Sitting of 18 March 1931

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (East Elloe Joint Water Supply District) Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    AGRARIAN COUNTRIES (CONFERENCES).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the result of two conferences held in Paris recently on the situation of the agrarian countries of Europe; whether these were held under the auspices of the League of Nations and will report to it; what commitments, if any, have been accepted or recommended; and what countries in Europe were not represented or not invited?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): In reply to the first and third parts of the question, I have at present nothing to add to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, on the 3rd of March, to the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor). With regard to the second part, the meetings in question were held in pursuance of resolutions passed by the Commission of Inquiry for European Union, which was constituted by, and accordingly reports to, the League of Nations. The answer to the last part of the question is somewhat long, and I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    2000
    Following is the answer:
    The resolutions of the Commission contemplated that the first meeting, to find means of disposing of the existing grain surplus, should consist of "representatives of the European countries affected (grain exporting countries of Central and Eastern Europe and European importing countries)." This meeting was attended by delegates of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, the Irish Free State, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Rumania, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Yugoslavia. Finland and Spain were represented by observers.
    The second meeting took the form of a Committee to consider the problem of future harvest surpluses. In accordance with the terms of the Commission of Enquiry's resolution, this Committee consisted of representatives of Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Yugoslavia.
    I am not aware of invitations being issued for either meeting to any countries other than those I have named.

    DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Government will propose, at the World Disarmament Conference, that there should be a budgetary limitation on air armaments?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: The policy to be pursued by His Majesty's Government at the World Disarmament Conference next February is already receiving careful attention, and will continue to be closely studied during the next few months. I cannot, however, make any statement at present in reply to questions on points of detail.
    Mr. MANDER: Can my right hon. Friend, at any rate, say whether this is not a matter which will receive careful attention from the Government?
    Mr. HENDERSON: Undoubtedly, it must.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Government have received the report

    2001
    of the Committee of Experts appointed by the League of Nations to consider the budgetary limitation of armaments; and whether it is intended to publish this report?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. In regard to the second part of the question, I understand that the report will be issued in the usual way by the Secretary-General of the League.

    LABOUR CONDITIONS.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken by the League of Nations to carry into effect Section A of Article 23 of the Covenant, which imposes upon all members the duty to secure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labour for men, women, and children both in their own countries and in all countries to which their commercial and industrial relations extend; and whether any code has been drawn up in this connection?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: A temporary Slavery Commission was set up in 1924, as the result of whose labours, the Slavery Convention of the 25th September, 1926, was concluded, and has been ratified in respect of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and many other States. A number of conventions have also been concluded under the auspices of the International Labour Office, including the Forced Labour Convention of 1930. As the House has already been informed, a Commission of Inquiry into labour conditions in Liberia has recently presented its report to the Council of the League of Nations, and measures for carrying out the suggested reforms are now under active consideration.
    Mr. DAY: How many States have not ratified the Convention?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Has Russia ratified?
    HON. MEMBERS: Answer!
    Mr. WILLIAMS: May I press the right hon. Gentleman for an answer to my question?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I have already said that I must have notice.
    Mr. ALBERY: Is there any international agreement as to what constitutes fair and humane conditions of labour?

  ROYAL NAVY.

    DIVING EQUIPMENT.
    Mr. ALBERYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the Committee on Diving Equipment is likely to issue its report?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The Committee on Diving is still in being and is to carry out further trials and investigations which may occupy considerable time.
    Mr. ALBERY: How long has this committee been considering their report?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: It is not a question of considering. It is a question of getting on with further trials, and this summer, if the weather is favourable, it is proposed to do so.

    REPAIR WORK.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the approximate values of the repair work done to Government ships in the Government dockyards in each of the following years: 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928 and 1929; and the approximate values of the repair work done to Government ships in private shipyards in the same years?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: With my hon. Friend's permission, I propose to circulate the figures that are available in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures:
    The approximate value of the repair work done to Government ships in His Majesty's Dockyards at home in each year from 1921 to 1929 was as follows:

    £

    1921

    …

    …

    …

    5,527,832

    1922

    …

    …

    …

    3,946,301

    1923

    …

    …

    …

    3,870,097

    1924

    …

    …

    …

    5,411,851

    1925

    …

    …

    …

    5,693,141

    1926

    …

    …

    …

    5,466,552

    1927

    …

    …

    …

    5,303,596

    1928

    …

    …

    …

    4,968,651

    1929

    …

    …

    …

    4,827,902

    The following are the approximate costs of the repair work executed at private shipyards on fleet fuelling craft during the years in question:

    £

    1921

    …

    …

    …

    62,000

    1922

    …

    …

    …

    24,000

    1923

    …

    …

    …

    110,000

    1924

    …

    …

    …

    144,000

    1925

    …

    …

    …

    132,000

    1926

    …

    …

    …

    137,000

    1927

    …

    …

    …

    54,000

    1928

    …

    …

    …

    30,000

    1929

    …

    …

    …

    44,000

    A few of His Majesty's ships permanently stationed at ports away from the Royal Dockyards are also repaired in private shipyards at a total cost of between £10,000 and £15,000 a year.

    RETIRED PAY (OFFICERS).
    Commander SOUTHBYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the special rates of retired pay for officers retiring under the current special scheme are liable to alteration according to the cost-of-living figure?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: The answer is in the affirmative.

    LAUNDRY, STONEHOUSE (WAGES).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why, seeing that the hours and conditions of work are similar, the wages of women employed in the Royal Naval Hospital laundry, Stonehouse, are 4s. a week less than the wages of women employed in the dockyard?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): The wages paid to women employés depend, like those paid to men, on the nature of the employment. There are no women employed on laundry work at Devonport Dockyard.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Did the hon. Gentleman say there are no women employed in Devonport Dockyard?
    Mr. AMMON: I answerd the terms of the hon. Member's question. There are no women employed on laundry work in Devonport Dockyard.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I did not say there were.

    MARRIAGE AND CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what reductions are to be made in the naval marriage and children's allowances; and whether he will reconsider this matter?
    Mr. AMMON: In consequence of the reduction of the cost-of-living index figure, a reduced scale of marriage allowances will be operative in the three fighting Services during the financial year, 1931. The allowance for a wife will remain unchanged, but the revised scale will entail a reduction of from 1s. to 3s. weekly for children, according to the number of children in the family. I regret that I am unable to accede to the request contained in the latter part of the hon. Member's question.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Are the Admiralty of opinion that the reduced allowances will be sufficient to keep the children of naval men in decency?
    Mr. AMMON: The Admiralty are strictly carrying out the terms of the agreement.
    Mr. WISE: Will the hon. Gentleman consult the chairman of the Kitchen Committee as to the real effect of the alleged reduction in the cost-of-living?

    DEVONPORT DOCKY (DISCHARGES).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether with reference to the recent discharges of casual employés from His Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport, he is aware that they were given only a few hours' notice of the termination of their employment and will he arrange for a longer notice to be given in any future case?
    Mr. AMMON: Casual employés are engaged on the understanding that they will be discharged without notice when no longer required. While some notice is sometimes given, the amount that can be given must depend upon the nature of the work and I am unable to give any undertaking in this respect.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Do not the Admiralty think it a very inhuman thing that men are allowed to arrive for the work on which they are engaged at an early hour of the morning and are then sent away? Could they not be told the day before?
    Mr. AMMON: If the hon. Member has any evidence to that effect, I shall be glad if he will bring it to my notice.

    NAVAL ARMAMENTS.
    Sir CHARLES CAYZERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the written assurance to be given to the French and Italian Governments by the British Government, in connection with the Franco-Italian naval agreement, that they themselves favour a reduction of the capital-ship gun to a maximum calibre of 12 inches and a substantial reduction in the existing maximum displacement of 35,000 tons, will also be given by the Governments of the United States of America and Japan?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: The assurance to be given by the British Government on this matter is not dependent on a similar assurance from the United States of America and Japan. I would refer the hon. Member to my statement on the Navy Estimates on 11th March for the general position in regard to capital ships.
    Sir C. CAYZER: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that this written assurance will be in no way binding on the British Government, in the event of the United States and Japan not agreeing to its ratification at the next naval conference?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I think, if the hon. Gentleman refers to my statement of last week, he will understand the position. We had already, at London, indicated our view that we should reduce the size of the ship and the size of the gun as far as we could, but there was no agreement, and so we did not act. If there is no agreement in the future, we shall still be in the same position.
    Sir C. CAYZER: Then we may take it that that answer means that this assurance is, definitely, not binding?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: It means exactly what it says.
    Commander SOUTHBY: As far as the gun is concerned, was the suggestion at the London Conference that it should be reduced to 12 inches or to 13.5 inches?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Twelve inches.

    BRITISH GUIANA (RELIEF GRANT).
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what proportion of the unemployment relief grant to British Guiana will be given in the form of a loan; on what terms the loan will be offered; and has the Colony indicated its willingness to accept loan money in lieu of grant?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): As the hon. and gallant Member is aware a sum of £112,000 was included in the Supplementary Estimate for the current financial year in respect of relief works in British Guiana. Of this sum, £40,000 has been allocated as a loan to the Colony, on terms to be prescribed later, to provide for the improvement of labour and other conditions on sugar estates. This loan was given subject to an assurance that the Colony would undertake to impose some special form of taxation when the industry is again prosperous, the proceeds of which will be allocated as to one-half for the repayment of the loan, and one-half for the creation of a fund to assist the industry when necessary. This assurance has been given by a resolution of the local Legislature. The provision of further assistance of this nature in the coming financial year is under consideration.
    Captain MACDONALD: Can the hon. Gentleman say if there has been any improvement in conditions in British Guiana?
    Dr. SHIELS: No; I are afraid they remain very much the same.

    CYPRUS (OTTOMAN DEBT).
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies under what international convention Cyprus was made liable to contribute £42,000 annually to the Ottoman public debt from 1914 to 1927?
    Dr. SHIELS: The payment was not made under an international convention. An explanation of the position will be found on page 17 of Command Paper No. 3477 of 1930, of which I am sending a copy to the hon. Member.
    Mr. McSHANE: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the abolition of this liability, in view of the financially straitened circumstances of Cyprus to-day?
    Dr. SHIELS: I have already indicated, in reply to other questions on the subject, the position of the Government in regard to this matter.

    KENYA (LAND BANK).
    Sir PHILIP RICHARDSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Kenya land bank is to start operations; and whether he is aware of the urgency of enabling this assistance to be given to East African agriculturists?
    Dr. SHIELS: My Noble Friend has approved of the Land and Agricultural Bank Ordinance being brought into operation, but has not yet been informed of the date to be appointed for that purpose by the Governor of Kenya. My Noble Friend is aware of the importance attached to the early establishment of the bank, and he has no doubt that the Government of Kenya will proceed as rapidly as possible with the preliminary measures for setting up the bank, which will necessarily take time.

  AVIATION.

    SCHNEIDER TROPHY RACE.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is yet able to state over what course the Schneider Trophy Race will be run this year and on what date the race is to be held?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): The position remains as stated in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member on the 18th February last. I understand, however, that an announcement will be made on the subject by the Royal Aero Club before the end of this month.
    Captain MACDONALD: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will not be the same delay in making this announcement as there was with the original announcement in regard to this race?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: The matter rests with the Aero Club, and they stated on Monday last that the details of the course had not yet been settled.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what is the estimated total cost of British participation in the forthcoming Schneider trophy race; what proportion of this is money which would otherwise have to be found from public funds; and what was the cost falling on public funds in 1929?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: As regards the first two parts of the question, my hon. and gallant Friend will doubtless realise that preparations for a Schneider Trophy contest interact very closely with the official programme of research and development in high-speed aircraft and engine, and it is very difficult, particularly at this stage, to give any satisfactory estimate of the total cost, direct and indirect. I may say, however, that the expenditure which would not have been incurred but for the decision to participate, is estimated at approximately £100,000. I may add that the original cost to public funds of the machines and engines purchased in connection with the 1929 contest, which will also be utilised in connection with the 1931 contest, was about £230,000, but this includes the cost, which cannot be precisely determined, of the normal programme of high-speed research and development over the period affected.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. May I ask, does this answer mean that the whole of the extra money, over and above the normal routine training and research, has already been provided by Lady Houston?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: It means that that is our estimate of the extra cost to the Air Ministry.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Then no other money will have to be raised by private funds outside Lady Houston's generous gift?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: No, I think not.

    NIGHT AIR MAILS.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what steps he proposes to take to develop night air mails from this country abroad?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: The question of developing night air mails from this country abroad is primarily one for the

    2009
    decision of the operating companies concerned, but the Air Ministry is keeping in close touch with the whole question. Conferences of air and postal administrations of certain European States will be held in Prague in June and Brussels in October next, at which this matter will be examined.

  TRANSPORT.

    ROAD VEHICLES (WEIGHING).
    Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELasked the Minister of Transport what steps are being taken by his Department and/or by the local authorities to make effective the existing regulations designed to prevent the overloading of motor and steam-driven vehicles using public roads?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): In a circular letter which I recently caused to be sent to highway authorities it was pointed out that grants from the Road Fund are now available towards the expenses incurred by them in erecting machines for weighing vehicles or in securing the use of such machines belonging to any other authority or person, and the hope was expressed that this provision would encourage and assist highway authorities in the exercise of their powers under Section 27 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, with regard to the weighing of vehicles. I am arranging for a copy of the Circular to be sent to the hon. Member.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Are we to understand from the Minister's reply that the local authorities do not give effect to these regulations; and does the Minister ask for returns from the local authorities, showing the results of their investigations?
    Mr. MORRISON: The answer which I have given relates rather to future arrangements in connection with the administration of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. I am afraid it has to be confessed that in the past, under previous legislation, the administration was not as firm as it might have been.
    Colonel ASHLEY: What is the rate of grant from the Road Fund?
    Mr. MORRISON: I could not say without notice, but I know that there is a
    2010
    grant from the Road Fund towards weighing machines.

    SOUTH QUEENSPERRY-BO'NESS ROAD.
    Major COLVILLEasked the Minister of Transport if a decision has been reached to proceed with the proposed new shore-road between South Queensferry and Bo'ness; and, if so, what is the estimated cost and what proportion will fall upon the local rates?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am informed that the West Lothian County Council have agreed to the construction of a shore-road between Queensferry and Bo'ness and that a tentative estimate puts the cost at £130,000, exclusive of the cost of land to be acquired. So far, no definite scheme has been submitted to me, and I am unable to say what proportion of the cost will fall upon the local rates.
    Major COLVILLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable apprehension as to the effect that this scheme may have upon the rates?
    Mr. MORRISON: There is always that apprehension, just as I have apprehension as to how much will fall on the Road Fund.

    MOTOR-COACHES (SPEED LIMIT).
    Mr. ALBERYasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that drivers have been convicted for exceeding the speed limit when driving motor-coaches not fitted with speedometers; and if he proposes to take any action in this matter?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: My attention had not been drawn to this matter. In the ease of regular motor coach services, an application for a road service licence will have to be accompanied, in accordance with the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, by time tables and Section 72 of the Act provides that the Area Traffic Commissioners shall not grant a licence if it appears to them from the time table to be likely that the legal maximum speed for the vehicles used on the service would be exceeded. In the circumstances, I have not thought it necessary in the Regulations that have recently been made under the Act to require that motor coaches should be fitted with speedometers.
    Mr. ALBERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw attention to the urgency of this matter and to the desirability of drivers having speedometers?
    Mr. MORRISON: We must be guided by experience, but I think it better that the owners of the vehicles should be made to realise their sense of responsibility in fixing the schedules for the vehicles.
    Mr. DAY: Have there been many of these convictions?
    Mr. MORRISON: I cannot say; I had to inform the hon. Gentleman that my attention had not previously been drawn to the matter.

    RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION.
    Mr. ALBERYasked the Minister of Transport when the report of the Committee on Main Line Railway Electrification is likely to be issued?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have not yet received this report, but I understand that I shall probably receive it shortly.

    CALEDONIAN CANAL SWING-BRIDGES (CONTRACT).
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Minister of Transport why, in the case of the contract for the swing-bridges over the Caledonian Canal, it was not possible to invite tenders f r the contract from all bridge-building firms who could submit their own designs for the bridges?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to a similar question by him on the 11th March. As I explained then, it was considered that the interests of the public would be served best by limiting the tender in this case to selected firms.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I am asking the reasons why the selection was made. What are the public reasons for limiting the number of firms which have been asked to tender?
    Mr. MORRISON: The reasons are the common reasons in a case of this kind; owing to the exceptional character of the work, we must be satisfied that the firm tendering can successfully do it, and it is desirable to make a selected list of tenderers and allow competition within that sphere. It is the policy adopted
    2012
    not only by the State, but by local authorities.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I wish to give the Minister notice that I shall raise the matter on the first available opportunity on the Adjournment.

    TRAMCARS (STOP SIGNALS).
    Mr. MARJORIBANKSasked the Minister of Transport whether, having regard to the fact that tramcars in London and elsewhere stop without giving any warning to other traffic, he will take powers to make it a matter of obligation on all tramcar undertakings that warning shall be given of the stopping of every tramcar by lights or otherwise?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am watching certain experiments that are being made in this direction, but I am not yet satisfied that it is desirable that tramway undertakers should be obliged to exhibit such warning signals.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the most clumsy, least mobile, and in many ways the largest vehicle on the road should have special exemption with regard to a precaution of this kind?
    Mr. MORRISON: I cannot agree with the descriptive epithets which the hon. Gentleman applies to tramcars, and therefore I am afraid that the second part of his question does not arise.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there has been a considerable number of accidents caused by tramcars not having this signal, and will he make an investigation to see how many such accidents have occurred?
    Mr. MORRISON: I question whether the wholesale assertion of the hon. Gentleman is borne out by the facts.

    RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSINGS.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HACKINGasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that there are 133 level crossings over railways in the administrative county of Lancashire and that no schemes for the elimination of any of these level crossings have been approved for grant from the Road Fund during the

    2013
    past two years, he will use his influence to see that schemes are prepared and submitted to him without delay, with a view to improving the present position?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The initiation of schemes for the abolition of level crossings is a matter which must rest with the highway authorities concerned, who are well aware that grants of 75 per cent. of the approved net cost are available from the Road Fund towards carrying out works of this nature I may add that negotiations are in progress in respect of three important level crossings in Lancashire.
    Mr. EDEasked the Minister of Transport how many schemes have been submitted to his Department since 1st June, 1929, for abolishing level crossings; how many have been approved; how many disapproved; and how many are still under consideration?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: To collect the complete return required by my hon. Friend necessitates a reference to my divisional staff; as soon as these inquiries have been made I will communicate the result to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Has not the removal of the speed limit on these fast-going vehicles turned all our roads into level crossings?

    MOTOR LICENCES.
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister Transport the number of licences current on the 28th February, 1931, in respect of motor cars taxed on horse-power and in respect of motor hackneys and tramcars, and the approximate amount received in payment of licences in each case for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Particulars of the number of licences current on the 28th February, 1931, are not yet available. My hon. Friend will find the information required by the last part of his question in issue No. 27 of the monthly Returns of Road Vehicles.

    ROADS AND BRIDGES PROGRAMME.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Minister of Transport if he will arrange for a White Paper to be circulated to Members giving particulars of the five-years' programme of
    2014
    road and bridge building to which his Department is committed and which involves an expenditure of £27,500,000; if he will include in such returns the contributions which will be made by the local authorities concerned towards the cost of the improvements; if he will state whether the Treasury have concurred in the carrying out of this programme; and whether he proposes to submit this scheme of expenditure to the House for approval or whether their control will be limited to the annual discussion during the five years over which this building programme is to be spread of the Estimates relating to his Department?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to page 7 of the White Paper (Cmd. 3746) published in December last. The position at 13th March, 1931, was that the £27,500,000 of the five years' programme had been dealt with as follows:

    (a) Schemes which had been submitted in detail and approved for commencement amounted to nearly £11,500,000.

    (b) Schemes submitted in outline and approved in principle accounted for another £14,750,000.

    (c) The balance represented schemes under negotiation.

    The estimated Road Fund liability in respect of the schemes approved, whether in detail or in principle, was £18,500,000, leaving £7,750,000 to be borne by the local authorities.
    The White Paper already laid has apprised the House of the approval by His Majesty's Government of the five years' programme of Road Fund expenditure, which does not require an Annual Vote.
    Sir F. HALL: Did not the right; hon. Gentleman, in a speech which he made at Derby last week, draw attention to the increase from £9,500,000 to £11,500,300 in the cost of the work proposed to be carried out, and, owing to this enormous increase, will he issue another White Paper?
    Mr. MORRISON: I think that, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is under a misapprehension. That increase was sanctioned some time before the issue of the last White Paper.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Has any of the work involved in this increase been started?
    Mr. MORRISON: Yes, certainly.
    Sir F. HALL: Will the House have an opportunity of discussing these things as they come up to be carried out, or are we only to have an opportunity once a year of going into the matter?
    Mr. MORRISON: It depends on whether the Opposition ask for the Ministry of Transport Vote to be put down; that would give an opportunity to discuss the general policy of the Department, but we want to go forward with these unemployment schemes.

    MOTOR VEHICLES (DIRECTION SIGNALS).
    Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Minister of Transport when he proposes to issue regulations dealing with the use of mechanical appliances on motor cars for indicating change of direction?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have the question of issuing Regulations on this subject under consideration at the present time, but it will be necessary for me to consult the motoring organisations concerned, and I am not in a position to say when the Regulations are likely to be made.
    Mr. DAY: Has not this matter been under consideration for a very long time?
    Mr. MORRISON: Not a terribly long time.

    ROAD SURFACES (EXPERIMENTS).
    Mr. EDEasked the Minister of Transport how many lengths of road surfacing for experimental purposes he has sanctioned which are at present laid down; what proportion of the cost is borne by the Ministry; and what steps are taken to control the experiments by his Department and to make the results generally known to highway authorities and other interested parties?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Certain experimental forms of road construction have been executed in connection with London arterial roads, of which particulars have appeared in recent reports on the administration of the Road Fund. Since the appointment of a Technical Advisory Committee on experimental
    2016
    work in 1929 about half a mile of various forms of concrete have been laid on the road attached to the Department's Experimental Station at Harmondsworth, wholly at the cost of the Road Fund. One and three-eighths miles of bituminous surfacing have been laid on the Kingston by-pass in co-operation with associations of manufacturers of road-making materials, half of the cost being borne by the Road Fund. In addition other experimental work is being carried out in conjunction with highway authorities of which any cost in excess of the normal falls on the Road Fund. The work in every case is supervised by the technical officers of my Department. Results are published from time to time in the technical Press and the first report by the Technical Advisory Committee to which I have referred will be published shortly.
    Mr. HURD: Is any progress being made with the tests in the use of rubber for roads—rubber after undergoing certain treatment—in order to lessen the vibration?
    Mr. MORRISON: Rubber is being tested in the City of London, but a sufficient time has not yet elapsed to enable the City engineer definitely to advise me of the results.

    GAS AND ELECTRICITY UNDERTAKINGS (DEVELOPMENT).
    Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the protests sent to him from municipal and other gas companies protesting against his action in recommending electricity at the expense of gas companies; and whether he will receive deputations on the subject?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The conferences which I have recently held with representatives of electricity supply undertakings were arranged with a view to urging them to provide additional employment by expediting their development, and I pointed out that the continued development of the two industries had not proved incompatible. I have not been approached directly on the subject by municipal or other gas undertakers.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: Will the right hon. Gentleman he willing to receive any deputation from municipal bodies on the subject?
    Mr. MORRISON: When an application is received, I will consider it, but I am not convinced that I have committed any offence.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a letter of protest signed by two members of his own party which appears in the Press to-day?
    Mr. MORRISON: I have seen letters of protest from the gas industry, but I am certain that they were drafted and signed under a complete misapprehension of the facts.

    MOTOR COACHES (CENTRAL LONDON).
    Mr. HACKINGasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the loss to the country owing to the impossibility of travel agents booking advance sight-seeing tours of London for potential visitors from overseas, due to the delay in his reaching a decision with regard to the proposal to ban all motor coaches from Central London, he will make an immediate statement to the effect that such visitors will not be inconvenienced by any regulations which he proposes to issue?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have decided not to proceed with the making of the regulations of which notice was given on 19th December last, and to adopt the alternative course of giving general directions to the Traffic Commissioner for the Metropolitan area, in pursuance of Section 63 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, in the matter of the restriction of motor coach services in the Central London area. In these general directions the attention of the Commissioner will be drawn to the desirability of so exercising his discretion in the grant or refusal of road service licences as to allow facilities for sight-seeing excursions and tours, where it is clear that a legitimate public demand exists which could not otherwise be met. I propose to issue and to publish the general directions to the Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner at once.
    Mr. HACKING: Will the right hon. Gentleman press the Commissioner to come to an early decision in view of the
    2018
    great financial loss to the country caused by the present uncertainty of the position?
    Mr. MORRISON: I think the right hon. Gentleman may take it that the directions which will be issued, and which I will publish at once, will in fact guide the Traffic Commissioner in his policy.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May we take it that these Regulations will not prevent passengers from the north coming right in to the centre of the City?
    Mr. MORRISON: That does not follow. Passengers from the north will be able to come to within a reasonable distance of the centre subject always to the reasonable discretion of the Traffic Commissioner, but I cannot conceive, and I hope that the House will never insist upon the right, of everybody being able to travel from door to door irrespective of public convenience.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Are we to understand that this discretion of the Traffic Commissioner will apply only to visitors who come to this country for the purpose of seeing London?
    Mr. MORRISON: I cannot give a categorical answer upon that point, but substantially it is to meet what I thought was a legitimate case of the sight-seeing visitor—the tourist and overseas visitor, and so on. There must be a certain elasticity in administration, but, substantially, that is the only concession.

    EGHAM AND STAINES ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY.
    Mr. EDEasked the—Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the terms upon which the share capital of the Egham and Staines Electricity Supply Company has been acquired by the Metropolitan Electric Supply Company; and, seeing that the terms represent an appreciation of over 100 per cent. of the nominal capital of the Egham and Staines Electricity Supply Company, whether he proposes to take any steps to ensure that the burden of increased capitalisation shall not fall upon the consumers of electricity in the area of either of the companies concerned?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: It has been stated by the Chairman of the Metropolitan Company that the company recently made an offer to the ordinary shareholders of the Egham and Staines Electricity Supply Company to acquire their Ordinary shares in exchange for Ordinary shares of the Metropolitan Company; the Egham and Staines shareholders to receive one Ordinary share of the Metropolitan Company for each Ordinary share held in the Egham and Staines Company and that the necessary number of acceptances of this offer were received. As the exchange was made on the basis of "share for share," the latter part of the question does not arise.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    ACCOMMODATION, BROMYARD AVENUE, ACTON.
    Sir GEORGE HAMILTONasked the First Commissioner of Works if he is now in a position to state what has been done to terminate the former policy of using office accommodation at Bromyard Avenue, Acton, as storage room for files and records?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given on the 18th December to hon. Members, by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, to which I have nothing to add.

    MINISTRY OF LABOUR (EXCHANGE STAFF, WALSALL).
    Mr. McSHANEasked the Minister of Labour how many male clerks, permanent and temporary, are employed in all the Employment Exchanges under the control of the manager, Walsall Employment Exchange; how many are classified in Grade II and also in Grade III; and what is the weekly wage received by those in Grade II and Grade III, respectively?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): Under the control of the manager of the Walsall Employment Exchange there are the following male clerks on the staff of the Ministry of Labour:
    2020

    1

    Permanent.

    21 Employment Clerks.

    1 "P" Class Clerk, Grade II.

    7 "P" Class Clerks, Grade III.

    29

    11

    Temporary.

    33

    Temporary Clerks, Grade III.

    These figures are exclusive of clerks in the personal employment of the branch manager at Cannock.
    The "P" class clerk, Grade II, receives a salary of £3 1s. 11d. per week. The 40 Grade III clerks ("P" class and temporary) receive an average weekly wage of £2 12s. per week.

    ANCIENT MONUMENTS (OLD TEMPLE BAR).
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the desirability of scheduling old Temple Bar as of national value in order to avoid the possibility of its being sold to America?
    Mr. LANSBURY: Temple Bar has already been scheduled under the Ancient Monuments (Consolidation and Amendment) Act, 1913, and will he included in the list, which is shortly to be published, of monuments scheduled up to the end of 1930.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITIONS (CONVENTION).
    Mr. HACKINGasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department when he hopes to be in a position to ask the House to ratify the convention relating to international exhibitions, signed in Paris in November, 1928?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): The convention was ratified by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom on 17th December, 1930.

