
    Captain MARGESSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my question asks whether or not the Land Values Bill would have precedence of the others?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer question Number 48?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I gave that in reply to the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). I asked him to wait. I am not going to give an answer to a question like this. [Interruption.]
    Mr. HARRIS: Is it not in the power of the Opposition to facilitate the passage of the Land Values Bill?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Then there is no answer?

    ACTS OF PARLIAMENT (ROYAL ASSENT).
    Captain BOURNEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what charge, if any, falls on public funds in

    3083
    connection with a Commission under the Great Seal to give the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses of Parliament?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): No specific charge falls upon public funds in this connection. It is not possible to ascertain what proportion of the general expenses of the House of Lords and the Lord Chancellor's Department is attributable to the procedure leading up to the giving of the Royal Assent.

  AGRICULTURE.

    NATIONAL MARK SCHEME.
    Mr. ROSBOTHAMasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he proposes to take to provide and maintain publicity for national-mark schemes introduced by his Department in order that the general public may be better informed as to the advantages to be obtained by the purchase of national-mark Home products?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): I am glad to say that the Government have arranged through the Empire Marketing Board to provide a publicity grant in favour of the Ministry at the rate of £55,000 for the financial year 1930, as an initial grant for the purpose of providing and maintaining foreground publicity for National Mark schemes, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has undertaken that Parliament shall be invited to make special financial provision for the purpose in 1930. Arrangements are already being undertaken to put this grant to effective use. I should emphasise that this grant for National Mark publicity is additional to the publicity for home produce as a whole which has regularly been provided by the Empire Marketing Board, and which that Board hopes to maintain in the future upon as ample a scale as hitherto.
    Captain MARGESSONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can specify the horticultural products to which the National Mark has been applied; whether he contemplates extending the scheme in the coming season; and, if so, to what products?
    Dr. ADDISON: The horticultural products which are already the subject of National Mark Schemes are apples and pears, tomatoes and cucumbers, and Cornish broccoli for export. Schemes are about to be introduced for strawberries and cherries. There is every hope of bringing cyder and canned home-grown fruits under the Mark in the coming season.

    SHEEP DISEASES (RESEARCH GRANT).
    Mr. ROSBOTHAMasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the advisory committee on agricultural science has yet reported upon the application from Wye College for a special research grant to enable investigations to be conducted into struck and gangrene diseases of sheep on Romney Marsh?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes, Sir. On the recommendation of the Committee, the Treasury has authorised a special research grant of £300 for the six months ending 30th September next. Grants such as these are made from year to year beginning on 1st October, and the college has been invited to apply for the renewal of the grant from 1st October next.

    IMPORTED PRODUCE.
    Sir VICTOR WARRENDERasked the Minister of Agriculture Whether he will appoint a committee to inquire into the dumping of foreign cereals in this country and to consider what steps should be taken by the Government to protect the home producers?
    Dr. ADDISON: The Government are fully aware of all the facts and circumstances connected with the importation of what is generally known as bounty-fed cereals, and it has done and will continue to do whatever is practicable in the matter. In these circumstances, my right hon. Friend does not consider that the appointment of a Committee as suggested by the hon. Baronet would serve any useful purpose.
    Sir V. WARRENDER: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and does he not realise the vital necessity of doing something in this matter before next harvest?
    Dr. ADDISON: I fully realise that necessity, and we shall do all that we

    3085
    can. For all that, however, I do not consider that this Committee would serve any useful purpose.
    Sir V. WARRENDER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the harvest is only a few months off?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes, I am well aware of that fact.
    Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: What has been the result of the negotiations that have taken place at Geneva on this matter?
    Dr. ADDISON: I should have to have notice of that question.
    Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman look with any more favour on the proposals of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) than he generally does?
    Captain MARGESSON: The right hon. Gentleman says that he has taken steps; what steps has he taken?
    Dr. ADDISON: At the moment, I am not able to make any further statement, but I would like to say that the hon. and gallant Member will certainly find that our efforts in this direction will be much more useful and valuable than those of the last Government.
    Captain MARGESSON: Is the answer to this question like the answer which I received from his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—a guinea pig?

    TITHE RENT-CHARGE (REDEMPTION).
    Mr. KEDWARDasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the circular letter which is being issued by Queen Anne's Bounty on the subject of the redemption of small tithe rent-charges was issued with his knowledge and approval; and whether the Ministry, in view of the depressed state of agriculture, will refuse all applications for compulsory redemption of tithe rent-charge on lands used solely for agricultural purposes?
    Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend has seen the circular letter to which the hon. Member refers. Its approval by the Minister is not necessary, as it is issued on the sole responsibility of Queen Anne's Bounty. As regards the second part of the question, every application for
    3086
    compulsory redemption is carefully considered in the light of all relevant circumstances, including any objections that may be made by landowners on the ground of hardship, and my right hon. Friend is not, therefore, prepared to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. KEDWARD: Do the Ministry approve of this particular form of intimidation through this circular, which suggests that, unless they redeem tithe at 22 years' purchase voluntarily, the Ministry, whom they suggest are in the pocket of Queen Anne's Bounty, will tell them to redeem it at 25½ years' purchase; is this method of intimidation approved by the Ministry of Agriculture?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am not aware that it is a matter of intimidation. Of course, the authorities of Queen Anne's Bounty are acting within their legal rights, and the Ministry cannot interfere; but, as far as these applications for the redemption of tithe are concerned, a good many cases arise from the splitting up of estates, in which a trivial amount of tithe has to be met. I think that it is very desirable that in those cases, if possible, redemption should take place, for it saves the new owners from being continually harassed and pressed for small sums only.
    Mr. KEDWARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that demands have been made on small agricultural people for sums of £8, £10 and £15; and, in view of the fact that they are already undercapitalised, and have a job to find the money with which to carry on, why should they be harassed and threatened by Queen Anne's Bounty and by the Ministry of Agriculture suggesting that they have no option in the matter?
    Dr. ADDISON: If the hon. Member will send details of cases, I shall be glad to have inquiry made.

    ONE-WAY TRAFFIC (LONDON SQUARES).
    Viscount CRANBORNEasked the Minister of Transport whether he would be prepared to consider issuing Regulations for compulsory roundabout traffic in all London squares, in view of the dangers to pedestrians and motorists of the present disorganisation?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The suggestion made by the Noble Lord has already received most careful consideration, and I am advised that a general Regulation making compulsory roundabout traffic in all London squares, irrespective of circumstances, would not be desirable from the point of view of either traffic convenience or public safety.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to extend this system?
    Mr. MORRISON: Yes, extensions of the one-way traffic system are constantly under consideration and being sanctioned.
    Viscount CRANBORNE: Is it not a fact that the matter has really been considered in the past from the point of view of traffic control, and not from that of public safety?
    Mr. MORRISON: The Ministry of Transport never separate the question of traffic control from considerations of public safety.

    JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (APPOINTMENTS).
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAMasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many Justices of the Peace he has appointed since his acceptance of his present post?
    The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Sir Oswald Mosley): I have appointed 58 Justices of the Peace since I became Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: How many were women?
    Sir O. MOSLEY: I would like to ask for notice of that question.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. Baronet know so little about his work that he cannot answer?

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT).
    Mr. FREEMANasked the hon. Member for the Gorton Division, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether all meat supplied to the House of Commons has been killed by the use of a humane killer?
    Mr. J. COMPTON: In rep y to the hon. Member, the butchers who supply the Refreshment Department are instructed to purchase only the best English or Scotch meat in the market. We are given to understand that the majority of abattoirs now use the humane killer, but the Kitchen Committee cannot guarantee that all meat supplied to the House of Commons is slaughtered by this method.
    Mr. FREEMAN: May I ask why Welsh meat is excluded; and also, in view of the sympathetic reply which the hon. Member gave yesterday with regard to another animal, whether he will not consider making the use of a humane killer a condition in regard to meat supplied to the House of Commons?
    Mr. COMPTON: For the purpose of the business of this House, I understand that Wales is included in the term "England." With regard to the second part of the question, I cannot add anything to what I have already said, except that, if the Kitchen Committee should decide to kill bullocks down in the kitchens, we certainly shall use the humane killer.

    IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
    Captain MARGESSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give comparative figures of the export and import trade of the United Kingdom for the period January to March, 1930; and the comparable figures for 1929?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): The hon. Member will find the figures for which he asks on page 1 of the Trade and Navigation Accounts of the United Kingdom for March, 1930.

    AFFORESTATION, SHROPSHIRE.
    Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Forestry Commissioners what is the total acreage of the Forestry Commission's plantations in Shropshire; and what proportion of this acreage is planted with deciduous trees?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): The total acreage of the Forestry Commission's plantations in Shropshire is 1,302, of which 16 are hardwoods.
    Lieut. - Colonel WINDSOR - CLIVE: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that report to be satisfactory?
    Mr. SMITH: As a matter of practice, we plant as far as possible all the acreage that comes into our possession.

    COAL INDUSTRY (MINERS' WELFARE FUND).
    Captain PEAKEasked the Secretary for Mines the total sum expended since its inception by, and the present balance to the credit of, the Miner's Welfare Fund; and, in particular, the amount expended on the provision of pithead baths and the estimated number of men for whom bathing facilities are now available?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ben Turner): The total sum expended by the Miners' Welfare Committee since the inception of the Miners' Welfare Fund up to the 31st March last was £7,278,329 9s. At that date the unexpended balance of the fund was £2,493,193 1s. 1d., but of this sum £1,610,820 15s. 9d. had already been earmarked for future payments for various purposes. The total amount at present allocated for pit-head baths already constructed or in course of construction or for which tenders have been received is £1,111,888 15s. 2d. The sum actually paid out is £456,876 8s. Bathing accommodation is now available for approximately 40,500 men (including about 7,000 provided for outside the Miners' Welfare Fund) and the schemes now in hand will provide for about 64,000 more.

    AIRSHIP R.101.
    Mr. HACKINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the cost of the alterations to the airship R.101; and when he expects they will be completed?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): The cost of the labour and materials for the various alterations is estimated at £35,000. This includes the cost of the additional bay,
    3090
    which it is hoped to insert in the airship in the later summer. The other alterations are approaching completion.
    Mr. HACKING: Will the hon. Member say where this work is being done?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: It is being done at Cardington.
    Mr. WELLS: Will the hon. Member say if any alterations are being made to the engines of R.101?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Yes, I believe that in the case of one of them, at least, alterations are being made.
    Mr. HACKING: Could the hon. Member say approximately the number of men who are engaged?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. HALL-CAINE: Will the alteration to the engine give the airship any more speed?

    CHARITABLE TRUSTS (MODIFICATIONS).
    Captain BOURNEasked the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring, as representing the Charity Commissioners, the number of schemes for modifying the terms of charitable trusts which are under the consideration of the Commissioners at the present time and the amount of capital income covered by such schemes?
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I regret to say that the information asked for by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not available.

    SEA TROUT (LIFE HISTORY).
    Captain BOURNEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can make any statement on the present position of the investigations undertaken by the Fishery Board for Scotland on the life history of the sea trout?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): The investigations are proceeding, and a number of papers have been published in the Fishery Boards Salmon Fishery series, reporting results obtained. I should like to take the opportunity afforded by this question of acknowledging the very valuable voluntary assist-

    3091
    ance in this matter of Mr. G. H. Nale, who is giving freely of his time and money in furthering these investigations.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS.
    Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLEasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will reconsider the cases of the widows and children of ex-service men who die of wounds received prior to marriage?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. F. O. Roberts): The liability of the State in respect of the death of ex-service men has always been limited by the Royal Pensions Warrants (applying both to the Service Departments and to the Ministry of Pensions) to the man's family obligations as existing at the date of the contraction on service of the fatal disability. No change in this long-established principle is in contemplation.

    COMMUTATION.
    Captain EUAN WALLACEasked the Minister of Pensions whether, when a sum of money has been granted in commutation of a portion of a war pension and has been applied to the particular purpose for which it was granted, the Ministry claims any further rights, legal or otherwise, in respect of this sum?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Commutation is a privilege and not a right, and the grant of it by the Ministry is subject to the condition, in the pensioner's interest, that the object in view is to his permanent advantage. Any action which the Minister can reasonably take to ensure this object is taken.
    Captain WALLACE: Does the Minister think it is much good giving a pensioner a lump sum for a specific purpose if at some future time that sum may be taken away or the Ministry may claim some sort of right over it?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am afraid I did not Understand that that was conveyed by the Question on the Paper. If my hon. and gallant Friend will give me particulars, I will look into the matter.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will the hon. Member consider the case of men who
    3092
    through partial incapacity or poor health are not able to carry on regular employment, but who might be able to do a good deal of work if they could buy a small business?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am afraid that type of case would not come within the terms of the Regulations.

    HOSPITAL TREATMENT.
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAMasked the Minister of Pensions how many ex-service men, disabled by the Great War, are still in military hospitals; how many have been discharged within the last year; and what is to be the future of the military hospital at Orpington?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Military hospitals are not used by my Department. Disabled ex-service officers and men needing treatment are provided for in hospitals which belong to the Ministry or in which accommodation is secured at a capitation rate. The number of patients (apart from cases of mental affection in public institutions) was, at the end of last month, approximately 4,700. The hospital population fluctuates considerably in the course of the year, the aggregate number of discharges, which is about 18,000, being but slightly in excess of the number of admissions. In regard to the last part of the question, no change in the position or use of the Ministry's hospital at Orpington is at present contemplated.

    CADET CORPS.
    Mr. A. SOMERVILLEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the cost last year, exclusive of grant, of the privileges accorded by the War Office to cadet corps?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Shinwell): The cost was approximately £5,500.

  EGYPT.

    TREATY NEGOTIATIONS.
    Mr. WELLSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed, in the suggested treaty with Egypt, that the Egyptian Government shall be solely responsible for the lives and property of all foreigners?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 6 of the Proposals for an Anglo-Egyptian Settlement, published as Command Paper 3376.
    Mr. WELLSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether foreign Governments will be consulted as to the position of their nationals resident in Egypt, and the views of such Governments upon the draft proposals to be placed before Parliament, when the draft treaty now being negotiatiated is submitted to the House of Commons?
    Mr. HENDERSON: The position of foreign nationals resident in Egypt is a matter for discussion between their Governments and the Government of Egypt. The present proposals concern the Egyptian Government and His Majesty's Governments only.
    Major CARVERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to bring Mr. G. A. W. Booth, the judicial adviser in Egypt, to this country to advise the Foreign Office in connection with the present negotiations?
    Mr. HENDERSON: No, Sir. The High Commissioner has already had the advantage of Mr. Booth's advice on all points arising from the present proposals.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make on the subject of the negotiations which have been proceeding with the Egyptian delegation?
    Mr. HENDERSON: As the House is aware, discussions have been proceeding for the past three weeks with the Egyptian delegation, and His Majesty's Government had hoped that complete agreement might have been reached before the House rose. Certain important points, however, still present difficulty and it has accordingly been agreed that the discussions should be adjourned over the Parliamentary Recess.

    CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
    Mr. WELLSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will agree to publish the Report on Criminal Procedure in Egypt, dealing
    3094
    with the position which would arise if the powers of the present consular courts are transferred to the mixed tribunals, which Report was submitted to the Foreign Office in 1928?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer returned to a similar question by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont) on the 9th of April.

    BRITISH OFFICIALS.
    Major CARVERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has made any inquiry as to the reasons that have influenced the Egyptian Minister of Communications to refuse to renew the contracts of so many Englishmen at present employed in his Ministry?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: As I informed the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir G. Hamilton) on the 5th of March, the Egyptian authorities consider that the time has come to impose a further degree of responsibility upon Egyptians who for a number of years have worked under the direction of Englishmen in a subordinate capacity.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    SINGAPORE BASE.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the successful conclusion of the Three-Power Naval Treaty, it is proposed to proceed with the new Singapore naval base, and especially with the provision of facilities for docking and repairing the largest battleships?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): As I intimated in the course of the Debate which took place in this House on Christmas Eve (OFFICIAL REPORT, column 2192), this matter will require to be carefully reviewed in the light of the treaty which we are hoping will shortly be signed by all the Powers represented at the London Naval Conference. I can only add that this review will be undertaken with as little delay as possible, and, I need hardly repeat, in full consultation with the overseas Governments of the British Commonwealth concerned.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has not the position been very much altered by the policy of the Government, as announced, of looking to the eventual disappearance of the battleship, and what is the use therefore of going on with the battleship docks, and could not that part of the proposals be scrapped?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I can see no useful purpose in discussing that point at the moment. I can only say that the Government will review the whole situation in consultation with the oversea Governments after the Naval Conference.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can we have some assurance that useless expenditure will not take place on this base in view of the new policy of the Government?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Do we understand that there will be no alteration in the existing policy as declared by the present Government until after the Imperial Conference is held in the autumn?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I did not say that. I said that we should proceed to consider the question as soon as the Naval Conference is concluded. But whatever is done in the matter will be done in full consultation with the oversea Governments.

    CRUISERS (GUNS).
    Major ROSSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the re-arming of the "Hawkins" class of cruiser with guns of a calibre not exceeding 6-inch?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: This question has already been under careful consideration and no final decision has yet been taken. I think I ought to say, however, that having regard to the long period that has elapsed since the laying down of these vessels and the cost involved in making such an alteration, it is a matter of some doubt whether it would be economical to adopt such a course.

    BUILDING PROGRAMMES.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is in a position to state whether any of the vessels of the suspended naval programme are now to be laid down; and what are the types of the war vessels it is intended to build:
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) on 14th April (OFFICIAL REPORT, column 2630).
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that the two extra ships are being proceeded with before we know what the fate of the Treaty will be on the other side of the Atlantic?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is under a distinct misapprehension. The statement which I made on the Navy Estimates was that we should not proceed with the 1930 naval construction programme until after the Conference. The position of the 1929 programme is already settled. There are three cruisers in that programme, two have been cancelled, and we are proceeding with one.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does that convey that the answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) does not mean that more ships will be laid down and that there will be no Supplementary Estimate?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: No, the Supplementary Estimate deals with two points. In the first place, with the question of the submarines which were suspended in the revised 1929 programme; and, secondly, whatever initial provision may be necessary in regard to the new 1930 programme.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: 1930 cruiser programme?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: The 1930 general naval construction programme.

    EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
    Mr. GLASSEY (for Dr. HUNTER)asked the Minister of Labour whether it is proposed to maintain the farms at Carstairs, Brandon and Claydon as Government training centres for migrants to the Dominions; and, if not, what the Government proposes to do with these centres?
    Miss BONDFIELD: If the hon. Member will repeat his question after the Recess, I hope to be able to give him a reply.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    SUBVERSIVE PAMPHLETS AND LEAFLETS.
    Mr. CHURCHILL (for Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL)asked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to say what action has been taken against those who were responsible for printing and the publication of the Communist leaflets which were distributed to troops at Aldershot on the 16th March?
    Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend has been in communication with the Secretary of State for War who advises that the military authorities did not consider that the contents of the leaflet in question were such as to justify their suggesting proceedings on a charge of sedition. This confirmed the view which my right hon. Friend has already expressed that the incident referred to was not of sufficient importance to require further notice.
    Sir K. WOOD: Does that reply mean that these two unfortunate people, in very humble circumstances, who distributed these leaflets, will be prosecuted and punished at the police court, while the people who printed them will escape scot free?
    Mr. SHORT: The right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. I understand that no persons were arrested at Aldershot on 16th March last. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman is confusing this matter with the arrest of two men and a woman in London who were not prosecuted for distributing literature, but for insulting behaviour calculated to create a breach of the peace.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is that not avoiding the matter? Were not these people prosecuted in connection with the distribution of Communist leaflets, and is it not a fact that the people who actually printed and published them have not been proceeded against?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Surely the hon. Gentleman can give an answer to that question?
    Mr. SHORT: I have already indicated that these people were prosecuted for insulting behaviour, and were not associated with the distribution of Communist leaflets. Therefore, no charge would lie against the printers. In this case, there
    3098
    is undoubtedly some misapprehension on the part of my right hon. Friend.
    Sir K. WOOD: Will the Under-Secretary undertake between now and the time we meet again to lay this case before the Director of Public Prosecutions in order that he can take any action which is necessary?
    HON. MEMBERS: Answer!
    Mr. SHORT: The Home Secretary has already indicated, not merely in this answer but in previous answers, that he does not consider that a prosecution is warranted in this case. I will certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich has said.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered,
"That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Resolution of the House of the 16th day of April, Mr. Speaker, unless the House shall have previously adjourned, do adjourn the House at Five o'Clock this day without Question put."—[Mr. P. Snowden.]

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER).
Resolved,
"That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Tuesday, the 29th day of April."—[Mr. P. Snowden.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

CADET CORPS.
Sir LAMING WORTHINGTONEVANS: I wish to occupy the time of the house for a very few moments to call attention to the action of 12 noon the Government regarding the cadets. May I just remind the House what the position is? In the Army Estimates the usual sum was inserted as a grant to the cadets, but on the morning, apparently, of the Debate on the Army Estimates, the Secretary of State changed his mind and struck out, or rather, determined to withdraw, the grant from the cadets, and not only to do that, but to refuse them the official recognition that they had hitherto had. He apparently did that as a sort of sop to those on his own back benches who were threatening to attack him with regard both to the cadets and to the Officers Training Corps. He told us that he had consulted the National Union of Teachers, and I have no doubt that he did; but I understand that it has been made public that the National Union of Teachers, whoever he consulted, had not, apparently, obtained from their own members their own members' opinion on the subject. Be that as it may, there were at least two other bodies that might have been consulted by the Secretary of State if he had wished to hear both sides of the case. There was the Incorporated Association of Headmasters, an association which represents all the secondary schools that have cadet corps; and there was also the Council of Territorial Associations, who have hitherto administered the grant and administered the Corps. Neither of these bodies was consulted, and both have since protested at the action of the Secretary of State for War. Resolutions are being passed by the Territorial Associations regretting the abolition of the corps, and asking the Secretary of State for War to reconsider his decision.
I do must humbly ask the Secretary of State to reconsider his decision. If
3150
he says that the financial pressure is such that he cannot afford to make a financial grant, even though it be only £15,000, to the cadets, I would say to him at once, "Then withdraw the grant; do not renew the grant; but at least do not withdraw official recognition from these cadets. Test them if you like. There are 50,000 of them now. Let them find their own money, and, if they are not able to find their own money, you may say that there is no real demand for them and the movement is not worth keeping alive if it cannot support itself. Let it support itself by withdrawing the grant if need be, but do allow recognition, do allow the Territorial Associations officially to father the cadet corps, so that they may be inspected, so that they may feel that they are some part of an organisation."
I hope the House will realise what official recognition means. It means that these cadet corps are affiliated, very often, to a local Territorial regiment. It means that they are a unit; it means that they can borrow miniature arms from the Ordnance Department of the War Office. It means also that they have the use granted to them by the Territorial Associations of the Territorial drill halls, and, frequently, of the camping grounds; and I want hon. Members to realise what that means to these 50,000 boys. These 50,000 boys, in this form of club, if you like—because it is not much more—meet together, sometimes weekly, sometimes monthly; they have marches out—days out together; and then they have their annual holidays, their annual camp, and to many of them this is the only chance that they have of getting a holiday away from their homes.
These cadet corps are not only attached to schools. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that, having consulted the National Union of Teachers, he had done everything that was necessary, but I have here a communication from two units which are not attached either to any religious organisation or to any school. They are the Manchester Royal Engineers Territorial Cadet Corps, and the 1st Battalion of the Manchester and Salford Regiment, which is the cadet corps of that regiment. These units could, if necessary, if the War Office grant were withdrawn, probably make themselves self-supporting, because the people in the neighbour-

3151
hood would come to their rescue with contributions, so that they should not be suppressed; but they cannot go on if recognition is withdrawn, if they are not allowed the privileges that I have enumerated. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision. If on financial grounds he cannot afford the money, let the grants be withdrawn, but it is doing no one any harm to keep these units in existence, and it is doing the boys an immense amount of good.
Mr. EDE: I hope I shall be able to follow the right hon. Gentleman in his speech as regards both its brevity and the calm with which he has managed to discuss this matter to-day, after the somewhat heated references that were made to it a few days ago. He made one or two statements that I do not think he would have made had he been fully informed on the facts. He said, for instance, that the National Union of Teachers had not consulted their members on the matter. I wish to say, as a member of the National Union of Teachers, who has been very actively connected with it for the past 25 years, that this matter has been the subject of several discussions and resolutions at the annual conferences of the union. The policy of the union in regard to it has been laid down over a long period of years, and, while it is true that, as in all organisations, even in organisations with which the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, there are minorities who express views that are not held by some of the leaders, and there may be some members of the National Union of Teachers who do not agree with conference resolutions. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of the members of the union undoubtedly take the line that was embodied in the views put forward by the deputation that waited on my right hon. Friend. They do that entirely on educational grounds.
I have been very surprised that so sound an educationist as the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) should have been concerned with securing the retention of these bodies as a part of ordinary school work, because I know from my own personal experience that the hon. Member for Windsor was a pioneer in many educational ways which are concerned in this matter. We have tried in the elementary schools and in
3152
the municipal and county secondary schools to get out of the education of the country the idea which George Meredith satirised as teaching the pupils, like Prussians, to walk and think in step. We desire to see the end of that. I was the victim on one occasion of a very skilful piece of work that the hon. Member for Windsor did in that respect over 30 years ago. As a boy at a secondary school, I was taught my French out of "Somerville's French Exercises," and the hon. Member knows very well the trap that he set for the boy who would walk and think in step and who would try to use the French idiom as he would the English. He put down, I think in Exercise 5, the phrase, "The great forest trees," and nearly all English boys, instead of saying in French, 'The great trees of the forest," used the French word "forât" in exactly the same order in the sentence as he would the English word. We desire in the elementary schools to get out of the rule of thumb military discipline that we had to have in the days when classes were larger and teachers were less skilled.
From that point of view we have long desired to get rid of this connection with the military, and I am bound to say that many parents have come to me—I should think a dozen within the past three years—to complain that, because they desired their boys to be outside the Cadet Corps, the boys had to suffer inside the secondary schools an amount of social ostracism that ought not to be put on any boy because of the conscientious belief of his parent. I doubt whether at the age of 14 or 15 a boy has a conscientious belief of his own that can be regarded as well founded, but undoubtedly it is an iniquitious hardship to inflict social ostracism on a boy, and make him feel that he is out of the general swim of the school, because of the faith of his parents.
Let us think now of the things that the boys get. They get a uniform, but really I desire to see, at the time when children are most formative, as little of uniformity in dress and manners as possible, and putting a boy into uniform and giving him the ability to walk and think in step are to my mind the absolute negation of the education that should be given in a democratic country. Then they get arms—miniature arms. I believe that most of them are dummy arms, but cer-

3153
tainly, on this side of the House, we should resent very strongly the use of the State system of education to establish in the minds of children of that age any connection with arms as a laudable following for the adult when he arrives at riper years. With regard to the use of drill halls and camping grounds, I understood my right bon. Friend the other day to say that general officers commanding have the power, where a ground is not otherwise required for the purposes of the Army, whether the boys in the Cadet Corps are connected with a Territorial Association or not, to lease the ground to them, and I should have thought that that would have met all that was required on that point.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue on the path on which he has started. I am by no means sure that he has gone far enough. I am not sure that some of the so-called officers' training corps do not include in their numbers boys far too young to be properly brought into the military system as members of officers' training corps, and I hope that this move of his will lead, so far as annual camping holidays for boys in secondary schools are concerned, to an extension of the principle of the School Journey Association, which has done so much in the elementary schools and in some secondary schools to give the boys all the advantage that comes from an outdoor holiday, combined with greater freedom from discipline and greater opportunities for educational activity than they can possibly get while they are part of a military unit.
The right hon. Gentleman, in his speech this morning, was careful not to define whether he was pleading for this from a military point of view or from a social point of view. We were told, when this was being discussed here last, that we were only concerned with it from the social point of view, but it was interesting to observe, when it was being discussed at the other end of the corridor, that a great deal more attention was paid there to it from the military point of view. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend can feel assured that in this matter he has the support of every Member on this side of the House. He has also the support of all those people who desire to see the schools of this country so conducted that they shall send from them a body of youths who will be able
3154
to think and act for themselves, who will be able, when the time comes, and they are of sufficient age, to judge dispassionately whether to follow the profession of arms or not. I object to the earmarking of any child for a particular profession at too early an age, and I certainly think that in doing what he has done, my right hon. Friend has correctly interpreted the views of his own party in this House, and acted in accordance with all progressive educational opinion.
Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: The ex-Secretary of State for War has put the case for the cadet corps in a very short and, at the same time, complete manner. May I add a few words? This subject of the cadet corps has aroused a very strong feeling of regret through the country, and that is why we on this side desire to mention the subject this morning. With reference to what my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said, I am glad to find that he bears me no malice because 30 years ago he was afflicted with a book that I happened to publish. I am afraid the instance he has given from that book does not go very far to prove his case. Let me try to answer two of the points he has raised. He said that the National Union of Teachers is, by a great majority, in favour of the decision that has been taken by the Minister of War. That may be so, but our point is that that great body does not represent the schools which have cadet corps, and has not real experience of the matter for which they speak. That body represents the great number of elementary teachers of the country. It does not represent the secondary schools of the country.
Let me give the hon. Member the facts. In the beginning of last year, the latest date for which I have accurate figures, there were 91 secondary schools in the country with cadet corps. They contained 8,740 cadets out of a total of 25,350 boys. Now those figures, when you compare them, do away at once with the contention that is so often urged that there is any compulsion in the matter. There is none. I speak as one who for many years was a member of, and for five years commanded, a school volunteer corps, which later became an Officers Training Corps. There was no compulsion to join that corps. There was inducement to this extent. There was a

3155
public opinion amongst the boys. That public opinion grew very strong during the War, and that corps sent out leaders to the War who were of great value to the country. Now with regard to those 91 schools, what is the body that can speak for them? As my right hon. Friend has said, the Incorporated Association of Headmasters consists of 800 members. If you take the London schools, 14 have cadet corps, and the staffs of those schools contain 290 members of the Assistant Masters' Association in secondary schools, and 54 members of the National Union of Teachers. I think the House will say that that Association is much more representative of the staffs, the masters, in those schools than is the National Union of Teachers. In the Debate on the Estimates, the Minister for War said:
"I have come to the conclusion that representations made to me on educational and moral grounds are unanswerable. Teachers in elementary and secondary schools appear to be, in a large majority of cases, against this particular training on educational grounds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1930; col. 87, Vol. 237.]
Let me analyse that statement in view of the facts. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about consulting the National Union of Teachers. We know now what weight their opinion carries. They can speak as teachers, but they cannot speak for the experience of the schools which have cadet corps. Let us see what the bodies which can speak for these corps say. Take the Association of Headmasters. Hon. Members, no doubt, have seen a letter that was sent to the Press by that Association. That letter, after protesting against the action of the Minister of War, goes on to give their considered opinion:
"The schools value their corps very highly because they provide a training which can be furnished by no other school activity. Unlike games, which are applied for pleasure, and bring their rewards in the shape of 'colours,' or school studies, which earn certificates and prizes, and advancement in the future, cadet work means self-sacrifice, subordination to the common good, the placing of duty before pleasure, and, above all, the realisation that the privileges of education carry with them responsibilities to their country and their fellows… The suggestion that cadet training, as carried on in secondary schools, fosters a spirit of militarism hardly needs refutation. It carries about as much weight
3156
as the assertion that teaching boys to box fosters pugnacity"—
I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields would object to boys boxing.
Mr. EDE: I quite agree that it does teach them pugnacity. I refused to teach my boys to box for that reason.
Mr. SOMERVILLE: I was very fond of boxing as a young man, and I do not think it fostered a spirit of pugnacity. The letter continues:
"and tends to induce boys to become professional pugilists. Moreover, it is noticeable that those countries which have aimed at a highly developed military organisation have avoided the establishment of this method of voluntary training."
That is what the headmasters of the schools say. What do the boys say? I have in my constituency two county boys' schools which have got efficient corps—Windsor and Maidenhead—and I speak from knowledge of the good those two corps are doing. Here is an unsolicited letter from the Windsor County Boys' School Cadet Corps. I did not ask for it; it came to me asking me to
"protest on their behalf against the injustice done to them both in withdrawing their grants, and especially recognition of their corps"—
Recognition is the main point, as has been pointed out by my right hon. Friend—
"in the proper quarter, and, further, that you will endeavour, if it be possible, to arrange for similar protests from all the cadet corps in the United Kingdom to be presented to the Minister for War."
I have not the slightest doubt that I could get protests from every cadet corps in the Kingdom. Then there follow the names of 91 past and present members of the Windsor County Boys' School Cadet Corps. What does the Territorial Army Association say? I got this letter quite unsolicited from the Chairman of the Berkshire Territorial Army Association:
"Dear Sir,
With reference to the recent announcement in the Houses of Parliament by the Secretary of War regarding the Government policy in connection with the abolition of the cadet force, as chairman of the Berkshire Territorial Army Asociation I am writing on their behalf to ask whether you could kindly do anything in the matter. So far the association has received no official

3157
intimation of what is intended, but it would appear that the official recognition of cadet corps in future is not to be recognised. This ruling at such very short notice seems most unfair on the cadets concerned. In many cases cadet units have been put to very considerable expense, the boys having to pay for their own uniforms, and in many places, probably, headquarters had to be hired or purchased, and band instruments, etc. The cadet units administered by this association have been looking forward to their annual camps during the coming summer, and no doubt in many cases have already made their arrangements."
When one remembers how the cadets themselves, poor boys most of them, have been putting by their pence to help to pay for their summer camp, it is heartbreaking to think of their organisation being broken up. The letter proceeds:
"The organisation of the cadets in this county is for the purpose of turning out boys as good citizens, and no pressure has ever been placed on any of them to join the Regulars or Territorial Force. It would appear, therefore, that the policy that it is understood the Government are to take in abolishing officially recognised cadet units will be a very great mistake, and unfair to all concerned."
That is from the chairman of the Berkshire Territorial Army Association. What do the higher ranks of the Army say? Field-Marshal Lord Allenby, who is President of the Public Secondary Schools Cadet Association, says:
"I can personally testify to the value of the training of the boys, morally, mentally and physically. There was no compulsion on the boys to join the corps, and not the least of the services rendered by the corps was that they turned out a body of potential officers who were ready in an emergency."
And so they were. In the first month of the War, with some friends we formed a battalion of volunteers who wished to train themselves for service. In the battalion there was a company of lads from the Church Lads Brigade. That was the best company in the battalion. A little later the whole of the company did splendid service. Lord Allenby goes on to say:
"They were taught self-respect, self-control and self-reliance. If deprived of official recognition, I am afraid their case would be desperate."
Field-Marshal Sir Claud Jacob, who has been in camp with the cadets, speaks with the same voice. Now who are these boys in the cadet corps in the secondary schools? They are boys from the elementary schools who have won their
3158
places in the secondary schools, and they do not belong to the better off classes of the community. The Minister of War said he wished to find more ways to la carrière ouver aux talents. Is not he closing one of those ways by his decision? More and more of these boys from the elementary and secondary schools who join the cadet corps get Certificate A, and that means that they are becoming of greater potential value as future officers.
The late Minister mentioned that the total number of cadets in these corps is something like 48,000. 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. of them belong to the non-school corps—bodies like the Church Lads' Brigade, the Boys' Brigade, the Jewish Boys' Brigade and so on. There can be no question of compulsion in their case. Who are those boys? Till they come into those corps and come under the influence of the training and the discipline and the example that they find in them, they are many of the roughest members of the youthful community. They learn some sense of discipline—and it is needed in the country at present—some sense of responsibility and care for those under them, and that is what is also needed in the industrial world today. They put up their pence in order to help to pay for their annual camp. It is grievous to think that all this useful effort, teaching self-denial, responsibility and care for others, is on the point of being destroyed. The effect of wearing uniforms is not uniformity. The hon. Member shows very little acquaintance with the military methods of today, because the main object of those methods is to teach initiative—scouting, map reading and knowledge of country, which is most useful in developing the powers of the boy, in which he delights
The reproach is cast at us by some of our more militant colleagues that we are fostering militarism in the cadet corps. That is ludicrous. I know of no militarists in England. A militarist in England is an anachronism, but the soldier is a necessity. It is many a long year since the British Army was anything but a powerful instrument for the defence of freedom and the development of civilisation. Witness the Sudan. When Gordon was slain in January, 1885, the Sudan relapsed into barbarism and savagery, and for long years Cromer and

3159
Kitchener worked in silence in Egypt. Cromer rescued the fellaheen—and it is well to remember it—from misery and misrule, while Kitchener with the British non-commissioned officer, as Kipling told us, made a man of Pharaoh. When the time was ripe he marched South with the British soldier and Pharaoh, that new-made man; he won the battle of Omdurman and made Khartoum a centre of order and law and civilisation. The Sudan to-day—I was close to it some 18 months ago—is a region of law and order and prosperity. It is well to remember this to-day, and it is well to remember that that was the doing of a British statesman and a British soldier.
As to militarism, is it not the case that the first impulse of any man who has red blood in his veins is to defend his home and his country? When I was chairman of the Assistant Masters' Association, there was a man in a secondary school in the district in which I lived—not Windsor—who was a militant pacifist, and he preached his doctrines in season and out of season. The governors of the school objected and summoned him to appear before them. In our association it was a principle that we should afford help to any member who was in trouble with the governors, and I was asked to appear with him. I did so, at the same time telling him that I was absolutely opposed to his views. The governors treated him very fairly. One of them asked him, "If you saw a German ill-treating your wife, what would you do?" "In that case," he said, "I am afraid my impulses would get the better of my principles." I ask the Minister of War to allow his generous impulses, not indeed to get the better of his principles but of those mistaken counsels which would lead him to abolish a useful national work. Is he not large-hearted enough and large minded enough to reconsider his decision and, at any rate, not to withdraw recognition, which would go a long way to abolish these corps. Will he not continue to give a helping hand to what is a great useful work for our young men?
Mr. SORENSEN: This discussion is one more revelation of the fact that between this side and the other side, though there are shades of opinion and convic-
3160
tions, there is really a great gulf fixed. It is well for all of us to recognise that for it means that, instead of trying to disguise convictions which are very deep, we shall face them honestly and frankly and, as the result of the clash of battle, we may perhaps come to a clearer understanding of our respective points of view. I can fully understand the point of view of the hon. Member who has just spoken and of the right ion. Gentleman on the Front Bench. They have grown up to feel that what are known as military virtues and moral virtues are identical. We on this side believe that the aim of civilisation should be to eradicate what are known as military virtues and to distinguish the moral virtues which at present are closely intertwined with militarism so that they can have a full chance of development. Thus, for instance, our friends on the other side have to make up their minds on this matter whether they are urging the continued recognition of cadet corps on the ground of the assistance that they render to the moral and physical well being of the youth of our land, or whether their basis is that recognition may be granted in order that sufficient recruits for the Army may be forthcoming.
If it is on the former ground, there is at least one other large organisation that does all for the youth of the land that Cadet Corps are alleged to do without any association with militarism, that is in the wearing of military uniform or in the bearing of arms. I refer to the boy scout movement. If recognition is to be granted to cadet corps, why should it not be granted to an organisation very much larger than the Cadet Corps of the country? On the other hand if it is suggested, as it has been here and in another place that the real value of the Cadet Corps is that they will supply suitable recruits and officers for the Army, it is not a matter of the National Union of Teachers being against this particular organisation or some other organisation being in favour of it. The whole question is whether we feel that public money and assistance should be granted to the youths of our land to encourage them to be familiar with military arts.
I can appreciate to the fall the hon. Member's argument that it is necessary to develop, in some measure at least, an

3161
understanding of militarism and all that goes with it, in order that we might safeguard the interests of civilisation in the future. I do not say that I necessarily agree with it, but I can appreciate the point of view. But I would plead that whatever might be said in that direction in regard to preparation for future conflict should not apply to those whose minds are still not matured. It is degrading to the mind of young boys to associate them, at a period when they cannot properly discriminate or judge for themselves, with the idea that discipline and duty and service and sacrifice must be bound up with wearing a uniform, with military formation and with all the arts of war.
I was very interested in the hon. Member's reference to his colleague in a certain school to which he was attached. I think I know that gentleman. I quite understand his position. None of us know, in face of the dilemma that was then indicated, exactly how we should react. Our impulses are very strong and. pacific as I am, I do not know, nor does anyone know exactly, how we should act when face to face with a great critical emergency. But the whole purpose of education is to teach the coming generation so to control their impulses and their reactions that, instead of reacting automatically, as an animal may do, we should act as civilised beings should do, and it seems to me that the best way by which we can do that is, at least in the earlier years, to dissociate the training of the mind from training for war. Let men arrive at man's estate before they decide how best they can serve their country and, if war is to be foreseen and prepared for, let, us realise that, at the very best, it is a dirty game. Those who were engaged in the last war admit that it was a dirty game. It may be an evil necessity but it is a dirty game which involves the steady deterioration of the body and the mind.
Sir GERVASE RENTOUL: No.
Mr. SORENSEN: If there is denial of that, all I can say is that those with whom I have spoken, those who have been in the forefront of the battle, those who lived through the four years of carnage on both sides all confirm what I say. In those four years our moral standards steadily deteriorated, although at the end of the War the whole of this
3162
and every other country was countenancing methods and practices at which at the beginning of the War they would be aghast. As a matter of fact, religion was pawned at the end of the War and the ideals of Christianity were put into cold storage. We dare not talk at the end of the War about loving your neighbour as yourself—we should have been locked up—and any talk of forgiving one's enemy would have brought upon one the scorn and hostility of the mob and of those in high places. We know, and hon. Members opposite know, that between our nominal faith on the one hand and war on the other hand there is a great gulf fixed and the longer the war continues the more is Christianity prostituted. I am not saying at the moment that any of us could stand the part. When war is being waged we are all involved. Every war drags us into the whirlpool of moral deterioration.
I would suggest if the great tragedy of war and its necessity is thrust upon us at this stage in our developing humanity, at least let us try and keep the coming generation clear of the poison and help them to realise that, although war may be a regrettable necessity, it must be anticipated and prepared for only with higher judgment and with a full understanding of all that it involves. Boys of 12, 13, 14 or 15 years of age cannot understand all that it means. I say very deliberately—I am not imputing for a moment against the conscience of hon. Members opposite—that to associate boys of adolescent years with all the horrors of war and destruction without their understanding and appreciating ail that it means is a prostitution of their understanding and of their ignorance. If this is so, I trust very earnestly that the right hon. Gentleman in front of me will stand by his previous decision and that we shall withhold recognition from this particular corps.
I want to say, in addition, that I appreciate the claims that are held out that it undoubtedly provides recreation and exercise for a large number of boys in secondary schools. I do not deny that for a moment. I am not going to deny, for instance, that those who join the Army do not have a healthy life. No one would deny that in the last War, in spite of the terrors and the horrors, a large number of young men who were