    RUSSIA.
    Major COLVILLEasked the President of the Board of Trade which countries have taken action to prohibit or restrict the importation of goods from Soviet Russia; and whether in any case the reason can be stated?
    Mr. W. R. SMITH: There is an absolute prohibition upon the importation into Rumania of all goods of Soviet origin, except salted fish. Prohibitions or restrictions upon the importation of certain specified classes of goods from Soviet Russia have been imposed by Canada, Belgium, France, the United States of America and Yugoslavia. In the case of the United States the prohibition, which is confined to lumber and pulpwood from specified parts of Russia, was stated in the Treasury decision by which it was imposed to have been issued on the ground that convict labour is employed in the production of timber and pulpwood in those districts. In the case of France I have seen statements communicated by Ministers to the Press which indicate that the restrictions were imposed on grounds connected with the prices at which Soviet goods were being sold. I have no official information as to the reasons which led to the imposition of the restrictions in other countries.
    Major COLVILLE: Does not the hon. Member see that the reason why those countries took that action was in order to protect and help their own industries, and ought not the same considerations to apply in the case of our own industries?
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the existence of these restrictions in other countries will increase the dumping in this country?
    Mr. HAYCOCK: Do not the Soviet Government place an embargo on the goods of all countries which place an embargo on their goods, with the result that those countries lose trade?
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Can the hon. Gentleman give any sane or sound reason why we do not prohibit the import of their goods into this country?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Minister aware that Gandhi has got his eye on St. George's?

    BREAD PRICES.
    Sir K. WOODasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now state the conclusions of the investigations by the Food Council into the reasonableness of the new scale in the price of flour?
    Mr. W. R. SMITH: The Food Council have not yet presented a report on the reasonableness of the new scale of bread prices adopted by the London Bakers' Societies last year. I understand that they are still in communication with the societies in the matter.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to ascertain when a report will be made?
    Mr. SMITH: I will endeavour to do so.

    INDIA (BOYCOTT OF BRITISH GOODS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can make any further statement with regard to the boycott of British goods in India?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): I am keeping closely in touch with the Government of India in this matter, but at present I have nothing to add to the information I have already given.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can my right hon. Friend inform me when he expects to get some definite information about this matter?
    Mr. BENN: I answered that question yesterday. We must wait a few days before we can get any official figures about imports.
    Mr. D. HACKING (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of Mr. Gandhi's proposal that stocks of British cloth at, present in India should be re-exported to places outside India; and, if so, whether he will take immediate steps to make it clear that such action is not in accordance with the recent agreement, signed by His Excellency the Viceroy and Mr. Gandhi.
    Mr. BENN: The right hon. Gentleman was only able to give me notice of this question after two o'clock. I have only seen a Press statement, and have no official information as to the proposal mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, but I will inquire.
    Mr. HACKING: In view of the fact that this is a most serious form of boy-

    2023
    cott, if the information I have is correct, will the right hon. Gentleman take action?
    Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Is it not the case that mill owners are the real instigators of the boycott, which is keeping tens of thousands of people in Lancashire out of work, and will he not do something?

    BUDGET (DATE).
    Sir K. WOODasked the Prime Minister on what date the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open the Budget?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): No date has yet been fixed.
    Sir K. WOOD: In view of the welcome improvement in the condition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will be able to make an announcement before the Easter recess?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have looked up the precedents and find that an announcement is very, very rarely made before the end of March or the beginning of April.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    FOREIGN COAL (IMPORTS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary for Mines whether any foreign coal has been brought to this country for bunkering or other purposes during the present calendar year; whether he knows of any cargoes on their way here; and, if so, whether he will give particulars?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): No foreign coal has been imported into this country during the current year, and, so far as I am aware, none is on its way here.

    MIDLAND (AMALGAMATED) DISTRICT (QUOTA AND PRICES).
    Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary for Mines if he will state the date upon which the Central Council fixed the quota for the Midland (Amalgamated) District for the quarter ending 31st March, 1931; and the date upon which the Midland
    2024
    (Amalgamated) District fixed the minimum prices for every class of coal produced in that district.?
    Mr. SHINWELL: The Central Council fixed the allocation for the Midland (Amalgamated) District for the March quarter on 26th November, 1930. Minimum prices under the Midland scheme for the inland trade became operative on 18th February, 1931. I understand that minimum prices for export for that district are not yet in force, pending discussions with other districts.
    Mr. COCKS: Is this delay to enable the Midland owners to dump coal at cut prices in other districts, and is that the reason why they have exhausted their quota at the present time?
    Mr. SHINWELL: That is the reason why they have practically exhausted their quota.
    Mr. McSHANE: Are these quotas and prices published at the time of their decision?
    Mr. SHINWELL: It would be extremely inadvisable that minimum prices should be published.
    Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand that the Midland Counties have not fixed their minimum prices for export coal, seeing that other districts have fixed theirs?
    Mr. SHINWELL: The matter is now under discussion by the Central Council of Coalowners.
    Mr. BATEY: Are the Ministry not bringing any pressure to bear upon the Midland Counties to fix the price for export coal?
    Mr. SHINWELL: We cannot compel districts to fix their minimum prices either for export or for inland coal, but in any event the question of fixing minimum prices is not so important as the co-ordination of minimum price and the amount fixed.

    OIL EXTRACTION.
    The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Rear-Admiral BEAMISH:
    48. "To ask the Secretary for Mines if he will state what are the intentions of the Government in view of their acceptance of the resolution on the Navy Estimates that

    2025
    it is desirable for strategic and economic reasons to help in providing employment, that energetic steps be taken to encourage the use of oil fuel for the Royal Navy from our own coal?"
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, on what principle questions are transferred from one Minister to another. This question was put down to the Prime Minister, and it deals with the great question of the intentions of the Government and of large-scale employment. It has been transferred from the Prime Minister to the Secretary for Mines, but I had a very strong wish that it should be answered by the Prime Minister.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister responsible for the particular questions which are raised is the one who answers.
    Sir G. HAMILTON: Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister, as Leader of the House, is responsible for questions of policy?
    Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: May I ask if the Mines Department are responsible for experiments in oil fuel?
    Mr. SHINWELL: The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) may rest assured that when suitable oils are produced from coal in sufficient quantities at reasonable prices, the Admiralty will purchase them for use in the Royal Navy. The problem is one of production and on that point I cannot add anything to the answers I gave to the hon. and gallant Member on the 11th March, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) an the 10th March.
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that offers of bulk supplies have already been made and that the case was raised in the House the other day by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I have heard something to that effect, but I understand that the Admiralty have the point under consideration.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his answer means that the Admiralty are going to sit down and wait for the oil to be available?

    RIVER POLLUTION.
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALDasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the method adopted by colliery firms in allowing ochre water to flow into streams in such quantities and conditions as to be detrimental to fish life and fish food; and whether he is prepared to take such steps as will prevent this practice?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): I am aware that ochre water is discharged from mines, and that in certain circumstances it may prejudicially affect fish food; but its discharge in the same condition is specifically exempted from the operation of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876. I am advised that it is not actually poisonous to fish, but, if it is deposited on the bed of a stream, it might interfere mechanically with fish food, in which circumstances proceedings could be taken by a Fishery Board under Section 8 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923. I myself have no statutory authority to institute proceedings.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESH- MENT DEPARTMENT).
    Mr. HURDasked the hon. Member for the Gorton Division, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, if he will state whether and to what extent the coffee of Kenya and other parts of the Empire is served to Members in preference to foreign coffee?
    Mr. COMPTON: I can assure the hon. Member only Empire-grown coffee is used in the refreshment department, that at present in use consists of a blend of Kenya, Blue Mountain Jamaica and Mysore.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Is my hon. Friend aware that the coffee sold in the House is dear and is not good, and will he take steps to obtain the best coffee irrespective of where it may be grown?
    Sir G. HAMILTON: Shame!
    Mr. COMPTON: The Kitchen Committee have to give effect to the Resolution of this House which provides that Empire produce shall be supplied?
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Could not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) drink tea?
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that, quite apart from the origin of the coffee, there is a good deal of dissatisfaction with the making of the coffee? It is disgusting stuff.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is there any member of the Kitchen Committee who understands how to make coffee?
    Mr. COMPTON: Yes, I can assure the Noble Lady that the staff is quite as competent in this House as in any other place.
    Mr. WISEasked the hon. Member for the Gorton Division, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, if he will state by what percentage the average price of foodstuffs supplied to Members and officials has been reduced in the period from June, 1929, to January, 1931, during which the Board of Trade wholesale price index declined 21 per cent. and the Ministry of Labour cost-of-living index declined 6 per cent.?
    Mr. COMPTON: There has been no general reduction in the prices charged to Members and officials during the period mentioned. The Kitchen Committee records show that the fall, if any, in the prices of the highest grades of National Mark meat, eggs, poultry, vegetables and other home-grown or Empire produce as used in the Refreshment Department of this House in infinitesimal. The Committee regret their inability further to reduce the already low prices charged for foodstuffs supplied.
    Mr. WISE: Will the hon. Member convey that information to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with the recent reductions of civil servants' wages?
    Mr. MORLEYasked the hon. Member for the Gorton Division, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, if the committee is prepared to consider the abolition of the tipping system in the dining rooms of the House and the substitution therefor of a reasonable annual salary, say £260 a year, for the staff of waiters?
    Mr. COMPTON: In reply, I should like the House to appreciate what this suggestion would cost. The receipts of the Kitchen Committee average about £34,000 per annum. To pay the 35 waiters regularly employed the amount
    2028
    suggested would take £9,100, 27 per cent. of our total revenue. I should be grateful if the hon. Member can inform me where the committee are to find the money to pay the remaining 81 members of the refreshment department staff, whose salaries and wages would, I presume, have to be increased in proportion. In the circumstances, I regret that it will be impossible to entertain the suggestion put forward.
    Mr. MORLEY: Will the committee at least consider increasing the present low standard of wages paid to the waiters?
    Mr. COMPTON: I rather resent that statement. The wages paid in this House are higher than in any comparable employment in the City of London. The House must appreciate the fact that any increase of wages must come out of the pockets of hon. Members.
    Mr. McSHANE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the tipping system is regarded as degrading, and that there are some Members of this House who find it difficult, and in fact seldom enter the room, because of this tipping system which, I say quite frankly, they cannot afford?
    Mr. COMPTON: The committee are fully alive to that fact, but it is very difficult to avoid the tipping system, or to abolish it unless you put the extra cost on the prices charged.
    Mr. HARDIE: Has any evidence been taken from the waiters as to whether they would be agreeable to take a standard wage instead of tips?
    Mr. COMPTON: I have made personal investigation, and I find many difficulties in the way. In fact, I have, on a previous occasion, made an offer to the waiters that, if they would approach the committee through their usual trade union, we should certainly deal with the matter.

    BRITISH ARMY (OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS).
    Mr. WISEasked the Secretary of State for War what percentage of former members of the junior division of the Officers Training Corps subsequently join the Territorial Army; and what percentage they bear to the total numbers who join the Territorial Army?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): If my hon. Friend is referring to the total of those who join the Territorial Army in the ranks, I regret that the information cannot be made available without disproportionate labour. As regards officers, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures:

    (1)

    Total number of ex-cadets of the Junior Division, Officers Training Corps, who received commissions in the Territorial Army during 1930

    432

    Estimated number of cadets who left the Junior Division, Officers Training Corps, during 1930

    7,694

    Percentage of ex-cadets of the Junior Division, Officers Training Corps, taking commissions in the Territorial Army

    5.61

    (2)

    Total number of commissions granted in the Territorial Army during 1930

    622

    Percentage of commissions in the Territorial Army granted to ex-cadets of the Junior Division, Officers Training Corps

    69.45

    NOTE.—In addition a number of ex-cadets of the Senior Division who took commissions in the Territorial Army previously served in the Junior Division, Officers Training Corps.
    Mr. WISEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will explain the effect of the decision that 15 years shall be the minimum age for recognition of members of school officers training corps and 16 years the minimum age on which Government grants will be paid; and whether the expense of providing uniforms, arms, equipment, instruction and military supervision for boys between 15 and 16 years of age will fall on the parents or whether any part of such expenses will be borne by public funds?
    Mr. SHAW: In future no boys under 15 years of age will be permitted to enrol in the Junior Officers Training Corps. Nor, when the new arrangements are fully in force, will any responsibility or expense fall on Army funds in respect of boys
    2030
    between 15 and 16 years of age, except that such boys may attend camp, if within the authorised camp establishment, and be allowed there the usual camp equipment.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is that Members of Parliament are so keen about Russia and so against voluntary service?
    Mr. WISE: May I ask whether the effect is not that the Government grants will go to the rich schools at which boys stay until the age of 18 or 19, and not to the municipal secondary and similar schools?
    Mr. SHAW: I think the hon. Gentleman will recognise that to give an answer to that question would be taking an undue amount of the time devoted to questions. There was an ample opportunity for discussing this question on the Estimates.

    CANADA (IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS).
    Mr. MORLEYasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what effect the Bennett immigration regulations have had on emigration from this country to the Dominion of Canada?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The total number of migrants from the United Kingdom to Canada during the period August, 1930, to January, 1931, inclusive, was 7,391, compared with 18,538 in the period August, 1929, to January, 1930.
    Mr. MORLEY: Can my right hon. Friend make recommendations to the Government of Canada on this matter?
    Mr. THOMAS: There can be no doubt that the difference in migration, not only to Canada but to other Dominions, considerably affects our unemployment figures to-day, but I could not make representations, and would not make representations, to our Dominions to ask them to take people from this country for whom they could not find employment; and, therefore, if they say, as they do, that they are unable to continue the old practice, it is not for me to ask them to take people, regardless of being able to provide for them, in order to affect our record.
    Captain P. MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that the decrease in migration to Canada is largely due to the attitude adopted by the Government?
    Mr. THOMAS: Prior to the Imperial Conference, the Canadian Government and other Dominion Governments introduced restrictions, regardless of what my view may have been of those restrictions. I did not complain, and the answer is, as I have said, that they are unable to deal with new migrants; and I do not feel disposed to encourage people to go to the Dominions when there is no employment for them there.

    SCOTLAND (HOUSING).
    Miss LEEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses which the County Council of Lanarkshire has agreed to build under the terms offered by the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): The general statement submitted by the County Council of Lanark in terms of Section 22 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, shows that it is estimated that 2,650 houses are required to meet the needs of the county, and that it is proposed to erect that number during the next three years.
    Miss LEE: Has not the hon. Gentleman given the answer to my question No. 58, rather than to question No. 56?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: No, Sir; I have given the answer to question No. 56.
    Miss LEE: Do I understand that the council are going to build 2,600 houses?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: During the next three years.
    Miss LEEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any hostels with accommodation for single persons, as proposed in the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, are being built in Scotland; and, if so, where and at what rental?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: No proposals for the erection of hostels under the provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, have yet been submitted for approval. An explanatory memorandum on hostels prepared by an advisory committee on
    2032
    the subject will shortly be issued to local authorities, who will also be supplied with model plans on request.
    Miss LEEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses in the county of Lanarkshire which are certified by the medical officer of health as in an insanitary condition and the number which have been certified as uninhabitable?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I am not in possession of information showing the number of houses in Lanarkshire that are in an insanitary condition as distinct from those that are unfit for human habitation, but the general statement submitted by the County Council in terms of Section 22 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, shows that 1,250 houses in the county are estimated to be unfit for habitation and requiring to be closed or demolished.
    Mr. TRAIN: Is it the case that in Lanarkshire some of the houses that have been built under the recent Housing Acts are unlet?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Are the Government satisfied with the progress that has been made in housing in Scotland since they have been in office?

  INDUSTRIAL DISEASES.

    ANILINE FACTORY WORKERS (CANCER).
    Mr. PHILIP OLIVERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to report on the investigation being carried out by the London Cancer Hospital, with the assistance of the medical inspectorate of the Factory Department, into the incidence of the disease of cancer of the bladder among workers in aniline factories, and have inquiries been made in the course of such investigation from the life assurance offices?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): The position is as indicated in my reply to the hon. Member on the 4th December last. The investigation has been actively continued, but I understand that there are so far no conclusive results to report. The question of approaching the life assurance offices has been considered, but my right hon.

    2033
    Friend is advised that they would not be able to furnish information of material value which is not obtainable from the Registrar-General.

    ASBESTOSIS.
    Mr. P. OLIVERasked the Home Secretary what are the grounds upon which he proposes, under the Asbestos Industry (Asbestosis) Draft Scheme, to limit contributions from employers to a period of not more than 12 months previous to the commencement of the scheme; and is he prepared to consider extending such period?
    Mr. SHORT: The limitation referred to appears in the corresponding provisions of the Various Industries and Metal Grinding Schemes for silicosis, on which the Draft Scheme for Asbestosis is modelled. It was inserted, I understand, in those schemes at the request of the employers' representatives, for the purpose chiefly of restricting the liability to make contributions in the case of employers who, before the commencement of the scheme, had ceased to carry on the dangerous processes, and who, therefore, apart from any liability to make contributions to another employer, would be outside the scheme. No request for an extension of the period had been received from any quarter, but, if the hon. Member considers an extension desirable, and will forward a statement of his reasons without delay, my right hon. Friend will be glad to consider it.

    CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
    Mr. MORLEYasked the Home Secretary when the Government proposes to introduce a Bill to suspend the penalty of capital punishment for a period of years?
    Mr. SHORT: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for North Newcastle - on - Tyne (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) on the 29th January last.

    INCOMES (STATISTICS).
    Mr. AYLESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of persons in receipt of incomes of £250 per year
    2034
    and under and between £250 and £500 per year, respectively?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I regret I cannot furnish this information. The only statistics available regarding the distribution of incomes are those relating to sur-taxpayers.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    JUVENILE INSTRUCTION CENTRES (GRANTS).
    Mr. McSHANEasked the Minister of Labour if she will give a list of the local authorities which receive 100 per cent. or 75 per cent. grants, respectively, in respect of juvenile instruction centres; and will she state the general conditions governing the varying awards of such grants?
    Mr. LAWSON: As the reply is long and contains tabular statements, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. McSHANE: Do any of these authorities receive 100 per cent. grants?
    Mr. LAWSON: Yes, Sir.
    Following is the answer:
    The following is a list of the local education authorities receiving 100 per cent. or 75 per cent. grants, respectively, in respect of junior instruction centres:
    (i) Authorities receiving 100 per cent. grant:

    Abertillery.

    Merthyr Tydvil.

    Carmarthenshire.

    Monmouthshire.

    Durham County.

    Rhondda.

    Gateshead.

    South Shields.

    Glamorganshire.

    Sunderland.

    Jarrow.

    Wigan.

    Lanarkshire.

    (ii) Authorities receiving 75 per cent. grant:

    Aberdeen.

    Bury.

    Ayrshire.

    Cardiff.

    Birkenhead.

    Darlington.

    Birmingham.

    Derby.

    Blackburn.

    Derbyshire.

    Blackpool.

    Dudley.

    Bolton.

    Dumbartonshire.

    Bootle.

    Dundee.

    Bradford.

    Edinburgh.

    Bristol.

    Essex.

    Burnley.

    Glasgow.

    2035

    Great Yarmouth.

    Nottingham.

    Grimsby.

    Oldham.

    Hull.

    Plymouth.

    Kent.

    Preston.

    Lancashire County

    Renfrewshire.

    Rochdale.

    Leeds.

    Salford.

    Liverpool.

    Sheffield.

    London County Council.

    Stockport.

    Stoke-on-Trent.

    Manchester.

    Swansea.

    Middlesbrough.

    Walsall.

    Newcastle-on-Tyne.

    West Ham.

    West Hartlepool.

    Newport, Mon.

    Wolverhampton.

    Northumberland County.

    Yorkshire, West Riding.

    The regulations at present in force governing the administration of junior instruction centres are based on the recommendations contained in the first reports of the two National Advisory Councils for Juvenile Employment, presented in the spring of 1929. These councils, on which education authorities are largely represented, were unanimously of the opinion that the normal rate of grant to education authorities in respect of junior instruction centres should be 75 per cent. of approved expenditure, though they recommended that, in the special circumstances of certain distressed areas and subject to such additional safeguards as might be deemed necessary, the existing practice of paying 100 per cent. of the approved cost of the centres in such areas should be continued so long as the circumstances remained substantially unchanged. The recommendations in question were accepted by the Government for an experimental period ending 31st March, 1933. The grant of 100 per cent. is regarded as a special and exceptional measure subject to periodical review, and is limited to areas in or on the fringe of mining areas which have been depressed over a prolonged period and where, in consequence, a state of financial stringency exists.

    ROYAL COMMISSION (INVESTIGATIONS).
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Minister of Labour the purpose for which questions are being put by Employment Exchange officials in the Tees-side area to members of the Amalgamated Engineering Union who apply for unemployment benefit, demanding particulars from the applicant as to the name and nature of
    2036
    his school and date of leaving it, when he started work, the state of his health and eyesight, how much he subscribes to his home, and whether his past savings when in regular work are not still enough for him to live on?
    Mr. LAWSON: For the purpose of furnishing for the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance an analysis of the personal circumstances and industrial history of unemployed persons, an investigation by way, of sample was made early in February last. This involved an interview with a limited number of claimants, not exceeding 30 men at any one local office, and the information obtained included particulars as to health, physical defects (if any), type of school attended, age on leaving school and age of starting work. No instructions were given for any questions as to the amount subscribed to the applicant's home or the amount of past savings, and so far as I am aware such questions have not been asked.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: May I ask if our union has been consulted about these questions being put to our members?
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: What would Gandhi say if he had been consulted?
    Mr. LAWSON: That particular union was not consulted. As a matter of fact, the persons consulted would belong to many unions.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will this inquisition cease now?
    Mr. LAWSON: It is not true to use the term "inquisition" at all, for the simple reason that there was never any investigation, as I have pointed out, on the question of the personal conditions of the men. No questions were put relating to their domestic circumstances.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that our society—the whole district—had a meeting at which a resolution was passed condemning this action? I have this question from our executive; it is not a question from me at all.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us under which statutory provision the Exchange officials are entitled to put these questions?
    Mr. LAWSON: The information asked for was proper, was needed for the purposes of the Commission, and was limited to a small number of men. It was what was known as sample investigation, to which no real objection could be taken.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Were these people informed of the reason for these questions being asked, and were they told that it was not necessary for them to answer them if they had any objection?
    Mr. LAWSON: I could not answer that question on the spur of the moment.

    WORK SCHEMES.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons employed on the site of works in relation to schemes initiated by the present Government on 28th February last or the nearest convenient date and the estimated cost of putting such persons on such employment; and how the number of such persons compares with those in such employment on 30th January last?
    Mr. LAWSON: The particulars available regularly of the number of men employed on State-aided schemes are derived from returns rendered to my Department in respect of schemes assisted by the Ministries of Transport, Agriculture and Health and under the Development Act. The latest figures available are those for 30th January last, when 88,000 men were returned as directly employed on the site of the works concerned, compared with 78,000 at 19th December last. I am obtaining particular of the estimated cost of the schemes in operation on 30th January.
    Sir K. WOOD: When will the hon. Gentleman have the figures for 28th February?
    Mr. LAWSON: I was inquiring about that this morning. With the best will in the world, I understand it will be two or three weeks.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Is there not a lamentably small number of men employed?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: I have two questions to ask of the Prime Minister. First of all, if I put a question to him to-morrow, will he be in a position to announce the decision of the Government with regard to the Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I am sorry I cannot find time for the Representation of the People Bill on this side of Easter on account of the pressure of financial business, but it will be on the Paper, I hope, in the first week after we resume. The usual announcement of the business after Easter will be made next week.
Mr. BALDWIN: We take it that that is a declaration of the intention of the Government to proceed with the Bill?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. I am following precedent in that respect.
Mr. BALDWIN: The second question is of a pleasanter nature. I desire to ask the Prime Minister if he can give the House any information as to the date of the Adjournment for the Easter Recess and whether he is yet, or will be in a position this week, to tell the House what the length of the Adjournment will be?
The PRIME MINISTER: I hope to be able to make that announcement perhaps to-morrow, but certainly without delay.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, the Proceedings on Report of Supply of the 11th March may be taken after Eleven of the clock, and shall be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 135.

Division No. 198.]

AYES.

[3.49 p.m.

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

Aske, Sir Robert

Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

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

Attlee, Clement Richard

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Ayles, Walter

Benson, G.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Alpass, J. H.

Barnes, Alfred John

Blindell, James

Ammon, Charles George

Barr, James

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Angell, Sir Norman

Batey, Joseph

Broad, Francis Alfred

Arnott, John

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Bromfield, William

Brothers, M.

Kelly, W. T.

Quibell, D. J. K.

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

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

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

Richards, R.

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

Kinley, J.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Buchanan, G.

Kirkwood, D.

Rlley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Burgess, F. G.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

Ritson, J.

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

Lang, Gordon

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

Caine, Hall-, Derwent

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Romeril, H. G.

Cape, Thomas

Lathan, G.

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

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

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Rowson, Guy

Charleton, H. C.

Law, A, (Rossendale)

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Chater, Daniel

Lawrence, Susan

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Clarke, J. S.

Lawson, John James

Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Cluse, W. S.

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Leach, W.

Sanders, W. S.

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

Sandham, E

Compton, Joseph

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Sawyer, G. F.

Cove, William G.

Lees, J.

Scrymgeour, E.

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Scurr, John

Daggar, George

Logan, David Gilbert

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Dalton, Hugh

Longden, F.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lowth, Thomas

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Day, Harry

Lunn, William

Sherwood, G. H.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Shield, George William

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Duncan, Charles

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Shinwell, E.

Ede, James Chuter

McElwee, A.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Edge, Sir William

McEntee, V. L.

Simmons, C. J.

Edmunds, J. E.

McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

McKinlay, A.

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Egan, W. H.

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Smith, Lees-, H. B.

Eimley, Viscount

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Smith, Rennle (Penistone)

England, Colonel A.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Foot, Isaac

McShane, John James

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Freeman, Peter

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

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

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

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Stamford, Thomas W.

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

Mansfield, W.

Stephen, Campbell

Gill, T. H.

March, S.

Strauss, G. R.

Gillett, George M.

Marcus, M.

Sullivan, J.

Glassey, A. E.

Marley, J.

Sutton, J. E.

Gossling, A. G.

Marshall, Fred

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoin)

Gould, F.

Mathers, George

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

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Matters, L. W.

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

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

Maxton, James

Tillett, Ben

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

Messer, Fred

Tinker, John Joseph

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Middleton, G.

Toole, Joseph

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Millar, J. D.

Tout, W. J.

Groves, Thomas E.

Milner, Major J.

Townend, A. E.

Grundy, Thomas W.

Montague, Frederick

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

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

Morley, Ralph

Vaughan, David

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Morris, Rhys Hopkins

Vi ant, S. P.

Hall, J. H (Whitechapel)

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

Walker, J.

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

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

Watkins, F. C.

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Handle, George D.

Mort, D. L.

Wellock, Wilfred

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Muff, G.

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Haycock, A. W.

Muggeridge, H. T.

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Hayes, John Henry

Murnin, Hugh

West, F. R.

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Nathan, Major H. L.

Westwood, Joseph

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Noel Baker, P. J.

White, H. G.

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

Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Herriotts, J.

Oldfield, J. R.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

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

Oliver, George Harold (likeston)

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

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

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Hoffman, P. C.

Palin, John Henry

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Hopkin, Daniel

Paling, Wilfrid

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Palmer, E. T.

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

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Wise, E. F.

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

Perry, S. F.

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Isaacs, George

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Jenkins, Sir William

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Johnston, Thomas

Pole, Major D. G.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

Potts, John S.

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Thurtle.

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Price, M. P.

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Pybus, Percy John

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Albery, Irving James

Balniel, Lord

Bird, Ernest Roy

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

Beaumont, M. W.

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Astor, Viscountess

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Bracken, B.

Atholl, Duchess of

Berry, Sir George

Briscoe, Richard George

Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

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

2040

2041

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

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Bullock, Captain Malcolm

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Butler, R. A.

Hammersley, S. S.

Reynolds, Col. Sir James

Campbell, E. T.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

Carver, Major W. H.

Hartington, Marquess of

Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

Castle Stewart, Earl of

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

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

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

Salmon, Major I.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

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

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

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

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

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

Chapman, Sir S.

Hurd, Percy A.

Savery, S. S.

Christle, J. A.

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

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

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Inskip, Sir Thomas

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Iveagh, Countess of

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Colfox, Major William Philip

Knox, Sir Alfred

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Colville, Major D. J.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

Crookshank,Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

Long, Major Hon. Eric

Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

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

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

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

Todd, Capt. A. J.