3163
fortunate to come through were made for life physically because of the open-air life which they were forced to live. Taken from factory, office and shop and forced to live in the open air and to brace themselves up, given decent food and decent recreation, undoubtedly it made them for life. But that is not to condone the accidental circumstances which brought them that particular fortune. So it is with the Cadet Corps of this country. Undoubtedly, a great deal of benefit is achieved, but that benefit can be achieved in other ways without association with the so-called military virtues. I would urge once more that it is of no value at all to the youth of to-day to teach them to shoulder a gun; to teach them to think of themselves as little soldiers; to teach them to think of themselves as ready to defend their country in that particular way. Rather do we want it to be understood by the youth of to-day that the best method of defending one's country is not by a gun but by one's thought, by one's mind, and by one's willing creative service.
It is in one sense rather ironical that we should be having this discussion on Good Friday eve. Whatever one's views may be about religion—and I do not wish to bring that in at the moment—at least this will stand out in the celebration of Easter from to-morrow and the next three days—the method offered to the world for the settlement of disputes and for the healing of the wounds of humanity other than by the method of destruction. I repeat that it is ironically significant that on the very eve of this particular celebration, when we more or less declare our acceptance of that method, we should be pressing for the restoration of recognition and support to a body which has for its real object not merely the moral and physical training of the youth but also the familiarising of them with methods which are directly counter to the methods which Easter Day celebrates.
Sir G. RENTOUL: I can agree with the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) in one thing at all events, namely, that there is on some subjects, but on this subject in particular a wide, and, I am afraid, an unbridgeable gulf between many of us on this side of the
3164
House and those who sit opposite. I welcome very much the opportunity of adding my protest to the protests of those which have already been uttered against what I consider to be one of the most deplorable administrative blunders that have been made by the present Government during the last few months. I am hopeful that even now, before it is too late, the Secretary of State may see his way to reconsider the matter. I am encouraged in that hope by the reflection that he has on several occasions shown a remarkably robust commonsense and courage in standing up to pressure from within his own ranks. On this occasion, he seems to have yielded to ill-informed clamour coming from a certain section of people on his own side, and certainly coming, as far as I can judge, from a section which is not distinguished in this House for demonstrating a particularly well-balanced judgment or sense of proportion on such matters.
It is obvious that originally no change whatever was intended in the practice which has been pursued. The Minister then received a deputation from the National Union of Teachers. I should like to ask, in passing, wha particular claim the National Union of Teachers has to express an opinion on this matter? It seems to me to be as unjustifiable an interference for the National Union of Teachers to send a deputation to the Secretary of State for War in connection with the Cadet Corps as it would be for cadet officers to send a deputation to the President of the Board of Education in regard to the size of classes or the scale of teachers' salaries. The great majority of the Cadet Corps in this country to-day are not part of our educational system at all. They are composed of boys who have left school and who are for the most part engaged in industry and are commencing to earn their own living. Their work is carried on outside school hours, and it is particularly on behalf of those cadet units that I desire to make this appeal. I speak with considerable feeling on this matter, because I have devoted a considerable portion of my life to active work with a cadet unit and I know well the enormous value which has resulted to the boys. If this decision is adhered to, all that work will be utterly destroyed.

3165
I am not going to discuss the military value of cadet units. I do not think that it is necessary to draw a distinction between the two. I can justify the continuance of cadet units on both grounds, and I do not want to take up the time of the House by discussing their military value, although I think that an altogether overwhelming case can be made out on that ground. All that I would like to say on that matter is that every argument against the continuance or against the official recognition of cadet units applies with equal force to the Officers' Training Corps. Every argument in favour of the Officers' Training Corps applies with even greater force in respect to the cadet units. We must face the fact that we cannot draw any distinction between the two. The Minister has attempted to do so. He has admitted that there is an unanswerable case in favour of the other. I wish to deal for a few moments with the social and moral value of these cadet units. I agree that the suggestion that they are militaristic is utterly absurd to one who has had direct experience of them. As a distinguished ex-Secretary of State for War, Lord Derby, says, in a letter in the "Times" newspaper to-day, "It is antimilitarism run mad." Really, one cannot help agreeing with that view. One almost wonders whether very soon the National Union of Teachers will be sending a deputation to the President of the Board of Trade asking him to put an embargo on the sale of tin soldiers and pop-guns because they breed a militaristic spirit in the minds of the young. I see that some hon. Members opposite would be in favour of that. That shows, at all events, the state of affairs at which we have arrived.
I want to look at this matter from the point of view of the effect upon the boys themselves. For several years—if I may refer to personal experience. because naturally one's views are formed very largely by such experience—I had the privilege of being in control and command of a Cadet Corps in the North of London. It was composed for the most part of the roughest type of boy, of boys who were brought up for the most part under poor and very unsatisfactory surroundings, boys who possessed very little self-control or idea of self-discipline. The change that was brought about in those boys after they had
3166
belonged to the Cadet Corps for a few months was almost unbelievable. They began to show signs of discipline, they became self-reliant, and they were beginning to be formed into self-respecting and valuable citizens. It is suggested by the hon. Member for West Leyton that you could do that by other means. By the Boy Scouts, I suppose, and by boys' clubs, and so forth. I agree that a good deal of valuable work can be carried on by these methods, and in connection with every cadet unit to-day, I believe, there is a very effective troop of Boy Scouts. In fact, you have to run the club side of the work in close connection with the actual cadet side; otherwise, you would not be able to get hold of the boys you are anxious to get hold of.
That does not disguise the fact at all that it is by an appeal to tradition, by impressing on these boys that they are part of the British Army, that they are wearing the King's uniform, that if they do anything which is discreditable they are not only bringing discredit upon themselves but discredit upon the honour of the regiment of which they are a part; that it is by these vitally important factors that you influence these boys in the direction you desire, and that you make them into self-reliant, self-respecting citizens. In addition to that, there is the physical drill and so forth. The wearing of the uniform is a matter of great importance, not from the military aspect, but from the point of view of the boys, because it teaches them smartness of appearance, personal cleanliness. You also inculcate the team spirit in a way that can be taught by no other method of which I am aware. I feel that one of the greatest dangers with which we are confronted at the present time in regard to the rising generation is the lack of discipline, the resentment of any order, not because it may be unjustifiable or unreasonable, but simply because it is an order and something which they have to obey. Surely, hon. Members opposite would not be in favour of that kind of thing. After all, everyone has to learn, as part of his ordinary formation of character, to obey orders, otherwise he would never be in a position to undertake authority or, in his turn, to give orders.
1.0 p.m.
No greater mistake could be made than to suggest that war has simply been productive of nothing but brutality and

3167
beastliness. I realise, as everyone must, the horrors of war. I admit that another war would mean the utter destruction of civilisation itself. While one admits that, one cannot shut one's eyes to the fact that war has been productive of the highest civic virtues. It has afforded opportunities for courage, patriotism, self-sacrifice, esprit de corps, endurance, comradeship and loyalty. That is an aspect of the matter that ought not to be overlooked, because it is that aspect and not the military side that we are endeavouring to teach by means of cadet units. The withdrawal of the grant is an unimportant matter. Of course, we were glad to have the grant, but we had to raise the bulk of the funds that we required, and it was often hard work to do so. The vital point for the cadets is the withdrawal of official military recognition, and it is on that point that I hope the Minister will reconsider whether he cannot alter his view regarding the grant.
Most of our great Dominions have cadet corps, which they are developing to the utmost of their power. In Australia there is a cadet movement containing over 40,000 cadets. Does anyone suggest that that is a militarist movement or that the Australians are a militaristic people? I hope the Minister will come to the conclusion that his first thoughts were best. The cadet movement teaches, not blood-thirstiness, but real idealism, based upon a great tradition. It teaches the true elements of leadership and, what should appeal particularly to hon. Members opposite, by bringing boys of all classes together in camp it tempts to promote a better understanding and to do away with class divisions and class distinctions. Therefore, I am very glad, in the interests of hundreds and thousands of boys, mostly of the working classes, who have had experience in the movement, to have this brief opportunity of adding a very sincere appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give further consideration to this matter.
Mr. MUGGERIDGE: The last speaker has said that the speakers on this side who are against this particular grant have revealed themselves as an ill-informed body of opinion and wanting in balanced judgment. Upon those main features I have closely investigated the substance of
3168
the hon. and learned Member's speech. I thought that, at least, he would be well balanced and well informed, but I am bound to say that my analysis of his speech shows to me that he has forgotten to display the qualities which, apparently, are necessary for this discussion in a much more pointed way than has been displayed on this side. Let me take an instance from his speech. He said that boys in the Cadet Corps were taught not militarism but idealism. That shows that he has not grasped the facts regarding young and receptive minds playing in a uniform at a thing which is dangerous and which if carried to its full conclusion will lead to very disastrous things—things which the hon. and learned Member has described as barbarous. To suggest that it is idealism to cover up a thing of that kind, is not to be well informed or to be well balanced.
I say this very feelingly, because I happen to have had a family of boys. I know that a boy is very susceptible of idealistic ideas, and when you put him into a uniform at a very early age, you immediately idealise the thing for which that uniform stands. No wise parent will do that for a child. No wise parent will suggest to the child that the thing that has been described by the hon. and learned Member as so dangerous that if it recurs it is likely to destroy our civilisation, is idealism. What we ought to do with a growing child, especially in a dangerous matter of this kind, is to teach him realistically and to let him see the thing as it is. That is exactly what the cade classes do not do. They cast a glamour over the whole military career. They take a boy of a most susceptible age, and put him into a uniform, and we know what happens. In a secondary school for instance, they generally get an ex-sergeant as instructor. The headmaster tells him to be very careful how he carries out his functions and to remember that he is dealing with respectable boys and not with a lot of new recruits. Having thus taken every precaution to camp the style of the sergeant, they place these children under the sergeant and, in accordance with instructions, he endeavours to make them feel that it is very nice to play at being soldiers. I know the effects upon the child mind. He loses the sense of the possibilities of a military career, because everything that is unpleasant and

3169
distasteful is carefully removed from his ken. The result is that he grows up, even more than the child who does not come under that training, utterly unconscious of the real facts about war and militarism. I should apply to youngsters in these cadet classes the old couplet:
"Alas, regardless of their fate, the little victims play."
It is in order that they may be regardless of their fate that every care is taken to hide from them the most awkward and the most unpleasant facts about the military career. The last speaker put the whole thing in an idealistic light. He talked about comradeship. Comradeship can be acquired in peace as well as in war, and to an even greater extent. It requires far more a sense of comradeship to live for a long time with a man in the same workshop or the same office and to maintain towards him a fresh and lively sense of fellowship than under the stimulus of military discipline a man can feel that every man is a comrade towards his comrades. In the great trade union movement there is a more true spirit of comradeship than can be brought about by any military training.
The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) made a carefully thought out speech, and, unconsciously perhaps, military bias coloured everything that he said. He declared that in this country we have no militarists. He said that we have soldiers, but no militarists, and he then proceeded to show that he was a militarist. If there is no militarist known in this country to the hon. Member for Windsor, let him turn to the looking glass and he will see one. He said, a very true and trite thing, that while red blood flows in our veins, we will fight for home and country. That is true; we shall do that. That instinct is very strong in all of us. But how did the hon. Member illustrate it? He went to the Sudan, and pointed to the English soldier in the Sudan Was the English soldier in the Sudan fighting for his home and country? He was fighting in the country of other people, and possibly destroying their homes. We see to what extent military bias can interfere with the logical processes of an otherwise intelligent man.
It is not without significance that a Labour Government makes a gesture by disapproving of this grant and not want-
3170
ing the young in our schools to be imbued at an early age with military leanings or military idealism, because we have arrived at a period in the world's history, when, whatever may have been said at one time about the necessity of keeping up armies and of keeping the military spirit alive among the people of this country, that time is disappearing. What have we done as a nation? Side by side with hon. Members opposite, despite their unconscious militarism and their desire to keep up the teaching of militarism to the children, we have agreed with them to assent to the Kellogg Pact, which outlaws war. The children may hear their parents talk at home about the Kellogg Pact and the number of countries which have signed it. The child will hear his father, for whom he has still some slight respect, say that the Kellogg Pact has been signed and that, "Thank God, war is outlawed," but when the child goes to school he is put into his little uniform and trained in the arts of war. He is trained to carry a gun and to march down the main streets of his town, like a little soldier, and his mind is in confusion. You cannot teach a child two opposite things at the same time. It is possible to teach a grown-up person, especially if he happens to sit on the other side of the House, to hold two illogical opinions that are self-contradictory, but you cannot do that with a child.
A child is a child still at the age of 14 or 16. I know how long children remain children. My idea, as a parent, has been to keep them children as long as possible. It was only when the War came along that a youngster of mine, under 18 years of age, told me that he could no longer stay in the laboratory where he was learning chemistry because, as he said, "There are only old women of both sexes left, Dad." It was not until then that he was initiated into the full mysteries of war. It began with something very nice, but went on step by step until he found his way into the shambles in France. I received a letter from him which I dare not show his mother and which I have never dared to look at again myself. When you take these young children and tell them that the Kellogg Pact has been signed, that there is a League of Nations, and then clap them into a uniform, what are they to think? You simply confuse their

3171
minds; and perhaps the object is to confuse their minds so that when they grow up they will be ready to respond to the deceptive steps which are taken to mislead the masses of the people into a war which is seldom in defence of their own country.
Something has been said to-day about the lack of discipline. Hon. Members opposite appear to regard discipline as something very different to the conception on this side of the House. The people who say that we must keep the Cadet Corps going because it gives a sense of discipline are the very people who voted against the abolition of the death penalty in the Army. Discipline to them means to subordinate the will of the growing generation to that of a few carefully trained people, who will shoot them if they do not carry out every order that is given to them at the crucial moment. That is not my meaning of discipline. Discipline, to me, means self-control; and the best way of teaching self-control is not to put the boys into uniform and make them do the same thing at the same time, it is not teaching them to form fours, but to go out on their own, to find their way here, there and everywhere, to do this and that on their own initiative. The discipline that is taught by methods like that is entirely different from that taught by military discipline.
I maintain that body and mind are deteriorated by military discipline. What do you do with your old soldiers? You make them commissionaires and place them on the doorstep. You do not give them a job which requires initiative, fluency of mind and quickness of judgment. You put them on the doorstep, in a uniform, and then you think that you have done very well by the old soldiers. Hon. Members opposite by their actions show that they think the man has deteriorated in mind. As to the deterioration of the body, no one can be a Member of Parliament for a big constituency, and mine is the biggest in the country, and come into contact with people who have been wrecked by the late War without realising that the body does deteriorate. This may be a very small step but a significant step because it does not stand by itself, and it is a sign that we are bringing a fresh fountain of thought to play about these matters. Over and over again in
3172
this House, when military subjects have been raised, I have heard Members of the old militarist school say that we must preserve discipline, we must shoot the man if modern warfare frightens him out of his life.
On this side of the House we believe that a new era of international thought is rising. In making this gesture, in taking the children out of the influence of the older school, we are asking that the mind of man shall be emancipated from the old restraints and that we shall realise that it is no longer absurd or ridiculous to say that the world can be envisaged without the possibility of war. The time has come when we can by these various actions lift up human thought in all countries into an atmosphere where they will realise that arrangements can be made by which war will become an anachronism. We are trying to take our children away from every remaining association of the old order as a proof to the world that we believe in the possibility of such a future and are prepared to take what steps we can to bring it about.
Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I desire to add my voice to the appeals which have been made to the Secretary of State to reconsider his decision in this matter. Those who have been brought into contact with the right hon. Gentleman know that he is always ready to consider representations that are made to him, and many of us have the advantage of knowing that, whether he agrees with our particular views or not, he nevertheless brings an open mind to bear upon the representations we make to him. I hope in this matter that he will pursue the same course as in other minor matters which we have placed before him. For some 15 years I was intimately concerned with the working of a boys institution in London, and it is because of the knowledge I possess as a result of that work that I venture to intervene in this Debate. There appears to be in the minds of some hon. Members who have spoken this morning an idea that boys in cadet units are never taught anything else. I am afraid they have a very little knowledge of the way in which working boys units are conducted, and whilst I will not venture to discuss the question as to whether there is or is not a case for some administrative change in regard to

3173
the money which is granted to secondary schools, I think the Minister so far as these working class units are concerned, might consider the possible outcome of his action.
In 1889 there was established in London, in the borough of Southwark, a working boys' club, and as a result there have been set up in various other parts of London, in Stepney, in the slums at the back of Notting Hill, and other districts, working boys' clubs. These boys came from very poor homes, that is poor in the sense that they were bad homes, and it was extremely difficult to preserve any kind of decency and order in the clubs themselves. I am speaking now from personal experience. It was found that some form of discipline was necessary to prevent the clubs being broken up by these lads, in perhaps an excess of animal spirits which were not under proper control. Some form of discipline was needed, and in the particular club of which I am speaking, the first cadet battalion attached to the London Regiment, which took in boys over 14 years of age, it was found that some form of drill and military organisation was of great advantage in controlling them.
When I hear statements made about these boys being taught the glamour of war and being inculcated with military ideas I begin to wonder whether I was awake or asleep. I had the honour, during a great part of the time, of being in command of a company in a district which is really an appalling slum. I saw what went on. The club was open for five or six nights in the week throughout the year, except in one of the summer months. The amount of military organisation consisted of a weekly drill of one hour, and as a rule they did not come in uniform. They had to attend 12 parades during the year in order to remain members of the club, and only on rare occasions did they wear uniform. Once a year they had the advantage of going to Kingston Barracks, where they were given a very happy time in the open air during the Easter holidays, and in the summer months they went largely at their own charge, assisted by such funds as we who were running the organisation could manage to collect, eked out by a very small grant from Government resources, for a happy week's holiday in the country. The glamour of war! Why
3174
one of the first duties we inculcated in the mind of our officers was that they were never to teach the boys anything except this, that war, if it came, was a horrible and beastly necessity.
And what about the officers? In this House there appears to be an anti-officer complex. The officers were, and I have no doubt are at the moment, busy working people. We had a schoolmaster or two giving their spare time to help in educating these lads. We had a barrister or two—both of us are here—we had a bank clerk or two, an insurance clerk or two—people giving up their scanty leisure in order to assist in a useful social work. On behalf of these working boys' units, I desire to emphasise the social character of the work. As to inducing the boys to join the Army, I do not think that anyone who has had any experience of the units will agree for an instant that there is any sort of attempt made or influence used in that direction. We have been enabled, during the 41 years in which the organisation has been in existence, to do a very great deal for the benefit of the lads. The withdrawal of the Government grant from units such as I have described is serious enough in its way. We have had to struggle to get subscriptions. We were none of us people in a position to spend very much more than our spare time in the work which we were doing, and the withdrawal of the Government grant will undoubtedly make the work incomparably harder. But notwithstanding that withdrawal, we can, I think, still manage to carry on; we can still manage to do the work which we are doing if we get just that little help which enables us, for example, when we are appealing to the generous public for subscriptions, to tell them that we are attached to some unit, which incidentally we never see, and that we really are a recognised organisation. Often, when charitable appeals are made, it is an advantage to answer shortly and to the point the question, "Who are you, and what are you doing?"
The little assistance of Government recognition is one of the things that help units very much more than is generally understood. That is the position, I understand, with regard to a large percentage of these cadet units. It is on these grounds, emphasising, as I do, the social value of the work that they are doing, that I venture to ask the Secretary