Duckworth, G. A. V.

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Train, J.

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Eden, Captain Anthony

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Marjoribanks, Edward

Ward, Lieut. Col. Sir A. Lambert

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Meller, R. J.

Warrender, Sir Victor

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

Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

Wayland, Sir William A.

Ferguson, Sir John

Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Fermoy, Lord

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

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

Gault, Lieut. Col. A. Hamilton

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

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Gower, Sir Robert

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Withers, Sir John James

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

O'Neill. Sir H.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Peake, Capt. Osbert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain

Wallace.

Third and Fourth Resolutions agreed to.

PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (WICK HARBOUR) BILL,
"to confirm a Scheme under the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, relating to the Wick Harbour (to be proceeded with under Section 1 (9) of the Act)," presented by Mr. William Adamson; and ordered (under Section 1 (9) of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 111].

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Walthamstow Corporation Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Lowestoft Water and Gas Company; to extend their limits for the supply of gas; to convert the preference stocks of the Company; and for other purposes." [Lowestoft Water and Gas Bill [Lords].]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the provisions of the Trust Deed creating the Carnegie Hero Fund Trust; and for other purposes." [Carnegie Hero Fund Trust Bill [Lords].]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the
2042
London Assurance." [London Assurance Bill [Lords].]

LOWESTOFT WATER AND GAS BILL [Lords],
  CARNEGIE HERO FUND TRUST BILL [Lords],
    LONDON ASSURANCE BILL [Lords].
    Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY.]
  REPORT [11TH MARCH].
  Resolutions reported,

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1931.
  1. "That 93,650 Officers, Seamen, Boys and Royal Marines be employed for the Sea Service, together with 550 for the Royal Marine Police, borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships, at the Royal Marine Divisions, and at Royal Air Force Establishments, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932."
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £13,686,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, etc., of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and Civilians employed on the Fleet Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932."
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,288,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings and Repairs, at Home and abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932."
  4. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,401,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932."

  NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1930.
  5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £495,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year."

  NAVY (EXCESS) 1929.
  6. "That a sum, not exceeding £122,770 1s. 11d., be granted to His Majesty, to make good Excesses of Navy Expenditure beyond the Grants for the year ended 31st March, 1930."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: There is some little doubt in the minds of some hon. Members as to how wide the discussion on Vote A will be allowed. May I ask what will be permitted?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The usual custom is that we have a general discussion on Vote A in Committee and not on the Report stage of Vote A. Hon. Members must not repeat on subsequent Resolutions the same arguments as they have used on Vote A.
  4.0 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I shall certainly make a great endeavour not to do that. I have a few words to say on the subject of the Agreement which has recently been arrived at. Although I congratulate the First Lord of the Admiralty on having settled differences between France and Italy, I cannot congratulate him on having made things any easier for this country; in fact, I cannot help thinking that they have been made even more difficult. It is amazingly easy when considering a matter of this kind, if you are prepared to grant things to others, to arrive at an agreement. The other two nations are content. Their pride and honour are satisfied. But I submit most strongly that there is a very widely-held view that the potential menace to this country remains. I am extremely sorry that Article 21, the escalator Clause, was not made use of, and that no claim was made under it, as I think it should have been. We could, I think, have made our claim, and we should have given exact figures as to the extent of our claim to counter the menace which certainly exists. The handling of the Conference next year, which everybody hopes will be a success, will, in all probability, not fall upon a Socialist Government, but I can only say that the handling of it from a Naval standpoint has been made immeasurably more difficult (1), by the surrender, as I think it, last year; and (2), by our failure consistently to build up to the Treaty strength that is allowed, and the folly of not making clear to Europe that we are appreciative of our risks and rights as a maritime nation.
  There are a few points in the First Lord's Statement which I should like cleared up, and which, I think, have not already been touched upon. The first

  2057
  is with regard to the trials which are to be carried out with the "Emperor of India" and the "Marlborough." I refer to this only to make an appeal to the First Lord to remember, if he does not now know, the extraordinary use that can be made of ships of that kind for trials. Nearly every trouble that befell the Navy during the War by shell-fire, torpedo-fire and explosion, was the result of the failure on the part of the Navy to make adequate trial in regard to these matters. It is a confession if you like; at the same time, it is absolutely true that the explosions brought about by the failure to provide anti-flash from exploding shells could easily have been solved by adequate trials. They were not carried out. Then there is the delay action fuse, which was so admirable in the German Navy, and which, again, was not tried out sufficiently by us. There are a number of other experiments—the action of bombs, and the action of gas.
  I want most sincerely to impress upon the First Lord, with his immense power and prestige, to which his position entitles him, that the only way to deal with trials is to think out what are the most horrible and almost inconceivably impossible things that could happen to a Navy, and then to have trials to see if you can prevent them from doing you an injury when they come along. I can assure him, from my humble experience, that that is the right way to deal with them. I would like to see the Admiralty give a prize to officers for what I would call "ideas for trials." They would find that if they issued a little note on the subject, and asked officers to let their imaginations, so to speak, run riot, they would get a good many ideas. We must not allow this great opportunity for trials with these two ships to go by without doing our utmost.
  I see in the same paragraph of the Statement that it is proposed to do away with the sea-going training squadron for boys. I do not know what the answer is going to be, but, ever since I can remember, the Navy has had a sea-going squadron for the training of boys. I see that the Statement says:
  "For the present boys after leaving the Shore Training Establishments will be trained in the ships of the sea-going squadrons."
  2058
  That is not a satisfactory method, and I should very much like to know whether there is in view some better system than that at the Admiralty. I see that some destroyers are to be scrapped, and I would rather like to know whether they are to be scrapped abroad, or are to come home for scrapping. That is a minor point. In regard to the river gunboats, the First Lord's Statement points out that a new river gunboat, the "Falcon," is to replace two vessels, the "Widgeon" and "Teal." I hope that it may mean that another shallow gunboat will be built some time later to help in the remarkable work which those vessels do abroad.
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): It is this year's programme, which I announced last week.
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Perhaps I made a mistake, but the Statement says that, on completion, the "Falcon" will replace the "Widgeon" and "Teal," which sounds as though one gunboat was going to replace two gunboats. I want to ask a question or two about the Fleet activities in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf. A very difficult job has to be faced by the ships that serve in those waters, in the suppression of the slave trade and the supervision of British interests. I should like to know, and I hope the First Lord will be able to give some sort of idea, as to the amount of work which those ships have done, the number of raids which they have prevented and the number of captures, and whether or not the Admiralty are satisfied that this prevention of slave-trading is doing what we hope it is. In particular, I should like to know, having experienced the trouble myself, whether co-operation is going on between the ships in His Majesty's Navy doing this work and the ships belonging to other Powers? In the past, there has often been very great difficulty in getting that mutual co-operation, and, of course, there are French and Italian interests in those parts. I believe I am right in saying that great difficulties exist in regard to the examination of ships flying the colours of other nations. The last paragraph dealing with the Red Sea, and Persian Gulf is one which disappoints me very much. It says:
  "Arrangements have been made for the Royal Air Force Flying Boats and the Sloops

  2059
  in the Persian Gulf to co-operate whenever possible."
  There is a world of inefficiency hidden in that sentence, and I would very much like to know whether it is really desirable to have to tell the Parliament of this country that co-operation is actually in progress between one service and another. That leads me to ask the First Lord to agree with me how much more efficient the British Navy would be if it had complete control of all its aircraft. Why it should be called the "Fleet Air-arm" I have never been able to understand. The mere name is a foolish one; it is futile, and gives a wrong impression. We do not talk about the "Submarine arm." We talk about "His Majesty's submarines," and it ought to be His Majesty's aircraft which are working with the Navy.
  There is a minor question I would like to ask about the Chinese Navy. I know that we have Chinese officers training in our service, and can the right hon. Gentleman inform us whether, in fact, Chinese officers are in training in other services, and what is the strength of our officers and men who have been lent to the Chinese Government for service in their Navy? Another question is in reference to sunken submarines, and deep-diving experiments in this connection, which are certainly not secret. I can remember the time when it was extremely difficult to go down 20 fathoms. Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House some more technical and encouraging information, for instance, as to this new life-saving apparatus for sunken submarines, and when it is actually hoped to carry out tests?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: Is the hon. and gallant Member speaking now of the Davis apparatus or of the pontoons?
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I was referring to the pontoons. Are actual tests to be carried out in the near future? I should also like to ask a question with regard to the Eastney Barracks, so long the home of the Royal Marine Artillery. I see that the School of Music has been removed, and it would be of interest to know for what purpose those barracks are to be used. I want to congratulate most sincerely the First Lord on another point
  2060
  under Personnel, and that is in regard to junior executive officers and probationary lieutenants, Royal Marines, to undergo a fortnight's course in elementary naval aeronautics in an aircraft carrier. Nothing could be better or more surely lead up to the day when the Navy should control its own aircraft and its own personnel. I do not want to press that point too much, except to say that, it does make for inefficiency now, and I hear from many directions of the difficulties which crop up because of the fact that the Navy has not complete control of its own aircraft. Those are the points which I should be grateful if the First Lord would clear up.
  Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: This is the first, time, I think, in the history of the House that we are considering Navy Estimates which have been made out, not in accordance with the needs of the nation and of Empire security, but in accordance with the limitations and restrictions imposed upon us as a signatory Power of the London Treaty. Here I would like to add my congratulations to the First Lord and the Foreign Secretary for the very important part they have played in bringing about the agreement between France and Italy. But this basis is a complete reversal of our naval policy in the past. It is a very important precedent. In the past, we have always endeavoured to maintain such forces as were necessary for us to be the greatest naval Power in the world, and that were consistent with our world-wide possessions and our entire reliance upon the security of our trade routes in time of war. That has gone entirely by the board, and we are placed by this Treaty on equality with another great naval Power, the United States of America.
  By this Treaty, we are limited in tonnage in cruisers, destroyers and submarines, and we are placed on an equality with America. That equality merely begins and ends with the ships which we are able to construct. When once we are faced with the issue of war that equality disappears and this nation will find itself not on an equality with that country but in a position vastly inferior, due to the immense responsibilities that we have throughout the world. During the late War, notwithstanding the immense forces which we had at our disposal, there were times

  2061
  when there was a very severe shortage in this country. I would particularly recall to the House the fact that in 1917, at one time, there was only a few weeks supply of oil in this country. That may occur again unless we are prepared in peace time to take the necessary steps to provide this country with those vessels that would prevent a recurrence of such a calamity.
  There is one point in connection with the Agreement between France and Italy to which I would draw attention, and that is the fact of the enormous submarine tonnage, amounting to 81,989 tons, which is allowed to France under that settlement. It cannot be denied that in the event of war, and war is what we have to consider when we are discussing Naval Estimates, we should be placed in a very serious position. It would give her an enormous force of submarines which would be utilised undoubtedly in attacks upon our trade. The limitations imposed upon us in the destroyer category will give us somewhere about 110 destroyers and 15 flotilla leaders. That will be the complete force for work with the battle fleet, with which they will have to remain, and for work with cruisers in the protection of our trade routes. The destroyers play a most important part in the protection of our trade and the number to which we are entitled under this Treaty is far below that which would be required in case of war. This fact as regards the submarine tonnage was recognised by the First Lord of the Admiralty in his Memorandum, when he said:
  "The members of the British Commonwealth of Nations maintain that this figure of 81,989 tons is too high in relation to their destroyer figure of 150,000 tons under the London Naval Treaty, but they agree to notify the other signatories of Part III of the Treaty of London that they will not have recourse to Article 21 of the London Treaty pending the general revision of the Naval question mentioned above. Should it not be possible at the 1932 conference to arrive at a satisfactory equilibrium between French submarine tonnage and British Commonwealth destroyer tonnage, the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations will retain their right to make such increase as they may judge necessary in their destroyer figure of 150,000 tons."
  That statement is a complete justification for drawing attention to the very dangerous position in which we may be placed in regard to France, and also the
  2062
  serious disability under which we shall enter the conference next year. In our great haste and anxiety to set an example to the world in the direction of peace and the reduction in armaments the Government adopt the habit of first reducing and then going into conference on the reduced scale. That is an example which other Powers, unfortunately, do not follow. I will give some examples on this point. Since 1914 we have reduced our personnel by 52,397. The United States of America has increased hers by 47,342, Japan by 29,355, and Italy by 6,000. There is nothing in any international agreement, there is nothing in the Washington Treaty, there is nothing in the London Naval Treaty, and there is nothing in the agreement come to between France and Italy as regards personnel. It should be remembered that personnel is a very important factor in regard to armaments reduction, and I hope that this question will be brought up at the forthcoming conference. However many or however few your ships may be, unless they have a highly-trained complement they are quite useless. It would be interesting to know why it is that those Powers are retaining such an immense personnel. It may be partly because they constructed a number of ships during the War and they have not yet got rid of them, and it may also be that they are not content to reduce their highly-trained complements until the general situation in regard to armaments reduction is far clearer than at the present time.
  It is very important to remember that the modern man-of-war is a mass of most intricate machinery, not merely as regards the engine room, but as regards guns, torpedoes, fire control, and so on, and it requires a higher percentage of highly-skilled officers and men than was the case in the past. I do hope that this question of complement will be gone into at the forthcoming conference. The destroyer force which we shall have at the end of 1936, if the present replacement programme is continued during the ensuing four years, will provide us not with 150,000 tons of ships which are under age, but, according to my calculation, with 90,000 tons, the remaining 60,000 tons being made up of destroyers and flotilla leaders which are over age. That cannot be considered a very satisfactory

  2063
  position, and there does not seem to be any justification for it.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: Will the hon. and gallant Member say on what he bases his calculation that 60,000 tons will be over age? I Does he base it on a 12 year or a 16 year limit?
  Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: On both. Speed is a very important factor in the protection of our trade routes. In time of war a very severe strain is placed upon our destroyers, and as they become over age they lose just that turn of speed which is so necessary an asset. Moreover, you are never quite certain that a destroyer when it is reaching the limit of its age will not break down. In such an event, owing to the small number of destroyers at our disposal there will be no reserve to fall back upon and that might have very serious results. There is another point with regard to the Agreement between France and Italy, and that is that France at the present time has 12 flotilla leaders which are built and are of such a tonnage and carry such guns as to be outside the limit allowed to us under the London Treaty. They have six more than are projected. That gives them 18 flotilla leaders with a greater tonnage and more heavily armed than we are permitted to have. I am sure that that point will be considered at the forthcoming conference because it is of some importance.
  As regards the Government's policy for cruisers, they have laid it down that they consider 50 cruisers sufficient for the defence of this Empire. Having so small a number, it will be necessary by the end of 1936 that they shall be as up to date as possible. We shall have 31 which are over age by that time and two, the "Frobisher" and the "Effingham," which may he scrapped under the London Treaty. We alone of the signatory Powers are restricted in our replacement construction to 91,000 tons. Therefore, although we may build up to the maximum allowed to us it will not be possible for us to have at the end of 1936 50 effective under-age cruisers, but only 39, the remaining 11 being over age. We shall find ourselves in 1936 in a position of great disadvantage compared with the other Powers, who are able under the London Treaty to replace the
  2064
  whole of their cruisers as they become over age. Also, of these 50 cruisers, 25 are definitely attached to the battle fleet, leaving merely 25, in addition to the destroyer force utilised as cruising vessels, for the protection of our trade and of our oversea Dominions in general. That force is totally inadequate for the work they will have to do. I never could understand on what basis this figure of 50 was made up. It is too many in peace time and far too few in time of war. That has been pointed out by Lord Jellicoe and Lord Beatty, whose words ought to carry great weight throughout the country.
  There is another point in regard to the menace to our trade which did not arise in the late War, and that is attack by aircraft. That is a very serious menace and due note should be taken of it and provision made to counter such an attack. Aircraft are becoming more and more efficient, with a larger and larger radius of action. In the event of war the whole of the Eastern trade coming through the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean would be exposed to attack by aircraft, and also after passing the Straits of Gibraltar until they arrived in this country there is no part of the voyage when they would be immune. I know perfectly well that there are no laws governing the attack on merchant ships by aircraft. That is very important, and I have no doubt that the matter will be brought up at the Conference next year. But whatever agreement may be come to I am quite certain that no Power will be able to feel justified in relying on that agreement being fully carried out in the event of war. Necessity is a very hard taskmaster, and although you may have an agreement I am not at all certain that these attacks by aircraft will not be carried out. Therefore steps should be taken for countering them.
  Another question that has been raised is that of the Fleet Air Arm. I consider that in the interests of economy and efficiency, and certainly for logical reasons, His Majesty's Navy should have entire control of its own Air Force. You might just as well have a separate force for tanks or engineers corps in the Army or for the destroyers in the Navy. These are all auxiliaries, which go to make one concrete unit, and I

  2065
  hope the time is not far distant when the Navy will have its own Air Force under the control of the Admiralty. The question of Singapore has not been mentioned at all. It is agreed that this base should ultimately be established, but it is very unsatisfactory to note that the question of the construction works in relation to the docks—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That will come up under another Vote—Vote 10.
  Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I should like to put in a word as regards marriage allowances for naval officers. This question has been thrashed out in all its details and all the arguments have been put forward—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That, again, comes up under Vote 1.
  Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I realise the anxiety for economy. After every war there has been a cry for economy and it has always been put into operation by reductions in His Majesty's services. That is natural, but there is a limit below which we should not go, and in my opinion we have already gone below that limit. If we reduce our forces below a point where it is possible in time of war to maintain the security of this country and the Empire, that is not a step in the direction of peace, but a step that is rather apt to lead to the outbreak of war.
  Mr. LAMBERT: The hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) will forgive me if I do not follow him in the details he has given to the House, but there are one or two points of a more general character which I desire to put to the First Lord, who is asking now for 93,650 officers and men. I should like to ask whether there is any naval standard to which the Admiralty is building. I am old enough to remember when we had a two-Power standard, and a two keels to one standard. Now I understand that it is a one-Power standard; and that we are building on an equality with the United States of America. Some rather striking facts emerged in the Debate last Wednesday and I want to put these points to the First Lord, because they are of extreme importance in regard to the food supplies of this country. It is well known that owing to the very low
  2066
  prices of wheat there must be a great diminution in the acreage of wheat grown in this country and we shall, therefore, have to rely more and more on overseas supplies, unless some action is taken. I want to know whether the Admiralty has taken this factor into account in its building programme. If we are building on a parity with America it is rather senseless, because America has wheat to burn whereas we have to import most of our wheat supplies.
  This problem will be greatly accentuated in the future. It is probably the weakest link in the chain. We may have great possessions and great Dominions that can supply us with wheat, but it has still to be brought into this country. During the War about 11,000,000 of people had to be fed from the London port, there was no other means of supplying this enormous population and foodships had to come through the Channel. I congratulate the First Lord very warmly upon reaching an agreement between France and Italy, but it still leaves France, a friendly and allied nation, and I sincerely hope always a friend and ally, with a large submarine force of a tonnage of something like 82,000 tons. I do not know how many submarines that represents but it must be 50 or 60 vessels.
  Have the Admiralty considered what it will mean to have this large force of submarines with a base on the other side of the Channel if our foodstuffs have to be brought through the Channel for the feeding of London? That is a point of real importance. Those who are acquainted with agriculture know that wheat growing in England, if present prices continue, will practically disappear, and we shall therefore be entirely dependent upon foreign sources. You have our neighbours, therefore, with this great submarine force, and an enormous aircraft force, which in the unhappy event of war, which I fervently hope will never take place, must jeopardise these food supplies coming up the Channel. The Admiralty have built some large ships, like the "Nelson" and the "Rodney." I protested against them at the time. These two large ships would be of no service whatever in protecting foodships against a submarine menace. Are the 10,000-ton cruisers the beat pro-

  2067
  tection for our food supplies? I put these points very briefly to the First Lord. We must look forward to the time when, unless prices change, we shall be more and more dependent on foreign food supplies and I should like the First Lord to tell us whether the Admiralty have had these changes in view.
  Lord ERSKINE: I desire to say one or two things about personnel. In the first place, I should like to ask the First Lord whether he does not agree that the best way of measuring a nation's strength is the number of trained personnel available to fight its ships. Any nation may have a great number of ships. Russia had a much larger number of ships than the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese War, but it is agreed that the Japanese were the better trained, were the better sailors, and as it is men who fight not ships they were successful in that war. Are you not in a far better position for getting parity if you estimate not gun for gun or ton for ton, or class of ship as against class of ship, but the number of trained personnel. Are you not in this way far more likely to get equality than by taking the comparisons which so far have always been taken. We have been reducing our personnel since the end of the War. According to the Estimates it is now about 93,000. Unfortunately, the personnel of the United States Navy has not come down to our level, and if you add the 12,000 men who are engaged in their Revenue Service, and who are in reality as well trained sailors as the men in the United States Navy, they have a large superiority of trained men. When the next Naval Conference is called, or at the Disarmament Conference next year, would it not be possible, if there is to be further naval reductions, to take the line of saying that parity with another Power shall include also the numbers of men borne on the books in the various estimates. That would be a much more satisfactory arrangement of arriving at parity with another Power than by having these endless disquisitions and sometimes quarrels as to whether one type of ship came within the category of the agreements which were arrived at.
  I want to say a word about the treaty which the First Lord and the Foreign Secretary have been able to arrange
  2068
  between Italy and France. The House knows that it was essential from our point of view that France and Italy should come to an agreement otherwise we should have had to make use of what is called the escalator Clause and our Estimates would have gone up very considerably. I am not surprised, therefore, that the two Cabinet Ministers made this European trip a short time ago, and I congratulate the First Lord on the success achieved in Paris and in Rome. We have been making treaties for naval limitation ever since the War, and on almost every occasion it has meant that we have reduced our number of ships while other people have been able to build more new ships. That is hardly a treaty for the limitation of naval armaments. In the last treaty we gave to foreign Powers, perhaps properly, the right to build more battle cruisers, brand new battle cruisers, and we gave to one country the right to have 81,000 tons of submarine craft. I agree that this country objected to that large figure, and I think rightly, and I hope that at the next Disarmament Conference we may be able to induce the French to reduce that large submarine tonnage.
  During the last 11 years we have scrapped a large number of ships under these treaties, while other nations have built new ships. I hope that when we get a final agreement we shall not find ourselves in the position of being restricted in our own building while everybody else is able to build more brand new ships. There is one question I would like to put to the First Lord. I see that in his statement he talks about the reduction of the Flag list. He states that there is to be a reduction of eight rear-admirals. I have no doubt it is a very good thing that the list should be reduced and that the list was swollen as a result of the War. What effect, if any, is the reduction in the number of Flag officers likely to have on the prospects of promotion of lieutenant-commanders and commanders in the Fleet. I believe that at the present time a man remains in the rank of captain for about 10 or 11 years. Does this reduction in the number of Flag officers mean that a man has to remain in the rank of captain for a longer period than that?
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I did not say in the statement that we have re-

  2069
  duced the number of appointments, but that we are reducing supernumerary Flag officers.
  Lord ERSKINE: I am very glad to have got that assurance from the First Lord, because I am sure that the whole House desires to see a proper system of promotion for officers of the Navy. It really is heartbreaking for anyone who knows the naval service to realise how many men who have given their lives to the service of their country in the Navy, are thrown out when they arrive at the prime of life because there is no room for their promotion from lieutenant-commander to commander or from commander to captain. They are thrown out with a small pension just at a time of life when it is difficult for them to get any other job on shore. At the present time, of course, there are far fewer officers promoted to commander and captain than before the War, and there are far fewer jobs for them. We are not now in a period of naval expansion, but of reduced ships and numbers. I have no doubt that the lieutenant-commander pension idea, which was promulgated by the Admiralty a few months ago, has had the result of reducing the excess numbers of lieutenant-commanders. I wonder whether the First Lord can give us any indication for the future as to the percentage of lieutenants who will be promoted to commander and of commanders promoted to captain, in order that we may have some idea as to what proportion of officers who join the Navy as cadets are likely to be able to remain in the profession during the time of their active life.
  Everyone would like to see the profession as one which a man can join as a youth and in which he can remain for the whole of his active life. Up to the present time, with all these reductions going on, many unfortunate cases have occurred. I am sure that the Whole House realises the trouble that occurs if the vast majority of officers are unable to secure promotion because there is not room for them at the top. Therefore I hope that the new scheme for retirement will at any rate enable a fair proportion of officers to have a certain chance of promotion. Perhaps the First Lord will be able to tell us something about that.
  2070
  Next there is the question of cadets. I know that there is a committee now sitting to deal with the question of the entry of officers into the Navy. For 18 months I had the honour of being Private Secretary to Lord Long, when First Lord, and I dealt with the cadets. I sat upon a great many of the interview boards. I always had rather grave doubts at that time whether this was indeed the best system of getting officers for the Navy. The boards consisted of an admiral, a captain, a commander, the headmaster of a public school, and the First Lord's secretary who dealt with cadets. The boys that came before us were about 12 or 13 years of age. Some were precocious and some were not; some shone before the interview board and some did not. But it is very difficult to tell, when interviewing a boy of 12 or 13, into what kind of man he will develop. What happened at these boards? The written examination did not take place until the board had interviewed the cadets. In my time there were about 35 places to be filled at Dartmouth, and there were about 40 passed by the interviewing board. So there were very few who were left out after the interviewing board had seen them. I always had doubts as to whether a great many of these young gentlemen whom we were unable to pass might not in the future have developed into very able men indeed. I realise that it is a good thing, as they say in the Navy, to get people young when they are to go to sea. Is the committee that is now sitting considering this particular matter?
  I also think that perhaps the medical examination that we impose on cadets is very stiff indeed. I am sure that Lord Nelson would never have passed into the Navy under the conditions which the Admiralty impose to-day. We may be losing very good men because of the stringent colour test. I know one very distinguished naval officer who is very nearly colour blind, but that fact never came out, because in his day these tests were not imposed. His colour blindness never interfered with his career. No one in his senses would say that a completely colour blind man could possibly be an officer at sea. I believe the doctors say that to-day a good many people are colour blind to a slight extent. The

  2071
  system under which we select naval officers now means that they must have absolutely perfect sight.
  No one will deny that in the late War the German navy had very good officers. I knew a certain number of them and the majority wore spectacles. Did the fact that they wore spectacles take away from their efficiency at sea? People who fought against them in the late War, would not say that the German officer was not fit to be a sea officer. I hope that we shall not adopt too stringent conditions. The First Lord may say, "We can get as many officers as we want now, and it is possible for us to put forward any stringent test that we like." That is so, but is the Navy not also losing a great many very good men? Would anyone say that many of the great sailors of the past would have passed the examination that has to be passed to-day?
  I want to say a few words about the "Erebus" cadets. I believe naval officers will say that that system has been successful, and that the mixture of cadets coming in from the "Erebus" and from Dartmouth has on the whole been a good thing for the Navy. You get a certain number of young people and train them as naval officers, and you also have coming into the Service from the "Erebus" men who have been at public schools, and you perhaps get from them a larger view and outlook upon life in general. I think we ought to keep up both of these particular systems. I hope that the committee referred to will have that matter in view when it reports. With regard to the examinations for the younger cadets, I must say that it always seemed to me that it would be preferable to hold the examination before cadets are seen by the interview board. In my day we used to see the cadets and pass a certain number, and then the examination was held. On the whole, when the results came out, it was found that the board had usually picked the winners, and that the boys passed the examination very much in the order in which the hoard had placed them; but I would like to see rather more of a paper examination for these young officers. A boy of 12 may not be sharp; he may not be precocious; he may make a very poor show before a number of older men.
  2072
  Therefore, I think that in the case of the entry of cadets into Dartmouth a small change might be made so that the written examination takes place before the cadets see the interview board. The interview board would then know the results of the written examination. It is true that the interview board gets a headmaster's report on each boy. I would be the last to say anything derogatory of those headmasters, but really the headmaster's report cannot be of very great importance. Some schools have a much higher standard than others. One headmaster may give a boy a good report but it may be of less value than a less praiseworthy report coming from a school which has a higher standard. The interviewing board before seeing these young men should know what they can do at the written examination.
  In conclusion, I would congratulate the First Lord on the success of his efforts to reconcile the French and Italian points of view. It is obvious that in the present financial state of the country we cannot afford competitive building. Anything which would have induced us to make use of the escalator clause would in my view have been unfortunate. For that reason I believe that, on this occasion at any rate, the First Lord has deserved well of his country.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I entirely agree with the concluding remarks of the Noble Lord, and therefore I have to disagree very reluctantly with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish), who spoke earlier, and also with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor). I think it would have been a terrible disaster to have to use the escalator clause at the present time. I understand that there will he some little doubt, as it is, with the Japanese and American Admiralties, regarding the agreement that has been passed. I hope the difficulties will be smoothed over. But the use of the clause would be very unfortunate and would re-open the whole of the matters agreed upon last year. From another point of view I think it would have been most imprudent, seeing that we are committed to a world Disarmament Conference next year, out of which no one knows what will come. There may be new size limits of ships and many