3175
for War to reconsider his decision. As to the other speeches we have heard to-day, I cannot help feeling that they seem to regard the cadet's mind as entirely opposed to every other form of instruction, as if the cadet spent his whole time in uniform and as if he was taught nothing except how to form fours and what the effect of firing a rifle would be. I suggest, with great respect to those who, I am certain, have firm convictions upon what they think is the military spirit, that they are exaggerating the whole matter beyond an inconceivable possibility of right. I ask them to think whether, in attempting once more to strike a blow in favour of a principle, they are not also striking down something which is really doing useful work, which is a credit to those who are responsible for it, and of infinite value to the boys to whom instruction is given.
The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): I take this opportunity of restating the Government position, although I have already stated it with as great clarity as I could command on two or three separate occasions. I shall restate the position in order that there may be no misunderstanding, no misconception, and I hope no misrepresentation of the Government's attitude. It seems to have been assumed that when I considered this matter I went to consult the National Union of Teachers. Nothing is farther from the fact. The National Union of Teachers came to consult me, as people who took an interest in the matter. I would have met any responsible body, as indeed I met Members of this House who desired to see me on the subject. Obviously I could not send round the country a kind of advertisement, "Would anyone like to meet the Secretary for War on the question of Cadet Corps?" Naturally, if anyone is interested it is his business to approach the Minister. I have approached many Ministers in my time, but I never knew one to run out of his way to approach me.
Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: We had not the least idea that you were going to withdraw recognition of the Corps.
Mr. SHAW: How anyone, knowing the record of our party, could have dreamt that the matter would not come under consideration, I do not know. Anyone
3176
who heard the answer that I gave before the Estimates were introduced, and who heard me state that on questions of policy the Estimates must be awaited, could scarcely have doubted that the subject would be considered. If anyone in the House had any doubt as to whether the subject would be considered, I suggest that it was not the fault of the Labour party. The curious thing is that not only did I not consult the National Union of Teachers and that they consulted me, but I believe that after they had consulted me, they were very dissatisfied with the reception they got. I state that to the House in order to show that the theory that the National Union of Teachers was sent for by me and that it half bullied me into this conclusion, is absolutely erroneous from beginning to end. It was quite the opposite. I think I was quite justified in dealing with the delegation as I did, but they were evidently dissatisfied with the way in which they were treated.
Let me refer to one or two of the things that have been said during this discussion. I may be able to remove one or two misapprehensions. After my decision had been given I was appealed to "to play the game," so to speak, with the Cadet Corps, on the ground that many organisations in perfect good faith had entered into arrangements for this year without having the knowledge of what was going to take place. I went to the very limit of concession there. When I examined the matter and found that unquestionably a number of organisations had definitely entered into commitments in the belief that they would get the grants, I at once said, "We will have a clear edge to this, and the whole of the grants shall be paid for this year. The conditions shall go on until October, in order that no one can say that he has not been properly treated."
Let me try to put, as logically as I can, the position as it appears to me. Either this body is for military purposes or it is not. That is a plain and simple statement that no one can controvert. If it be not for military purposes, as was asserted in another place by half the speakers, or if it be for military purposes, as was asserted by the other half, we have to face the pins either way. If it be not for military purposes, the War Office ought not to have anything to do with it. It is not our business in

3177
any sense to deal with social institutions for boys. They could infinitely better be dealt with by the Minister for Education. I do not mind expressing the personal view that I would look with the greatest approbation on anything that the Minister of Education could do in order to give to boys who are just emerging from the elementary schools and are entering the secondary schools, an opportunity of physical training under healthy conditions, by methods that would make both for their moral and spiritual uplifting. But it is not my business as Minister for War to deal with social institutions. After the grant had been removed by the last Government it was reintroduced not on military but on social grounds.
Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I reintroduced it.
Mr. SHAW: I must give the information that is supplied to me. Did the right hon. Gentleman reintroduce it for military purposes?
Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I did it for both.
Mr. SHAW: So far as I am concerned as Secretary for War, I decline to have anything to do with social institutions. It is not my business, and, frankly, I do not intend to make it my business. Let me turn now to the other side. If this be a military institution there are two things that we have to consider. The first is, does it fulfil the object for which it is apparently created? If it does fulfil the object is it a thing that we ought to do? On both grounds I object to the Cadet Corps. I object to it because, even if I believe it has a military object I do not believe, from the facts submitted to me, that it attains its object; and, secondly, I have an unconquerable aversion against children of tender age being drafted into semi-military formations. It was with the greatest reluctance that I accepted advice with regard to the Officers Training Corps, but there the boys generally are older, or old enough to form an opinion. It is true that the older end of the Cadets shade into the younger end of the Officers Training Corps, but generally the Cadets are much younger. I could not stand here and defend a semi-military formation for
3178
children of tender age. If there is one thing above all others in which a mature judgment is required, it is as to whether one will or will not embark on a military career.
It may be that our ideas on the matter differ, but that is my idea and the idea of my party. If there is a conflict between the two ideas, the side which is in office must try to apply its own policy and not the policy of its political opponents. That is where I stand on the matter. I have done my level best to ensure the keeping of every engagement which anybody could say had already been entered into, or to which anybody by implication could be bound. I have said quite clearly that the corps can go on to the end of this term, because it is impossible to distinguish between those who have entered into commitments and those who have not; but when the end of this year comes, as far as we are concerned, the military or semi-military connection between the cadets and the Territorial Force will be broken. The cadets will not suffer any deprivation in comparison with other boys' organisations. If Boy Scouts, Boys Brigades or other organisations apply for the use of lands, and if the lands can be spared under reasonable conditions, commanding officers have power to grant the use of that land on certain terms for outdoor exercise.
There is no intention of treating these cadet bodies any worse than other boys' organisations. But if an attempt be made—I might as well be quite frank about it—to get round the decision of the Government and the House, by carrying on in the old way, by subterfuge, then, of course, action will have to be taken to see that the Government policy is carried out. I have tried to state concisely the Government position. Whether this claim be urged on the ground of the social desirability of these corps, or on the ground of the military advisability of these corps, or on both grounds, the Government are equally opposed to it. In those circumstances it would be idle for me to pretend that there is any chance of a reconsideration of the Government decision, and I make that statement quite frankly to the House in order that there may be no misapprehension. I hope I have made the Government's position perfectly clear.
Commander SOUTHBY: I am sure the House will appreciate the candour and frankness of the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed the whole of this Debate has been conducted with extreme candour and frankness on both sides and although it is obvious that there is marked cleavage of opinion between hon. Members opposite and hon. Members on this side, at any rate those opinions have been expressed with great sincerity. Where the difference of opinion really arises is that hon. Members opposite feel that military training is harmful. That is the basic supposition upon which the objection of the Government and the Government's supporters to these cadet corps is founded. The right hon. Gentleman just now asked whether the object of this movement was social or military. I think the answer lies between those two alternatives. The movement is not for purely military purposes but it teaches what I may call quite fairly and truly military virtues.
I do not think that hon. Members opposite really think in their hearts that military training—not militaristic training, not training inspired by militarism and a desire for war, but military training in the sense of disciplinary training—is a bad thing in itself. I believe that hon. Members who have spoken with such sincerity from the other side of the House believe in teaching children to think and judge for themselves, but anybody who is familiar with the principles which underlie military training will admit that one of the greatest beauties of our system in this country is that it teaches the soldier or the sailor to think for himself. [Laughter.] I think that the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who laughs at that remark, himself benefited very much from a military training and was a great ornament to the profession with which he was associated.
Mr. EDE: Although I rose to the rank of sergeant-major, I was never taught in the Army to think for myself.
Commander SOUTHBY: It was only as the result of what he was taught in the Army that the hon. Member rose to the rank of sergeant-major and was able, not only to think for himself, but to think for others. That is one of the chief charms of military training and the training which has been given to these boys—that it enables them to think, not
3180
merely for themselves, but for the other members of the company to which they belong. It has been argued that uniforms are unnecessary, but the uniform is an attraction to a certain type of boy who would not otherwise be brought into a movement which can do him so much good. It is also argued that the same results can be achieved through the Boy Scout movement and the dubs movement. I do not think that that argument holds water. There are many boys who are not attracted by the clubs movement but who are attracted by the cadet movement. There are boys from outlying districts who are influenced by the prospect of meeting a number of their fellows in organised and disciplined work, and who in that way are brought into the cadet movement, when they might not be attracted into the other movements which have been mentioned.
The whole range of this subject has been adequately covered during the Debate, but there are one or two points which I wish to put to the House. I have here a letter on the subject of the moral good which this movement does, as opposed to the idea that it is merely a movement which has in vew a future war, and which is training up reserves for such a war. This letter is from the commanding officer of one of the London units and, pointing out the good which this movement has done in training boys, he writes as follows:
"I myself have taken two boys on remand into my corps. The boys were considered perfectly hopeless by boys' club officials and social workers. Through discip1ine, uniform and physical training we have seen those boys take on responsibilities until both reached the highest rank among the noncommissioned officers of the corps. One of them is now a prominent organiser on a voluntary basis for Toc H."
Anyone who knows the wonderful work of Toc H will realise that no harm but only good can have been done to those boys as a result of passing through a Cadet Corps unit. The fact that this boy is now prominent in Toc E proves that the training which he received was all to the good and that it was far from teaching him mere militarism in the worst sense of that word. One of the reasons why clubs cannot do what this movement does, is that the clubs are mainly recreative in character and that boys go into them largely for recreation. The Cadet Corps movement is more a character-forming movement and as such

3181
it ought to be fostered and maintained. The figures have already been mentioned of the number of boys in the movement but I believe that some 3,000,000 have passed throught these Cadet Corps with immense good both to themselves and to those with whom they come in touch.
The Secretary of State for War has mentioned his meeting with the National Union of Teachers. Surely if the National Union of Teachers came to him and expressed an opinion he might have considered the advisability of ascertaining the views of other representative bodies in the teaching profession and of other people who have first-hand association with young boys. In 49 London public and secondary schools there are 797 members of the Incorporated Association of Assistant Masters, and only 123 of those are members of the National Union of Teachers. If there is one body whose views might have been sought by the right hon. Gentleman it is the Incorporated Association of Assistant Masters. Although it may seem to be beating against a granite front so far as the Secretary of State for War is concerned I would suggest, even now, to the right hon. Gentleman that he might find it in his heart to make at least some concession, if proper representations were made to him. May I say here that I would like to express my personal thanks to him for the fairness and generosity with which he has acted in one respect. He has done something with which I do not agree at all, but at any rate he has played the game, by making a clear-cut line, in such a way that none of the units will be injured this year. For that concession both this House and the units themselves will be grateful to him. In fact one might say of the right hon. Gentleman that he has done a dastardly deed in the kindest possible way—but the kindness of the right hon. Gentleman does not alter the fact that it is a dastardly deed. It is not a question of money—the right hon. Gentleman himself has made that fact quite plain. It is a question of a fundamental difference of opinion as to whether these corps are for the good of the young of the country or not. I contend that if they teach self-reliance and the virtues associated with the military profession they are worth keeping for that very reason and I think it is possible for these young people to be taught those virtues without being
3182
taught any of the vices of the Prussian system of military training from which we suffered during the War.
In the course of this discussion references have been made to certain subjects which are not, strictly speaking, relevant to this discussion. The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Muggeridge) said that orders were given to drill sergeants by schoolmasters to the effect that "they must treat the boys of the Cadet Corps as respectable boys and not as recruits." I resent that remark, because the recruit who joins His Majesty's Army is as much a respectable member of society as anybody else in the country. I do not like, even by implication, and I am sure the hon. Member did not mean his remark in that sense, that anybody who wears the King's uniform should be lightly spoken of in this House. I also gathered from the speech of the hon. Member for Romford that he suggested that the average ex-service man was not competent to be given any particularly good job, and was only given the sort of job which any fool could do. If it be the case that the ex-service man, the old soldier, is not given any job which requires high mental capacity—and I do not admit it for a moment—at any rate members of the Corps of Commissionaires are called on to fill any jobs which require trust, honesty and faithful service, and we may be proud of the Corps of Commissionaires and of the way in which they and ex-service men generally fill the positions of trust which they are given.
2.0 p.m.
Reference has been made to the fact that war deteriorates the spirit and the mind of the people. It is my privilege to go from time to time to meetings and entertainments which are given to help those men and women who are still suffering from the effects of the War. I go in no political capacity at all, but I see some hundreds at a time of these men who are broken and shattered—men still living in homes such as the Star and Garter and the War Seal Foundation, and nurses who were bombed and gassed during the War. These men and women may be broken in body, but nobody can say that their spirit has deteriorated. It is as fine as ever it was when they were in France, and I do not like hon. Members opposite coming here and saying that

3183
war, horrible and beastly as it is, deteriorates the spirit of the people, because it does not. It brings out virtues which perhaps are only too latent in peace, such as self-sacrifice, heroism, comradeship, and the like, and when war has broken the body, as indeed it has in many cases, at any rate it has left the spirit of these men untouched, and has left them as shining examples for us.
I would like to put one suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. I have been asked to approach him—and I did not do so before to-day's Debate—to ask whether he would receive a small deputation which would be representative of the territorial cadet units of the home counties. I hope that he will not tell us that it is no good their going, because I am sure he will be the first person—
Mr. SHAW: I certainly shall not tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that. I will willingly receive at any time bodies of responsible people to talk on responsible matters, whether they are of my political views or not.
Commander SOUTHBY: The answer that has been given by the right hon. Gentleman is one which I expected he would give, because nobody doubts his sincerity or his kindness in the execution of his particular duties. I shall be very grateful for the opportunity to introduce to him a deputation representing the territorial cadet units of the home counties, and it may be that when he has heard what they have to say he will remain still open to conviction, and we may hope that, having heard these representations, he may be able to say that, although the War Office cannot grant the money, it may still be possible to allow these boys to wear a uniform of which they are extremely proud, but which he has taken away from them. If facilities for the use of War Office equipment and camps are also taken away from them, it must mean—and the right hon. Gentleman knows it—the extinction of these Cadet Corps. I do not believe, whatever views the other side may hold about these Cadet Corps, that it is really desired to do away with any movement which is for the good of the young people of this country—a movement which, unless there is some sort of War Office recognition, however hedged about it
3184
may be by the right hon. Gentleman, must become extinct, although it has done nothing but good during its existence.
Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I feel quite sure that the speech of the Secretary of State for War Will be received with the very greatest disappointment by every cadet throughout the length and breadth of the lard, and not only so, but it will be received with dismay by those patriotic people who have given so much of their time in the past, from both patriotic and philanthropic motives, to the fostering of the Cadet Corps movement; and I think too that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman will be received with the greatest disappointment by the parents of the cadets themselves. If recognition is to be withdrawn, as we now understand, I think the right hon. Gentleman might have been a little more gracious in coming to his decision, and that he might have uttered a few words of recognition of the great good that this cadet movement has done in the past, and of gratitude for the services of those who have so ungrudgingly carried out the duties connected with the movement.
I must say one word as regards that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech dealing with the deputation which waited upon him from the National Union of Teachers. I think the story he has given to us of that particular interview makes the matter very much worse, because, after all, what is the locus standi of the National Union of Teachers in this matter? Let me remind the House that the composition of the National Union of Teachers is something 1ike one-third men and two-thirds women, and that seems to be hardly a body from which to accept advice on a matter of this kind, dealing with youths 50 per cent. of whom have already left school. That is the proportion to-day. Therefore, why should the right hon. Gentleman pay so much attention to this particular body? If he really wanted to get at all the facts of the case, when he had received this expression of opinion from the National Union of Teachers he least he might have done would have been to consult the Headmasters Association and the other bodies concerned.
The Cadet Corps movement exists for the improvement of the mental, moral,

3185
and physical training of the boys of our country. True, it is a semi-military organisation, but, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) said so well, although it may be a semi-military organisation, that does not mean necessarily that it is a militaristic organisation, and I entirely agree with the clear distinction which he drew in that matter. Why has the right hon. Gentleman come to this decision, as he told us in the Debate on the Estimates, entirely on his own authority; why has he ignored the weight of opinion on the other side; and why has he taken his decision in face of the opinion of his military advisers? I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will deny that he has taken this decision in face of that opinion, and I think we are entitled to have had some explanation as to why he has chosen in this matter to ignore the advice of his military advisers.
I should like to give one expression of opinion from a body which has been dealing with the Cadet Corps movement. A meeting was held yesterday of the Essex County Territorial Association, and this resolution was passed unanimously:
"This association deplores the action of the Secretary of State for War, who, without consulting any of those directly interested, decides no longer to give recognition to cadet units, and is thoroughly in agreement with the headmasters of the schools concerned, the organisers of the Church Lads Brigade, and others connected with the cadet movement in Essex, who, at a special meeting, passed a resolution to the effect that the parents of 2,000 voluntary cadets in the county are the better judges as to the moral effect of their children joining cadet units than the National Union of Teachers or any Government in office. This association is of opinion that it is essential to re-establish cadets as an integral part of the Territorial Army."
We have had evidence from headmasters and from territorial associations, and, as we know, we had the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman's military advisers also, all coming down on the side of maintaining recognition of this Cadet Corps movement. An hon. Member opposite alluded to the gulf which exists in these matters as between this side of the House and the other side. Obviously, there is a gulf, and I think it is just as well that the country should clearly understand what that gulf is. The fact is, as the hon. Member for Romford (Mr.
3186
Muggeridge) mentioned, that this decision of the Government is a pacifist gesture, but that does not in the least mean that it is a gesture for peace. The two things, peace and pacifism, are quite different. Every Member of this House probably desires peace, but what kind of peace does he desire? There are two quite distinct kinds of peace. There is the right kind of peace, peace with honour, which is the peace supported and sustained by the moral character of the manhood of the nation, but that is not the kind of peace for which the pacifist cares, which is peace at any price, even though it be purchased at the sacrifice of the moral manhood and boyhood of the country. That is the distinction between the ideas of peace on this side and on that, and I hope the country will take note of the difference.
I fear it is too late to think that anything I can say will now influence the decision of the Government. I deplore that decision, and I only hope that an opportunity may come when there may be found sitting on the Treasury Bench a Government which has a different mentality in these matters and that this movement for fostering the manhood and all that is best in the moral culture of the youth of this nation may receive encouragement at no far distant date from a Government which appreciates the value of those virtues to the nation as a whole.

SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE (SCOTLAND).
Duchess of ATHOLL: I desire to take the opportunity which the Motion for the Adjournment of the House affords of drawing attention to a subject of very great importance to Scotland, which it has not been possible to discuss in this Parliament, and the discussion of which has been far too long delayed. The subject which I wish to raise is that of the raising of the school-leaving age to 15 as it affects Scotland. The Education Act of 1918 includes a Section which enables the Scottish Education Department to name the appointed day for raising the school age to 15 as and when it thinks fit, and I think that was a power so wide that the Special Committee which is inquiring into what we now know as "the New Despotism," might very well examine this particular instance of Government by delegation. We have been too much apt in Scotland, because of the

3187
power conferred on the Secretary of State by the Education Act of 1918, to conclude that the raising of the school age in Scotland was a very much simpler matter than to do so in England, where, of course, legislation would be necessary. That, I venture to say, was the frame of mind in which many members were elected to the education authorities set up in 1919 by the Education Act.
When these authorities began to come to grips with the problems which confronted them, they found so many and such urgent problems facing them, that the question of this easy raising of the school age began gradually to assume a new form. They found that they had to improve the salaries of their teachers. Rural authorities in particular found themselves faced with many buildings in their areas which were very inadequate and needing improvement; they found many of these schools very deficient in necessary equipment, and they found a school medical service, which had been practically shattered by the War, and which had to be built up again. Therefore, it was not until 1921 that any question of bringing this matter before the Scottish Education Department was even raised by any education authority, and it was raised in that year by a very important education authority, that of Glasgow.
At the instance of the Glasgow authority, the Association of Education Authorities invited various Scottish authorities to make some estimate as to what would be the extra accommodation involved by raising the school age, and some estimate of the financial cost. Only a few of the authorities replied that they had the staffs with which to make the estimates, but the replies that were received from these few authorities were so alarming that the question was hastily dropped by the association. I think that I am right in saying that from that day onwards no request has ever been made to the Scottish Education Department to raise the school-leaving age, either by the Association of Education Authorities or by any single authority. I wish to stress this, because here there is a considerable difference between conditions in Scotland and in England. In England, the authorities have this grievance, that whereas in 1927 they told the then Pre-
3188
sident of the Board of Education that if the school age were to be raised they must have not less than six years i which to make their preparations, they were asked in 1929 to make all these preparations by the spring of 1931. That is to say, they were given one year and three-quarters, when they had specifically asked for six years, and the step was taken without any consultation with them; but at least one of the associations of education authorities in England and Wales had asked for the raising of the school age as from a certain date.
The Scottish education authorities, though from the legislative point of view the step could much more easily have been taken than in England, have never made any request. This decision, as we know, was hastily come to, and apparently arrived at as a result of the deliberations of a committee appointed jointly by the Board of Education and the office of the Lord Privy Seal. It was understood that the discussion of this question was hurried on because of the relief which it was hoped that the raising of the school age would give to unemployment. I think that the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he first met the Scottish education authorities, and intimated to them the Government's decision on this matter, informed them that one of the main reasons for arriving at the decision was the hope that it would relieve unemployment. Everyone will sympathise with the anxiety of the Government to explore every possible measure that might help towards a solution of that great problem, but I submit that the hope of relieving unemployment was not sufficient ground for so hasty a decision to take such a far-reaching educationa1 step, and certainly not to take such a far-reaching educational step without prior consultation with the authorities who would have to administer the decision.
Shortly after the decision had been arrived at, the relief that this step could be expected to give to unemployment appeared to be negligible. It was shown by figures furnished by the Ministry of Labour to the National Advisory Council on Juvenile Employment that, far from juvenile unemployment being a serious issue in the years immediately ahead of us, there was likely in any case to be a shortage of juvenile labour between the years 1931 and 1937, even on the existing

3189
basis, and that if the school age were raised in 1931 as proposed, that shortage would vary between 400,000 juveniles a year and over 700,000 a year for as long a period as the figures had been worked out. If there were hopes that this raising of the school age would not only help to solve the problem of juvenile unemployment, which was really in the immediate future likely to be manageable if not non-existent, but would help in the solution of adult unemployment, they were dashed by one of those engagingly candid utterances which the Lord Privy Seal is wont to give. He assured a conference of the Labour party that they must not assume that the raising of the school age was going to do much for unemployment because it should not necessarily be supposed that an adult would be employed where a young person had been employed before.
Apart from this, and this was the main reason for which this decision was made, I submit that there was a special reason why it should not have been made as regards Scotland at the present time. As soon as the Government came into office, they considered the Local Government Act and its bearings on the educational administration of Scotland, and they decided to retain the Sections in that Act which transferred the powers of education authorities to town and county councils as from May, 1930. Surely, the least appropriate period of time in which to ask authorities to undertake an obligation which they had shown no anxiety whatever to undertake, was a period in which their existence was going to come to an end. The first of several questions therefore which I wish to put to the Secretary of State is this: Were the Scottish Education Department represented on the Joint Committee of the Board of Education and the Lord Privy Seal's Department, on whose advice it was understood that the Government acted? If the right hon. Gentleman replies that his Department were represented, I am afraid that we can only wonder whether the representative brought before the Committee these very weighty reasons for not bringing so far-reaching a Measure into operation in Scotland at a moment when the authorities were about to become defunct.
We find therefore that the decision was a hasty one, that the main purpose for which it was alleged to have been made
3190
was speedily shown to be of very little moment, and that the decision was made without any prior consultation with the authorities concerned. They were, I understand, not even allowed to express an opinion on the principle of the raising of the school age when they met the Secretary of State. He informed them that the Government had made up their mind, and that no discussion on the question of principle could be allowed. That was a very dictatorial action, which really strikes at the root of local government, because surely these services, in regard to which powers are delegated to local authorities, are services which should be regarded as being in the nature of a partnership between the central and local authorities.
After that very dictatorial action had been taken, the next thing that happened was the delay on the part of the Scottish Education Department in giving authorities guidance as to the steps which they would have to take to carry out the Government's decision. Everyone, I can imagine, was desirous of having a holiday in August last year, but I would remind the Secretary of State that his colleague the President of the Board of Education, was ready to curtail his holiday in such a way that it was possible to issue, not later than September, a circular to the English education authorities, pointing out what the Government were going to do, and asking them to inform him at the earliest possible moment as to the additional accommodation that would be needed in each year, the additional number of teachers, the expense involved, and so on. The Scottish authorities had to wait until November for any corresponding circular to reach them from the Scottish Education Department, and the right hon. Gentleman must have had occasion to realise before he issued his circular how much in the dark many of the authorities felt in regard to what they had to do.
A further disadvantage appeared when the circular was received by the Scottish authorities, because, while the English circular had announced to the English authorities an increase of from 20 per cent. to 50 per cent. in the grant which was given under the English education grant system, for all buildings and equipment provided by a local authority between the date of the issue of the cir-

3191
cular and a date in 1932, the Scottish circular could offer no hope of any building grant, no grant, that is, for any of this special expenditure which would be entailed by the raising of the age. It is quite true that the circular very properly intimated that the Scottish authorities would receive as a whole eleven-eightieths of the additional grant given in England, but I submit that, when a Government Department wish a local authority to take a step that involves a great deal of thought and expenditure, it is a great help if the Government Department concerned can say, "If you carry out that particular piece of work, you will get a particular amount of assistance for it." It is not at all the same thing to say to an authority, "Your grant as a whole may be eleven-eightieths bigger." It is a definite help in getting a specific piece of work done if you can get specific grant assistance for it. There again the Scottish authorities have been at a disadvantage compared with their English brothers.
When at last they had some guidance from the Department as to what they had to consider, and when they began to consider the accommodation needed, and to plan, as the circular asked them to do, suitable courses for the children who were to be retained in school, and to consider how many teachers were needed, they began to realise the magnitude of the problem confronting them. A little more light on the magnitude of that problem is thrown by an answer given to me by the Secretary of State in November last, when he told me that in more than 1,500 of our primary schools, that is, in more than 50 per cent. of them, children of the ages of from 12 to 14 years are being taught together in the same class by the same teacher, and that in some 600 or 700 of those schools children of those ages are being taught in the same class and by the same teacher with children of all ages down to the age of five. I do not say that the children involved in that answer form 50 per cent., or more than 50 per cent., of the Scottish children. I am quite aware that that is not the case; but even if it does not refer to more than 50 per cent., but to a much fewer number, it does show how widespead is the problem of bringing the older children from tiny
3192
schools to some centres where they can be taught with children of their own age and have some chance of receiving instruction specially suitable to their ages.
Any problem of that sort calls for a great deal of deliberation. An authority has to select the schools which will be suitable as central schools or centres for classes for these children. An authority has to add to a centre or it may be build a new one, and to plan special alternative courses, if possible, for children of differing aptitudes coming to the central school. Above all, the Scottish authorities were asked in a circular to give special attention to the need for more practical instruction. The need for practical instruction was clearly shown by figures published in the Department's last report. That showed that out of 2,919 primary schools woodwork is taught in only 1,038, needlework in only 1,163, cookery in only 1,429, and gardening in only 648. I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman for this position of affairs.
The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): The Noble Lady and her friends will have to take a part of the blame.
Duchess of ATHOLL: I never had the honour of being associated with the administration of Scottish education as a whole, but I am very glad to think that it was a Unionist Secretary for Scotland who in 1923 instituted that scheme of advanced divisions which began to ensure some progress in the provision of more courses with some practical instruction in them. The authorities in Scotland were not, however, very quick to take advantage of the new scheme, and progress has been very slow, particularly as regards bringing in more practical instruction. Still, I only emphasise that now because it does serve to bring out what a great deal has to be done in the way of arranging suitable courses for these children at suitable centres in, I imagine, every area of Scotland.
Then an authority has to arrange for the conveyance of many of these children. Here, again, some rural authorities have been very backward in making arrangements. In Scotland, of course, we have always to reckon with distances, and we have also had to reckon with a grant system which, until my right hon. Friend the last Secretary of State

3193
altered it, not only gave no help towards the cost of conveying children to a centre but provided special grants for small schools. That system tended to discourage the conveying of children from the small schools to larger ones, and, in fact, encouraged not only the maintenance but the increase of very small schools. The Secretary of State gave me figures showing a really substantial increase in the number of these small schools during the last few years when I asked him a question on the subject last November. I am very glad to know that the grant system was changed by my right hon. Friend in 1928 in such a way as to allow local authorities freely to use the money which they had formerly received for their small schools upon conveying children from small schools to larger ones, but the grant system does not give an authority any specific assistance towards the cost of conveying children; and if the raising of the school age is to prove any real educational benefit to Scottish rural children the authorities will have to arrange these special courses at selected centres and will have to arrange to convey them to those centres, and that may mean a very largely-increased cost for conveyance.

The result of all these difficulties which stand in the way of the authorities is that, as I believe, they are really behind the English authorities—or many of them are—in schemes of reorganisation. It may be difficult to test the truth of that statement, and I do not wish to be too dogmatic, but at any rate they have not been so pressed to give their minds to schemes of reorganisation and they have not had a grant scheme to help them in the way that English authorities have had now for several years past. Therefore, we find that to-day the schemes of the Scottish authorities are not at all in a forward condition. Take Edinburgh. There, I understand, a scheme has been adopted, but the authority expressly recognised when it sanctioned the scheme that before being put into operation it must receive the sanction of the Town Council of Edinburgh, to which all educational affairs will be transferred next month; and it was stated at a recent meeting of the authority that as a result probably no building can be begun before July or August on a scheme which involves a great deal of building. Take Glasgow. A very careful report has just
3194
been submitted to the authority, and adopted by it, a report which, in passing, estimates that the scheme will mean an increase of £182,000 per annum, without counting the cost of maintenance allowances, a very serious consideration for anyone resident in Glasgow. There, again, the fact that this report has only just been adopted by the authority shows that no steps can have been taken actually to carry it into effect. The Glasgow authority also have to wait for the confirmation of the Glasgow Town Council.
Then we have Ross-shire frankly saying that a scheme of centralisation is impracticable even if it were advisable, except in isolated cases, and therefore Ross-shire proposes to do very little. That means that the raising of the school age will, in the main, mean marking time for Ross-shire children; and marking time may not only mean a negative position, mean not only that a child gets no advantage from the additional school year, but may bring some actual disadvantage, in that if a child is kept in school without being given a course that is likely to arouse his interest and afford him some chance of self-development and self-expression, he may very well leave school less inclined to value education and books than if he had left the year before. That is the danger that faces all systems of retaining children in school for an additional year unless we can be sure that we shall give them something worth while. In Dumbarton we find plans submitted but no resolution to proceed with them. In Fife we hear that plans have been delayed, and in Kincardine, Perthshire, Peebles and Argyllshire we get resolutions definitely against the raising of the school age at this time; while Banffshire has made no secret of its opposition to the raising of the age.
I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman to supplement a little more specifically an answer which his Under-Secretary gave me yesterday when I asked him how many Scottish authorities have told the Department that they can be ready with their plans for raising the school age by April, 1931. And it is dawning on the Scottish authorities, or many of them, that not only is the period between now and April, 1931, a very unsuitable one for raising the school age—unsuitable on account of the shortness of time and the change over of powers next month—

3195
but also that the period between now and 1937 is a very unsuitable one to have chosen for this step. It is now two years and more since my right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Education issued a circular to the English education authorities pointing out that owing to the high birthrate in 1920 there would be a bulge in the number of children of 12 to 15 years of age between the years 1932 and 1935, and it was for that reason that he was not ready to consider the raising of the school age in 1933, which was the date suggested by the English Association of Education Committee.
Looking at the figures supplied to me by the right hon. Gentleman in reply to a question, we see that there will be about 40,000 more children between the ages of 12 and 15 in Scottish schools between 1931 and 1933–34, and that after 1933–34 the numbers will begin to fall until after 1937–38 they will be back to about the same figure at which they will stand in 1931–32. That means that if the school age is raised before 1937 the Scottish authorities will have to provide accommodation for something like double the number of children they would have to provide for if the raising of the age were delayed until a later year. Those figures mean that either you will have in every area in Scotland, and more particularly in the cities, overcrowded classes during those bulge years—which will not be of benefit to the children—or else that the authorities will be obliged to provide accommodation not all of which will be required after the bulge is over. If they build up to the accommodation necessary during the bulge period, is it fair to the ratepayer and the taxpayer?
I come to the question of teaching. Here, I admit, that at the present time there is a surplus of teachers in Scotland. It is a very unfortunate circumstance, and I regret very much, that we have not more machinery in connection with our secondary schools for giving guidance to young people as to the professions on which they should enter. If we had had more machinery of that kind, we should not have had so many young people flocking into the teaching profession, without any knowledge as to whether their services would be required when their training was finished. It is to be regretted also that no limit to the number of teachers in training was adopted by the respon-
3196
sible training authorities in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland has told us that he estimates that 2,000 teachers will be required when the school age is raised in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman has also told us that he thinks that, with the surplus teachers who are at present unemployed and those in training, those 2,000 teachers can be found without any special steps being necessary.
I would like to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he feels sure, in view of the number of schemes which he must be receiving from various authorities in Scotland, that 2,000 teachers will be enough. The Glasgow Education Authority require 707 teachers to complete their scheme, and Glasgow has about one quarter of the children of Scotland in its schools. Four times seven hundred is nearer 3,000 than 2,000, and we know that in the rural areas of Scotland a relatively higher proportion of teachers is required than in the area I have mentioned.
Mr. W. ADAMSON indicated dissent.
Duchess of ATHOLL: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but, if he would come to some of the areas which I have in my constituency, he would realise haw small are the classes as compared with some of the industrial areas of which I have not the same knowledge as the right hon. Gentleman. And is the right hon. Gentleman sure that among the teachers whom he has in view there are enough teachers with a knowledge of those practical subjects, the teaching of which we so badly need to develop? It is admitted that there are not enough teachers for wood-work and commercial subjects, and I understand that special classes for teachers have been instituted for those subjects. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the number of teachers who are attending those classes, and if he is of opinion that there will be a sufficient number of them? Does the right hon. Gentleman know yet what the needs of the authorities are or teachers of other practical subjects? in view of the notices which have appeared in the Press in connection with meetings of education authorities, it seems difficult to believe that the right hon. Gentleman has really got in his hands the full details of all that the authorities will need to enable them to deal with this question.

3197
Then I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is sure that the graduate teachers who are unemployed, or in training in the training colleges, after going through a university course, are always able to teach all the subjects necessary in a primary school. There was a complaint made not long ago by one education authority that very few of these teachers were qualified to teach needlework and class singing. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to inquire into that matter when his well-earned Easter holiday is over, and, if he is not satisfied that these teachers have the necessary qualifications, will he suggest to them how very desirable it is that they should acquire them, and perhaps he would hold out the hope to them that they might obtain appointments more speedily if they would remedy this defect.
I would like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to another specially important question. I want to know to what his figure of 2,000 teachers applies. Does it apply to the year when the school age is first raised, 1931–32, or to 1933–34, when the children will be some 40,000 more, or does it apply to 1937–38, when the numbers will have fallen more or less to the level of 1931–32. If there is to be this additional number of children in the schools, they will want additional teachers, and, if the additional teachers are not supplied in those areas, the classes will be too large and the teaching staff will be overworked. If a sufficient number of teachers is not supplied, we shall find a large number of unemployed teachers once more in our midst.
I come to the question of maintenance allowances. The right hon. Gentleman says that he estimates the total additional annual expenditure, including maintenance allowances and charges on capital expenditure, at £1,500,000. Will the right hon. Gentleman say how much of that £1,500,000 will be applied to maintenance allowances? May I also ask what is the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's calculation, how many children it will apply to, and what is the average sum per child? Is the basis going to be the same as in England? If so, are the Scottish local authorities represented on the committee of English authorities who are advising the President of the Board of Education on this subject? If not, is the right hon. Gentleman going to set up a committee of Scottish authori-
3198
ties to advise him on this question? This question of maintenance allowances is an entirely new one. It must not be forgotten that we have in Scotland a very generous system of assisting young persons attending secondary schools, but the system of maintenance allowances proposed is entirely new. For the first time, it is proposed that a part of the education grant should be devoted to maintenance allowances for children who are still within the limits of compulsory school attendance, and irrespective of the ability of those children to profit by the classes to which they are to go. Then I would like the Secretary of state for Scotland to tell us what will happen in regard to exemptions when the school age is raised? In England I understand that no exemptions are to be allowed, in spite of the fact that in the few areas where the school age has been raised by the action of the education authority very liberal exemptions have been given.
Mr. W. ADAMSON: I understand that no exemptions exist in England at all.
Duchess of ATHOLL: I would like the right hon. Gentleman to look at an answer which was given to a question which I put last November, and he will see some very interesting figures. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that, under the Scottish Education Act of 1918, it is provided that exemptions will be allowed from the age of 13 when the school age is raised to 15. The right hon. Gentleman has given an estimate of £1,500,000 as the additional expenditure that will be entailed by these charges. I doubt whether that figure will be a final one. The right hon. Gentleman did not commit himself specifically to that figure, but he safeguarded himself very judiciously. I am afraid that that sum of £1,500,000 will have to be added to very considerably in view of the large number of recently adopted schemes, and in view of the fact that many of them are very incomplete. I know how formidable are the figures being put forward for this purpose by the English authorities, who have had a rather longer time to consider the question.
In Somersetshire, the Education Committee estimates that the raising of the school age, and the system of centralisation considered to be necessary, if the children are to benefit by the change, will

3199
add £40,000 to the cost of conveying the children to school. At the present time the committee spends £6,000 a year in Somersetshire conveying the children to school, but when the school age is raised, the amount necessary for that purpose will be £46,000. Somersetshire may contain a number of scattered areas, but the areas are not so scattered as they are in some of our Scottish counties like Inverness-shire, Ross-shire and Argyllshire. When the Scottish authorities have had time to get to grips with this question, and realise how much organisation will be necessary, if the raising of the school age is to be effective, they may well find that they are committed to a very much larger expenditure than that which has been estimated by the right hon. Gentleman.
3.0 p.m.
I should like to know how much reorganisation has been allowed for in the £1,500,000, and particularly how much of that sum has been allowed for conveying children to school. And I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what grant he expects to receive towards this expenditure of £1,500,000. Is the right hon. Gentleman confident that he is going to get the same proportion of their expenditure for the Scottish authorities as the English authorities are going to receive? No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has studied the figures given in the financial memorandum on the English Bill. If so, the right hon. Gentleman will remember that the total expenditure, including maintenance allowances, is said to be £5,500,000 when the scheme is in full operation. In that memorandum it is stated that the Exchequer grant will be £3,900,000, which means that the English authorities are going to receive about two-thirds of their expenditure in this direction in the way of grant. If we get our proportion of eleven-eightieths of the additional State expenditure, I make out that the Scottish grant will be about £536,000 as compared with £3,900,000 for the English grant. That is just a little more than one-third of the expenditure which the Secretary of State for Scotland has stated will be incurred. Whereas the English authorities will get a proportion of two-thirds, the Scottish authorities will not receive more than one-third. Of course, the English figures may now be out of date, because fresh details have
3200
been furnished by the authorities since the Bill was presented, and at the present moment the relative cost of carrying out the scheme in Scotland appears much greater than in England. Unless the right hon. Gentlemen can satisfy us that the English figure is likely to be much larger than £5,500,000—in Which case, although that may not be a very happy piece of news for the taxpayer, at least the Scottish Education Fund will benefit—it seems to me that there will be a storm of indignation in Scotland when it is realised that the grant which at present we stand to expect is not more than one-half of the proportional grant that is going to the English authorities. But I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, is this the moment, when unemployment is so bad, when Scottish agriculture is labouring under such difficulties, at which to put so great a burden upon both rates and taxes for a Measure which, as we have seen, has very little chance of fulfilling the main purpose for which it was decided upon, and which, if it is carried out hastily, may well achieve very little in the way of educational results? Would it not be a policy of statesmanship to get clear of this terrible unemployment first, and to set Scottish agriculture more on its feet, before we think of carrying through so costly a change? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise, as the Minister responsible for education in Scotland, that, if so great a burden is put upon Scotland at a time such as this, when trade is so bad and unemployment so severe, it will tend to handicap educational advance in other directions?
Scotland has done well, on the whole, by her elder children, anyhow, so far as her secondary schools go. That makes the problem different in Scotland from what it is in England, because, whereas in England, although the number of children in secondary schools is steadily and rapidly increasing. it cannot be said that every child capable o profiting by secondary education to-day in England gets it, I think that that can be said of children in Scotland: and, therefore, Scotland can claim to have done more for the older children than England has done. But Scotland has done very little, so far, for the pre-school child. If the right hon. Gentleman has read the reports of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of