  2073
  other revolutionary changes in international agreements with regard to armaments. For us to start an escalator clause to meet ships that have not even been laid down and are only in the blue print stage, would have been most rash. I hope that my right hon. Friend the First Lord will resist any such suggestion.
  5.0 p.m.
  I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes, who attacked my right hon. Friend for not building up to Treaty strength, that in addition to the arguments I have already used there is the fact that the Americans are not building up to their Treaty strength, to their allowed ratios. They could build far more heavily than they are building. The American Congress and House of Representatives are fightting a sturdy battle against the American naval authorities, who naturally want to get the utmost possible out of their elected assemblies Therefore, in this instance my right hon. Friend the First Lord is only keeping in step with the United States. There is still much confusion of thought about the whole problem of naval armaments. I would draw the attention of the House to the speeches with which this Debate opened. We had the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) and of the two gallant Admirals. Whom are we supposed to be building against? The fact is that our thinking on naval matters has not settled down to the conditions prevailing all these years after the end of the last great war. First of all, you have the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton talking about the French menace, and then you have my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes talking about the American menace. We cannot have an all-the-world-Power standard. It is absolutely impossible. But to hear some of the speeches delivered by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite when the Navy Estimates come on one would think that we ought to have a Navy equal to the combined fleets of Japan, America, France and Italy. Of course, that cannot possibly be done. We never did it in the past. In all the great arguments in the great Debates in this House on naval strength before the War, when the Conservative
  2074
  Opposition were in full cry for an increase in the Navy—they happened to be right then—the pre-War American fleet, which was the third fleet in the world, was never even taken into consideration. Then how absurd it is now to talk of building equal to America plus Japan plus Italy and France. I hope my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty will stand firm on this point and not be stampeded.
  I want to make this suggestion to my right hon. Friend. There is going to be a battle at Geneva next year, quite obviously, about the maximum tonnage or displacement of battleships, and there should be very serious and well worked out suggestion put forward to effect economies without any reduction of relative strength by reducing the tonnage of individual ships Of the line. One can see the repercussions of this already in America where there is an agitation—a very well-organised agitation if I may say so—being carried on by the American naval authorities. "No reduction below 35,000 tons per ship" is their argument. They want to build at all costs ships of the line of the 35,000 tons limit, which means a ship costing from 27,000,000 to £9,000,00, a very expensive and costly vessel. I think it will be agreed that my right hon. Friend made a gallant fight at the Naval Conference last year to have the maximum tonnage brought down to a lower figure. Judging by his speech on the Committee stage of these Estimates, I think he intends to continue that fight for the smaller size ship to be agreed on internationally. But the case will have to be carefully prepared beforehand, and there will have to be education of public opinion in this and in other countries.
  I am rather disappointed—I am not blaming my right hon. Friend; I know his difficulties in this matter—that both France and Italy, before they know the results of the forthcoming World Disarmament Conference in 1932, are apparently going to embark on building battle-cruisers, a brace apiece, of 23,300 tons. Those cruisers will be bigger than a great many capital ships before the War; bigger than the original Dreadnought by 18,000 tons—a very heavy tonnage indeed. It is rather disappointing and rather alarming. Even so, there is an agitation going on in America by the naval authorities, not the political

  2075
  people on no account to reduce below 35,000 tons. Up till now the Board that advises my right hon. Friend has been a big battleship Board, a very large capital ship Board. They believe in the American argument that the cheapest vessel you can build for its size and what it can do is the very large super-Dread-nought battleship, heavily armed, bristling with anti-aircraft guns, and well protected under water.
  If we can get this maximum tonnage much reduced by agreement—and I know my right hon. Friend takes this line—it will be the most satisfactory way of getting a reduction of expenditure on naval armaments without weakening our relative strength. But, as I say, the plans will have to be very carefully worked out, and the arguments marshalled. It will be no use being caught by the very cleverly argued American case for the large super-Dreadnought, supported by France. This matter must be worked out at once by the right hon. Gentleman's very able staff without any delay, and it will have to be very carefully presented at Geneva. It will be to the advantage of the taxpayers of all nations to get the size very much down by mutual agreement. The largest ship you want for the line to-day is of the size that will not be able to overpower any armed merchant liner sent out to meet it, and which will have the necessary radius of action, comfort for the crew, etc.
  I would like to say one word in regard to a matter raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington, and that is the question of aircraft attack on shipping. With what he said with regard to the air menace against merchant ships I entirely agree, and I hope it is a matter which is going to be tackled. There are no rules of capture and search for aircraft and aircraft which attack merchant ships, and that will have to be tackled most seriously. The same thing also applies in a different way to air attack on warships, and, when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes complained about the dual control over the Fleet Arm, I would point out to him that the trouble is that the Admiralty in the past have misused their opportunities, and, when
  2076
  they had control of the whole Fleet Arm, they neglected it. They still do not believe that the greatest menace against this costly super-Dreadnought class is massed air attack.
  One hears romantic talk. One hears wonderful talk about the new anti-aircraft guns that can fire gas shells at a terrific rate into the air at a very long range, and make battleships safe against air attack. That is all stuff and nonsense. The cost of the present-day battleship is about £7,000,000, and for that you could build 350 super-aeroplanes, or, for a fleet of 10 battleships, you could build 3,500 super-aeroplanes. In the manœuvres that are taking place just now only about two score aeroplanes are engaged, nothing to what a great Power could put into the air if she threw her resources into it. This is one of the great arguments against the super-Dread-nought of large tonnage, and it also reinforces the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington.
  Why do hon. Members opposite insist on attacking my right hon. Friend for not building more ships and spending more money? We had it said last week that more ships were needed, and we are accused now of endangering the Empire. That is utter nonsense. Look at the actual figures. I have had the curiosity to turn up the Navy Estimates before the War, and the gross expenditure was £46,000,000. Of course there is a large non-effective Vote and the pay to-day is more generous, I am glad to say, and certain stores and so on are still a good deal above pre-War cost, but, allowing for that, we are voting to-day £51,000,000 compared with £46,000,000 in 1912 and 1913, during the height of the naval race between this country and Germany. Hon. Members opposite are never satisfied, and I am afraid they are only using the old cry of the wicked Socialists letting down the Fighting Forces. There is no truth in it at all. I could attack my right hon. Friend—of course, I do not want to do so on this occasion—for spending too much.
  Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Will my hon. and gallant Friend allow me to interrupt him? Our point is not so much ships, as personnel.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In regard to personnel I think there is something in that, and the answer is, of course, that we have very excellent reserves in the Mercantile Marine and the British fishing fleet. It is not quite fair to compare the American enlisted men with our serving personnel. The moral is that my right hon. Friend, as a matter of high policy, should do all he could, in conjunction with his colleague at the Board of Trade, to see that the Mercantile Marine has its crews of British seamen in British ships available for the reserve of the Navy.
  I want to make one other suggestion with regard to personnel. I agree with all that the Noble Lord the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Lord Erskine) and others have said about the tragedy of cutting off the careers of young naval officers in the prime of life, although I must say that I think the Admiralty have been generous. I think these officers have been fairly well compensated, but this has mostly been in the lower ranks of the commissioned officers. It is the young officers, who are faced with the axe or the acceptance of retirement schemes, for whom everyone, whatever their views on armaments or otherwise, must have a great deal of sympathy. It is a great disappointment to them. But let us look at the higher ranks, and, with great deference in the presence of two such distinguished flag officers as those who have already addressed the House, I must draw the attention of the House to this fact. My right hon. Friend gave me this information last week. The flag officers on full pay in 1913 were 52. That is to say, we employed 52 admirals on full pay in 1913. At that time the personnel was 146,000. This House voted 146,000 of all ranks and ratings, a very much larger fleet in matertial, and we had 52 flag officers employed, of whom three were lent to foreign Governments, reducing the total to 49. There were 49 flag appointments. To-day, with a far smaller Navy, with one-third of the ships at sea in commission, and with only 93,600 men, we are employing 44 flag officers and, allowing for the flag officers lent to Dominion Governments and others to be reduced, the number is still 39. We are to have 39 flag appointments compared with 49 before the War.
  2078
  I suggest that there is a very good case for economy, and I hope I carry my hon. and gallant Friends opposite with me in this. It is bad for the efficiency of captains and commanders of private ships if you have too many flag officers present. Look at the Atlantic Fleet to-day. I have the Navy List here, and I find that you have only five battleships. The Atlantic Second Battle Squadron, five battleships, two admirals to five ships. We have the Battle Cruiser Squadron of three ships, the "Tiger" having taken the place of the "Hood," and a flag officer again. We had the Second Cruiser Squadron of four light cruisers, and again another admiral. Therefore, for these few ships of the line and the cruising vessels we have four flags flying.
  Vice Admiral TAYLOR: Is the hon. and gallant Member suggesting to the House that the battle cruisers ought not to have their own admiral?
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I served on the China station during the Russo-Japanese war when we were twice on the verge of going to war with Russia and we had two admirals for the battle squadron and one admiral for the whole of the cruisers. We had no admiral for the light cruisers and only three flag officers with a very large fleet. I suggest that the commander-in-chief should also command the battle squadron and thus reduce the number of flag officers. When we turn to the Mediterranean Fleet we find there again, only six battleships In the battle squadron and two admirals—the commander-in-chief and another. There is the light cruiser squadron consisting of four ships with another admiral and the third cruiser squadron with another admiral. There is another admiral in command of the destroyers or five admirals in all for the much-reduced Mediterranean Fleet. The point about this is that it takes away efficiency from the post captains. It is a bad thing to have too many admirals. Then they simply swarm in the home ports—
  Commander SOUTHBY: The hon. and gallant Member has referred to the period when he was serving in China and he has said that there was only one admiral for the whole of the cruiser force. How many cruisers were in that force at the time?
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think about nine but I am trusting to my memory. The commander-in-chief was Admiral Sir Gerald Noel and I was his signal midshipman. There was one admiral for the armoured cruisers and none for the light cruisers and we had about 90 ships altogether including sloops, gunboats and so on—a very large squadron. However the suggestion which I make is that there are too many flag officers and that it does not conduce to efficiency. They have not enough to do, and they get in each other's way, and they take away the chances of independent action by other officers. I know that such a suggestion on my part is against all trade union rules, but, after all, the older men in the service get the better pensions and we ought not to allow all the sacrifice to fall only on the younger officers. There is nothing personal in what I have said because I know that my hon. and gallant Friends opposite are not likely to hoist their flags again at sea and my only idea in making this suggestion is to save money on the Navy without loss of efficiency. I do not like to make a speech which does not contain at least one constructive suggestion and that is my constructive suggestion on the present occasion. Otherwise, I congratulate my right hon. Friend, if not on making great savings, on keeping the Navy efficient. From all I hear the standard of training is very high, and I am told that the last "shoots" have been extraordinarily good. If we can hold our own at Geneva and at the next Naval Conference, if other nations reduce their navies instead of leaving us in the position of always being the country to reduce its Navy while others are increasing their navies, and if we have general economy all round, then my right hon. Friend will go down to history not only as a very successful First Lord of the Admiralty but as a very practical pacifist.
  Commander BELLAIRS: I have risen for the purpose of dealing with what may seem a relatively small point, but one which I regard as of some importance. I hope that although I may find the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty differing from me on this matter we shall at least avoid emulating the example of the hon. and gallant Member opposite in accusing each other of talking utter
  2080
  nonsense and so forth, that being the way in which the hon. and gallant Member has treated the arguments of his opponents. I am tempted to refer in the first place to what has been said by the Noble Lord the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Lord Erskine) on the subject of interviewing boards. I agree entirely with what he said. These boards represent one of the last relics of the Fisher changes. When they were established they at once started to reject a great many candidates. It seems to me when you are dealing with young boys, it is very difficult to find out what is in those boys by an interview lasting for 20 minutes or half an hour. At one time these boards were rejecting 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. of the candidates. I should like to know how many candidates are being rejected now. I contend that it is impossible for an interviewing board to pick out the candidates who are likely to turn out, in the long run, the best naval officers. The silent candidates are often the best. They are often the thinking candidates and I suggest that the Admiralty should tell the interviewing boards that the type of cadets which they ought to reject is that type which can pass examinations, and yet is hopelessly unpractical. That is a type which we do not want to become naval officers.
  The question which I have risen to deal with, however, is that of the position of the engine-room artificers. This is a highly qualified and skilled body, and they have been treated scurvily by the Admiralty in past years. The Admiralty are now suffering in consequence, because they have had to lower the standard in the type of artificers entering the Navy and they are not getting the requisite number. An experiment was made in regard to this class in 1925. It was done by a Conservative Government but a Conservative Government occasionally makes mistakes and I think this was a bad mistake. They degraded the position of the engine-room artificers to that of petty officers for a period of three years. One may search back through the history of the Navy without finding any case in which a rank in the Navy has been worsened, although one can find many cases in which a rank has been improved. In this instance, instead of being chief

  2081
  petty officers these engine-room artificers were degraded to the rank of petty officers for three years. Up to that time they had always entered as chief petty officers.
  The result of the experiment has been failure, and I have only heard two arguments advanced by the Admiralty in favour of the change. In the first place they say that more accommodation was required for other chief petty officers, but if they had gone back to the policy which the Admiralty were contemplating in 1901–1902—when Lord Fisher swept it aside—they would have succeeded in getting that accommodation. The policy contemplated by the Admiralty in 1901–1902, of which I have a very intimate knowledge, was to make a considerable improvement in the position of engine-room artificers so that they became watch-keeping engineers of the Navy, and the number of engineer officers in each ship was to be reduced so that they had a better outlook in the matter of promotion. In that way much more accommodation would have been available than has been made available by the policy of de-grading the position, which has been pursued since 1925 and has failed. The second point advanced by the Admiralty is that the artificers possess marked advantages over other branches of the service, but that is not a sound argument. You cannot compare the position of the artificers with other branches. They are skilled men and enter the Navy with ready-made skill, whereas stokers and seamen are able-bodied but raw recruits and have not to pass a practical and educational test on entering the Navy.
  I can only discover one reason for the antagonism shown in recent years to the artificers, and it is that they belong, and rightly belong, to their trade unions, because of the benefits which those trade unions confer upon them. But I defy the Admiralty to find in the history of the engine-room artificers one single case in which the trade unions have interfered in any way with the discipline of the Navy. The Amalgamated Engineering Union, the United Societies of Boiler Makers and Iron and Steel Shipbuilders—these bodies have never interfered with the discipline of the Navy, and these men, all the time, have probably given more satisfaction to their officers than the men of any other
  2082
  branch of the service. It is this prejudice against trade unions which has led to immense expenditure in training boy artificers and producing a new type of artificer.
  It is a very bad policy to have two or three different types in the service. If it inevitably leads to rivalry and jealousy and if you are getting a satisfactory type, for nothing, from the shore—exactly the same type as the engineers of the mercantile marine—why not rest satisfied with that advantage? My advice to the Admiralty is to go back to the policy which was the unanimous policy of the Board of Admiralty in 1901, though they did not carry it out then. The Admiralty will save a lot of money in that way and they will have no difficulty in getting into the Navy the cream of the mechanics who are now outside the Navy. We are reducing personnel by 10,000 in four years, and it is all the more necessary when carrying out such a policy of reduction to see that we get the most highly-skilled men. Under the policy which is now being pursued we are not getting the most skilful type of men. As I have already pointed out, we have had to reduce the entrance standard and we are not getting the numbers. I ask the Admiralty, for the sake of efficiency, to reexamine the whole question land see if they cannot treat these artificers better and revert to the policy which the Admiralty intended to adopt in 1901.
  Commander SOUTHBY: I have no desire to traverse the ground which has been covered by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) as regards the cruiser question, but I would remind the House of one fact which emerges plainly from these discussions. Under the London Naval Treaty we must come to the end of 1936 with at least 11 or 12 obsolete cruisers and no amount of juggling with figures or with tonnages can alter that basic fact. At the same time it should he remembered that when we come to the end of the Treaty period we shall still be bound by a moral limitation. During the period of the Treaty we shall of course be bound by the actual Treaty limitations but I do not think that anyone would suggest that at the end of the Treaty period it will be possible for any signatory to the Treaty to put up a large building programme to

  2083
  make good deficiencies. Therefore it is doubly dangerous that we should arrive at the end of the year 1936 with the number of our effective ships so badly reduced.
  The 1930 cruiser programme inadequate as it is is only a paper programme. In answer to a question which I put not long ago the First Lord of the Admiralty told me that only about £13,000 had been spent of that building programme. I may remind the right hon. Gentleman however of an answer which he gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) in July last. He said then that it had been decided to commence, this financial year, the new construction programme for 1930. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman in reply to a supplementary question put by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) said that the amount of the Supplementary Estimate would be about £200,000 and in reply to a further question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull as to how much employment that expenditure would give this financial year, he said that it would give a very considerable amount.
  Nobody can deny that the mitigation of unemployment has been a primary consideration all through last year. Why has the 1930 programme not been pushed on in those circumstances? We are told that only £13,000 has been spent up-to-date. There is no reason why the construction of the ships should not have been put in hand much earlier last year in order to give employment to men who sadly need it. The amount of employment given by the construction of a ship is considerable; 85 per cent, of the cost, at least, goes in wages to 20 different trades. In the modern method of calculation which has become so popular since the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs was the Lord Privy Seal, the construction of a cruiser—hull, machinery and guns—gives 206,252 man-weeks work. Therefore, the House and the country are entitled to ask that the Admiralty shall expedite not only the programme of 1930, but this year's programme, which was contained in the First Lord's statement. It would do a great deal to provide very necessary Naval strength, which must be maintained, and to provide employment for many trades and many men.
  2084
  I want to reinforce what has been said on the subject of the destroyers. It is obvious that the destroyer position is very serious. We have at present 19 flotilla leaders built and building and 155 destroyers. Of these, about 15 leaders and 129 destroyers will become obsolete by the end of December, 1936. That would leave us with four flotilla leaders and 26 destroyers as efficient, effective, up-to-date vessels. We are building at the rate of one leader and eight destroyers a year; therefore, if we continue this rate—that is, the rate of last year's programme and this year's programme—we shall come to the end of 1936 with five flotilla leaders and 40 destroyers built under the programmes, giving us a total at the end of 1936 of nine leaders and 66 effective destroyers. We are allowed by the Treaty a tonnage of 150,000 for this particular class of vessel, which might roughly be translated into 15 leaders and 127 destroyers. The fact emerges that if this present rate of building is to be adopted, we must come to the end of 1936 with 61 obsolete destroyers and at least six obsolete flotilla leaders.
  Consequently, there can be no doubt to anyone who studies the figures that, instead of building one flotilla leader and eight destroyers a year, we should be building two flotilla leaders and 12 destroyers. The French flotilla leader is an infinitely more powerful vessel than anything we possess or are able to possess. The latest French flotilla leader is a vessel of 2,500 tons with a speed of 36 knots and an armament of 5.5 inch guns. She is in all respects equal to a light cruiser. The First Lord, in reply to a question which he was asked in May last year, admitted that the so-called flotilla leader of France is really a light cruiser. The French can build this class of vessel quite happily, but if we attempted to build a ship to meet the challenge of the French flotilla leader, it would become a light cruiser and would come into our light cruiser tonnage, which is already too small. I am sorry that in the negotiations which the First Lord recently carried out, and which resulted in what probably everybody will say is a good piece of work well done, producing, as it did, agreement between the French and the Italians, he was not able to get some

  2085
  limit to the tonnage and size of gun for the French and Italian flotilla leaders. I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question about this, and he said that it would not be in accord with the system of naval limitation adopted in the Draft Disarmament Convention recently drawn up at Geneva. It was, however, a heaven-sent opportunity for him to take up this question and endeavour to get some satisfaction.
  With regard to the negotiations which have resulted so happily between the First Lord and the French and Italian representatives, the right hon. Gentleman said in Committee last week that the French Government had been given a written assurance that His Majesty's Government favour a reduction of the capital ship gun to a maximum calibre of 12 inches and a reduction in displacement from 35,000 tons. This is one of the few points where I am in agreement with the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). No one will deny that the size of the battleship has reached almost absurd figures of tonnage. It is one thing, however, to state definitely that we are in favour of a reduction in tonnage, and another to state that we are definitely pledged to a reduction in the size of guns to 12 inches. There is a considerable amount of expert opinion which says that, taking it all round, the most efficient and convenient type of heavy gun for the battleship is a gun of 13.5 inches. We went into the London Naval Conference with our hands tied as regards our cruiser tonnage. Before we even went to the Conference, it had been decided that we were to reduce from 70 to 50 cruisers. The First Lord and others with him had nothing with which to bargain. In this case history is repeating itself. Before the next negotiations even commence the First Lord has given an assurance to the French that we are bound to agree to a reduction of the calibre of the large guns to 12 inches. In the circumstances, it was an unwise undertaking to give when it is so necessary for us to go into the next Conference with our hands quite free in order to discuss matters as they then stand.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has made a grave statement about the 13.5 inch gun being the best gun for us. The
  2086
  statement is frequently made, but what difference is made if nobody else is allowed to have a bigger gun than 12 inches?
  Commander SOUTHBY: My point is that the time to discuss that is when the Conference meets, and that it is no good announcing beforehand that you are going to agree to a 12-inch gun and then find at the Conference that other people will not agree. Reference was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull to the opinion in America with regard to the size of the battleship. There is no doubt that opinion in the United States is hardening in favour of the retention of the 35,000-ton ship. I am sorry for it, and it is a great pity, but it is a fact that must be taken into consideration. With opinion hardening in that direction in America, it is no time for us to make definite pledges as to what we shall do when the next Conference comes. Let us wait until the Conference takes place, and discuss matters as they arise in the light of the then existing circumstances. I do not know whether it is possible for any conversations to take place between the First Lord and Mr. Stimson, who, I believe, is in London It must be remembered that Mr. Stimson has in the past been a staunch defender of the 35-000-ton battleship, and the First Lord might perhaps find it possible to have informal discussions with him that would help this matter along a great deal.
  The question of the examination of cadets has been raised. I am not in agreement with what has been said by the Noble Lord the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Lord Erskine). There is a difference of opinion as to whether the naval cadet caught young and taken to Dartmouth is better or worse than the officer who goes to sea as a midshipman direct from a public school. My Noble Friend made a great point of the fact that some years of public school experience is broadening for the mind. The most broadening thing for a man is to go abroad and to go to sea. Having had some experience of both types of officer, I do not think there can be any doubt that it is a good thing to take an officer at a reasonable age, send him to a naval training establishment, train him in the traditions of the service, train him specifically for the job he is to do, and then

  2087
  send him to sea at as young an age as possible. I hope that when the Committee which is sitting on this question has come to a decision, nothing will be done until the House has had an opportunity of debating the question. It is a serious thing to interfere with and to alter the type of training for the Navy. Those who saw the effect of the alterations which were made in haste by Lord Fisher will remember that we had to go back to what had been going on before, because Lord Fisher's alterations were proved to be unsuitable and unsuccessful. It is no small thing to make an alteration in the system of naval training which might do away with training establishments.
  I would like to reinforce what the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) said about sloops. As one who has served in the Persian Gulf, I have some knowledge of what is needed in the way of small ships of the Navy for the work in those waters, and I would ask the First Lord to consider whether it would not be possible to increase our building of sloops which are a very useful type of vessel. In fact it is the only type adequate to carry out the prevention of the arms and slave traffic in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. There are those who think that the functions of a sloop can be undertaken by a flying boat. Anybody who has seen a shamal blowing in the Persian Gulf will know that it would be impossible for a flying boat to do anything in the nature of boarding a dhow; it would be unable to search it with any degree of safety to herself or the crew. Therefore, we must fall back on the surface vessel working, if you like, in conjunction with the flying boat, and if we are to carry out our duties in the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea adequately, we must have a considerable increase in the number of sloops.
  I am glad to see that something more is being done with regard to the training of Naval personnel in flying. According to the White Paper, 85 naval officers are employed as observers, 127 Naval and Royal Marine Officers are serving as pilots in the Fleet Air Arm, and 25 are under training. I am not going to ask the great question which was asked by the right hon. Member for South Molten (Mr. Lambert), whether the Ad-
  2088
  miralty would like to have the Air Arm back. I know that it is impossible for the First Lord to give an answer to that question, but I would beg him to lend his weight and press for the return to the Navy of its flying service. These figures show that it is essential that the Navy should have its own flying personnel, who should be partly naval officers and partly flying officers who know the conditions both at sea and in the air—a state of affairs which cannot exist with regard to the ordinary land pilot. It is essential that if you want to have the best results—and the Air Service in the Navy is only subordinate to the work of the ship—you should run the service in the same way as the Marines and the Engineers. The regrettable accident off Plymouth the other day surely serves to show that land pilots ought not to be put into flying boats, because we cannot expect them to be as successful as men who have spent the whole of their time in flying naval aircraft.
  The First Lord referred to the reduction in the personnel of lieut.-commanders in order that in this congested rank there may be some hope of promotion for those officers remaining in the Service. At the same time, it is essential that full justice—and more—should be done to those officers who, through no fault of their own, have to take advantage of this retirement scheme. When the matter was debated last week I asked the Parliamentary-Secretary whether the rates of retired pay would be fixed or fluctuating rates, and he said they would be fixed, permanent, standard rates. I was sorry to hear him say today, in reply to a question, that that was a mistake, and that the rates would not be fixed, but would vary with the cost of living.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): In that respect those officers will be placed in precisely the same position as others.
  Commander SOUTHBY: I quite understand that, and I was not criticising the answer in that respect; but may I make a plea to the First Lord to reconsider this question, and to standardise these rates as fixed, permanent unchanging rates? Not only in the Naval Service, but in the Army, in the Air Service, and

  2089
  in the Civil Service particularly, the time is coming for a standardised rate of pay. It is time we dropped this sliding-scale based upon the cost of living, which leads to arguments and to uncertainty, and to a sense of grievance when the rates of pay fall. We should stabilise the pay in all the Services in the light of existing conditions to-day. It is impossible to debate marriage allowances on this Vote, but if it is impossible to give carriage allowances to naval officers let us at least stabilise their pay and do away with this sliding-scale based upon the cost of living. There is precedent for doing it, because in the past there have been retirement schemes with fixed rates of pay not subject to any fluctuations in the cost of living. There has been a scheme of that character since the War; and so I ask the First Lord to reconsider this point and try to help this class of officers—there are only about 150 who will take advantage of this scheme—by giving them a fixed rate which will save them from uncertainty and a sense of grievance if, in a year or two, the cost of living is supposed to have fallen and their pay falls too. It is not a big thing to ask, and it would make the scheme far more popular.
  When this matter was discussed in the House the other day, the hon. Member for West Salford (Mr. Haycock) made some extraordinary statements about officers being entitled to free washing, food and clothing. If those halcyon conditions do exist in the Navy—and I doubt it—they certainly did not exist in my time. I have never heard of any officer who has free washing, or free food—except free rations, of course. It is a great pity that the hon. Member for West Salford should sneer at the retirement scheme for lieutenant-commanders. He sneered at the fact that these officers were to have £155 or £200 a year, or whatever it is. I would impress upon the House that this retired pay is deferred pay. It is just as much, in effect, the savings of the officer himself as it is in the case of a man earning a salary ashore who puts some of his money into the bank every week and keeps it there for a rainy day. This retired pay is not a charity, it is a right. The pay of these officers when serving has been low, and they have accepted that situation in view of the pension that was coming to
  2090
  them; and the particular pension scheme brought forward for lieutenant-commanders is only anticipating the retired pay to which an officer would be entitled later, and has been introduced in order that the list may provide quicker promotion for those remaining behind. I do not want to say more, except again to ask the First Lord if he will reconsider this question of the retirement pay, and fix it definitely and finally instead of basing it on a sliding-scale.
  Captain W. G. HALL: One question I would like to raise concerns the liability of naval pensioners who have served the full 22 years in the Navy to be recalled to serve again in an emergency. It may be a small point, hut it does concern a very large number of men—not those who have passed into the Reserve, because all branches do not pass into the Reserve—who feel that once they have served for 22 years and have passed to their pensions they should not have the possibility of their being recalled for service hanging over their heads until they are really very old. Nothing appears upon the entry forms which they sign—and re-sign after having served 12 years—to show that they are liable to be called up again in an emergency. The matter was put to me by some of my constituents, and I set about discovering how it was that they were liable to be called up. I put a question to my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, who told me they are liable to be recalled under the old Naval Volunteer Act, 1853. The Section—16, I think it is—which gives the Admiralty this right, is obviously inserted in an Act which really has very little to do with naval men. It is an Act which enabled the State to raise volunteer seamen from the merchant service in case of emergency. They were to serve for one year, or at the most two years, and were not to go beyond 100 leagues from the coast of the United Kingdom.
  It was a volunteer force; and yet embedded in that Act we find a Section which drags in men on the active list of the Navy. I suggest to the First Lord that ways and means should be found whereby men who have given 20 years' service to the nation in the Navy may know that they can settle down afterwards without the feeling that at any