3201
Education, he will know that for several years past that very able officer has been impressing on the Board of Education the number of physical defects found in young children on entering school, and we know only too well that it must be the same in Scotland, because in Scotland we have not succeeded in bringing our figures for infant mortality down to the level at which they stand in England. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he really thinks that the raising of the school age at this moment is the most urgent thing in Scottish education? Should not the authorities have been given the chance to consider whether they would not rather, for a time, anyhow, concentrate on trying to secure better conditions of health for young children entering school? A co-operation is possible now between the child welfare authority and the education authority which has never before been possible, and which should be the best augury for advance.
I cannot help feeling, in view of all that I have said, that, in this matter of raising the school age, Scotland has been dragged at the heel of England; but, even so, Scotland may yet hold back her too boisterous neighbour. The task that has been set Scottish education authorities is one which they cannot carry out in the time given. It is one which, if carried out in the next few years, will either fail to give the children all the benefit that they ought to get from it or will involve either unnecessary expenditure on teaching staff or unemployment of teachers, either unnecessary buildings or overcrowding. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider these matters very carefully, to realise how much more serious the unemployment and trade position is now than it was when this decision was taken, and to see whether, before it is too late, he cannot postpone a step which promises to be neither in the interests of education nor in the interests of the country.
Mr. W. ADAMSON: The House has listened with great interest to the speech of the Noble Lady, and I can assure her that I share to the full her zeal for the true interests of Scottish education. The Noble Lady put a great many questions to me, and I am afraid that it would take me as long to answer them in detail as it took her to put them. I must,
3202
however, compress my answers into a shorter compass than that. As to the effect of the Government's decision on education in Scotland, we take different views, but I believe that both inside and outside this House there is a very considerable measure of agreement regarding the proposals which have been so critically examined by the Noble Lady. As to the date, the Government have come to a definite decision, as has already been intimated, and I have ready the Order necessary to give effect to that decision. Legislation is required in England, but not in Scotland, so far as instituting the final age is concerned, but obviously I must wait until the English position is brought into line with our own before I launch the Order. [Interruption.] The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) will admit that the financial aspect of the question alone makes that necessary. The two countries must keep in step in a matter of such high importance.
As to the suggestion that the local authorities have only been given very scanty information regarding the raising of the school age, I would mention that on the 12th September last year I met the education authorities and discussed the matter very fully with them. Since then I have formally intimated the decision to the Scottish Education authorities, and have told them that they must make their plans accordingly. That intimation was contained in Circular No. 81 of the Scottish Education Department issued in September. Since then the officers of the Department have from time to time been in touch with the various education authorities on particular aspects of this question—
Duchess of ATHOLL: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that his Circular No. 81 was issued in November? I have a copy here, dated the 8th November, not September.
Mr. ADAMSON: The Noble Lady has misunderstood me entirely. I said that I met the authorities on the 12th September, and that later I issued a circular. I did not give the date, but gave the number of the circular as 81. In that circular I outlined the various aspects of the problem—buildings, equipment, teachers, curriculum—which they would have to consider, and I have received very care-

3203
fully drawn up proposals from the education authorities on all these points. In very few cases was any opposition to the decision expressed. I think the Noble Lady, in referring to those that were in opposition, gave the total number of those who have expressed any disagreement with the decision. The great majority, including the large towns and thickly populated counties, have set themselves to the task with knowledge, energy and good will. And I may add that I received from a considerable number of representative bodies interested in education strong support for the decision. In particular the teachers of Scotland are unanimous for the change, and indeed they have pressed very strongly for it from time to time. We may well ask—Who should know more about this question than the teachers? They work with the children from day to day, they know the waste consequent upon an uncompleted education and upon a premature entry into the business of life, and some of us who, because of economic reasons, had to leave school when mere children can fully appreciate the anxiety of the teacher about an uncompleted education prior to the child entering into the business of life.
I would remind the Noble Lady that if you want to get a thing done, if you want to get people busy on it, the best way is to fix a date. So long as there is no fixed date so long will people hesitate and postpone. I cannot agree that Scotland will not be able to do what we are asking her to do under quite reasonable notice. In the past great changes have been made in our educational system on much shorter notice than has been given on this occasion. I need only remind the Noble Lady that the 1872 Act, which introduced compulsory education in this country, was passed on the 6th of August, 1872, and came into operation immediately. The school boards so created were required to provide the necessary accommodation, which to a large extent was non-existent at the time—a much worse condition of affairs than now. No period of notice was then thought necessary, and preparations were made as speedily as possible during the period following the coming into operation of the Act. May I further remind the Noble Lady that the Education (Scotland) Act, 1901, was passed on the 9th of
3204
August of that year, and came into operation on the 1st of January following. It raised the school-leaving age from 13 to 14, and abolished part-time attendance. We may contrast this notice of five months which was given in l901 with the notice of nearly two years that has been given on the present occasion.
This question of notice suggests to me that I should remind hon. Members of something that they may have forgotten, namely, that this Scottish reform has been on the Statute Book for 12 years. In face of that, who can say that it has come unexpectedly? If preparations have not been made, where dos the fault lie? Assuredly, not with this side of the House. May I ask the Noble Lady, who as a Member of the late Government may have special sources of information, why was the clear direction of the Statute so long avoided and postponed by those who were almost continuously in office during the period that has passed between that time and now? In Scotland, we have in this matter one special dfficulty not of our seeking. Less than a month from now the ad hoc education authorities of Scotland, which have for 58 years given such efficient and honourable service to education, will give place to new bodies, new to the work of education. This change is bound to cause some delay in our preparations for the 1st of April of next year. Well, we are not responsible for that change. The Noble Lady and her political friends will have to shoulder responsibility for the change that brought that about. The Noble Lady knows as well as I can tell her that we opposed it strongly as a violation of the old Scottish tradition, and as detrimental to the best interests of public education. However, there it is, and we must make the best of it. I trust that the new educational authorities will immediately buckle to the great task that stands in front of them, realising that education is one of the most important parts, if not the most important part of their new heritage.
May I pass to deal as briefly as I possibly can with some of the points that have been raised by the Noble Lady in regard to staff, organisation, and finance? As to building, we already know that something in the region of 50,000 additional places will be required. This, as is to be expected, is mostly

3205
in the towns and in the industrial areas. In the country, owing to causes which we all know and deplore, accommodation is more than adequate to the present need, and the additional provision required will be very small. I could almost assure the Noble Lady that difficulties in the rural areas will not be anything like so great as she seems to have in mind. I have received and considered a wide range of proposals for the new buildings, and I hope that the new authorities will lose no time in carrying to a finish their carefully drawn plans.
I may add that none of the present authorities has indicated to me that adequate arrangements cannot be made by the date proposed. As showing the good will of the present authorities in the matter of buildings I may say that in 1929 the amount of loans sanctioned by the Department for new buildings was £1,000,000 while the average for the previous 10 years was less than £500,000, proving, I think, conclusively that the educational authorities are quite busy making the rearrangements necessary for the raising of the school age. I may also cite the figures for the reduction of the size of classes of which I gave notice in 1924. In 1927 there were 1,214 classes with more than 50 children habitually under the charge of one teacher. In October, 1929, that number had fallen to 98. Since then a further reduction has been effected, and we now have general compliance with the requirement. I instance these two matters to show that the dying education authorities have done their duty by their heirs and successors, and will vacate their posts after having made considerable provision for the new order of things coming into operation.
As to staff, it is estimated that somewhat over 2,000 new teachers will be required. Some of these will be class teachers, some specialist teachers of those practical subjects which modern educational opinion regards as so important for children in the last year of their school life, especially those who are not going into academic work.
Duchess of ATHOLL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the question I put to him as to the year in which 2,000 teachers will be needed? Will that be 1931 or 1933?
Mr. ADAMSON: I can assure the Noble Lady that the authorities and the Department are fully alive to the importance of this subject. For example, the Glasgow proposals contemplate, in addition to 320 certificated teachers of the normal type, 100 science teachers, 76 handwork teachers, 96 domestic science teachers, 10 teachers of commercial subjects, 60 art teachers, and 45 teachers of physical training. We can thus envisage the rich, varied and useful curriculum which the children from 14 to 15 will enjoy after 1st April, 1931. I may add that the training authorities have in hand the problem of producing the necessary supply of teachers, and I am reasonably confident that, when the time comes, there will be no serious difficulty in this respect.
The problem of organisation is difficult. It is a matter that must be solved in various ways according to the special circumstances of each area. In the towns and other populous areas, the beneficial policy of centralisation hitherto pursued by education authorities will, no doubt, be continued. In the rural districts, on the other hand, small numbers are involved, and we can understand that parents in these districts have, in many cases, a natural dislike to letting their children take long daily journeys or to placing them in hostels. Yet, if some form of grouping is not arranged, the cost of specialist teachers and the provision of practical rooms will necessarily be high. I am hopeful that each authority will work out a reasonable compromise, suited to its special circumstances, under which in some parts of the area there will be aggregation in a well-equipped central school, while in others, travelling teachers will bring expert practical instruction and stimulus, and in others the wise head teacher will utilise to the utmost the possibilities of the small and isolated community. In days gone by, the Scottish teacher in the country parts was not found wanting, even though he had to cope single-handed with a group of pupils of all ages, some as high as and even higher than the coming compulsory age. Some of us who had an opportunity of receiving our education under these conditions know what the conditions are. I see no reason to believe that the Scottish teacher of to-day will be found wanting, any more than Scottish

3207
teachers have been found wanting in the past.
As to curriculum, I am satisfied that the principles laid down for advanced Divisions in the present Code provide what is necessary in the way of guidance to the new authorities. I have directed special attention to this matter in the circular I have issued. Further, we must remember that educational opinion throughout the country is very much alive to this matter. The days are past when Scotland had to wait for the initial word of wisdom from the Department over whose destinies I have the honour to preside for the time being. The teachers have now very efficient organisations, and they are continually studying all our educational problems. We have the recently formed Educational Research Council, we have the Directors of Education, almost a new profession, and last but not least, we have the very large number of local administrators of education who have been trained under our ad hoc system in the large areas set up by the Act of 1918. From all these sources there will emerge, I am confident, the right direction of the training of the children in that most important part of their school life, the years from 12 to 15.
I come to the question of finance. What I have to say in reply to the numerous questions with which the Noble Lady plied me is that the Scottish education authorities as a whole will receive eleven-eightieths of the corresponding English grant. I will never submit to see Scotland dragged at the heels of England or any other country. As stated in the financial memorandum issued in connection with the English Bill, if the English grant is £3,900,000, the Scottish grant will be about £500,000. The English grant is, as stated in that Memorandum, based upon the expenditure on extra teaching staff, accommodation and maintenance of buildings in 1938 and on maintenance allowances for the first full year. Whatever the English grant may be in any year, Scotland will receive her proportionate share in accordance with the formula which I am satisfied has met and will continue to meet fairly her claims on the Exchequer for educational purposes.
Duchess of ATHOLL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that he has
3208
just been confirming the figures I gave? Does he not see that the £500,000, which he says is Scotland's eleven-eightieths of the English grant, is only a third of the expenditure which he said is going to be incurred. Is he satisfied that the Scottish education authorities should only get a third of their expenditure when the English authorities get two-thirds?
Mr. ADAMSON: Whatever the English grant may be in one year, some of us will do our best to see that Scotland gets her proportionate share according to the formula. As I have already stated, it is very difficult to secure at the moment even an approximate figure, owing to the various ways in which reorganisation may work out in actual practice. I think that last sentence very fully answers the Noble Lady's question.
Duchess of ATHOLL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer about, the 2,000 teachers—at what stage it that they will be required?
Mr. ADAMSON: These are average figures for the first few complete years. In a matter of this sort, estimates must necessarily be approximate. Very much will depend on the form that reorganisation will take in the various educational areas and parts of such areas. We have here a question to which the general voice of educational opinion has given only one answer for many years, namely, that the school age should he raised. It is a matter on which most hon. Members opposite have no doubt whatever when the education of their own 14 year olds is in question. It is an overdue pledge of all parties. Can we not agree that, as only practical difficulties stand in the way, it should at once be tackled with good will by the education authorities, old and new, by the teachers, by the experienced central and local officials? Even if things are not in perfect shape next April, does that matter in the large view of this great reform? The task will be in hand. If I know Scotland and Scottish administrators, it will not be long before the new arrangements are shaped to a form which cannot fail to produce results of great, and lasting benefit to the youth of Scotland and enable the youth of Scotland d to receive the training which will enable them to maintain the prestige which the Scottish nation has hitherto enjoyed.

ROYAL AIRCRAFT ESTABLISHMENT, FARNBOROUGH (HOLIDAYS)
Viscount WOLMER: I must apologise to the Under-Secretary of State for Air for interfering with his holiday by raising again this matter, but as I was prevented by the action of his friends from doing so the other night, I am afraid that I have no alternative. I raise this matter because it is one which affects my constituency particularly. The Royal Aircraft establishment is in my constituency. Until now the industrial employés of the Royal Aircraft establishment have in the past had a week's holiday and been allowed to have the great national holidays as well. The Under-Secretary of State, I cannot help feeling, has been misinformed on this matter. I do not know whether the conditions at the Farnborough factory are different from what they are in other factories, but the hon. Member has assured me that in the past they have not had this week's holiday. I have most specific assurances from the men themselves that in the past they have always had a week's holiday and these great national holidays as well. For instance, last year they had seven days' leave, with pay, and were allowed the national holidays besides. The Government have introduced a new arrangement for holidays, and as a result the industrial workers at the factory are to he required to work on Good Friday and the King's birthday, upon which they have never before been required to work. I need hardly say that the majority of them resented it very much indeed. I think that it is absolutely without precedent that any Government factory should be required to work either on Good Friday or on His Majesty's birthday. I very much regret the step that the Government have taken in this matter, and I feel that it is my duty to make the strongest possible protest against it. The Under-Secretary has stated in defence that before taking this step his Department consulted the local Whitley Council.
Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it suggested that His Majesty's birthday should be observed as a bank holiday?
Viscount WOLMER: I am suggesting that the practice of the past should be continued under which all Government factories should take a full holiday on
3210
the King's birthday. For instance, the whole of the Aldershot Command will be shut down on the King's birthday and the only spot at which work will be in progress will be the factory over which the hon. Member presides, and here. I wish to point out, it will only be the industrial workers in the factory. This is the second point to which I wish to draw attention and about which my constituents feel very acutely. The staff are to be given a holiday on Good Friday and the King's birthday but the industrial workers are not. I do not know why the staff should be regarded as more holy or more loyal than the industrial employés. There is no reason why there should be this distinction between the two classes. There has not been this distinction in the past. They have both had their holidays on Good Friday and on the King's birthday, and the distinction which has now been drawn has caused the very greatest resentment.
The Under-Secretary has justified the action of the Government on the ground that the Whitley Council was consulted. The Whitley Council in most places is an admirable and representative body but at the Aircraft Factory the Whitley Council happens only to represent about 30 per cent. of the industrial employés. As the House heard the other day, the late Secretary of State for Air, when he was negotiating with the staff at the Aircraft Factory, always took steps to ascertain the opinions of the men who were not represented by the Whitley Council either through the British Legion or other representative organisations which could show that they were entitled to speak for a large proportion of the men. [Interruption.] There are other associations, committees and deputations. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary himself does it, but I can assure him that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), when he was Secretary of State for Air, used to go down to the factory very frequently and hold conferences with the men so that he could know what was their point of view on any important question. The British Legion in matters of this sort is far more representative at the factory than the Whitley Council. It may be a shock and unpalatable to hon. Members opposite, but I can give them one reason for that. After the conclusion of the General Strike, there were at the Royal

3211
Aircraft establishment a great many resignations from the trade unions. A great many of the men working at the factory said that they were no longer going to be identified with organisations which led them into that sort of business. From that moment onward the trade unions ceased to represent anything like a majority of the men working at the aircraft establishment.
The Under-Secretary of State, I suppose, likes to consider himself an orthodox Socialist and trade unionist, and undoubtedly he has the strict letter of the law on his side in this matter. But I submit that in his present position as employer, or as the representative of employers in the factory, it is his duty to face facts, and, if he wants to ascertain what are the wishes of the men employed in the factory, he should make his inquiries of a body which really is representative of them. It may be orthodox, but is it not sensible for him to hide his head in the sand and to pretend that the Whitley Council in this particular factory is as representative as it is in other districts. I need hardly say that the order of the Air Ministry that the men for the first time in the history of the factory should work on Good Friday has caused indignation among all denominations and among the men themselves. Some of the men have pointed out to me that it is going to be difficult for those who live at a distance to get to the factory on Good Friday because the train service will not be a normal service, but a Sunday service. These points do not appear to have been considered at all. I desire to make the strongest possible protest against this attitude, which, I can assure the hon. Member, has caused the greatest indignation and is going to lead to much friction in the future
Mr. KELLY: I had not intended to intervene, but it is somewhat surprising to hear the Noble Lord refer to the Whitley Council as being unrepresentative. Both he and his chief have been failing in their duty during the whole period from 1926, because the Whitley Council is not supposed to exist unless it is representative of the whole establishment for which it has been appointed. That is laid down in its constitution. I understand that the Noble Lord, as
3212
representing the Aldershot Division, and the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Samuel Hoare), say that they have known of the Whitley Council not being representative, and yet they have condoned its existence all this time.
Viscount WOLMER: That shows what good supporters of Whitleyism we are.
Mr. KELLY: No. It shows what enemies of Whitleyism they are. They have been going behind the backs of the Whitley Council throughout the whole of that period and dealing with matters concerning trade and working conditions with people whose organisation and whose constitution does not enable them to understand and deal with those problems. Is the Noble Lord asking for Good Friday and the day on which the King's birthday is celebrated, as additional paid holidays? If he is asking for them as additional paid holidays, I will join forces with him. We on this side are willing to increase the number of paid holidays from five to seven. I have been trying to get the number increased to eight. I am glad that the Noble Lord has come along, but I do not think that he is in the best faith in the way that he has brought the matter forward. If he is asking for these two days as additional paid holidays, I am with him. He will not answer. I am willing to give way if he will answer.
Viscount WOLMER: I am asking that the arrangement which has operated in the past and was in force last year shall be continued.
Mr. KELLY: The Noble Lord is willing that these holidays shall be forced upon people whose wages are already low.
Viscount WOLMER: They have had them.
Mr. KELLY: With not enough wages to enjoy the leisure. Now, they are being given five days paid holidays, with six other paid holidays, which have not been mentioned. I hope the Air Ministry will consider increasing the number of holidays and giving more paid holidays. The Noble Lord, apparently, wishes to add to the number of holidays without payment, because somebody in an organisation which has never done anything to lift wages or to improve con-

3213
ditions happens to come along with a grievance. On the other Councils we have dealt with this matter and have secured agreement. We are being paid for Good Friday, because Good Friday was an excepted day by most of the joint industrial councils. Other additional days are given which are not paid. I wish the Noble Lord had the courage to join forces with those of us on this side who desire to see more holidays, paid holidays, for the men.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): I am rather at a loss to understand why the Noble Lord began by suggesting that his appearance this afternoon in order to bring up this question would interfere with my holiday. I think I am as good an attendant at the House of Commons as the Noble Lord, and I can assure him that I am not in the slightest degree interfering with my own holiday in order to be present to answer his criticism.
Viscount WOLMER: I am much relieved.
Mr. MONTAGUE: When the Noble Lord complains that the House was counted out the other evening, I think it is only reasonable to suggest to him that if his own party cannot keep a House for him it is hardly for the Government to keep a House for him.
Viscount WOLMER: We shall be delighted to keep you up every night until midnight, if that is what you want.
Mr. MONTAGUE: There is no need for the Noble Lord to be vicious on the matter. My retort was a perfectly justifiable one. If he suggests that there was concerted action in the matter, I can assure him that such was not the case. With regard to the merits of the question that he has raised, I say at once that he is under a complete misapprehension as to the practice at Farnborough being different from the practice at any other Royal Air Force establishment. It is not true that the industrial employés at Farnborough have had a week's paid holiday always. They are in exactly the same position as every other industrial worker in the Department. If the Noble Lord is basing his statement upon the letter which he was good enough to let me see, I can assure him that, if he will read the letter again very
3214
carefully, he will find that the local Secretary of the British Legion makes no such statement.
The Royal Aircraft Factory at Farnborough comes under the Government concession of last year, where industrial employés were given a week's paid holiday. There is this difference with regard to the Air Ministry, that throughout the Departments there has been, by Government order, a determination to equalise the number of the remaining paid holidays, ordinary public holidays, which have varied to a considerable extent, ranging from four public holidays to eight public holidays, or to seven and a-half. It has been decided by the Government that these holidays shall be equalised throughout the Departments. That is why in the Air Ministry, as in other Departments, in addition to the week's paid holiday, there are five paid public holidays. The Air Ministry consulted the Whitley Councils of the establishments—
Viscount WOLMER: You are levelling down at the expense of Farnborough.
Mr. MONTAGUE: So far as other holidays are concerned, there is a levelling down, but, taking the number of all holidays together, there is a levelling up to the extent of three days. That is a position which has to do with the Government instruction as a whole and is not the peculiar concern of the Air Ministry. If the Noble Lord has any criticism to make it should be made, not at the expense of the Air Ministry in particular, but at the expense of the Government. The decision was that all paid public holidays, apart from the extra week's paid leave, should be equalised throughout the Departments. Therefore, in order to carry out that decision the Air Ministry approached the Whitley Works Committees in all the establishments under their charge. The majority of them decided upon the five public holidays, which excluded Good Friday and the King's birthday, and ultimately it was unanimously agreed that those particular days should be excepted.
The Whitley Works Committee at Farnborough agreed to exclude Good Friday and the King's birthday. The Noble Lord says that the Whitley Works Committee only represents 30 per cent. of the industrialists at Farnborough. I do not know where he gets those figures,

3215
but even if I accept them as correct the implication is that some other organisation, which has no industrial status whatever, represents the other 70 per cent. That, however, is not the case. The British Legion is not the authorised machinery on industrial questions; and it cannot possibly represent a majority of the workers at the Farnborough establishment, because I doubt if there are as many as 50 per cent. ex-service men employed there. Moreover, it is highly improbable that all the ex-service men employed at Farnborough are members of the British Legion, and even if they are it is very possible that the Legion also contains amongst its members a majority who are trade unionists and directly represented through the Whitley Works Committee.
The British Legion is an important organisation. I am a member of it myself, and I think it would be a much more important organisation if it were a little clearer of Tory psychology and the Tory mind. But the Air Ministry is not prepared to accept an outside body of that character, which has nothing to do with industrial questions, in preference to the accepted machinery which has always been used in the past and which is being used now. It was used by the Noble Lord's own Government and is the recognised machinery for settling industrial questions of this kind.
Finally, may I point out that if the Noble Lord puts his argument upon the ground either of holiness or patriotism there is no reason why anyone who is concerned with religion and patriotism should not, if he wishes, enjoy his Good Friday and the King's Birthday as a paid holiday. He can do that by sacrificing two days of his paid annual leave, if he prefers to have the Good Friday and the King's Birthday. After all, I do not suppose the Noble Lord will argue, if there is anything in the plea of holiness and patriotism, that those splendid qualities should not call for some amount of self-sacrifice.
Viscount WOLMER: Does the Under-Secretary mean that the individual man can leave his shop without interfering with the work?
Mr. MONTAGUE: I do not mean that the individual man can leave the shop just how and when he pleases without notice. It is a matter of arrangement,
3216
but, subject to the exigencies of the service, there is no reason why anyone who wants Good Friday and the King's Birthday should not arrange to take these two days as part of their paid annual leave, or arrange for leave without pay if they wish that to be the case. These are the actual facts and I think they dispose of the tremendous feeling which is supposed to exist in Farnborough on the subject and also prove that the Air Ministry has been acting according to the best established customs upon matters of industrial concern.

INDIA (SITUATION).
Mr. BROCKWAY: I gave notice to the Secretary of State for India that I proposed on this occasion to draw attention to the present situation in India. The right hon. Gentleman has just been to see me and has informed me that another unexpected engagement, the importance of which I realise, has prevented him from being present, but he has indicated that what I say will be sympathetically referred to the authorities in India and that some brief statement will be made on his behalf. I regret that the Secretary of State for India is not present because no one recognises more than I do the difficulties and the terrible responsibilities of the position which he holds, and the sincere desire on his part to reach a solution which will be fair to India and prevent a conflict between India and the people of this country. I know from my own experience that since he has been at the India Office a new spirit has animated that office; that he has been receiving Indian representatives in a way they have never been received before; that he has regarded himself as the representative of the Indian Government, standing for policies which would be unpopular with this House, and that in connection with East Africa, and many other problems he has steadfastly stood for the Indian point of view. I recognise all that, but unfortunately events very deep-rooted and distant are likely to exceed in their volume and speed even the most sympathetic attitude which will be adopted in this country; and that is the situation which is occurring in the relationship of India and this country to-day.
It is a tragedy that despite a more sympathetic attitude at the India Office, despite a more sympathetic attitude on the part of the Viceroy, forces which have

3217
their roots in the past are growing so extensive at the present time and are sweeping on and are making ineffective the sympathy which is undoubtedly there. During the past week events have been occurring in India which must have caused great anxiety to every one. I am not going to discuss to-day these events which are finding expression in the newspaper headlines. They are only symbolical of a much deeper feeling, and real statesmanship will not seek to deal with isolated events but will seek to understand the spirit which is behind these events and remove the grievances which find expression in them. A year ago, when the Secretary of State for India assumed office as a result of the Labour victory at the General Election, he had to meet a situation where practically all the large representative bodies of Indian opinion had decided that they could no long co-operate with the British authorities. The position had become so serious that the Indian National Congress, the largest of these associations, had declared that unless a definite pledge was given that India would receive Dominion status it might before the end of last year declare for the independence of India, and would organise a movement of civil disobedience in order to reach that end.
4.0 p.m.
Some of us who understand the serious position in India urged then upon the Secretary of State that three courses were absolutely essential if the clash between India and Great Britain, which is now beginning, was to be avoided. We urged, first, that there must be a definite declaration of Dominion status for India, not as an ultimate measure, but as an immediate objective; that is to say that the principle of Dominion status should be embodied in a Bill. It may easily be that such a measure would require a transitional period to operate while the Civil Service was Indianised, and the forces, if they were retained, were Indianised, and that during that period arrangements might have been made regarding the control of foreign policy. But I know enough of the Indian leaders of every type and of every school to know that if a declaration of that character had been made it would have been possible, even so recently as six months ago, to have negotiated a settlement upon those lines round the table.
Mr. SPEAKER: What the hon. Member is suggesting now would entail legislation, and it is not in order on a Motion for the Adjournment.
Mr. BROCKWAY: I did not realise that I was transgressing and I will endeavour to keep within the terms of the Motion. Fortunately the second point which I am going to discuss comes within the terms of the Motion. The second point which we put to the Secretary of State for India was that such a roundtable conference should be called. We welcome gladly the fact that the Viceroy of India, with the support of the Secretary of State and the Government, did invite the Indian representatives to come to such a conference. The third point is also an administrative matter. We urged that if there was to be a new psychology in India, under which proposals of this kind could be discussed with hope, it was absolutely necessary to open the prison doors in India to political offenders, and that a new policy must be adopted by which the prosecution of Indian opinion would not be continued.
When we have urged that we have had two types of prisoners in mind, so far as those in gaol are concerned. First, we had the type of prisoner who was imprisoned either during the War or immediately after the War for offences connected with the War. There are men in Indian gaols now who were sentenced for war-time offences as long ago as 1915, and there are other men who were sentenced in 1919 during the martial law period. We suggest very strongly to the Secretary of State that the time has gone by when war-time offenders for political reasons should still be kept within the gaols of any country. In Ireland those who were imprisoned for war-time offences are now in the Government. Thirty-five Members of this Parliament, including myself, were imprisoned during the War for war offences here. Surely, if Irish offenders can be released and can enter the Irish Government, and if English offenders can be released and can be elected Members of this Parliament, it is not too much to ask that Indian offenders should be released and be allowed to take part in the public affairs of India?
In addition to those two classes of prisoners, we also had in mind many who have been imprisoned at more recent

3219
dates for the expression of political opinions. We are not thinking of those who have been guilty of acts of violence, or who have incited to acts of violence, but of those who have engaged in the expression of political opinions which, in any constitutional country in the world outside the military dictatorships of Europe, would be regarded as absolutely legitimate. If the Secretary of State for India had been prepared to make the bold gesture of opening the prison doors in India to that type of offender, the psychology of India would have been completely changed. That step, with a definite declaration for Dominion status, would, I am confident, have led to the successful conclusion of the policy for a round table conference which he has been urging. The tragedy is that the Government have gone so far and yet not quite far enough. The Government have sought to meet the need, but have not gone far enough to meet it, and the result is that, despite their change of attitude, the forces which are operating in India have not been brought to the negotiating table, and the movement in India is now away from the method of negotiation and settlement, and in the direction of clash and conflict.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State for India should have taken the view that the Indian National Congress, the movement led by Mr. Gandhi, Mr. Motilal Nehru, and others is not completely representative of Indian opinion, that moderate politicians outside that movement would come to his round table conference, and that at that conference a settlement acceptable by India would be reached. Many of us put to him the point of view that he was under-estimating, very seriously, the strength of the movement behind the India National Congress and Mahatma Gandhi. We have also put to him the point that if a situation developed in which he felt it necessary to prosecute the leaders of that movement, even moderate opinion in India, upon which he was relying, would move in sympathy towards the Left, and that the round table conference which he was seeking would be doomed. Events are proving that our prophesy, based on some knowledge and on information, is working out truly. We find that even the constitutional leader of the Nationalist Party in the Indian Legislative Assembly,
3220
Mr. Malaviya, a man of great influence, as a result of the developments which have occurred, has resigned his position and has identified himself with the extremer movement. We find that another official leader of the Indian moderates, Mr. Kelkar, has done the same—
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sure that the hon. Member does not wish to do an injustice. Mr. Malaviya has resigned but he has not identified himself with the non-co-operation movement.
Mr. BROCKWAY: What I said was perfectly true. Mr. Malaviya, the leader of the Nationalist Party in the Indian Legislative Assembly, has resigned his position in that Assembly because of the policy which the Government are now pursuing.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But he has not identified himself with the extremists.
Mr. BROCKWAY: While he has not joined the Indian National Congress, he is now one of the leaders of the non-co-operative movement for the boycott of British goods in India. Indeed, those who know India realise that the movement which he is leading may be even more serious, so far as British rule is concerned, than the protest against the Salt Tax which Mr. Gandhi is leading. Thirdly, I will not mention names, because I do not want to encourage a situation of difficulty, but one of the leading Indian officials in the present British Administration in India has made it fairly clear that, if the present situation continues, and Mr. Gandhi is arrested, he will resign the very responsible position which he holds in India. The effect of the present position is that even moderate opinion in India is now, as we anticipated it would, going to the Left, and if the present situation continues very long, the round table conference which has been proposed by the Secretary of State for India will be absolutely doomed.
Then, so far as the degree of support in India is concerned, a few days ago, at the beginning of the movement which is now being led by Mr. Gandhi, the dominant response which was made to it was one of ridicule and of laughter. I do not believe that that is any longer the mood in India or the mood of those

3221
in this country who know the situation. We have the report even from the very Conservative Reuter's Agency that at least half a million people took part in the great demonstration in Bombay at the end of last week against the Salt Tax. We have the statement of the very well-informed correspondent of the "Daily Telegraph" that at least 1,000,000 people are actually illicitly making salt in the City of Bombay at the present time. So far as the district of Gujarat is concerned, throughout that district there is practically at this moment a civil rebellion, a rebellion which is just as effective because it is not violent, but where you have a whole population having absolutely lost its faith in British administration and by public acts declaring its opposition to it.
If these movements are restricted to certain areas, I think our authorities ought not to console themselves by that fact, because the definite policy of the Indian National Congress has been to begin those movements in certain areas and, having established them there, to widen them, and to widen them with possibilities which are terrible for anyone to contemplate. I want to urge that, before this situation goes too far, a supreme effort must be made for a solution of this problem, and I want to suggest that in the immediate future an opportunity for that supreme effort will arise. The party which sits on these benches is quite definitely pledged to the policy of self-government and Dominion status. We were pledged to it absolutely in the programme which we adopted before the General Election, and not only were we pledged to it in that programme, but the Prime Minister of this country, speaking less than 18 months ago, declared the hope that before many months had passed—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is again getting back to the same subject, which would need legislation.
Mr. BROCKWAY: I was suggesting that the immediate way out is a declaration of intention rather than actual legislation, and I hope that, in urging that declaration of intention, I shall be in order. My suggestion is that in the past the Secretary of State and the Government have said, "We must wait until the Report of the Simon Commission is issued before we can definitely declare
3222
our intentions," and I want to urge that the occasion of the publication of the Simon Report, which is anticipated now within a few weeks, should be made the occasion when His Majesty's Government should definitely declare that it intends to carry out the policy of the Labour party of applying full self-government and full self-determination to India. I appreciate that the position which the Secretary of State holds is one of terrible responsibility and difficulty. There are in these conflicts between subject races and dominant Powers almost fatalistic forces with which it is almost impossible to reckon.
I had hoped that in the relationship of India and this country, we might find a solution by negotiation, by settlement, by agreement and by encouraging those forces in India which are making for self-government. Even now the opportunity has not passed. Even now, if the Secretary of State will carry out Labour policy when the opportunity to make a declaration on these lines arises, we may reach that solution, but, if that is not done, one can only view with a great deal of apprehension the future relationship between India and this country. My appeal to the Secretary of State is that he will do now what might have been easy six months ago, and what is difficult now, but what will be impossible six months hence, and that is, that he should accept this opportunity of making some movement towards India which will convince India that this Labour Government are seeking a solution on the lines of self-government and self-determination by the Indian people.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: My hon. Friend has chosen the greatest platform in the world to make a speech about which no one could complain in regard to its moderation. Unfortunately, though the platform is the greatest in the world, the audience is not here. That speech will go round the eastern world, and it will not perhaps be understood, unless it is made plain, that the Secretary of State cannot be here, and that there is no Cabinet Minister except the First Commissioner of Works in the House. The Conservative party are represented by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Commander Southby), and no party leader is present; and not even the Noble Lord who spoke for India

3223
in this House in the last Parliament is here. Nor is one Member of the Liberal party here.
Miss WILKINSON: That is not the hon. Member's fault; they ought to be here.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I agree, but, if this matter was to be raised at all, it should have been raised with proper notice in a full House at the beginning of the Debate. It is far more important than the question of cadets, or wireless workmen at Farnborough, or even Scottish education. I cannot for the life of me understand what my hon. Friend requires of the Secretary of State for India. The position is that we have to wait for the Simon Commission's Report to be issued The House has taken that decision. My hon. Friend was not in the last Parliament, which decided, with the concurrence of the Labour party, to send the Simon Commission to India. We must, therefore, await their Report. There has been an invitation issued from this Government to all sections of Indian opinion. This was a great event, far greater than the Declaration. It was an invitation to a round-table conference of all sections of Indian opinion. The hon. Member referred to the Lahore Congress. They refused to have anything to do with the round-table conference, and they declared their independence. Every nation has a right to declare for independence, if they want to, provided that those who make the declaration speak for the nation.
Mr. SPEAKER: I have tried on two occasions to prevent speeches dealing with questions where legislation would be involved.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am not discussing legislation; I am discussing the position in which we find ourselves. The unfortunate part of it was that those who spoke for the Congress had nothing to do with the round-table conference and boycotted it. That was a very unfortunate thing. They might have used the round-table conference, and I think they still will do so, as a means of putting their point of view forward. But in the meantime, what can we possibly do but support the Government in Delhi in enforcing the law, as seems to them best to do it, and preserving the peace of that huge country?
3224
My hon. Friend talks about the headlines in the newspapers in this country. Of course, the matter is of public interest, and we cannot blame the newspapers, but what does it all boil down to? Disturbances in two or three cities; serious disturbances, which are regretted, with servants of the Crown injured, as well as those who were led into these disorders being injured and, in some cases, killed. But let us remember that India is a country as big as Europe—without present-day Russia—with 320,000,000 people. In three cities, perhaps four—in Poona, Lahore, Karachi and Bombay, and in two quarters of Calcutta—there are riots; heads are broken, lives are lost. But supposing in Europe there was trouble, as there is to-day in Spain; trouble in Italy, as there is; trouble in Lithuania, as there is; and perhaps a free fight in some great Scottish city to-night. The newspapers of India could come out with headlines saying: "Heads broken in Spain; men shot in Italy; political leaders arressed on the Clyde and put in prison," and they could make the people of India believe that Europe was in complete turmoil.
I do not want to under-estimate the situation in India, and my hon. Friend was quite right when he said it was serious, but it can very easily be exaggerated. Out of the vast population of 320,000,000 I guarantee that at the outside 50,000,000 really know what is going on in India. The bulk of the remaining 270,000,000, the great majority of the 750,000 villages in India, scantily supplied with communications, and thickly populated with great masses of peasantry, are quite untouched by this movement. I admit that later on the movement may spread to them, but at the moment it is confined to a small section of intellectuals and those whom they have been able to influence. My hon. Friend spoke about the Congress. I admit that the Congress is important as the only organised political party in India, but it has a paying membership of only 500,000 in the whole country. The total paying membership of the Labour party in our little country, with our small population, and with two other competing parties, is more than 2,000,000. Anyone can join the Congress party by paying 4 annas a year, and its total membership is only 500,000. The present policy is being led by a few. The

3225
majority of those who went to Lahore were in favour of the policy of peaceful non-co-operation.
There are great areas of population who will have nothing to do with Congress at all. I do not say they are not in favour of an extension of self-Government in India, but they will have nothing to do with Congress. I do not say that they are particularly friendly to British rule at the moment, or do not feel that progress should be made in certain directions, but it is perfectly true that there are huge classes in India—the Hindus—who are quite untouched by the Congress, and the Mohammedans are almost entirely untouched by the Congress agitation. I do not say the Mohammedans are not in favour of a very large measure of self-government—but I do not want to go into that. The 5,000,000 Christians and the 60,000,000 of the depressed classes are not touched by this movement. Then there is a very large European population, a quarter of a million Anglo-Indians or what used to be called Eurasians, and 2,000,000 Sikhs—some of them were represented at the congress at Lahore.
My hon. Friend will admit that the Congress at the present time, although it has great influence, only speaks for a very small minority. My hon. Friend also knows that in regard to these matters we are bound to support the Government of Delhi in whatever steps seem to be necessary, and to be fit and proper to preserve order. The leaders of the movement, I believe, are anxious to avoid bloodshed, and, in my opinion, it will be very unfortunate if we lose our heads in India and engage in any unnecessary acts of repression. I admit that it will be unfortunate if the judgment of the Government is overridden by agitation on the other side of this House. Those of us sitting on these benches, who make the existence of the present Government possible, feel that if the Government of India is not to be trusted there is only one alternative and that is the withdrawal of our forces, and that means the evacuation of India. Hon. Members on these benches know that that is not practical politics, and that it would be a crime against the people of India if we withdrew from that country at the present moment.
It must, however, be realised that that is the only alternative to what we are
3226
doing now. Recently, I have had an opportunity of conversing with the leaders of every shade of opinion in India, including some of those who were mentioned by my hon. Friend in his speech. Some of them, like my hon. Friend, have been in prison, but they went to prison from very high motives. I thought it right to ascertain the point of view of these men, and I was glad to talk to them. They included men of all shades of opinion, and represented every class of the common people in India. I told them that we had in this country a certain section of our friends who held the opinion that we had no business to be in India at all, that the people of India did not want us, and that we ought to clear out. I believe that that was the opinion, in his younger days, of the First Commissioner of Works. I assured the people with whom I was conversing that those people represented only a very small section of the people of this country. I asked these people what they really wanted, and in some cases they said that they were prepared to face the resulting chaos if they were left to govern themselves, but in no single case was it admitted or advocated that we should throw out the Government of India. Some of them said that there would be chaos and anarchy, but that eventually India would win through; but they said—and some of these are men of the most extreme views—that we have a duty upon us, that we have been there for 100 years and have allowed no alternative to be evolved for governing the country, and we must help the country to a reasonable solution of its present difficulties. That is the exact truth.
In these circumstances, and there being no other governing body who would possibly take control of that vast continent, with its conflicting interests, creeds and races, we must stay there; and, as we have to stay there, we must govern. Government does not only mean violence, force and oppression. We have not always been very successful in exercising it. With the present Viceroy, and the respect and affection in which he is held throughout India, we must support the civil power in India in taking what steps are necessary to preserve order as best it can be preserved. My hon. Friend has, of course, his constructive suggestions, with which I very largely agree.