  2091
  moment they may called on to serve again. I think it is Article 1999 which allows the Admiralty to treat them as deserters should they not return when called up, and gives the Admiralty the further right to take away the pension they are enjoying. Men who have served 22 years in the Navy feel that the pension which comes to them is in the nature of pay which has been earned—not something for which they are still liable to serve. This is a matter which might be looked into in these days of piping peace, very different from the time when that Act was passed, when people did not know from month to month when a great emergency might arise. We would relieve the minds of naval pensioners of the feeling that at any moment they may be called up to serve again, even though they have reached the age of 50 and over.
  Viscountess ASTOR: May I ask the First Lord what is the age up to which they are liable to be called on to rejoin the Navy?
  Captain HALL: It is 55 years.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: After all that we hear about the interest which the party opposite take in the Navy, I am surprised to find that only a few faithful souls can find sufficient time to come here to heckle the Socialist First Lord about the disgraceful way in which he is failing to keep the Navy up to strength! [Interruption.] My hon. Friends behind me do not make that charge; it is hon. Members opposite who make it. The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) went through a number of questions which were raised in the White Paper submitted with the Estimates. He opened up with what, I thought, was rather an astonishing suggestion. It was that we had made a grave mistake in not asking the country immediately to operate Article 21 of the London Naval Treaty. Really, that is the sort of suggestion which is not going to be helpful at the Conference next year. The hon. and gallant Member did express the hope that the Conference would be successful, but he said that the London Treaty and the terms of the Treaty secured between France and Italy, were going to make it more difficult. Nothing could have made the Conference next year more difficult
  2092
  than for this country to have put into operation Article 21, with all the contingent results which such action would have had upon other Powers who may be party to the Conference, as well as France and Italy. It seems to me that it was all the more necessary for the Foreign Secretary and myself to take all immediate steps—
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I did not say "operate," and I did not mean "operate." What I meant was that we should have made it perfectly clear as to the attitude we would have to take up in the case of a continued growth of the submarine tonnage of France. That is quite a different thing.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I shall be very glad to check the OFFICIAL REPORT on that point in the morning. I took rather a particular note of it. As a matter of fact, we have made it clear, I think, beyond peradventure, in the basis of the agreement arrived at between France and Italy, that unless there is a more satisfactory revision of the submarine strength we absolutely reserve our right to exercise Article 21 so as to secure a proper equilibrium between our destroyer strength and the submarine strength which in those circumstances would remain with France. I hope the hon. and gallant Admiral, who is never an unfair critic, and is always helpful in his criticism, will take particular note of that point.
  6.0 p.m.
  The hon. and gallant Member also referred to the question of trials which will be carried out on the battleships going off the active list. The first thing that happens in regard to such ships is that the Admiralty gives consideration to what trials can hest be instituted and the hon. and gallant Member may rely upon the scrapping of the four ships under the London Naval Treaty being adequately used for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the Navy. I am rather surprised that the hon. and gallant Admiral thinks it necessary to offer prizes to officers for ideas in this connection. I should have thought that all officers in the Navy can be relied upon to submit their ideas for the benefit of the Navy without such inducement as prizes and indeed in these days when competition for promotion is so keen I

  2093
  should think there is little doubt that any officer who has suggestions to make will make them well knowing that it may improve his chances of promotion.
  With regard to the training of boys, we have had a special training squadron for them in the old capital ships, and the naval staff are fully satisfied with the arrangements that are going to be made for the training of the boys in sea-going ships. If the arrangements turn out satisfactory, my submission is that it would be better to have the boys trained in seagoing ships than to have the kind of thing which we have had in the past. The duties have been changed, and I am perfectly satisfied that what we are doing is right. The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes asked whether the destroyers for scrapping were to be broken up in this country or abroad. None of the destroyers on the scrapping list are being broken up abroad, and they are being disposed of in this country.
  I have been asked a question about the service in the Persian Gulf and the steps taken to deal with the slave traffic and other matters. On this point, I would like to pay a tribute to the work which has been continuously done in the Persian Gulf by the ships of His Majesty's Navy. The whole Navy was pleased with the award of C.I.E. to Captain Boyes, the senior naval officer in the Persian Gulf, for his work in that area. It is gratifying to us that this award was recommended not by the Admiralty but by the Indian administration in recognition of the good results of Captain Boyes' work. Upon this question I should like to say that I cannot give any very specific cases of co-operation in this work by the navies of other countries. We are always willing to secure co-operation of that kind, but I am unable this afternoon to give any instances of such co-operation. I do not agree with what has been said about the policy of the Navy in regard to co-operation with the Royal Air Force. We have already stated that we have co-operated with that force whenever possible. As to my views about the ultimate control of the Fleet Air Arm, and whether it should be under the control of the Air Ministry or the Board of Admiralty, I would remind hon. Members who have spoken that "what I have said I have said," and I have nothing to add.
  2094
  With regard to submarine salvage and deep-sea diving experiments, the inquiries are incomplete, but experiments have been made. I do not want to go into the details, but the main thing that is necessary for the moment is to remember that we have to carry out these experiments under reasonable conditions. A great many more trials in deep-sea waters will be made during the summer. We have already done a good deal of experimenting in inshore waters, and we want this rounded off by deep-water experiments. I think I shall be able to give the House the results of our experiments later on. I have been asked a question about Eastney Barracks, and why we have moved the School of Music to Deal. Those premises are being taken over by the Marines, most of whom had to live outside the barracks, and this change will save the expense of lodging allowances. One block is already occupied, and the other will soon be ready. In view of the fact that some of this accommodation has to be used for married quarters, certain alterations had necessarily to be made, and this takes a certain amount of time. The hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) has put some questions to me, and I am not at all sure whether I have to treat him as a member of the official Conservative party or as a free lance.
  Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Take your choice.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: It is always difficult to reply to such questions as those which have been put to me by the hon. and gallant Admiral, because they deal with matters involving the policies of previous Governments. One of his arguments was that we had reduced our naval strength, that we have accepted less than we had before the War, and that we have no longer power to build up to the standard of the largest naval power in the world. The hon. and gallant Admiral is wrong, because it was the Government of many years ago that decided that our naval strength should be equal to a one-Power standard.
  Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: It does not alter my argument at all which Government may have reduced our standard. The fact is that the Government to which the First Lord of the Admiralty belongs

  2095
  went into the Naval Conference last year on the basis of 50 cruisers. I do not know how that was arrived at, but, as I have said, that basis does not permit us to have sufficient ships to carry out the duties in war for which they exist.
  Viscountess ASTOR: I really should like to know the right hon. Gentleman's policy. Does he really think that we should go in for a two-Power standard, which might mean starting fresh naval competition and ultimate war?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I gave way to the hon. and gallant Admiral, but he will recognise that I was dealing with his items seriatim. I was dealing with the opening of his speech, in which he lamented the fact that we had come back to a one-Power standard.
  Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Our strength is absolute as regards craft and destroyers, but we have now come down to our relative strength, and that is an entirely incorrect standpoint to take up. The number of cruisers and destroyers we want is absolute, and can be worked out perfectly definitely.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is in too great a hurry, and he must not think that I am running away from his arguments. His first point was that we had accepted in this country the one-Power standard. I think it is a pity that he did not criticise the Government on that point at the time when the Conservative Government were responsible, because they accepted the one-Power standard. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that 50 cruisers are not enough. It is true that that number was not inserted in the Washington Treaty. I remember the occasion last year when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) disclosed a secret document in this House. If it had not been for the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping at the time of the Washington Conference in regard to a telegram which he quoted, I very much doubt whether we should have come away from Washington without an agreement on auxiliary craft as well as battleships and aircraft carriers. It is no very serious thing to feel that we have come 10 years after to a fixed figure in a Treaty for our cruiser strength
  2096
  which had actually been debated at the Washington Conference at that time.
  I will now go back to the year 1923, the year of the first Tory administration. What was the effective strength of the cruiser fleet at that time? It was about 225,000 tons. The Government have been charged with being criminals in this respect, when, as a matter of fact, we have actually agreed to a Treaty which gives us 339,000 tons in 1936. The hon. and gallant Member referred to the French submarine tonnage, and said that what we are considering is war. I hope that that is not the spirit in which we shall enter into naval discussions in this House. I said on a public platform the other day, and I am not ashamed to say it here in the House, that while my job at the Admiralty is to see that the Fleet is kept efficient, my job is not to prepare for war, but to try to stop the next war.
  Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: What does the Fleet exist for?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: The Fleet exists to provide the maximum amount of security.
  Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Certainly.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: But that is not the only means of obtaining security, and that is what we hold and what we are going to adhere to on this side of the House. I repeat that my job is not to prepare for the next war, but to try to stop the next war. I hope, therefore, that, even when we are trying to make the necessary minimum provision for these craft, we shall not give utterance in a responsible legislative Assembly to remarks of a kind which are likely to irritate people in other countries.
  The hon. and gallant Member said that our Treaty tonnage of destroyers was too low, and that we were reaching a dangerous position if we were to contemplate a continuous raising of submarine tonnage of the kind visualised by the French, with the building contingent thereon of submarines by the Italian Navy. I entirely agree. I said last week that, if it had not been for our visit to Paris and Rome, there would have been by 1936 a fleet of at least 99,000 tons of French submarines, and a much larger Italian fleet than will now be fixed. That would have been an exceedingly dangerous position. But, as we have enabled the French and Italians to Dome to an agree-

  2097
  ment that France shall not have more than 81,000 tons for the present, and it will be possible to consider the matter again at Geneva, I think that we have done, after all, the right thing in these circumstances in saying that we are not prepared to tell other Powers that we are going to operate Article 21, but that we are prepared to go into the Conference with the best of good will and to try to come to a permanent settlement.
  The hon. and gallant Member mentioned our destroyer strength in relation to other Powers, but he seems to have fallen into the same use of figures as other hon. Members last week. In estimating what will be the number of overage destroyers under the Treaty arrangement, he says that all destroyers laid down before 1921 should be regarded as over age.
  Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: It makes no difference. From 1921 to 1936 is 16 years.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: It makes all the difference in the world when you are deciding how much of your present Fleet is over age in 1936. We are replacing our destroyer fleet on the basis that our destroyers are capable of a 16-year life, and the only other thing that I have to say on our destroyer programme is that, if previous Governments had not let the naval programmes go through for many years without providing a single ton for replacement of the destroyer fleet, we should not be in the position, in which we are to-day, of having so much over-age tonnage. On the other hand, a steady building programme of one leader and eight destroyers a year, based upon a 16-years life will, taking a proper view forward, always give us an under-age fleet of over 150,000 tons. As soon as we have completed the programme, which was started in 1928, of one flotilla a year, it will be possible to maintain our destroyer fleet right through as underage.
  The hon. and gallant Member mentioned the question of the very large size of the French destroyer leaders, and, in answering him on this point, I shall also answer the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby). We have under the Treaty 150,000 tons of destroyers, and we are allowed, inside our cruiser tonnage, 192,000 tons of light cruisers, which gives us 342,000 tons.
  2098
  The French and Italians lump together their light cruisers, destroyers and destroyer leaders, and it follows that, if they use their tonnage in building very much larger destroyer leaders than it has been the desire to build in this country, they have to take that either out of their light cruiser tonnage or out of their ordinary destroyer tonnage.
  Commander SOUTHBY: Surely, the point is that we require both the cruiser tonnage and the destroyer tonnage, whereas the French require either cruiser tonnage or destroyer tonnage. That makes a world of difference.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: That may be the hon. and gallant Member's view, but it is not the French view. [Interruption.] The French have a tonnage ill light cruisers and destroyers which they lump together, and we are given on paper a reasonable superiority. If, inside their total tonnage of light cruisers and destroyers, they decide to put into their flotilla leaders a much higher tonnage than we do here, they have much less tonnage to play with in building more destroyers or light cruisers, and so the result is as broad as it is long. I cannot understand why so much time has been spent on that particular point.
  The hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington made one other point. I do not need to follow him in his remarks about the Fleet Air Arm, which I have answered already, but he says that he recognises that there is a need for economy, but that he thinks there has already been economy enough in the Navy. That is a very old position with many Conservative people, and we have recognised it for a long time. They are the most insistent preachers of economy, but they always want to avoid economy in the particular services in which they are interested. If the hon. and gallant Member believes all the things that he said in South Paddington during the not very ancient by-election with regard to economy, he must expect economy to be carried out in regard to the Navy as well as in regard to other services.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) asked if I could say whether we have any standard at the Admiralty to which we are building. I think he knows that the standard which was going to be, and is,

  2099
  laid down under the London Treaty, is a one-Power standard, and, accepting parity with America, we have worked to a one-Power standard, modified in relation to other Powers by the ratios which are, or will be, put into the Disarmament Treaty by the Powers at the Geneva Conference.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Is that regardless of our necessity as compared with American necessities?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: The position is this. We were hotly criticised last year. I think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) criticised us from the point of view that we had a parity agreement with America which did not make sufficient allowance for the fact that the Americans did not want to build as large a fleet as we were providing for ourselves in the London Treaty. [Interruption.] Our position was that we provided what we considered to be the minimum fleet we required, and that, if the Americans wanted parity, they must come up to that minimum strength, which was laid down by the British delegates at the London Naval Conference. That was our position with regard to the one-Power standard, and that is the real answer which the right hon. Gentleman desired to have. I quite agree with him that battleships could hardly be expected to be a protection in the Channel against a large and menacing fleet of submarines from France, but he will have seen the reservation, to which I have already referred, that, if the submarines are kept in such a way as to be a menace, we must have the right to keep a better and a different equilibrium between that submarine menace and our destroyer fleet. We hold that right still.
  The Noble Lord the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Lord Erskine) asked me to say one or two things about the personnel. He said he thought that you could best measure the strength of a fleet by the personnel rather than by the number of ships. If that were so, I could save a lot of money by having just a few ships and training a lot of personnel, but perhaps the Noble Lord had better think a little more about that point. [Interruption.] I think that
  2100
  what he really meant to say was that it was no use having a Navy even of our present strength unless we maintained a satisfactory number of personnel. That is rather a different thing. The real fact is that a good many criticisms are offered, in regard to our reduction of the number of personnel to 93,000 in comparison with other Powers, without making full allowance for the manner in which the numbers of other Powers are made up. References have been made to the United States figure for personnel, but, in the first place, it must be remembered that, having granted them parity, and having decided that we could not go below a certain tonnage for ourselves in giving them parity, if they are to man their fleet they must have more men. The total figure that they return includes marines who are not comparable with the marines of the British Fleet, and it also includes a large number of personnel engaged in aeronautics, such as, again, are not included in our Fleet. When these deductions are made, it will be found that the numbers as compared with ours are much more equal.
  Commander SOUTHBY: It does not include the coastguard forces, namely, 12,000 men-of-wars-men.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I have not heard any suggestion yet from the hon. and gallant Member that we should adopt Prohibition in this country in order to provide a special reserve for the Navy.
  Commander SOUTHBY: I think it is rather unfair of the right hon. Gentleman to say that. Surely, these 12,000 men should be taken into account in any comparison with regard to personnel, because they are trained men-of-wars-men, whatever duties they are carrying out now.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: They are special men for a special purpose, and they are doing special work. It is true that we have a certain amount of coastguard work in this country, which was done at one time by the Navy. That work is still being done, but under the Board of Trade. If it is said that the men who do that work ought to be included in the strength of the Navy, I think that is rather splitting hairs. The other point about which the Noble Lord spoke

  2101
  was with regard to the system of admission of cadets. I think I gathered that he was not very satisfied with the system of entry.
  Lord ERSKINE: I had qualms.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: May I say that the whole question of admission to the Navy is now under consideration, and I do not want to express any very positive view until I have had an opportunity of considering the report of the Committee? I can, however, say at once that I could not accept an immediate action to change the system and put the examination before everything, because I think it would be very unfair to parents, in many cases, that they should be put to considerable expense in connection with the examination of a boy who, perhaps, had not the slightest chance of passing. I think it is much fairer to parents in these circumstances to have an interview first and the academic examination afterwards.
  I am afraid that I cannot agree with the Noble Lord as regards the medical examination. We are not really losing very good officers because our medical standard is too high, and, after all, the strain upon officers in the Navy does not grow less, but grows more. I am rather surprised that, in these days of very modern nautical requirements, the Noble Lord should think that someone who is really colour-blind might be admitted as an officer in the Navy. I am sure that the Noble Lord himself would feel that he would not like to sleep at night on board a ship with a colour-blind officer on the bridge.
  Lord ERSKINE: I think the First Lord will agree that there are degrees.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: There may, of course, be degrees of colour-blindness, but the tests that are carried out, which recently I went into myself with very great interest, are on a new technical basis for discovering real colour-blindness, and they are so expert and perfect that I do not think that cadets experience any injustice on that ground. The Noble Lord will perhaps forgive me if I do not say any more on these matters at present, as I want to leave the whole thing for consideration when I get the report of the Committee which I set up last year.
  2102
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull made one or two useful suggestions, but I should like to point this out to him. In answering one of the critics across the Floor of the House, he said we must remember that the Americans are not building up to treaty strength at present. But we must also remember what has been the course of events. They were building very quickly and suddenly, just before the London Naval Conference, 8-inch gun cruisers. They have a large authorisation of building which can go on, and it was clearly stated by Admiral Pratt, the naval delegate before the Naval Affairs Committee which examined the treaty last year, that he did not particularly want to build up to the treaty because he wanted to avoid, in the circumstances, having a lot of frozen tonnage which would give him no chance, later on, of having a proper replacement building programme. My hon. and gallant Friend must remember the point of view of the American Naval Board. We shall certainly do what we can in the direction of reducing the size of the battleship at the Geneva Conference, and he need not worry about our preparations. We shall certainly do what we can to prepare the best technical case, but I want to offer a word of warning as to how far you can go in reducing the size of ships. We make no decision here in a Debate like this. The whole thing will have to be considered in relation to, the general discussion next year.
  But, when I hear hon. and gallant Gentlemen on both sides of the House talking about the future menace of the air, it is well to remember that you must have a ship which has some reasonable chance of resisting air attack and underwater attack, and, while I firmly believe with my hon. and gallant Friend that the capital ship in the past has been allowed to become much too large and much too expensive, we must be very careful in our technical examination of the problem before we settle about going down too far, and I should hesitate at present, without further advice, to be led by his advice to-day that we only want in the line ships that can deal with the largest armed merchantmen that can be brought against us. I really must think also of the danger of air attack and under-water attack.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Surely the answer to air attack is our own aircraft.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: It is only partly the answer. It is the answer if you are always able to meet aircraft attack by counter air attack, if we are going to get bombs actually dropped upon a battleship, it is very essential that you should have some deck armour which will have a reasonable chance of resisting at least the worst part of the damage that will be done by a bomb. Trials that have been carried out in that way go to strengthen me in my view, but the whole thing is bristling with technical difficulties, and must be thoroughly well examined.
  Another point my hon. and gallant Friend made was in regard to flag officers. He gave the numbers as having been 49 in 1913, with a fleet personnel of 146,000, and 39 now with a fleet personnel of 93,000. It may seem that in regard to the number of personnel we have not gone down quite as far in the number of flag appointments as some people might desire, but, when the War broke out, there was a general lament that we had never had a proper staff in the Navy comparable to the war staff of the Army. Having regard to the fact that there is a staff now, and to various developments of a technical kind, it is remarkable that we have not seen a larger number of flag officers retained than is the number at present. We have tried to be very economical. I said, in reply to him the other day, that we are cutting down two in the next four months, and he can be assured that, wherever we can save a flag officer, we shall. But we must have regard, first, to the necessity of having a reasonable technical staff—and I do not think he would want to deny us that—and, secondly, that we must have enough flag officers for general efficiency.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) asked about the interviewing boards. I can only say that we do not reject a great number of cadets. He also asked me a question about engine room artificers. There is a good deal of misapprehension as to the position with regard to engine room artificers. We have had over 800 applications for rather fewer than 50 vacancies. We have the
  2104
  men we want, men of a reasonable standard of qualifications. The standard that has been laid down during the examinations has not been lowered.
  Captain W. G. HALL: Why is it that the percentage of marks has been lowered from 60 to 30 if you are getting all the people you want? Has the physical standard also been lowered?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I explained, in answer to a question some time ago, that, because you altered the percentage, it does not necessarily alter the standard at all. I am assured by those who are conducting the examinations that the standard has not been actually lowered.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) raised a question which I answered last week. Why has not the 1930 building programme been pushed forward with more speed? The practice we have followed is the exact practice of every previous Government. When you have got your programme through the House of Commons and a small Vote-on-Account, you lay down in the last month of the financial year. That is all the money you have to spend on it in that financial year, and you must build in each year a normal year's quota of the work on that programme. Moreover, I think it would be fatal to try to anticipate naval work, for two reasons. First, it would very considerably disturb the negotiations we are carrying on for disarmament, with which I believe all parties will want to be associated, and, secondly, it is not good for industry itself to have what will be the normal work of the country suddenly lumped up into one particular year. I said that was borne out by the state of the shipping industry now as the result of the heavy financing of the building of merchant ships by the Trade Facilities Act, and all the people I meet in the shipping industry lament the fact that we have anticipated our requirements of merchant ships by means of the Trade Facilities Act. [Interruption.] I have already said what I have to say about that. I thought the House already knew that the Government had decided not to reintroduce the Trade Facilities Act, and have not done so. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says we ought to build two flotillas of destroyers a year.
  Commander SOUTHBY: Tweleve ships.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: That is one or two fewer than otherwise would have been the case.
  Commander SOUTHBY: The same number that you cut off.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: That is 14 ships a year instead of the nine that we are building. If we go on steadily building, subject to our not having to operate Article 21 against any increasing submarine menace, we need have no qualms about going to bed and sleeping quietly, because we are only building one destroyer flotilla a year. Another point was about Lieut.-Commanders' retiring allowances. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to think I might reconsider the fluctuating nature of the payment based upon the cost-of-living. I am afraid I cannot do that. There is no more case for doing that in the case either of naval officers or retired naval officers than in the case of civil servants. Since the alteration in the rate of pay and allowances of naval officers in 1919, the amount of margin for the fluctuating payment is only 20 per cent. That is to say, 80 per cent. either of the naval officers' pay or retiring allowance is not affected by the cost-of-living fluctuation, and you only take into account the cost-of-living alterations with regard to 20 per cent. of the total emoluments. In those circumstances, and having regard to its effect on other services, it is unreasonable to ask me to reconsider the matter, nor do I think it would be of very great advantage in increasing the numbers who would ask for such retirement. It would be very unfair to the men who are staying on for two or three wears, who would have to operate under the ordinary Regulations, if someone who wanted to leave the Service two or three years earlier was all the rest of his life to get an advantage over them in the basis of his retirement allowance.
  The need for sloops, to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred, is generally recognised, and I think we shall be building up a good fleet of sloops by laying down four, sometimes five, sometimes six a year, but at any rate four. The type of sloop that is being constructed is a very comfortable
  2106
  roomy ship, though not of high tonnage, and is going to be very much better for the class of work in the Persian Gulf than it has been in the past. I took a special opportunity last summer of going out to the Mediterranean at a time when no one else wanted to go there, because I wanted to see how the men lived on the ships in the hottest part of the year. It was a very helpful and educational thing for me to see what was necessary in the way of improvement.
  The only other point to which I have to reply is that raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Portsmouth (Captain W. G. Hall). Why should we continue the rather old and, in his judgment, obsolete requirement that pensioners who have served for 20 or 22 years are still liable to be called up in emergency under the Naval Pensioners' Act. In the present outlook, it seems to be almost unnecessary, but I do not think it would do any very great service to say we will abolish that particular provision, and it has the very great advantage that, if we did have a particular trouble arising, some of our men who have served for 22 years would be forthcoming, not necessarily to go on active service, but to train others who would be wanted in an emergency. They cannot be called upon after the age of 55, whereas in the case of officers there is no need at all for this requirement. Any officer can be called up at any time of emergency after he has retired.
  Captain W. G. HALL: It does not apply to the Army.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: The more you reduce the number of your voluntary personnel, the more, I think, it is necessary that your reserves should be available if required. I hope, therefore, my hon. and gallant Friend is not going to press that point, because I do not believe the great majority of men who retire from the Navy would want that alteration made. I believe they would be only too willing in a case of national emergency to come forward and help their country. The country never has utilised that statutory provision unfairly or unreasonably, and certainly a Labour Government would never do it unfairly or unreasonably. I hope that we may now pass on to the next Vote.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: This Vote I think, is a proper occasion on which to raise the evergreen question of married allowances for officers. I have a proposal to make and a few remarks to offer. The cost of this allowance, by reason of the persistent reduction in personnel, naturally is becoming less. I have not changed my views, which I have expressed in this House, against subsidising marriage and its inevitable family ties, and the consequent tendency of married officers to avoid risks by the responsibility of two homes, and, in many instances, to avoid foreign service. That has been my experience, and I think that it is, in many ways, a natural tendency. There is no sentiment, I agree, about such a view. I express it from no other desire than that we should obtain the highest standard of efficiency in a Service which is, and has to remain, available, and liable to be mobilised for service at about two hours' notice. Therefore, it is necessary to have a very high standard of efficiency. I confess that if there is an injustice, which I am inclined to think may be the case, as between the Air Force, the Army, and the Navy in this respect, some means should be found of equalising the matter, and I lean in this respect towards a general increase in the pay all round, or, at any rate, for officers over a certain age, in order that that difficulty may be got over. It is not a desirable thing to provide an allowance for a state of life in the Navy—the marriage state—which by no manner of means is conducive to increased efficiency.
  At the same time, I have a suggestion—it might almost be described as a plan—and it is, roughly, as follows. At the present time, a great privilege is granted to the officers of His Majesty's Navy which is not granted to any other officers in any other arm of the defence forces, or to any other officers or men who serve under the Government. I refer to the privilege which is granted to them of not paying any duty on any of the wines or spirits which are embarked in a man-of-war for consumption on board ship. I am not in any way suggesting that, in consequence of that, an unlimited amount of wines
  2108
  and spirits may be embarked or drunk, or, in fact, that an unlimited amount is drunk—nothing of the kind. At the same time, that great privilege does exist, and I think that the House will be surprised at the figures relating to this matter. I propose that the privilege should be abolished. I can imagine that that raw sentence will not be very acceptable to a great many people. I think that everybody will agree that it is in the nature of a special allowance or privilege, almost extra pay to the officers in His Majesty's Service.
  In order to equalise the difference in the conditions of pay alleged to exist between the Navy, the Air Force and the Army, and on which the arguments in favour of marriage allowances are based, I would abolish that privilege and apply the sum which the Treasury now foregoes because of that privilege and because no duty is paid, in an all-round increase in the pay of the officers of the Navy. My plan would be to apply it in respect of officers over the age of 25. If they like to use it for getting married, well and good, but, on the other hand, if they like to use the extra pay for any other pursuits which give them even more pleasure, that is their affair. If the plan should even get as far as being considered—and I hope it will—I would say, do not merge the allowance into the pay of the officers. We should not treat it as the officers' grog allowance was treated and which is now obliterated and forgotten. Before I joined the Navy, a great many years ago, the officers of the Navy had had for hundreds of years a free grog or spirit allowance. It was done away with; I am not sure at whose instigation. But it was certainly done away with by the consent of Parliament, and with the idea that it would set an admirable example to the sailors of His Majesty's Fleet. To-day the sailors have the example still before them, but they also have their grog. Therefore, I would say, that if anything can be done, the allowance should not be merged into pay, because it would be obliterated and forgotten. People who give up a great privilege of that kind deserve a special favour to be shown to them. I would take the standard on which to base the obtaining of this money upon the present standard of thirst amongst the officers of the fleet.

  2109
  I would also take into consideration as another factor in arriving at the amount of money required, the personnel, that is, the number of officers in the Fleet at the present time. The House, I think, will be astonished to hear that the Treasury forgo in this matter between £80,000 and £90,000 in a year, of which well over 80 per cent.—I think it is something like 85 per cent.—is concerned with the spirits which are embarked in His Majesty's ships. I would earmark this sum specifically and suggest that it should be given, if it receives favourable consideration, to the Navy. I can assure the House that the stopping of that privilege would certainly make naval history, and if naval history is to be made, for goodness sake give the sum set aside for this purpose a name. I suggest that it should be called "Efficiency Pay." The State and the Admiralty will certainly get full value in efficiency. The term "Pussyfoot," no doubt, might easily be applied to me, but I have never been a teetotaller and have no intention of being a teetotaller. It may also be said with a good deal of truth that the teetotallers of the Navy are getting unearned increment, because they will not have done very much towards raising the sum of over £80,000 which the Treasury now forego in Duty. There are those who are now responsible, as it were, for this large sum of between £80,000 and £90,000 who would be able to pride themselves upon their sacrifice to what I would call the common cause.
  I want this matter to be made quite clear because it lends itself to a certain amount of joking. It is also a very serious matter. The officers of the Navy will not be deprived of their spirits and wines for one moment. They will still enjoy the privilege of alcoholic stimulants in a ship, and they will still be able to take some comfort in realising that—certainly for well over 30 years, to my certain knowledge—the officers of the United States Navy have not been allowed any wines or spirits in their ships. They will not be in a more difficult position or in any invidious position, nor will they be denied having the wines and spirits which they may think necessary for their health or anything else. The sacrifice by the officers of such a great privilege would deserve the generosity of the State. I say most earnestly that the
  2110
  State, and certainly the Admiralty, would not be the losers if they made the sum sufficiently large for the purpose.
  The cost of marriage allowances has been put at various figures. It is said to he something between £100,000 and £200,000. The sum of between £80,000 and £90,000 which I have mentioned will not go the whole way. The State and the Admiralty would gain in the efficiency of the Fleet—they would not be the losers—if they were to double the sum and pay pound for pound in respect of the money that the Treasury have foregone this year. The State and the Admiralty would have a right to expect extra efficiency. I can assure the House, from a wide experience of service all over the world, that if something of that sort were done and the scheme was carefully thought out, it would be acceptable to the officers of the Fleet, and the State would get the extra efficiency, and would never regret the arrangement that had been made.
  Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I am not quite sure, having listened to my hon. and gallant Friend, whether he is in favour of marriage allowances or not, but there is no doubt that he has devoted considerable attention to the question and has worked out a scheme whereby he will deprive the naval officer in general from obtaining wine and tobacco free of duty in order to find part of the necessary money, which the Government, apparently, are rather reluctant to produce, so that marriage allowances may be acceded to the naval officer. I entirely disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend when he suggests that married officers are rather inclined to avoid foreign service. As a matter of fact, with the great reduction that has taken place in the fleets at the present time, officers are only too anxious to get any appointment at all in a ship, whether it is foreign or home service.
  7.0 p.m.
  The argument that the officer was rather inclined to think more of his wife than his ship was an extraordinarily poor one. The fact that an officer is married, one would imagine, would be a spur to him to give the best to the Service in order that he might get on in the Service, and be promoted, and thereby be better able to keep his wife and family. Therefore, I entirely disagree with the argu-

  2111
  ment put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend. I can view his suggestion with regard to the wine and so on with complete indifference because, as a matter of fact, I am not addicted to wine in any shape or form as I do not happen to like it. But I do not in the least see why the ordinary naval officer should have this great privilege taken away from him. After all, marriage allowances are either right or wrong; it is a matter of justice or injustice. At the present time the naval officer is the only officer who does not receive a marriage allowance. It is a matter of justice that he should receive a marriage allowance; therefore, it is no question of juggling as to whether naval officers should pay duty or not pay duty on wines or tobacco, but a mere question of fact: Is it right or wrong that the naval officer should receive a marriage allowance? The whole of this question has been thoroughly thrashed out in this House on several occasions. There is not the slightest doubt that the keeping up of two establishments is extremely difficult for the average naval officer, who as a rule is a poor man and has little or no private means. The time is long past when it was considered a crime that a naval officer should be married. I remember that at one time any wife who arrived on a station was looked on as if she was the devil himself, and occasions have happened when a wife has been sent home by the next steamer. That is long past now, and we ought to encourage naval officers to marry. It is an extremely good thing. We want to obtain the best class of boys to enter the Service, and I suggest that the sons of naval officers are probably the best type of boys to follow in their father's footsteps.
  The Goodenough Committee recommended that these allowances should be granted, and a sum was inserted in the Estimates in 1925, but unfortunately, owing to the subsidy to the coal industry, it was taken out, and the hopes of the naval officers were dashed to the ground. Now we have been informed that this matter is again under consideration. That does not carry us very far. The naval officer will not get very much marriage allowance out of consideration.
  2112
  I hope he will at last receive that which is his just due, and be placed on the same level as officers in the other Services, and that no question of economy—because we can run economy too far—shall bar naval officers receiving that to which they are certainly entitled. This is a matter which to some extent affects entry into the Service. Parents are getting rather chary of sending their sons into the Service, as the future is not by any means certain, and they do not know whether their sons will be turned out through no fault of their own and without any chance of getting another job. I hope that at last these marriage allowances will be granted.
  Mr. AMMON: This matter of marriage allowances was raised on the Committee stage, and I can add nothing to what I then said. I listened with interest to the ingenious scheme of the hon. and gallant Member, and I have no doubt that it will receive the attention of Members of the board who have this under consideration. But when I see there is already a measure of disagreement between two hon. Members I wonder not only what will happen when the matter comes before the board, but what will happen when it gets down to the Fleet. I should view with concern if, when I sought the hospitable board of one of His Majesty's ships, it was known that I had given consent to this sort of thing. In fact, I would be almost afraid to go.
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I want it to be made perfectly clear that this is not going to stop officers having as much wine and spirits as they think is good for them. You will get a jolly good dinner still.
  Mr. AMMON: There is some reassurance in that, but there is another watchdog on the path. Everybody knows the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to these things, and I do not know how he would look on a sacrifice of £80,000 or £90,000 in the revenue. The financial position is no better than when this was withdrawn a few years ago by the former Government, and I can only say that the Board of Admiralty have the matter under consideration and have now the additional help of the constructive suggestion put

  2113
  forward by the hon. and gallant Member. I will certainly see that it is brought to their notice.
  Ordered, That the remaining Resolutions be considered To-morrow.—[Mr. Thurtle.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn"—[Mr. Thurtle.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes after Seven o'Clock.

  ARMY OFFICERS, CHATHAM (LIGHT ALLOWANCE).
  ARMY OFFICERS, CHATHAM (LIGHT ALLOWANCE).
  NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS (ARREARS).
  NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS (ARREARS).
  HOUSING (STATISTICS, LONDON).
  HOUSING (STATISTICS, LONDON).
  CHINA (LOANS).
  CHINA (LOANS).
  MEXICO (BRITISH BONDHOLDERS).
  MEXICO (BRITISH BONDHOLDERS).
  EX-SERVICE MAN'S DEATH, FLORIDA.
  EX-SERVICE MAN'S DEATH, FLORIDA.
  DISARMAMENT (POISON GAS).
  DISARMAMENT (POISON GAS).
  AGRICULTURAL SURVEYS, SCOT- LAND.
  AGRICULTURAL SURVEYS, SCOT- LAND.
  KENYA (FISHERIES SURVEY).
  KENYA (FISHERIES SURVEY).
  EXPORTS (COMPARATIVE STATISTICS).
  EXPORTS (COMPARATIVE STATISTICS).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (CEREBROSPINAL MENINGITIS).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (CEREBROSPINAL MENINGITIS).
ROYAL NAVY.
  FOOD SUPPLIES.
  FOOD SUPPLIES.
  VENEREAL DISEASE.
  VENEREAL DISEASE.
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (PYLONS, PICKERING-WHITBY).
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (PYLONS, PICKERING-WHITBY).
  ROAD SCHEMES.
  ROAD SCHEMES.
  AGRICULTURAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION.
  AGRICULTURAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LOWESTOFT WATER AND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CARNEGIE HERO TRUST FUND BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LONDON ASSURANCE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
WALTHAMSTOW CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
WILLS AND INTESTACIES (FAMILY MAINTENANCE) BILL.
Message from the Commons, to acquaint the House that they have appointed a Committee to consist of six members to join with a Committee of this House to consider the Wills and Intestacies (Family Maintenance) Bill and to request their Lordships to appoint an equal number of Lords to serve with the said Committee.

ST. THOMAS'S RURAL ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1931.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHERTSEY GAS ORDER, 1931. SHREWSBURY GAS ORDER, 1931.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which appears on the Paper in my name.
Moved, That the Special Orders as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDIA.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH had the following Notice on the Paper—To call attention to the increasing gravity of the situation in India, and to the adverse effect produced by the proceedings of the India Round-Table Conference in London; to invite a categorial statement upon the safeguards which His Majesty's Government consider indispensable; to enquire when an opportunity will be afforded of discussing the Report of the Statutory Commission; and to move for Papers.
The noble Duke said: My Lords, when I put down the Motion which stands in my name, some few weeks ago, I thought that that Motion would be replied to by Earl Russell. The noble Earl wrote to me and said that he was tired, that he had been ill, and would I kindly postpone the consideration of my Motion until he came home. The noble Earl has not come home, and to-night it is our melancholy task to express our regret, our deep regret, at the loss of a distinguished member of your Lordships' House, and a member of a family whose achievements, political, military and diplomatic, are recorded in many of the pages of the volumes of the history of England.
My Motion this afternoon calls attention to the increasing gravity of the situation in India and to the adverse effect produced by the proceedings of the India Round-Table Conference in London. I think it is time that we once again discussed the affairs of India, and if I have taken the responsibility of making this the occasion it is because I feel that I, like many other citizens in this country, am deeply concerned as to the trend of events, and I wish to afford an opportunity for authoritative opinions on the subject we are discussing to-night, and
382
for the expressions of opinion from noble Lords who are familiar with the problem. It is no exaggeration to say that concentrated on the red Benches in front of me there is a body of experience and authority on the administration and affairs of India such as exists nowhere else. Furthermore I feel that the country, to-day, knows full well that we are governed by a Minority Government, and is anxious to ascertain and to be guided by the views, ideas and expressions of opinion of many noble and distinguished Lords who are members of this House. Therefore, I hope that I need not apologise this afternoon for having ventured to bring these affairs to the notice of your Lordships.
I will begin with my first question to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and I will ask him about the Statutory Commission. What is the history of the Statutory Commission? It was appointed by agreement of all three Parties in the State. I believe there was not a dissentient voice in either House when that Commission was appointed. It was representative of the three Parties in the State. Those representatives gave a unanimous Report. Immense labour was expended by them. It was, I think, something like three years before the Report was compiled, and I ask your Lordships this afternoon what has happened to that Report, and when will it be considered by Parliament? What part is it to play in the framing of the future Government of India Act? Let me observe that this Statutory Commission is the constitutional foundation for the treatment of the problems of Indian Government. It was prescribed in the Act of 1919 that there should be a Statutory Commission.
It was one of the great achievements of the late Lord Birkenhead that he was able to procure the assent of all three Parties to serve on that Commission, and it was agreed by all three Parties that this procedure should be followed: The Report of the Commission was to be submitted to the House of Commons. On that Report the House of Commons would either pass a Resolution or proceed in any other way they thought fit, after which a Bill would be introduced which would be passed through the House of Commons and would be presented to a Joint Committee appointed by both

383
Houses of Parliament. The members of the Joint Committee would be entitled to hear expert opinion on Indian matters, from the Indians themselves, and after that Committee had carried out its duties the Bill was again to be returned to the House of Commons, passed in that House through all its stages, presented to your Lordships' House and passed through all its stages, and eventually it would receive the Royal Assent of the King-Emperor. That was the statutory procedure. It was all laid out, and it was all agreed upon.
Here, my Lords, is the Report. I am indebted to Lord Sydenham for his expression of opinion on the Report. Lord Sydenham, whose knowledge is vast on this matter, says: "I regard the Report as a masterpiece of constructive ability." Surely I am justified in asking what has happened to that Report and what will happen to it, and what part is it going to play in the future discussion of Indian problems? It would appear that the whole of these proceedings, and also the Statutory Report and all the constitutional process, have been jettisoned as irrelevant and obsolete, all on account of the Round-Table Conference. I do not deny that the Round-Table Conference might have been a substitute for the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament; but I cannot regard it as a substitute for the regular, proper constitutional consideration by Parliament of the Statutory Report. We have sent out the Commissioners. The Commissioners have reported to us. The Commissioners, I might add, have given all their services. The taxpayer has been saddled with the expense. Surely, we are entitled, nay more, we are bound to regard the Report as the basis of our examination, as the starting point of our deliberations in discussing the Indian problem.
I now come to the consideration of the Round-Table Conference. The Conference was suggested by the Simon Commission for a different purpose to that for which it was eventually employed. The Simon Commission thought that if the Conference was held before the Bill was presented to Parliament it might help to reconcile Indian opinion which had not been represented on the Commission. I doubt very much indeed whether any one dreamed that this
384
Round-Table Conference would be converted into something like a constituent assembly and would set itself to frame certainly in outline a draft of a Federal Constitution. Surely, that was quite unforeseen, that was not intended by those who were students of Indian problems. Indeed, I doubt whether they quite realised what had taken place until the event had actually happened.
I venture to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether he will explain what are the reasons and causes which have intervened and have led the Government to make such a profound alteration in the character of the Round-Table Conference and to depart from the constitutional procedure which had been agreed upon. No doubt it may be said that the Princes surprised us all by their willingness to come into a federal system. It may be that the Princes themselves thought well of a federal system. It may also be that having heard vague talk about Dominion status and independance and that some governing authority might be substituted for the English Government, the Princes, confronted by this possibility, felt bound to address themselves to the altered conditions and also to consider what position they and those races over which they ruled in their own dominions would occupy. If this should possibly be the explanation I am bound to say I do not see that it is very reassuring to noble Lords who sit on those Benches.
After all, I have always understood that noble Lords in this House contemplated a gradual progress, a slow evolution over the passage of time to eventual possible self-government for India. At present the Government of India is responsible to the Imperial Parliament—a Parliament of two Houses, one of which is elected on a franchise of something like 29,000,000 citizens. Surely it is rather a questionable proposition to transfer that responsibility from a broad and ancient basis to a new and loosely knit-up construction of Indian political persons. Surely, on democratic grounds alone, on the grounds of democracy and the emotions of democracy it would be interesting to try to discover what passed through the minds of the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues when they decided on such a course.
On constitutional grounds I invoke the shade of the late Lord Halsbury. It is true that he did not possess the august figure of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, but when he was angry he was awe inspiring. If he had been told that a successor of his in office might possibly contemplate, might possibly countenance an Occidental constitutional orthodoxy being substituted by an Oriental administrative confusion and, except in three or four cases, without the consent or ascertainment of the views and feelings of those who are possessed of profound knowledge of Indian affairs, indeed, without consulting other noble and learned Lords who possess vast knowledge of the law, and without taking the sense of noble Lords in general in this House, I can assure your Lordships—and I address my remarks to the younger members—that the Woolsack would have rocked with his indignation.
I do not deny for a moment that the Round-Table Conference has thrown a great deal of valuable light upon many problems which hitherto we did not know about. We have also been able to read the expressions of opinion of their Highnesses the Indian Princes couched in that old world courteous language which, of course, is the result of a very-ancient civilisation. But I do deny that the results of the Round-Table Conference or any subsequent Conference that may be held in India or in London can possibly take the place of the Statutory Commission as laid down by the Act of 1919. In that Act of 1919 it was stated that the Statutory Commission should report to Parliament. It has not reported to Parliament, and those who were on the Commission were not even allowed to appear at the Round-Table Conference. They have been, so far as I have been aware, inarticulate. I hope that this afternoon that will be redressed, and that we may have expressions of opinion from Viscount Burnham and from Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, and that we shall have the benefit of their views on this particular matter.
I now come to the question of the safeguards, and if peradventure I remain rather close to the text of my remarks I hope your Lordships will forgive me, I am so frightened of doing an injustice
386
to any distinguished noble Lord. Among the conclusions of the Round-Table Conference a number of safeguards were mentioned. They were mentioned by the British representatives, Lord Peel and many others. Of course these safeguards are of the highest importance. Even the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, made it clear that his favouring of the Conference scheme was solely dependent upon not only the acceptance of the safeguards, but upon the proviso of an agreement between the Moslems and Hindus and other important matters, towards which very little progress had been made. I would like to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether those are his views to-day. Does he adhere to the views of Lord Reading? I would ask the noble and learned Lord still further whether he agrees to the safeguards as set forth by Sir Samuel Hoare in the House of Commons on January 26. I will read these safeguards if you will permit me.
Sir Samuel Hoare said:—
"The obligation of the defence of India still rests upon us. Foreign affairs and international obligations must still be controlled by the Crown. In the interests of India, no less than in the interests of Great Britain, internal security and financial stability roust be effectively safeguarded. In the interests of humanity, the pledges that we have given for the protection of minorities must still be our solemn obligation. There must be no unfair economic and commercial discrimination against British traders. The rights of the Services recruited by the Secretary of State must be preserved. Lastly, whatever Constitution may emerge must be maintained upon a sure and stable foundation."
I would like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he accepts in spirit and in letter these safeguards, and if so what will happen if insistence on these safeguards makes agreement with the Indians uncertain and possibly ineffective?
This brings me to the last point I wish to put to your Lordships, and that is the condition of law and order in India. I do not propose this afternoon to recite to you the events of civil disobedience which have taken place in India during the last year, nor do I propose to discuss the conditions of India as they have existed during the last few weeks. This much I will say, that they have been of a nature which I think has justified me in putting clown in my

387
Notice on your Lordships' Paper that they are conditions of increasing gravity. I would like to ask one question, and it is a question which I would address to noble Lords who are sitting opposite to me, because it is one which I cannot ask the Government, but which I clan ask noble Lords. They are familiar with Indian affairs, many of them have spent their lives and their time in association with those who administer India; and they possess expert opinion. I would like to ask them this question—if that which has happened between the Viceroy and Mr. Gandhi during the last few weeks is likely to conduce towards the peace and towards the prosperity of India in the future? I would like to ask them whether they think the Treaty of Agreement which has been come to between the Viceroy and Mr. Gandhi is a treaty—it has been laid on the Table of the House of Commons—which is likely to be fruitful and effective. Furthermore, I would like to know whether they think our credentials have in any way been weakened, whether the power of our authority has been in any way impaired, thereby instilling a feeling of despondency among all those loyal citizens in India who are responsible for carrying on the administration of that country?
Those are questions which I have ventured to address to your Lordships feeling sure that in the course of the debate some of them at least may be replied to. I have finished. I will only say this in resuming my seat, that in the Round-Table Conference there were, if I remember aright, nine Sub-Committees. Sub-Committee No. 1 appeared to me to be the one which received the greatest meed of approval, and that was the Committee presided over by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. It is for that reason that I have addressed my remarks rather directly to the noble and learned Lord, I trust with due respect, because I feel that the noble Lord on the Woolsack, he and he alone, can adumbrate the policy of His Majesty's Government now and for the future on those grave, on those terrible problems by which we are confronted, and which, owing to the courtesy of noble Lords, I have ventured to bring this afternoon to your consideration and your approval. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY): My Lords, in my view the
388
thanks of this House are due to the noble Duke for bringing this Motion forward, for I do not hesitate to say that the opinions expressed by your Lordships will not only be welcome, but will be a real help to those who are engaged in an anxious and difficult task which is above and outside ordinary Party politics. With regard to the first sentence of the noble Duke's Motion—namely, "To call attention to the increasing gravity of the situation in India," I venture to think that it was more appropriate when it was set down nearly two months ago than it is to-day, for the situation in India has very greatly improved in the interval.
With regard to the next sentence—"the adverse effect produced by the proceedings of the India Round-Table Conference in London"—I would ask your Lordships to bear with me while I endeavour to state, quite briefly, what those proceedings were and why they have not produced an adverse effect, but a good effect, and one likely to improve our future position in India. Your Lordships will readily appreciate that much care and accuracy are necessary in making this reply. There must be no misunderstanding. I will therefore ask the noble Duke to allow me to recall the facts as far as possible in chronological order, and to deal with his questions as I go along.
Let me first pay a tribute to the many Indian delegates who visited our shores at a season when our climatic conditions left much to be desired as far as they were concerned. They gave up their various avocations in India for a long time in spite of much hostile criticism from their friends, in order to do what they thought was best for their country. I should like to be permitted to place on record at the earliest possible moment the contribution made by them to our deliberations. Their desire to settle some form of responsible Government for India was only equalled by their knowledge of the law and practice of federal constitutions.
May I next be permitted to congratulate this House on the help that it gave to the Round-Table Conference. We were able to send it a former Viceroy of India in Lord Reading; a former Secretary of State for India in Lord Peel; a former Governor of Bengal in

389
Lord Zetland; Lord Lothian, who has had a large experience of Colonial affairs, and an Under-Secretary of State for India in the late Lord Russell. His passing has caused deep regret among his many friends on both sides of this House and outside it as well. He was a tower of strength to the unfortunately small number of Labour Peers, and a Rupert of debate. No one is more sorry than I am that the reply to the noble Duke's question is not in Earl Russell's capable hands, as it would have been had he remained with us.
There are two other distinguished members of your Lordships' House to whom both England and India are indebted. I refer to the noble Lords, Lord Burnham and Lord Strathcona. They were members of the famous Statutory Commission which went out to India to study its many intricate problems. Their work will be remembered with gratitude by all reasonable men. They endured many months of great physical fatigue and great mental anxiety, and they produced a Report which will always hold a prominent place among British State documents. The future student of Indian history will find in their first volume a mine of information which will give him nearly all the material he wants. The recommendations in the second volume deserve the most careful consideration, and the fact that the Conference has gone beyond them is due to the patriotic action of the Indian Princes who declared on their arrival in England for an All-India Federation. That was an ideal which the Statutory Commission had set before themselves, but they saw it "through a glass darkly." Now it has entered into the realm of practical politics, and India is watching a dream that is coming to birth.
Turning to that part of the Question which enquires when an opportunity will be afforded for discussing the Report of the Statutory Commission, the answer is that to a great extent it rests in the hands of the noble Duke himself, for as I understand it he can put down a Motion to discuss it for any day he desires. Let me say at once that the members of the Conference were not plenipotentiaries. They did not arrogate to themselves any such final mission. They were prepared to examine facts and to make suggestions. In particular the object of the Federal Structure Committee was not to draft a
390
Constitution—it had not time to make a prolonged review of all the facts of the Indian situation, or of all the various federal constitutions which have been set up in different parts of the world. Still less had it the time to consider the manner in which the various provisions of these varying constitutions have worked. Even if the Committee had had the time, it would not have attempted to make final proposals. Its members recognised that they did not possess a monopoly of wisdom. They felt that there was an instructed body of public opinion both in England and in India whose views were not only entitled to be consulted, but whose opinions would be of real value in reaching a satisfactory solution.
Their Report was therefore purposely drafted so as to leave many questions open, while endeavouring to state as concisely as possible the arguments for and against the different views which prevailed. This system led inevitably to the position that the Committee's conclusions were to a large extent provisional. Experienced draftsmen are well aware that the consideration of a later problem may necessitate the alteration or the modification of an opinion already expressed or of a section already drafted. Nor can such a Constitution be produced at express speed. To climb steep hills requires slow pace at first. In my view, however, there is no problem in India which is insoluble: it is perfectly possible to draft a Federal Constitution which will be fair and just to everybody, and with the precedents before us, the combined wisdom of the East and the West can, and will, do so.
As far as British politics are concerned, the future of India does not depend upon Party manœuvres. Much as I respect individual opinion, it appears to me that the collective conscience of the nation will exercise itself in a matter like this more surely than the individual conscience—and I have no misgivings as to the ultimate result of our labours. There are undoubtedly some of our fellow-countrymen who honestly and sincerely believe that the Round-Table Conference was a profound mistake. We hope to convince them that they are wrong.
Seven important questions, dealing with the Federal Legislature, the Federal Executive and their jurisdiction, and the formation of a Federal Court were re-

391
ferred to the Committee. The art of composing headlines is not remarkable for its accuracy, but if a critic were asked to write a headline for the Report, he might not unjustly describe it as "Indian responsibility with due safeguards for the interests both of Great Britain and India." The basic assumption is that contained in paragraph 8 which reads as follows:—
Responsibility of the Executive.—The Report which follows proceeds on the basic assumption that the Constitution will recognise the principle that, subject to certain special provisions more particularly specified hereafter, the responsibility for the Federal Government of India will in future rest upon Indians themselves.
Recent Imperial Conferences have taught us the danger of leaving terms undefined, and therefore paragraph 10 gives a definition of "responsibility."
I now turn to that part of the noble Duke's Question which enquires what safeguards His Majesty's Government consider indispensable. Apart from defence and foreign relations which are reserved to the control of the Governor-General, special provisions will be inserted which are intended to give him adequate powers, amongst other things, in respect of minorities, in respect of finance, and in respect of a breakdown of the Constitution. These special provisions are generally referred to as "safeguards." My straight answer to the noble Duke is that these "safeguards" are indispensable, and if they are satisfactory it would be wise to defer to Indian views and desires on other details, because, after all, it is Indians who will have to work the Constitution.
The first question naturally asked is: "Will this system work?" The chief criticism levelled against it is that it may be putting too much upon the Governor-General and may be placing him frequently in positions of extreme difficulty. The answer to this criticism is in the nature of a paradox, which can be stated in this way: The more responsible Indians become, the better the proposed Constitution will work. If they act as wise and responsible statesmen, if they rely upon themselves and do not leave difficult decisions to be determined by the Governor-General, there need be no anxiety as to the future. It is to be hoped and expected that the safeguards
392
entrusted to the Governor-General will be rather in power than use. They are set out in paragraphs 11 to 17, but this is not the time to trouble your Lordships with details. Other opportunities for their discussion will arise.
With regard to finance, the paragraphs dealing with it are numbered 18 to 20. The present commitments of India must be safely secured and her future borrowings properly handled. Her credit and stability must be maintained. The paragraphs in question have passed the critical eye and gained the considered approval of experts far more competent to advise your Lordships upon such matters than I am. May I be permitted to acknowledge here the great assistance rendered to the Committee on the matter of finance by Lord Reading.
The various subjects to be handed over to the jurisdiction of the new Federation were carefully considered by a Sub-Committee presided over by the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland. Some of these will be dealt with by the Federal Legislature itself. The Ruling Princes who agree to enter the Federation will concede powers to the Crown, to be placed at the disposal of the Federal Government. As time goes on, it is hoped that more subjects will be added to them. Other subjects will be assigned to the Provincial Governments, but there is a third class the method of dealing with which will have to be further explored—namely, those which are of a central character as far as British India is concerned, but which do not concern the Indian States. Whether these should be dealt with by the Federal Legislature as a whole, or by an in-and-out system is a matter for future determination.
It is suggested that the Legislature should consist of two Houses—an Upper House, which may conveniently be called the Senate, and a Lower House, which may conveniently be called the House of Representatives, and that the number of members in the Senate should be round about 150, and in the House of Representatives round about 250. The exact proportion to be contributed by the Indian States and by British India is a matter for agreement. On the assumption that Burma is to be separated from India, the population of British India is about 233 millions, and that of the States about 70 millions; the approximate area