3227
It is necessary to do what we can to make it clear to all shades of Indian opinion that, while we are not to be diverted from the course which this Government and this party have approved—and, of course, I accept that with the rest of the party—by violence, or unfortunate happenings, at the same time we are not to be alarmed, panicked, stampeded into other courses which we should consider unnecessary and dangerous.
We have to face a testing time. There will be a great test of nerves in this matter. There will, I am afraid, be those on the other side of the House who will accuse us of weakness; and there may be those on our own side, like my hon. Friend, who will accuse us of over-harshness. I hope I am right in saying that the alleged dangers in India are exaggerated and can be kept within bounds. I hope that there will be an end to any sort of violence in India. Nevertheless, we have to face a very trying time, which will be a great test of our nerves; but I believe we have it in our power to make it clear to the great majority of the Indian people, who are law-abiding, who want to avoid violent courses, and who do not, I believe, think it best that India should be outside the commonwealth of nations which we call the British Empire, that we do intend to follow out the policy which we have publicly declared, and that we intend to do so at the earliest possible moment. This is not a legislative question, but an executive and administrative question. I think it is necessary to make it absolutely clear that the round-table conference will meet at the earliest possible moment. It must meet, I think, this year if it be at all possible, and it should be made clear that the invitation, to those who really speak for Indian opinion, to attend that conference, remains open. At one moment one prominent Indian leader may dissociate himself from this party and join another. That kind of thing is happening continuously. But I think that up to the last moment the invitation to those who can speak for important sections of Indian opinion must remain open, that the conference must be held, and that it must be made perfectly clear that it will meet at the earliest possible moment.
3228
Further—and this, again, is an administrative question—when the Conference does assemble, it should be allowed to discuss the whole programme of the future without any sort of inhibition. The discussion should not be circumscribed in any way. I was asked in India what would be the best policy to be pursued by those in India who wish to co-operate with us, and who believe that the Labour party and the Labour Government are sincere in the policy that they have declared. They were good enough to ask me what my advice was, and I ventured to suggest three things. One was that those who wished to see a constitutional solution of Indian difficulties—and I repeat that, as far as those who are politically awakened are concerned, they are the vast majority still—should form a strong alternative party of constitutionally-minded people who are prepared to work by constitutional means towards the goal that they and we wish. Secondly, that they should draw up their programme, their proposals, their policy for presentation to the round-table conference. Thirdly, that they should do what they could to discourage and prevent violence and disorder. Now, those were the three points that I ventured to put to those who were kind enough to ask me to express an opinion, and I still think that is good advice. And—not because of anything that I said—a good many of those suggestions are being followed out. Those who are prepared to work constitutionally with us because they do believe in our sincerity, because they do believe that Englishmen keep their word when they give it, must and should be encouraged; and we shall only discourage them by panic action on the one hand, or by pretending that the Government of India has not the support of this House, and especially of this party.
This is a very grave arid a very difficult question. I do not complain of my hon. Friend raising it, but I am sorry it was not raised on a better and more suitable occasion. I have found it necessary to make these few comments on his speech, because it is, I think, the duty of us on these benches to make it clear that, as long as we belong to this party, we support the Cabinet policy with regard to India, and that we support that part of the declaration of my

3229
right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in which he said that as long as we are the Government of India, it is our duty to govern, and to see that the law is obeyed. In that, I support the Secretary of State, and I believe the great majority of this House, and the great majority of this party support the Secretary of State, and it is not in any way contrary to the declared policy of this party and the necessary action that will be taken this year when the Simon Commission reports.
Mr. MAXTON: I anticipated that the Government's spokesman would make his reply, although I imagine my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has unofficially taken over the task. I am very much surprised to hear him—that champion of back bench liberties and that seizer of back bench opportunities—lecturing my hon. Friend the Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway) for seizing the only opportunity for raising this matter that was available to a back bencher on this side of the House. He may take it as being a certainty that if my hon. Friend the Member for East Leyton could have got an opportunity, with a full House and with a full Cabinet present, he would have preferred that infinitely to the present situation.
I do not know that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull is doing a real service to India or to the cause of Indian freedom or to the preservation of peace in India if he tries to suggest that the policy of the Labour party is to leave Indian administration to the man on the spot, without criticism from this House, or without suggestion from this House as to better methods of handling the situation. Nor is he right in saying that Labour governmental policy is to be made subservient in every aspect to the fact that a Commission was set up by a Conservative Government and manned as that Conservative Government believed it desirable to man it, until that Commission has issued its report.
Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does my hon. Friend suggest that the Conservative Government appointed the two Labour representatives on the Simon Commission? That is what his word might be taken to mean.
Mr. MAXTON: I am speaking from recollection, but I should be very much
3230
surprised to learn that any Government, even this Government, accepts the election of individuals from other parties. A Government always mans its Commissions.
Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I also have a very lively recollection of the matter and I heard it discussed in the party meeting, as my hon. Friend did. Representatives of our party were chosen by the present Prime Minister, with the approval of the Labour party, and there is no question of them having been picked out by the then Secretary of State.
Mr. MAXTON: I do not want to quibble about the matter at all. It is undoubtedly true that the Government of the day decides on what the size of the Commission is going to be, decides on what the relative proportions of different political opinion are going to be, and may veto or accept nominees from a particular party for the proportion of places that has been allotted to them. I think I am well within the facts when I say the Simon Commission was manned by the last Conservative Government, and manned with the definite and deliberate intention of having a majority of their people on. I only wish our Government would adopt the same method in the appointment of Commissions. But, recognising that fact, I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not attempt to commit me to the view that the legislative steps that the Labour Government will take when the Simon Commission reports will be a slavish acceptance of that report. Therefore, I support the contention of the hon. Member for East Leyton that the Government, in dealing with Indian agitators, should observe the greatest restraint. It is not strong government, although I know it has been recognised in the past as the right way of governing, to throw someone into prison. Here is a man put into gaol last week. He looked at political, social and economic problems largely through the same eyes as myself. In connection with this whole movement, he has done nothing more, or infinitely less, than I should have done in a similar situation in this country. It is not good government and it is not strength to throw such a man into prison.
I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not attempt to minimise the earnestness of the Indian people for independence

3231
by counting heads. We remember a war in this country that arose over one head. As a matter of fact the war of Jenkin's ear was a war about a bit of a head, and very small things may spread a conflagration over a very big area. People who are unconscious to-day of any particular antipathy to English rule may easily find reasons for that within a week or two of what they regard as harshness and injustice being meted out to men of their own race. Therefore, I support the claim of my hon. Friend that the Government should give evidence of its good intentions by liberating the whole lot of prisoners detained from the first unjustly, and should step in and say it is grossly unfair that these prisoners, men who are trying to build a Labour movement of the type that we have here, should be treated as sedition mongers and revolutionists. The men who are carrying on public agitation to-day in India should not be put behind prison bars. The Secretary of State and those responsible in this country should issue the strongest and most definite declaration of their genuine intention to give to India the liberty that she desires. My hon. Friend made no suggestion of the immediate withdrawal of troops out of India, or the scuttling of England out of India. I do not think that there is anything to be got by precipitate departure, but it ought to be made clear to the Indian people that we are genuinely anxious to leave them with the rule and responsible control of affairs in their own land and that our control and direction will only be maintained for the purpose which is deemed desirable by intelligent men in both lands as necessary for a proper change over.
Major MUIRHEAD: I have not heard the whole of this Debate, but I feel, however, on perfectly sound grounds in intervening, considering the present state of affairs in India and the fact that the Simon Commission Report has not yet been published, and saying that in the public interest this question should not have been raised in this House in any shape or form whatever.
The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): The hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway) has already told the House that the Secretary of State for India informed him that he
3232
is unable to be present, and I only rise for the purpose of saying that the Secretary of State for India will give the most careful consideration to the proposals which he has made and which he will be able to read in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I do not propose to enter into a defence of the present administration, because it would not be right for anyone to attempt to do that on behalf of a Minister who will be here after the Recess to make his own defence. My right hon. Friend has been called away rather suddenly to a special State Conference which it is necessary for him to attend, and that, I think is a sufficient reason for his not being here. I think that if he had been here he would probably not have been able to enter into a long detailed discussion of Dominion Home Rule or into some of the questions raised this afternoon.
I want to say, personally and simply on my own behalf, that I think that India and Great Britain are extremely fortunate in having as Viceroy, Lord Irwin, and as Secretary of State, the present right hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn). The situation is extremely difficult and one which needs very sympathetic treatment and I am confident that both those very high officials will do their very utmost to bring about a settlement of the very difficult questions and of the very difficult situation which has arisen. As to going back on our policy—the labour party policy—I think that hon. Members ought to remember that it is not many months ago that the House had a full dress Debate on this subject and that most emphatic statements were made, and challenged from the other side, by the Secretary of State on that occasion. I do not think it would serve any useful purpose for me to say anything more except to express the hope that the people in India and the people in this country will get back to the position where each recognises the other as speaking the truth to one another, and so get some confidence in one another, such as ought to exist at the present time, seeing the two men that we have at the head of affairs.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes before Five o'Clock, until Tuesday, 29th April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of this day.

INDIA.
  ARRESTS.
  ARRESTS.
  LABOUR COMMISSIONERS.
  LABOUR COMMISSIONERS.
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.
  MR. VALLABHBHAI PATEL (IMPRISONMENT).
  MR. VALLABHBHAI PATEL (IMPRISONMENT).
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  TUBERCULOSIS (INSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT, KENT).
  TUBERCULOSIS (INSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT, KENT).
  SEWAGE SCHEME, WILLASTON.
  SEWAGE SCHEME, WILLASTON.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  HOUSING (SUBSIDY).
  HOUSING (SUBSIDY).
POST OFFICE.
  TELEPHONE CALL OFFICES, LINDSEY.
  TELEPHONE CALL OFFICES, LINDSEY.
  EXPRESS LETTER SERVICE, GUILDFORD.
  EXPRESS LETTER SERVICE, GUILDFORD.
  SWEEPSTAKES.
  SWEEPSTAKES.
RUSSIA.
  PROPAGANDA.
  PROPAGANDA.
  PASSPORTS, UNITED KINGDOM.
  PASSPORTS, UNITED KINGDOM.
  POLICE UNIFORM.
  POLICE UNIFORM.
  MAY DAY DEMONSTRATIONS.
  MAY DAY DEMONSTRATIONS.
  PRISONERS ON REMAND (ACCOMMODATION).
  PRISONERS ON REMAND (ACCOMMODATION).
SAFEGUARDING AND IMPORT DUTIES.
  MOTOR CYCLES (PRICES AND PRODUCTION).
  MOTOR CYCLES (PRICES AND PRODUCTION).
  LACE INDUSTRY (WAGES).
  LACE INDUSTRY (WAGES).
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  GLOVE-MAKING INDUSTRY (WAGES).
  GLOVE-MAKING INDUSTRY (WAGES).
  COTTON, LACE AND NET.
  COTTON, LACE AND NET.
MERCANTILE MARINE.
  COLOURED SEAMEN.
  COLOURED SEAMEN.
  COAL AND OIL FUEL, BUNKERING.
  COAL AND OIL FUEL, BUNKERING.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  TRADE FACILITIES ACT.
  TRADE FACILITIES ACT.
  DOMINIONS (REPORTS).
  DOMINIONS (REPORTS).
  SUDAN.
  SUDAN.
SCOTLAND.
  LANDHOLDERS (LOANS).
  LANDHOLDERS (LOANS).
  WESTER HAILES SETTLEMENT.
  WESTER HAILES SETTLEMENT.
  OATS.
  OATS.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  ROYAL COMMISSION.
  ROYAL COMMISSION.
  EMPLOYÉS (STATISTICS).
  EMPLOYÉS (STATISTICS).
  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (SELF- BALANCING ITEMS).
  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (SELF- BALANCING ITEMS).
  PLAYING FIELDS (EXEMPTION FROM RATING) BILL.
  PLAYING FIELDS (EXEMPTION FROM RATING) BILL.
  CHINA (CAPTIVE MISSIONARIES).
  CHINA (CAPTIVE MISSIONARIES).
  IRISH FREE STATE (GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS).
  IRISH FREE STATE (GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS).
  DEAD SEA SALTS (CONCESSION).
  DEAD SEA SALTS (CONCESSION).
  PALESTINE (ARMS IMPORTATION).
  PALESTINE (ARMS IMPORTATION).
AGRICULTURE.
  HORSES (EXPORT.)
  HORSES (EXPORT.)
  ALL-ENGLISH BREAD.
  ALL-ENGLISH BREAD.
  GOVERNMENT POLICY.
  GOVERNMENT POLICY.
  CATTLE BREEDING.
  CATTLE BREEDING.
  SMALL HOLDINGS.
  SMALL HOLDINGS.
  PORK.
  PORK.
  HARVEST WAGONS (DEMONSTRATION).
  HARVEST WAGONS (DEMONSTRATION).
  IMPORTED POTATOES (DISEASE).
  IMPORTED POTATOES (DISEASE).
  RIVERS (PROTECTION).
  RIVERS (PROTECTION).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  EXCHANGES, KENT.
  EXCHANGES, KENT.
  SALFORD AND BIRMINGHAM.
  SALFORD AND BIRMINGHAM.
  VACANCIES FILLED, EXCHANGES.
  VACANCIES FILLED, EXCHANGES.
  BENEFIT (MARRIED WOMEN).
  BENEFIT (MARRIED WOMEN).
  TRANSFER OF WORKERS (SOUTHWARK).
  TRANSFER OF WORKERS (SOUTHWARK).
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  HEATON AND WALKER, NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE.
  HEATON AND WALKER, NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE.
  AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.
  AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.
  RELIEF WORKS.
  RELIEF WORKS.
  WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.
  WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.
TRANSPORT.
  CARD SHARPERS, RAILWAYS.
  CARD SHARPERS, RAILWAYS.
  SHOOTER'S HILL BY-PASS ROAD.
  SHOOTER'S HILL BY-PASS ROAD.
  MOTOR TRAFFIC (DANGEROUS AND CARELESS DRIVING).
  MOTOR TRAFFIC (DANGEROUS AND CARELESS DRIVING).
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.
  NORTH RIDING.
  NORTH RIDING.
  AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES.
  AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES.
  GUN PRACTICE, NEWHAVEN.
  GUN PRACTICE, NEWHAVEN.
  BRITISH MUSEUM (NEWSPAPER STORE).
  BRITISH MUSEUM (NEWSPAPER STORE).
  ROYAL NAVY (OATS AND OATMEAL).
  ROYAL NAVY (OATS AND OATMEAL).
  ART SCHOOLS (PLASTER CASTS).
  ART SCHOOLS (PLASTER CASTS).
Preamble
The House met at twelve of the clock, The LORD MARLEY on the Woolsack.
SEA FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments made by the Lords disagreed to, for which disagreement the Commons assigned a Reason.
THE SECRETARY of STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON): My Lords, in moving that the Commons Reason be now considered I would like to make a statement. The observations made in this House during the debate on Tuesday, in view of the great authority of those who made them, will, I can assure your Lordships, be carefully considered by the competent authorities during the next twelve months. That is all I can say on the subject for the moment, but I hope it will satisfy noble Lords opposite. I therefore beg to move that the Commons Reason be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reason be now considered.—(Lord Thomson.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I desire to recognise at once the tone in which the noble and gallant Lord the Secretary of State for Air has moved his Motion. We are in a very specially difficult position, which I am afraid is not unprecedented in your Lordships' House, but still a very specially difficult position, because the House of Lords, of course, has no intention whatever of throwing out, or risking the loss of, the Army and Air

159
Force (Annual) Bill. We are quite aware of the consequences which would follow, not to your Lordships' House, for we have nothing to lose in these matters at all, but to the public service if such an event happened, and we have, of course, no desire that it should so happen. We did our very best to point out, when this Bill was before us, the formidable character of the change which had been made this year in the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill. Of course in ordinary years the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill is little more than a formality. It passes as a matter of course—it is a repetition of what has happened scores of times before—but on this occasion the Government thought it their duty, I am quite sure with every good intention, to make a profound modification in the Bill.
They did not accompany that by giving us a little more time to consider it. On the contrary, the usual course was followed. The Bill was brought up at a time when it was impossible to consider it adequately. And indeed we should, I think, have preferred very much to have had a little more time because it might have been possible to persuade the House of Commons, if there had been a little larger interval, that the course it was taking in making this alteration was one which it ought to reconsider. But as it has happened, we are not only deprived of the time which is necessary for that purpose, but we do not even thoroughly know the reasons for which the House of Commons has differed with your Lordships' House. We have, of course, the formal Reason which is on the Table, but, as the House is well aware, a formal Reason does not generally convey very much new matter, and as far as the present occasion is concerned it is merely a repetition in the baldest language of the view of the House of Commons. We are not to have even, the resource of turning to the OFFICIAL REPORT because the OFFICIAL REPORT is not yet printed—I mean that part of it which deals with this debate which came on late last night. Therefore we are very much in the dark -as to what exactly are the reasons which have dictated the attitude of the House of Commons.
There is in a very brief, hasty report in the Daily Herald something which I will refer to in a moment, but the speech of the noble Lord, I am glad to say, has
160
been in a very different tone from what appears in the Daily Herald. Because, according to the Daily Herald, which is the only report that I have available, it seems that a Member of Parliament committed himself to the observation that it was a piece of arrogance, impertinence and astounding audacity on the part of this Assembly to have taken the course which it did take. I do not know that it is really worth while for members of your Lordships' House to take notice of these phrases, which are happily very seldom used in another place, and if it had only concerned the ordinary political members of your Lordships' House, who are quite accustomed to have bricks thrown at them—they do not find that they hurt very much—I should not have referred to the matter at all. But this observation about impertinence and audacity was applied to your Lordships' House when it was following the advice of the two most distinguished living soldiers in this country, upon a matter upon which those two soldiers had a special right to speak.
They told your Lordships, in the phrase of one of them, that this change which we are called upon to agree to would prejudice the morale and also the high standard of discipline which has hitherto been a proud tradition of the British Army. Upon their responsibility as members of your Lordships' House, with that vast experience behind them and the notable culmination of that experience in commanding armies in the Great War, they told the House and the country and the House of Commons and the gentleman who has committed himself to the phrase which I have read, that it, would prejudice the morale and discipline of the Army. And this gentleman considered that that was an example of arrogance, impertinence and astounding audacity. I do not think it is necessary for me to describe in any language what I consider—and I am quite certain every member of your Lordships' House considers—to be the appropriate method of treating such language as that. I have the great pleasure and privilege of the friendship and acquaintance of many members of the Labour Party in another place. I am very proud of it, and I hope I may long continue to enjoy it. I am quite sure that every one of them would be ashamed of what their colleague has said in respect of this matter.

161
As regards what the noble Lord has said, I have only to say that I quite recognise the method in which he has approached the matter, and I am very much obliged to him for what he has said. The effect of his observations I gather to be this, that, although the Government are unable to accept the advice of your Lordships' House in this matter on the present occasion having regard to the great authority with which it was put forward they will consider it between now and the next occasion when the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill comes before Parliament. That undoubtedly is a very conciliatory method of approaching this subject. I am grateful to the noble Lord, and on behalf of my noble friends who sit behind me I accept what he says in the spirit in which it is said. I earnestly hope that when the Government have the time and opportunity to consider this matter carefully they will agree with the noble and gallant Lords who sit on the Cross Benches and decide that the Army Act ought, in a measure at any rate, to be restored to its original form.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I rejoice in the courteous language in which the noble Marquess concluded his speech. I must say I rather hoped myself that we could only have heard that part of his speech, and I think that in his heart he feels that the matter could not have been better left than it was left by my noble friend Lord Thomson. But there are two other matters which he has gone into which I want to mention, not in an argumentative spirit, but in order that they should be put in their right perspective. I think there has been a full opportunity of discussion in this House upon this question, and I am glad it has been so. Speaking for myself, I rejoice that the noble Field-Marshals, Lord Plumer and Lord Allenby, could tell this House their experience, as they did so admirably the other day. I find no fault whatever with anything that was said in this House. The noble Marquess, I think rather unfortunately, has referred to a matter that I have not seen myself, a statement made by an individual Member in another place. I have often thought that in our political controversies we pay too much attention to extreme language that is sometimes used
162
by individual Members, which possibly all Parties very much regret. We do not want that personal and invective element in our political life, and I hope we shall keep as free from it as possible in this House. But I am rather astonished that the noble Marquess should have thought it requisite even to refer to a matter of that kind. He knows that in all debates you can pick out a passage of an individual speaker which, if followed up, would lead to trouble.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Do I understand that the noble Lord defends this language?
LORD PARMOOR: I am not defending it, certainly. What I am finding fault with is that the noble Marquess should have given any attention, under the conditions here, or indeed at any time, to language of an individual Member, whatever it may be. If we have to spend our time over that, we shall stir up all the dissidence of political life, which does not further political thought in this country, but, on the contrary, is a hindrance, and introduces the merely personal element. That I feel very strongly. I hope most of us at any rate will end up in the spirit which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, has expressed, and feel that the matter has been fairly and honestly discussed, and that it is an important matter which will be open to reconsideration.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
[The references are to Bill No. 107.]
Page 4, leave out Clause 5.
Second Schedule, page 8, leave out from end of line 33 to end of line 5 on page 9.
The Commons disagree to the Lords Amendments for the following Reason:
Because they consider it inexpedient that a Court-Martial, whether Military or Air Force, should in the future be empowered to pass sentence of death in respect of any of the offences for which the maximum, punishment under Clause 5 of the Bill, as originally passed by this House, would be penal servitude.
LORD THOMSON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon its Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendments.—(Lord Thomson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, before moving the adjournment of the House for the Recess I want to make one statement. It has not been possible, for reasons that I need not state, to hold the Royal Commission to-day. It will be held, therefore, on April 29 to deal with this Bill. The exact hour will have to
164
be determined later when various consultations have taken place. I move now the adjournment of the House until April 29.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past twelve o'clock.