393
of British India on the same assumption is 811,000 square miles, and of the States 701,000 square miles. The Ruling Princes, while claiming equal representation in the Senate, admitted they could not claim equal representation in the House of Representatives. Some members of the Sub-Committee, founding themselves on a population basis, contended that the Princes were not entitled to a representation of more than about 25 per cent.; others were willing to give them a representation up to about 40 per cent. This is a matter quite capable of adjustment. I mention it to pass it by, only adding that on a very small percentage basis for the Native States it would be advisable to make the Senate 150, so as to give the Princes an opportunity of a rather larger individual representation. It was agreed that the method of election to the Senate should be an indirect one.
With regard to the House of Representatives, some Indian delegates were of opinion, in spite of the rather obvious difficulties in the largeness of the electorates, that the election of the British Indian members should be by direct vote. I confess personally to having a preference for the direct vote in all cases where it is possible, but I desire to reserve my opinion as to whether it is possible, having regard to the area and population of the constituencies. The various methods of dealing with a deadlock between the two Houses were carefully considered and one or other of the many precedents which exist in Federal Constitutions will no doubt be able to afford a solution of this difficulty.
In respect, certainly of the Legislature, and possibly the Executive, it was generally agreed that there must be adequate representation of the Crown, and some means by which the many minorities of India should also be represented. Here again I do not pause for details, but I can assure your Lordships that there is no insuperable difficulty on this point, although, when the matter comes before Parliament for final determination, the various methods will have to be very carefully examined, as will also have to be the position of the Governor-General in reference to his Cabinet. It will be further necessary to set up a Federal Court, as was agreed by the Conference at one of its later meetings. Such a
394
Court finds a place in the United States, in Canada and in Australia.
I do not propose to detain your Lordships by going through the whole of the Report. I need only say that there were Committees set up, as the noble Duke quite properly reminded the House, on the Provincial Constitution, upon minorities, upon Burma, upon the North-West Frontier Province, upon the franchise, upon defence, upon Services and upon Sind. The recommendations of all these Committees will be found in the Bluebook recently published by the Government, which has been laid before this House. There is also available in the Vote Office a Paper containing the text of the statement recently issued by the Government of India on the conclusions of the conversations between the Governor-General and Mr. Gandhi. I can assure the noble Duke that there are no other papers. There is nothing else to lay. Such, my Lords, is the result of our labours, and such the proposals we have put forward. It is easy to pick holes in them; that is a tempting, but it will not be a profitable, contribution to our deliberations. It is one thing to criticise, another to create. We are not here to pull down; we are here to build up.
Let me turn again for the last time to that part of the Motion which refers to the so-called adverse effect produced by the proceedings of the India Round-Table Conference. What is to be our policy in India? What do you want? What are the alternatives? Do you desire an India companioned by content, or do you desire an India seething with sedition? Whichever you select, you will have to make some sacrifice. If you choose conciliation, you will gain nearly all you wish and you will lose but little. If you resort to repression, your military expenditure will go up, your revenue returns and your trading receipts will go down, and your difficulties will increase and multiply. Put up the sword. Appeal to force is the bankruptcy of statecraft. You may, indeed, impose peace, but you will produce a desert. Of one thing, rest assured. The future of India is no longer in the melting pot. The metal of its new Constitution is being hammered out on the anvil of public opinion. It is in the nature of things that sparks should fly. Some people are fond of fireworks. But

395
sparks fly forgotten—a moment seen and then gone for ever. The true metal remains.
Give me leave to sum up the situation in which we find ourselves. We never went to India to conquer. We went there to trade. The inherited genius of our race and some fostering star have given us an Empire, but it is an Empire which we hold in trust for many creeds and nations, whose classes and whose communities are entitled to our protection. Rightly or wrongly we have educated Indians in western ideals; rightly or wrongly we have encouraged them to adopt western ways; rightly or wrongly we have introduced them to western institutions and admitted them to our Councils. The language of their Legislative Assembly, the language of Congress itself, is our own mother tongue. Now they have learned something more than the catchwords of western civilisation. Time after time we have made them promises; time after time we have given them pledges; time after time we have held out hopes to them. A Liberal Government introduced the Morley-Minto Reforms; a Coalition Government authorised the Montagu-Chelmsford Declaration; Parliament itself passed the Government of India Act, in 1919, with its Preamble of promises and the partial grant of representative institutions.
Lord Irwin, the present Viceroy, a great Conservative statesman, in whom the Labour Party has implicit confidence, has carried on the tradition; the Statutory Commission has declared an All-India Federation the goal to be aimed at; the Prime Minister, with very general assent, put the coping stone on the arch in the last speech he made at the Round-Table Conference. Mr. Baldwin, speaking in the House of Commons on the 26th January last, said:—
"We are His Majesty's Opposition and if it should happen that we should change places with the right hon. gentlemen opposite what do the hon. members behind me suppose our duty would be? We have only one duty, and that one duty is to try to implement so far as we can what has been done in the Conference."
My Lords, it is too late to go back. We cannot stand still. We must go forward. That is the least dangerous course—it is the only safe course—it is (if the noble Lords who happen to disagree with me will forgive me for saying so) the most honourable course. It is our traditional
396
policy. It has been the secret of our success. Then will follow settled government, material prosperity and the reign of law.
Finance is undoubtedly important; defence is undoubtedly important; law and order are undoubtedly important: I yield to no man in my desire to see them amply and adequately secured, but I am anxious for something more than the triumph of our trade, I am still more jealous for the reputation of our statesmanship. It is by their moral actions, not by their material successes, that Empires are judged at the bar of public opinion and by the verdict of history. It is the spiritual things which exalt a nation, and by them we shall be remembered when our triumphs are forgotten. Let us grant a Federal Constitution to India, and let our hope be that everything in it may be so ordered and settled upon the best and surest foundations that peace and happiness, truth and justice may flourish as abundantly in India as they have done here at home.
EARL PEEL: My Lords, may I in the first instance associate myself with the observations which have fallen from both noble Lords who have spoken, as to the loss we have sustained by the death of Lord Russell. I had particular opportunities of meeting that noble Lord, especially in connection with the Conference, and I certainly hold that this House has sustained a heavy loss in that we no longer have him with us. He had all those remarkable powers of exposition, and that hereditary skill in debate, which we should associate with a distinguished member of the house of Russell.
The noble Duke who has introduced this matter has made what I think all your Lordships will feel is a very interesting contribution to this great question. He has expressed himself as a little doubtful about the benefits of the Conference, and I dare say that looking at it as he does from outside, he may possibly have a keener view of matters than those immersed in the details. I am not going back into the history of the shaping of that Conference and the form it might have taken, but the form which undoubtedly it did take under the pressure of discussion. I think the Conference did at least one good thing. There was undoubtedly a very strong feeling of annoyance, which was rather wide-

397
spread in India, that the Royal Commission did not contain any Indians. I think myself that the decision that that Commission should be composed wholly of members of both Houses was a natural and wise decision, because, after all, if both Houses of Parliament were going to consider the Report, it was natural that they would pay more attention to those members whom they knew well, as working in the two Houses of Parliament, than they would pay if the Commission were otherwise composed.
Whether or not that was the way in which it presented itself in India, undoubtedly the feeling of annoyance in India went deep. I believe that that feeling of annoyance has been entirely-allayed by this Conference, and by the opportunity that the representatives of India had of expressing their views quite freely on all these subjects. Perhaps even the noble Duke would admit that one of the successes the Conference had was this. A great deal had been heard of the many discussions in India about Dominion status and other general phrases of that kind, and it was to some extent a success of the Conference that during those ten weeks no resolution was even proposed or discussed on the general subject of Dominion status. We did manage to avoid the rather useless theoretic subject. We addressed ourselves perhaps more to details. It is true that very few problems indeed were settled. I was under the impression that the question of Burma was settled; that I thought was our one fixed point, but as we went through the weeks we had representations from all sorts of indignant people in Burma. Very elaborately contrived telegrams were sent by associations whose names I confess I had not previously known, and a certain number of representatives from India also told us that we had been rather premature in coming to such a conclusion.
But although, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has told us, the conclusions we arrived at were provisional conclusions, I do think that the great heads of the practical problems involved did emerge in the course of those discussions. Although they were not settled they were discussed, and I think they filled the minds not only of the Conference itself, but of those in India and this country who followed
398
what happened. Undoubtedly, very little indeed was settled. I will not follow the noble and learned Lord in his discussion of all the problems that arose in the Conference, but when you get neither the method of election, nor the relations of the two Houses, nor the relations of the centre to the Provinces, nor the special proportions in which the Princes and their States should be represented in either House with all that enormous congeries of problems that centre round the relations of the Viceroy or the Governor-General through his Cabinet or the Cabinet to the Assemblies, I look back with a little more humility than perhaps I did a few weeks ago upon the unsettled state of our opinions in regard to ninny of those subjects.
Of course you could not in so large a Conference get very closely down to details. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said that you certainly could not draft a Constitution. You could not, and perhaps you could not touch even many of the details. May I mention also the very large numbers there were on these Committees. I think the noble and learned Lord began by suggesting that the Committees should be small, but such was the enthusiasm to sit on Committees that they grew from 10 to 20 and 30 and even to 50. Again, such was the magnificent rhetorical equipment of so many of our colleagues both here and from India that the discussions naturally tended to be rather long. But it was most significant, I think, that it was the movement initiated by the Princes and their declarations at the beginning of the Conference that really diverted public attention from the old purely British-Indian problems and made everybody re-survey all these questions in the light of the federal idea. In fact, I think it did this good—it broke up, as it were, the old moulds in which Indian political thought was running on these subjects; it broke up those old moulds and set them entirely on a new basis.
My noble friend the noble Duke has, complained that the Government have not paid sufficient attention to the Report of the Simon Commission. I am bound to say I have often thought so myself. I thought that the coldness with which that great work was received by His

399
Majesty's Government was remarkable. I think the Commission showed a most remarkable self-restraint in not feeling any indignation on the subject. Had I been one of the Commissioners and had I been treated with such chilliness I am bound to say that I do not think I should have been able to preserve such moderation as those Commissioners have shown. Therefore, I was especially glad to hear on this occasion a great though, if I may respectfully say so, a rather belated tribute paid by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to the work which those gentlemen have done. May I say this to the Commissioners because I can bear full witness to it, that the work of the Simon Commission ran through and penetrated the whole of the work that was done by the Conference itself. I do not say that it was always acknowledged. It is possible that sometimes material was produced without the hall mark of the maker being very strongly impressed upon it; but that, after all, is a compliment to the maker and I believe that if a great poet may plagiarise it is an honour to be plagiarised yourself.
Moreover, I think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has borne witness that the whole work of the Conference was based upon the Report of the Commission itself. The whole of the recommendations of the Conference, all its financial provisions and the method of constructing the Central Assembly, to take only a few instances, were based on the federal idea contained in the work of the Commission itself. The only difference, and it is a very great difference I agree, was that under the Report of the Statutory Commission the States were to adhere gradually to the new federal scheme; while at the Conference the discussion was on the basis that Provinces and Princes came together to shorten the period within which the federal structure should arise. I think that my noble friends on the Royal Commission may feel now that they have had full and generous recognition of the work they have done.
I want to pass for a moment from that big subject to what I would call a minor subject; that is to say, the sort of storm that has arisen out of the refusal of the Party to which I belong to send a delegate or delegates to India, I think this
400
month, in order to take part in another Conference. I thought we might have had a little longer relief from Conferences after those ten long weeks. This was construed into a sort of suggestion that we were not going to have any further dealings with the Government in the matter of working together with regard to the construction of a federal scheme for India. In fact I think some of the jesters in India said, speaking rather hopefully, that non-co-operation was over in India and was now beginning to break out in this country. The Leader of my Party has stated already the ground upon which co-operation will continue and I add nothing to that; but surely, co-operation does not mean that we should at once agree to any form of procedure or otherwise that is made by the Government whether we approve of it or whether we do not approve of it, and that if we disapprove we are at once to be dubbed and marked with the unpleasant brand of non-co-operation.
I highly appreciate the compliment that was paid to our leaders—and I include the noble Marquess in that—in inviting them to attend another Conference. Cast your minds a few months back to what happened about the last Conference. We had the greatest difficulty in forcing our way into the other Conference. It was weeks before we got these gentlemen, who are so grateful to us for the admirable work we are supposed to have done at the Conference, to agree to our being there at all. We were a sort of "gate-crashers," if I may use the expression, at St. James's. We felt almost the unpleasantness of uninvited guests in the first two or three weeks, but I think we all felt that it was essential we should be there, although the Government wanted to keep the whole business to themselves at first, and be the only representatives of this country at the Conference. It is no good the noble Lord making a note of that. It is perfectly true: he cannot deny it. We felt—I am speaking now only for my own Party—that it was only fair, when all these Indian representatives came over to discuss these matters at St. James's, that the Conservative points of view should not be left dumb, and that they were among the factors that had to be taken into consideration in considering the Constitution that was to be shaped.

401
I really see very little use in this duplication of a Conference, in having a Conference about a couple of months after the other. Is it the same Conference? Are we to make the same speeches, on the same subjects and at the same length? I remember very well a most eloquent speech in a Committee by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, which lasted two hours and ten minutes. I tested it by the clock. I should be glad to hear that speech over again; still I can read it. But it does come to this that these differences—and there are many differences of opinion—that we expressed at the Conference are really more than differences of opinion. They arise out of the differences and contrasts of the interests of great classes and great communities in India. I felt sometimes through that Conference, and indeed sometimes later, that it really is hopeless, with all the conciliatory powers that you may attribute to our statesmen, to expect that you will get any unanimity, and in the final resort I think it is for the Government of the day to decide upon these matters, to put them forward in their Bill, and then, as they must do, run the gauntlet of the views of Parliament.
May I mention another matter? The noble and learned Lord, with that eloquence and force which we always expect from a denizen of the Woolsack, went through very carefully some of the different proposals, provisional as he says they were, and as they admittedly are. I think I used the word "super-provisional" on one occasion to indicate the provisionality of their provisionalness. I still hold that it would be better—because to set up this Constitution in the centre is a long business—to start with the setting up of self-government in the Provincial Governments as outlined by the Simon Commission rather than attempt the whole business of reconstruction at the centre and in the Provinces at the same time. There is a very remarkable observation made upon that in the Report of the Statutory Commission. Referring back to the year 1919, they say in effect that the general custom that has been followed in the making of most constitutions is that you should have the constituent elements working as more or less self-
402
governing units first, and then combine them together in different forms to form a central government, but you had not in 1919 probably any such precedent for a case where the work of reshaping was done both at the centre and in the Provinces at the same time.
I hold the view now, which I expressed at the Conference, that the advantage would be in many ways immense if you got first your Provinces into working order, if you got your provincial responsible Ministers. What would they be able to do? With the experience behind them that they would have in that way they would be able to give most valuable suggestions towards the shaping of the Central Constitution, and as they would be working Indian Ministers with Indian Councils it is quite possible that the Constitution itself might take a shape more with Indian texture and colour than the sort of Constitution would have which must be shaped, as it were, by these Conferences containing men who, as the noble and learned Lord has said, are steeped in all the law of the West, and in all the constitutions that we have developed in the great Dominions or in the United States of America.
There is another matter. The noble and learned Lord did not refer to it this evening; he could not, of course, refer to everything. Beyond all this question of building up a great federal structure is the question of agreement or conciliation between the two great communities, the two great dominant communities in India. Everybody knows how much that depends on peaceful government in the Provinces, and that you would have by trying this experiment out. I am not talking about the period of more than two, three or four years. During that period you would have the opportunity of seeing Moslems and Hindus alike working together, and of ascertaining whether they will able to get on together in the government of these Provinces. You would see whether the minority of Hindus in Bengal or in the Punjab did not suffer from the Moslem majority and you would find in the other Provinces like Behar whether the Moslems themselves, a small minority there, were fairly treated by their Hindu Governors in those Provinces. I believe that that would do a great deal to expel

403
the anxiety that is felt, especially by the Moslems, at the domination of the great Hindu community.
I am extremely well aware, as a member of the Conference, that it was upon the question of central government and of responsibility at the centre that so much of interest of the British Indians was directed. I am also aware of the attitude of the Princes towards that matter. Self-government seemed to be a most important thing in these great Provinces with 20,000,000, 30,000,000 or 40,000,000 people, and, because it was recommended by Sir John Simon's Statutory Commission, it was rather treated by many of our Indian colleagues as a settled matter, and therefore not worth discussing, although it was, compared with the previous most revolutionary proposals, a very far-reaching proposal on the part of the Statutory Commission. It is, as I think we know, perhaps a characteristic of that nimble Indian political mind that, having once arrived at the point that a thing is agreed to and settled, they take no more interest in it, and move on at once to further problems.
I should like to say a word further about the attitude which we Conservatives took up at the Conference. May I contrast it for one moment—not in criticism—with the attitude taken up by the noble Marquess? because with all these tremendous problems unsolved we did think it unwise to commit ourselves to general approval of a scheme of that kind until we knew very much more about the whole composition. Your Lordships will realise that one change in the details of a Constitution of that kind may make an enormous difference running through the whole of the Constitution which has afterwards to be framed. The attitude, I think, of the noble Marquess and his friends was rather that they assented to the scheme of federal government and responsibility to the centre, subject, as they said, to safeguards. I feel again the same anxiety that if you commit yourselves to the general principle without being quite certain what are those safeguards and those limitations, you will thereby weaken your authority to insist upon those safeguards when the time has come.
The noble and learned Lord—and I was very glad to hear his statement—said in reply to the noble Duke that they
404
were going to insist upon the safeguards—financial safeguards, protection of minorities, discrimination against British trade and all those matters which he enumerated. I was very glad to hear that definite statement on behalf of the Government, but I should have liked the noble and learned Lord to go further. I should have liked—perhaps it was too much to ask in one speech—to have heard him say how the safeguards were to be worked out and how they were to form a part, and an effective part, of the Constitution, because I feel that these safeguards are not something, and ought not to be something, external as it were to the Constitution. They ought really to be part of the working structure of the Constitution so that all these matters might be bound together and we might be able to say, and say clearly, that all these great interests, responsibility for which still rests upon our shoulders in this country, can be adequately and duly discharged.
Some allusion has been made to the disturbances in India and to the recent conversations between the Viceroy and the Mahatma Gandhi. I entirely associate myself respectfully with all that my Leader has said about the necessity of not talking the language either of victory or defeat in such a connection, but I am bound to say that I do feel most strongly that if anything can produce a term—it ought to be a term not a truce—to that miserable non-co-operation which has done such unfortunate damage to India it is to be welcomed. I have always held, and I have often said, that if, during the last ten years, instead of boycotting these new Councils when they were first set up, and instead of going into those Councils with the object of destroying the working of their Constitution from within, they had only flung themselves into the work of making them a success, India would have made far more progress on the road to constitutional development than it has to-day. Though I trust that this will be not a truce but a peace, I still cannot help thinking that if a different attitude had been taken up during the last two or three years such an arrangement would not have been necessary.
I have deprecated in the past what I call the creation of atmospheres—the making of some alteration perhaps in

405
the rigidity of administration in order to create a favourable atmosphere for the Report of my noble friends on the Simon Commission. The Government of India has shown much firmness in the emergency regulations recently introduced, but I cannot help thinking that if earlier action had been taken it would have been perhaps productive of more benefit. Owing perhaps to journalistic representations a great deal of prominence, perhaps unnecessary prominence, has been given to one of the leaders of the Hindus, and perhaps he has been elevated into too great a position of prominence. I cannot help feeling—and I must express my feeling—that my sympathies go out very largely to the Moslem minority who have separated themselves from all these disturbances during the last year or two. If they have been silent and law-abiding and have not taken part in this non-co-operation movement, we should give them some credit for this, and should not make them feel that they are left out of recognition merely because they have been loyal to the Government. I myself, even as a boy, never had much sympathy with the parable in which the fatted calf was killed for the prodigal son. My sympathy—being a good boy myself, of course—was very largely with the unfortunate gentleman who stayed at home and did his job at home and did not have any fatted calf killed for him.
There are one or two questions I should like to ask of the noble Lord opposite upon this arrangement. I was rather disturbed by one passage regarding the boycott of goods, where it says that the employment of the boycott of British commodities as a political weapon is to be discontinued. I am not quite sure of the meaning of those words because subsequent words seem to indicate that there is liberty to carry on the boycott as an industrial weapon, although not as a political weapon. I am quite sure the Government would not set up any such distinction between the boycott as a political or as an industrial weapon, although I know there are certain analogies in recent legislation which might suggest it to one's mind, but I hope the noble Lord opposite will relieve my mind on that subject. There is one further point of detail. I understand that the Viceroy has set his face most
406
strongly against any idea that there should be, at the instance of these people, any inquiry into the police. It is only what might be expected from a great Conservative Viceroy who has been so justly lauded by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, but I am not sure about paragraph 8 of the statement issued by the Government of India. There seems to be an apologetic air about it and I do not feel that as drawn it really expresses the mind of the Viceroy on the subject.
May I add one word with regard to what I was saying about creating atmospheres—political and otherwise—while these changes are taking place? I do hold most strongly that when great constitutional changes are under discussion and when alterations are being made in the form of government, it is most essential that law and order should be upheld, perhaps even more strongly on such occasions than on any other. I am not speaking so much, of course, of those whom we met at the Conference. As the noble and learned Lord said, we speak the same political language. We have had the same education, we discussed with equal freedom and knowledge all the details of the constitutions of other countries. All that is completely intelligible to us. But these matters of relations between the centre and the circumference, these matters of responsibility at the centre, these matters of safeguards and so on are wholly unintelligible to great masses and classes in India. After all, there the question is: Who is the ruler and who is the boss? Take these recent Congress agitations. They go about among the people and say: "When you have Swaraj, you will have no Salt Tax and no Land Tax." It is no doubt a very attractive proposition to anybody to be told that he is not going to pay taxes, but one heard nothing about constitutional changes and constitutional proposals. We had an instance the other day. When that strong hand of authority was for a moment lifted in the North-West and these propagandists of Congress went among the people on the frontier saying, "The British Raj is going," at that moment there was a rising among the Afridis and they descended on Peshawar.
I should like, if I might, not having been in the counsels of the Government,

407
to ask what has been happening during the last two months. We have had this mass of material which has been produced at the Conference. What has been done as regards working upon it? We had some reason to complain that, when the Conference opened, insufficient work had been done as a preparatory measure. That might be due to the Conference having followed so closely upon the Imperial Conference. I hope the noble Lord will tell us in his reply what has been done in the last two months with regard to this shaping of the work to which the noble Lord referred. I am most anxious for information on two questions. The noble and learned Lord knows very well that this whole federal scheme depends upon the question whether a substantial number of the Princes are ready to come in and sit in whatever the proportions may be, both in the assemblies and the Government itself. One could not be sure at the Conference how far these distinguished Princes who were there represented beyond themselves other bodies of Princes, and it would be most interesting to know at this stage what proportion of Princes the Government think would be ready to come into this federal scheme. Again, I would very much like to know whether the great question of proportions, both in the Senate and in the Assembly, has got any further in the last three months.
The whole possibility of success of an arrangement of this kind depends upon the establishment of good relations between the two great communities, the Moslems and Hindus. There were discussions at the Conference and at certain times it was supposed the Government had nearly reached some agreement. I read the other day a report in The Times of the meeting of the All-India Moslem League, at which the Moslem community laid down most rigidly that their taking part in a scheme of federation is entirely dependent upon the recognition of their claims as a minority. I should like to ask the noble Lord what movement has taken place in this direction and whether we are nearer some arrangement, because success in this direction is vital, as your Lordships know, to the success of the whole scheme.
I understand from what has been said elsewhere that there is to be another
408
meeting of this Structural Committee at some time in the autumn or perhaps in the summer. Is it to be the same Structural Committee as we had before, with the same members upon it? I saw the other day that Dr. Ambedkar, the representative of the 40 millions of the depressed classes, indignantly asked: "Is that Committee going to meet and have no representative of the depressed classes upon it?" Is it to be the same or is it to have a smaller number of members? I hope it is to be the same, but I should like some information from the noble Lord opposite. These questions are of the greatest importance and upon the answers to them and upon whether they are properly and fairly solved, depends all this great structure. I am, of course, always for co-operation and conciliation with the Indians. I am anxious and have done my best, and so have my Party, to understand their views and political aspirations. On the other hand, I have not been slow to ask them if they would also appreciate our thesis and our position. Though I do not apply this proposition to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I cannot help feeling that throughout these months the Government have been a little too ready—I will not say to apologise for, but not to take their stand in appreciation of our position in India.
Quite apart from our legal position, our moral position in India and all that we have done there gives us great rights and lays upon us duties of the greatest responsibility. Not merely upon legal grounds but upon moral grounds and, if you will, on spiritual grounds I lay the duties and rights we have in India to exercise our great responsibilities. I trust that the Constitution, about which the noble Lord speaks, will have something of an Indian flavour. Do not let us be too ready to hand over holus-bolus these institutions, as if they themselves were the greatest invention of the west and were the best gift we could give to India. The structural difficulties of building up the Constitution are immense and to-night I can touch upon hardly any of them. Good feeling and sentiment and appreciation and conciliation and sympathy are much, but they are not enough. In my view, to make that Constitution workable and suitable to India

409
requires much hard thinking and the best constructional ability that both countries possess and can command.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I feel sure that you will all be indebted to the noble Duke for having given us the opportunity for this debate. For myself, having heard the speech of the noble Duke, who asked a number of questions und made some comments and criticisms, the reply of the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack, and then the speech of my noble friend Lord Peel, speaking on behalf of the Conservatives, it is a great satisfaction to find that so far as I am able to judge there is no substantial difference of opinion between the Government and the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party on this most important subject. We have not been accustomed to treat it as a Party subject. For myself, I say unhesitatingly that, in all the thought I have been able to give to the Indian problem, I have never allowed Party considerations to weigh for one moment, and I am convinced that those who have taken part in these discussions, both in the Liberal delegation and in the Conservative delegation, have worked upon exactly the same lines. The subject is far too great for Party feeling to enter.
It is quite true there may be some differences of opinion, there may be different expressions used in order to denote the state of mind of one speaker or another, but, speaking broadly, I think what emerges from the discussion to-day is that there is unanimity on the main lines of policy to be pursued in India. Again I speak only for myself, with such opportunity as I have had of reading every word of the debates that have taken place in the House of Commons, but, with special reference to the last debate, it seems that, notwithstanding that there have apparently been some acute differences at certain moments, these have now disappeared. I find that quite definitely during the course of the debate, when Mr. Baldwin had expressed his view in the speech that he made, he was followed by Mr. Churchill who was able to find that there was no difference between them. That must be a great satisfaction to us. It does not mean, and I am not suggesting, that there will not be some differences still to be discussed hereafter. Of course there must be. I dare say
410
there may be differences of opinion amongst ourselves, even amongst our own delegates. I am not going into that question, and I am sure your Lordships will not expect me to do so. We were dealing with a very complex subject. We had to sit round and contrive to agree upon the main principles of that great scheme of federation. We were confronted with an immense subject, and no one who has not attempted to grapple with it will really understand the confusion that existed until, I am bound to say, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, as Chairman, evolved order and system out of it. Any of us who were able to assist him in that way were only too glad to find that he dealt with it so skilfully.
Before coming to the two or three subjects upon which I may have some observations to make, I should like to address myself to the noble Duke's sequence of thought and expression to-day. He dealt first of all with the Statutory Commission. I am one of those who thought from the first that His Majesty's Government were wrong in not appointing the Chairman, or some other members of that Statutory Commission, to take part at the Round-Table Conference and to give us the benefit of the great knowledge and wisdom that they had obtained. I have regretted it from the first arid, in conjunction with the Conservative Party, we have done all we can to get the Government to change their view. I must not go into the reasons which I understand led them to refuse, but, nevertheless, the consequence was that Sir John Simon, the two noble Lords, members of this House, who devoted so much time and thought to this matter and other members were unable to give their assistance, and we had to deal with the Indian problem largely guided and immensely assisted by the work that they had done and presented to us in those two volumes.
I do not agree for one moment, having been present throughout the Conference, when it is said that the Report was shelved. Far from it. I would say that from beginning to end the most valuable document we had, the best assistance and the wisest guidance, was in the Report of the Statutory Commission, with all the knowledge there brought together and

411
given us in the documents presented to us, and in the Government of India's Report commenting upon the Report of the Commission. It is true that strong objection was raised in India by those who thought that the Government should have appointed Indians to be members of that Commission, arid it is true to say that at the beginning of that Round-Table Conference, when the Simon Commission Report was mentioned, the observation was: "That is dead"; but it came to life very quickly, and those who were so glad to have an opportunity of announcing its death were among the first to turn to it, very properly, and to make use of it. Certainly the members of my delegation—and I think I may say the same of the Conservative delegation—were only too glad to have the advantage of the gathering together of that immense mass of knowledge acquired over the two and a-half years of their deliberations, and to have it in compendious form, as we had in those two volumes. I hope it will never be thought that the Report of the Statutory Commission was of no use. I think the noble Earl, Lord Peel, showed his agreement in one of his observations, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack made generous reference to the Report. It must be remembered that the Prime Minister, when he made his final speech at that Conference, paid a very high tribute to the work of that Commission, to the value of the Report and to the guidance that it had given in our labours at the Conference.
Passing from that part of the noble Duke's observations, let me turn to the second part of his Motion—namely:—
"to call attention.… to the adverse effect produced by the proceedings of the India Bound-Table Conference in London."
I think I heard a little while since that this Motion was put down some few months ago.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: No, no; three weeks.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Three weeks ago? Then I am surprised that it suggests that the Round-Table Conference has had an adverse effect. I speak only from such knowledge as I have—and it is probably no better than his—on that point. During the last few weeks I have had no more information
412
from the Government upon it than he has, and I have to derive my knowledge front what I read in the daily newspapers. But I can assure the noble Duke that, as I understand the matter, so far from the position being worse it is very much better. I cannot go fully into the suggestion that the proceedings have had an adverse effect, but let me just remind those of your Lordships who may, perhaps, not be quite so familiar with the personnel of that Conference as were we who were in daily contact with it, that when we were sitting at the Round-Table Conference we had the advantage of the presence of some eighty representatives from India. They were politicians, in the main, leaders of political thought, drawn generally from Liberals or from Moderates, some of them Responsivists, some of them Swarajists and some very close indeed to Congress. From my own knowledge of several members, I think the line that divided them from the non-co-operators, as members of Congress, was very fine.
Speaking generally of the politicians, they were responsible men. Three gentlemen who took part in the Conference—and a notable part—had been members of the Viceroy's Executive Council, that is, of the Viceroy's Cabinet, during my time. I had worked with them for a number of years and, in addition, I mention them because they had achieved a position in India in which their views carried weight. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, Sir Muhammad Shafi, Sir B. N. Mitra were all well-known men in India. There were others with whom I came in contact. In fact there were few with whom I had not had some intercourse in India.
I want to make one observation, and to impress it upon your Lordships. If we had done nothing else at that Round-Table Conference than to convert those leading politicians and representatives of different classes in India, from men who were suspicious and distrustful of Britain and of her intention to carry out her promises to men who went from here to India to cry aloud that they were satisfied, that they had abandoned their misgivings, and that their suspicions were dispelled and had given way to trust and confidence, we should have done a great work; and there can be no doubt, from the lips of those gentlemen themselves, that that was accomplished. I

413
am not claiming credit for it. Far be it from me to do so. It was due certainly as much to the Indian representatives as to the British representatives at that Conference, but it was a great thing accomplished, and that in itself is, in my opinion, an answer to the criticism of the noble Duke that these proceedings have had an adverse effect upon India.
What was the position? You had two main classes of opinion in India, leaving out the Princes. You had Congress, dominated by Mr. Gandhi, Motilal Nehru, since unfortunately dead, and his son, leaders of the Congress, all non-co-operators, who had entered into a campaign of civil disobedience and were engaging in various forms of illegal activities, against which the Government and the Viceroy had to take action. That was one class, and undoubtedly a numerous and powerful class. They remained in India. They would have no part in the Conference; but these others, who were members of the Indian Legislatures, either Central or Provincial, and were all leaders in the different Provinces and throughout India, came at great risk to themselves. They knew perfectly well when they left that they were taking their political lives in their hands. If they had returned without being able to bring anything more than a non possumus from us in this country, we should have lost the benefit of those who were constitutional agitators, and the result would have been that they would have gone over to the Congress. We should have had a fortified Congress, a much more discontented India, and a much more difficult situation to deal with.
In the result these gentlemen have gone back and set to work at once, as they promised in public speeches that they would, to make it their business to strive to convert the non-co-operators and all those who were against the British Government, to get them to understand what a change had come over the situation, to get them to work with them and to come into the Round-Table Conference, so that we might sit all together—Mr. Gandhi and those who worked with him—and take our part in attempting to agree upon the main principles of the Constitution. It cannot be said that that is an adverse effect, because the result bas been that these gentlemen, and particularly Sir Tej
414
Bahadur Sapru, Sir Muhammad Shafi, and Mr. Jayakar—those three leaders who have taken an active part and given expression to very extreme views with regard to us—went back to India our firm friends, and set to work at once to convince Mr. Gandhi and his associates and to bring them into the discussion.
We have not, of course, settled the Constitution, but only agreed on some of the main principles, leaving others for further examination and reflection. We have, however, set out on that journey. The result of it was the interview between Mr. Gandhi and the Viceroy to which I will refer in a moment. I want, before doing so, to finish my observations upon the Round-Table Conference, because I have no intention of going into details as to the problems settled and left unsettled. I want to call your Lordships' attention to the position at the time when we came to what was the crucial question, and that was the question of responsibility at the centre. That was of importance, once you had settled federation. When we came there, the Liberal delegates, and myself at any rate, had studied with the greatest care everything written by the Statutory Commission, and the Government of India Report. When I went to the Conference my main thought was how regrettable it was that, with all the advantages that the Statutory Commission pointed out, and with all the exhortation of Sir John Simon and those associated with him, that we should fasten our attention upon federation of All-India as the ultimate goal, we could not see how to bring it about, because it depended upon the Princes, who are independent rulers and could not be forced to come into federation with us.
Hitherto, no one had dreamt that they would come into it. Your Lordships can appreciate our surprise when we arrived at the Conference—it was a change which immediately shed a far rosier hue over the whole atmosphere of the Conference—and the Princes said determinedly and unanimously that they were in favour of the federation of All-India. That meant that instead of having to deal with the government or to legislate in respect of some 230 odd millions—leaving out Burma and leaving out the 70 millions under the rulers of Indian States—the government now about to be fashioned was the federa-

415
tion of the whole of British India and the Ruling Princes' States. It would mean (again leaving out Burma) legislating for 330 million people, representing approximately one-fifth of the population of the whole world. We were invited then to devise a scheme and to agree upon principles for the federation of All-India. It meant combining a unitary government in a federal government, and it was a scheme which was dazzling and at first sight quite baffling, but eventually we did arrive at some order out of the chaos, and some very important points of agreement.
Let me call attention to what I consider the most important fact to be considered—one which has not been mentioned so far, and may escape observation. Will your Lordships forgive me for reminding you, for the purpose of argument, of the Royal Proclamation of 1919. It was the Proclamation of December 26 which followed upon the Government of India Act, 1919, which embodied what are known as the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. That Royal Proclamation stated in terms which I will not attempt to paraphrase but which I can read quite briefly, what the position was to be and what promises were held out to India. India was entitled from that moment to say, indeed, there were statements before it (but I will not travel into them), that they had the King-Emperor's promise that they would have responsible government in India. Not at any particular time. The time and manner were always left with the British Parliament, with whom they rest and must rest. Whatever may be done at the Round-Table Conference, whatever India may demand, whatever the Government may do will all be settled by Parliament when the proper time comes and the Constitution has to be put before it.
But this is what was said in the Proclamation—
"The Act of 1861 sowed the seed of representative institutions, and the seed was quickened into life by the Act of 1909"—
commonly known as the Morley-Minto Act—
"The Act which has now become law entrusts elected representatives of the people with a definite share in the government and points the way to full responsible government hereafter."
416
Then, later on, it says—
"But there is one gift which yet remains and without which the progress of a country cannot be consummated—the right of her people to direct her affairs and safeguard her interests. The defence of India against foreign aggression is a duty of common Imperial interest and pride. The control of her domestic concerns is a burden which India may legitimately aspire to take upon her own shoulders. The burden is too heavy to be borne in full until time and experience have brought the necessary strength; but opportunity will now be given for experience to grow and for responsibility to increase with the capacity for its fulfilment. Without it, the work of the British in India would have been incomplete. It was, therefore, with a wise judgment that the beginnings of representative institutions were laid many years ago. Their scope has been extended stage by stage until there now lies before us a definite step on the road to responsible government."
Nothing could have been more definite except, of course, in the allocation of time. That is the policy we are all bound to pursue.
I have not heard one voice, and if there is one I should like to hear it, which challenges that as the policy which governs Britain in her relations with India at this present moment. That was the Royal Proclamation, issued in 1919, at a time when there was a Government in power of which some of those who are at present criticising what has happened were members, and for which they are responsible. It is just as well to remember that. In that position, with those statements before them, remembering that another twelve years had elapsed, during ten of which the Indian Legislature had carried on and, of course, the Legislative Councils in the Provinces had done their work—with all that knowledge, and the Indians having demanded that the responsibility should now be entrusted to them of managing their own affairs, save in one respect, to which I will allude more particularly, we are face to face with a promise that has been made and something further to which, as I said just now, I attribute more importance almost than to anything that took place at the Conference. The Princes declared in favour of federation. Tha unanimous view of those present at the Conference, including all of us British delegates, was that a great step forward had been made and that we must accept federation and work for it to the best of our ability. The result was that after

417
some five or six days of full debate the Prime Minister announced, as he was entitled to announce, that this principle was carried in the Conference and then Committees were set up to deal with it, particularly the Committee over which the Lord Chancellor presided, if I may say so in his presence, with such wisdom and skill.
The Princes' statement was not a mere statement of federation and I should like your Lordships to bear this in mind. I will not weary you by quoting passages—if you desire them I can give you three or four without any difficulty—but I will give you their effect. I challenge contradiction and unless it is challenged, I will not trouble to read the passages. What the Princes said was: "We are in favour of federation but we will not have a federation if the Executive is still to be responsible to the British Parliament. We will not have a federation unless you will have an Executive which is responsible to an Indian Parliament"; that is, in other words, unless you have an Executive which is responsible to the Legislature in India. That was the position. It has never wavered from that. It has been that from the first, and it is that now. If you want federation, if you believe in federation, if you are working for federation, you must take it with the condition which is attached to it, just as, in my opinion, India must take the offer of responsibility at the centre with the conditions that we have attached to it. They must apply in both instances. The Princes have said: "Yes, we will agree to give up our sovereignty to the extent that the federal relationship will require. We will come in with you and we will take our part in the Parliament which is to be elected, this Federal Parliament. But it must be with an Executive responsible to an Indian Legislature and not to the British Parliament."
It is an interesting reflection and I only make it, I will not pursue it, but it is worthy of a little thought, that the Princes, at the moment they said that, attached another condition which was that, so far as they were concerned, they should be responsible in their dynastic matters and all matters relating to their Treaties, not to the Government of India but to the Viceroy, that is, to the direct representative of the Sovereign. Once we entered into the discussion of federa-
418
tion and accepted that as a principle for which we were to work, as the Conference did practically unanimously, we had to take into account responsibility. First, what you had to face was that it was quite open and perfectly logical to say, "Whilst I am a believer in federation, I decline to give responsibility at the centre." It was equally open to say, "We will accept the view put forward of federation and responsibility."
Now I turn to the Simon Report, which assisted me very much in the conclusions to which I came and to which I would refer those of your Lordships who care to pursue the subject further. The Simon Commission, in reporting, went a very long way in advance of anything that had hitherto been recommended. They were, for example, in favour of full autonomy in the Provinces, including law and order. During my period of Viceroyalty this question was discussed and I took a strong view against it. I thought that. India was not yet in a position and had not sufficient experience of Parliament or administration to be entrusted with law and order. She had to wait a little longer. The Simon Commission reported in favour of it and it has been unanimously accepted; so far as I am aware nobody challenged it.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: Subject, of course, to the appointment of official Ministers by the Governors in the different Provinces.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am not questioning anything regarding it. If I am to go into conditions I am perfectly ready to do so. I repeat, and I do not think my noble friend can differ from me, that they recommended definitely (I think perhaps it was the strongest recommendation they made and it is the biggest change) that there should be full provincial autonomy, including law and order. I have not the passage with me, but my noble friend will recollect that they went on to say that they agreed and after some consideration came to the conclusion that they must favour it and recommend it.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: I do not want to interrupt but, of course, it was of the essence of the question that the Governor should have the power in each Province

419
to appoint one or two official members of the Cabinet. He might hold the portfolio of Law and Order.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: That does not alter what I am saying. All it would do is to say that if the Governor chose he could appoint an official member to hold the portfolio of Law and Order, no doubt a useful provision. I am not treating it as trivial; but it does not alter the fact of provincial autonomy. The only reason I refer to it at this moment is that I want to say that the Simon Commission went on to state that it was in favour of no substantial change—I cannot say no change—in the Central Government. The Central Government was to continue safe, the Governor-General was to appoint his own members of his Executive Council—that is his Cabinet—instead of as hitherto their being appointed by the King-Emperor. There were various other minor changes introducing some element of what was called, I think, responsivity, but not quite responsibility.
That was the view they took. As the position stood I was prepared to accept that in its entirety. I was prepared to give full effect to all that they had said. There were very few points upon which I had some difference and which I wanted further to discuss, otherwise they convinced me that they were right. But they exhorted us, in studying the Report, always to bear in mind that the ultimate goal was to be federation. They could not themselves report upon that, because they had not the assent of the Princes. They stated it most carefully. I know myself, from conversations and discussions I have had with Sir John Simon, the immense amount of thought and labour that was given to that subject of federation. Unfortunately we lost the value of it, because it was not put in the Report and we did not have the members of the Commission present before us to give us the benefit of all the knowledge they had collected on that subject; but we were told, not only is it the goal to which you must direct your attention, but, when you are fashioning your Central Government, take care that you do not do anything which will interfere with federation, which is the goal that you must strive to attain. In any action that you are taking always think of federation, and try to make anything you
420
are doing fit in with the scheme of federation.
That was the position. When we got to the Conference, as I have indicated, and as other speakers have told you, federation was accepted, and we were on an entirely new plane of thought. In truth that part of the Simon Commission Report was outdistanced, not by any fault of either Sir John Simon or those who worked with him as Commissioners, but because the Princes had come forward. The Government of India, when it dealt with this subject before we met at the Conference, said they did not devote any time to this question of federation because, as they pointed out, it was too far distant to merit any further discussion. That was their view at the time. Therefore we came to the Conference with the knowledge of this, exhorted to pay all our attention to federation, believing as we did that federation of India was the right solution, and that the only way to get it was by discussing the various principles and accepting responsibility at the centre in certain directions—that is, responsibility for those matters which were not exempted by the safeguards.
I would now draw your Lordships' attention to the only other matter with which I desire to trouble you. I refer to the safeguards. I attach great importance to them. As I said just now, I think those safeguards, at any rate as matters stand, to use the word which I heard the Lord Chancellor use, and heard him use with great satisfaction, are indispensable. We must not forget that. It is exactly my view. The opinion I formed was that responsibility should be given to India to manage her own affairs at the centre—a great step forward, I agree, in this new federation, a forward step which would not only meet the view of the British Indian politicians and leaders of thought, but also that of the Princes. But we could not possibly surrender or abandon the obligations which we had undertaken in respect of those matters for which we are responsible, and they are very many and very important. We were bound to make provision that they should be respected. I pointed out to the Indians who were present at the Conference that it was not so much that we thought that many of them sitting round that table would

421
ever dream of putting us in a difficulty, but that we were fashioning a, Constitution to the best of our ability, that we were striving to build up a structure which was to stand for a long time, that we had to meet all eventualities, that we had even to provide for the possible situation in which members of Congress would become members of the new Federal Assembly, and for that being done which was done during my time by Swarajists—that is, getting to the Assembly for the purpose of obstructing and wrecking the Constitution. Those matters had to be provided against. So we set to work.
May I make one further observation in this connection? I think it is very important. I would suggest particularly to those Indian politicians and leaders that they should bear well in mind that, although this was the view that we had taken, the first mention of it did not come from us. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, who was, I may say, in the position certainly of leader with one or two others at the Conference, made two very important speeches amongst a number of others, the first when we were dealing with federation, in which he said, in substance, that he was prepared to consider such safeguards as we might think necessary and would give them every consideration. He even went so far as to say, "You may write them in your own language." I did not pay too much attention to that. When we got to the Committee stage and we were really discussing responsibility at the centre, he did propound his views on federation.
It happened that I was the first speaker of the parliamentary delegation to express views with regard to responsibility at the centre, and, consequently, when I made the statement that I was in favour of responsibility at the centre, subject to the safeguards, I proceeded to enumerate those safeguards. That was the occasion on which I made the speech to which the noble Earl, Lord Peel, referred, saying, I think, that it took two hours and ten minutes. I may say, incidentally, that forty-five minutes were taken up by questions which were put to me, and which I welcomed. It was a long speech, because it dealt with all these matters in detail. In order that Indians should understand what the position was, at any rate as we were formu-
422
lating it, I went through the whole list so that there might be no difficulty about it.
I will repeat those safeguards now, but I am not going to discuss them in detail. There was defence, which, naturally, dealt with the Army and Air Force. Then foreign affairs, equally, were to be dealt with by the Viceroy as a reserved subject. This was not to be dealt with by the Legislature at all or the Executive Federal Government. All obligations of State—that is, all obligations into which the Government had entered and which it was bound to perform: he was equally to have the right there. Obviously it is no use giving powers unless you also give other powers to implement them. Certain powers were given and are to be given, and there was agreement at the Conference with regard to these matters.
Then we came to finance and that produced a great deal of discussion. The point that we were making—and certainly I laid some stress on it—was that large sums of money had been invested here and that India was getting the benefit of the credit that she obtained through her securities being amongst our trustee securities, and getting all the advantage of raising loans in this country. Provision must be made for the payment of those loans—provisions for the service of the loans and for the interest on the loans, for drawings if there were any, for a sinking fund, and for the repayment of the loans. All these provisions must be made. Equally a Reserve Bank should be set up as quickly as possible, which would have to manage currency and exchange—a subject of very great importance not to be discussed here, but of far-reaching importance in India, and having quite a considerable effect upon the political situation. Further, we stipulated that the interests of the Public Service—that is of those members who entered the Civil Service—their emoluments and pensions, both maturing and matured, should be provided for, and that there should be a charge on a consolidated loan in order that they should be perfectly safe.
In addition, the Viceroy was to have an overriding power with regard to law and order because he had to deal with the safety and tranquillity of the realm. That burden was upon him. Therefore

423
there must be power in the Viceroy to protect minorities, and we specially laid stress on the Hindu-Moslem question, the position of the Sikhs, the depressed classes, and so forth. Very great importance attaches to the solution of the Hindu-Moslem controversy and it is very much to be hoped that it will be settled before we resume our discussions. It is of immense importance, especially to the Moslems, who, quite properly, are entitled to look to us, and do look to us, to see that they are not oppressed. There was one further thing. It was that there should be no unfair and no inequitable discrimination by legislation or otherwise against British subjects, firms and companies carrying on business in India. That is to say, that there should be no preferential legislation which would interfere with the business carried on by the British in India. That was accepted. The only other thing I need mention—and I certainly do lay stress upon it—was that the right was to remain in the Viceroy to refuse assent to Bills if he thought it necessary. He was not to be in the position of a purely constitutional Governor-General in this respect, but that right must remain as it always had been. He should have the right to reserve for His Majesty's assent any Bill which he thought fit.
Those are the safeguards we introduced. They are stipulated for, I think myself, as much in the interests of India as in our interests. I have observed it said that some are not in the interests of India. I saw an observation reported—I do not know in what context—as being made by the leader of the Congress movement in India. I am not going into that question. All I would say is, that every one of these safeguards is necessary for the due protection of India, in order that India's interests may be safeguarded and in order also that our obligations, which are in the main made for India and for India's benefit, should be protected and that they should be fulfilled.
That completes all that I wish to say to you with regard to the Round-Table Conference. I am sorry that I have taken longer time than I intended, but the subject is of great importance and I am very anxious that your Lordships should appreciate how it stands. It is a matter which, as I have said, is not
424
a Party matter but one which really touches our Imperial interests and is supreme in importance. The only other observation I desire to make now is with regard to what has happened since. I do not want to criticise too closely the language used in reporting conversations between the Viceroy and Mr. Gandhi. No doubt the Report had to be drawn up rather hurriedly, but there you have the record of what has happened. I do say that from the moment that these conversations had taken place and agreement was reached, the condition has improved in India and that if that improvement was brought about—as it undoubtedly was—by the Round-Table Conference, it shows that the Round-Table Conference did not have an adverse effect in India. It may not go so far as we should wish and agreement may not have been arrived at exactly in the way we would wish. Some of your Lordships may naturally object to this kind of negotiation which took place, but let us pass beyond all that region of controversy and realise that what has happened is that we have come to the end of the campaign of civil disobedience. I am myself in a little doubt as to how far the boycott may be said to have come to an end and I rather share the doubt which the noble Earl, Lord Peel, indicated just now.
The Viceroy, who is now very near the end of his term of office, has had certainly during the last two or three years a most anxious time, a time when I am perfectly certain he must have been distracted and sorely perplexed to know what course to take—on the one hand, compelled as he was against his wish to use repressive measures and to take advantage of the powers he had of issuing these edicts and ordinances; on the other hand, anxious as he naturally was to conciliate and get agreement where he could, provided always that it was with due regard to the interests of the Empire and of the Government. He did manage by these conversations to bring about a settlement. For myself I confess that I congratulate him upon having done it. I think it is a great tribute to the sincerity of purpose which has distinguished him, and although there may be criticism and there may be doubt as to the exact effect of it and of the future, yet he has achieved something which has bettered

425
the situation in India and will enable him, at any rate, to hand over the reins to his successor free from this campaign of civil disobedience which was doing so much harm to India, perhaps more harm than most of us can imagine. I see in his place my noble friend Lord Hardinge, who has just returned from India, and who has had the advantage of seeing for himself as an ex-Viceroy what has happened. I have not had an opportunity of speaking to him, but I have bad the advantage of leading what he has written, and I do know that it is his opinion also that the Viceroy has done well and deserves commendation, and that he really has acted in the best interests of the Empire in what he has achieved.
I confess that some observations that I have read quite recently in the newspapers give me some amount of disquietude. I do not quite understand what they mean. I have read observations which are said to have been made by Mr. Gandhi, and I have read of acts which are said to have taken place—I do not know with what truth. I refrain from further comment upon them because we know nothing of them, except very short statements, which have appeared in the Press, and I have seen contradiction of some of them. I only refer to them for the purpose of making this observation: the Round-Table Conference, we are told, is going to sit again, the members of Congress will join it, they will come to take part in it and they will no doubt wish to enter into discussion with us upon all the matters that have arisen. I am anxious myself that it should be understood, as no doubt all those who were present from British India did understand, that, in the safeguards which we were proposing, we were mentioning safeguards which must be accepted, if the responsibility was to be given at the centre. That is a view to which we must all adhere.
I hope that, as a result of the discussions which we may have now or hereafter in the Conference, we may continue to have agreement among the Parties and, in spite of some slight differences of thought, we may be able to travel along the same road and, in the end, reach peace and good will in India. For myself, I have from the first always had the picture before me of a federation of All-India as the most desired object that we could have, because it gives us
426
for the future some elements of stability which might otherwise be absent, because it introduces into that government the views of the Princes who certainly cannot be said to be wild or extreme in their views, and, above all, because every one of the Princes in the statements which he has made at the Conference and elsewhere, has always; made it a condition of joining the federation of All-India and taking part in the Parliament and taking part in the Executive, that it should be in an India that remains within the Empire and in the sovereignty of the King-Emperor.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I should like to preface the brief remarks I shall make this evening by thanking the noble Duke, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has already done, for inaugurating this discussion. So many considerations that are irrelevant have lately been imparted into the discussions outside this House and on the platform, there has been so much neglect of realities, so many and so diverse appeals to different loyalties and emotions, that the true proportions of this enormous problem constantly risk being lost sight of. I desire also to echo what the noble Marquess has just said as regards the question of Party division. I entirely agree with everything he has said. At the same time, I was very glad to hear my noble friend Lord Peel make a plea to His Majesty's Government that those of us who, with some experience of India, feel it our duty to make criticisms of the Government's policy should not be treated as non-co-operators in the matter, but as those who feel it an imperative duty to the people of this country to make their subscription of criticism and advice in an issue of this magnitude.
I spoke just now about the question of proportion. We need not look back very long to see the problem in its true perspective because no one in the House will deny that the policy, which has been pursued by all Parties without a difference of opinion ever since 1917 until His Majesty's present Government came into office, was to develop responsible self-government in India but, on the clear conditions—and here let me mention that the promises are very often quoted without the conditions being mentioned and I was therefore glad to hear the noble Marquess remind India that promises

427
and conditions on both sides have to be observed—that Parliament must be the sole judge of the time and measure of the advance, and that Parliament should be guided in its decision by the co-operation received from and the degree of responsibility shown by Indians themselves. I agree with the promises. I have done my humble part in carrying them out, and am therefore not opposed to the Montagu-Chelmsford scheme. That is not where I differ from the Government policy. But since the present Government came into office, the policy has been no longer that this direction and guidance should come from Parliament, but rather to seek always to find out from those in India who oppose us, by means of conferences, what qualification of self-government they are now or at a later time inclined to accept in the interests of peace.
I want to point out that the difference between these two policies is not small; it is an enormous difference. The chief danger of the policy being pursued by His Majesty's Government to-day, in my eyes, is that it takes the final decision in regard to the Constitution of India out of the hands of Parliament and that was never foreseen, still less intended, by the Montagu-Chelmsford Reform Act. On the contrary, definite provisions were made in this great experiment to keep the control of Parliament at every stage absolute and complete. It may be true that the finishing touch of constitution-making will ultimately be an Act of Parliament. That is inevitable but, under the present policy, it will be a mere formality, for Parliament will have been committed in negotiation long before ever the Act comes before it for discussion. In proof of which let me remind your Lordships that we had the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack already warning us to-day, before the question has come to Parliament, that it is too late to go back. I repeat that the present policy of His Majesty's Government is neither the Montagu-Chelmsford scheme nor the Act of 1919, still less any logical result of it, but is a new policy which takes the ultimate decision, in effect, out of the control of Parliament. That is the first and very definite criticism I venture to lay before your Lordships' House.
428
Even now, we cannot contend that Parliament is uncommitted as a result of the Round-Table Conference. Since the Round-Table Conference Parliament is completely pledged, in my judgment, to the early grant of full provincial autonomy. This concession, large as it is in its scope and full of difficulty and danger as it is of execution, is one which I think in the circumstances inevitable and which by itself I have been prepared to support. We are committed, I say, not only to full provincial autonomy, but risk becoming committed to much more for your Lordships will agree with me that I am not exaggerating when I say that, after the debate of January 26, an impression has been allowed to spread all over India that all Parties in this country are agreed upon the gift of coincident responsibility at the centre, with safeguards which have not yet been defined. Indeed I have clearly gathered that this is the view of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, that full responsibility coincidentally must be given; and that is where I, and many of those who agree with me up and down the country feel you are going dangerously too far.
His Majesty's Government tell us there has been no change of policy. It is clear beyond all doubt that there has been an enormous change of policy and that an attempt has already been made to treat the new policy as virtually established. So much so that many sections of opinion in India, at any rate, seem now to be agreed that all is settled as regards full responsibility at the centre and that all that remains for discussion is the question of safeguards. Who now will say there has not been an enormous and a fundamental change in policy from that advocated in the Montagu-Chelmsford reform scheme I It is indeed a very curious position in which His Majesty's Government now find themselves. Apparently, they no longer regard themselves as trustees bound by the conditions of their time-honoured great trust towards the peoples of India. They have put us and the Indian intelligentsia most unhappily into the position of belligerents which I dislike very much—the Government ranged on one side and the Congress on the other. What a portrayal of our position before all the East! What a picture in which to place our rule before all Europe and America!

429
Your Lordships have read many comments in Continental and other newspapers, all of whom are much struck by the position in which we have put ourselves in India in this respect. We are told now, with scarcely veiled relief, by the Government that an armistice has been arranged and that the terms of peace are being discussed. In the discussion now going on we understand that the British Government will be concerned to secure what terms they can for British interests in India, and that Congress will be concerned to secure as much as it can of the independence that it demands. Your Lordships will agree that, if that is really anything like the picture, then we should scarcely be concerned, I think, to drive any very hard bargain. None of these sorry and humiliating doings have their origin in the Montagu-Chelmsford reform scheme much as the Government may strive to deceive us into thinking so. Theirs, I repeat, is a new policy: it is also a tragic policy.
We, my Lords, on the other hand find it impossible to make either the assumptions or the omissions that are necessary to arrive at such a position. Those who have personal knowledge of India, who are in touch with well-informed sources there, who have studied the weight of evidence so lucidly compiled by the Royal Commission under Sir John Simon, cannot seriously bring themselves, if they speak what is in their hearts without fear, to make the admission that India is yet capable of assuming the form of self-government which the Round-Table Conference outlined. Nor can they bring themselves to forget that they are trustees for the welfare of the masses of India, whose daily interests imperiously demand, not merely a national Government, but more than all things an impartial and efficient Administration. That is what the great masses of the people care about in India, and nothing else at all.
We are constantly urged not to be niggardly in concession, to act with a generous spirit. My reply is that it is not the function of trustees to be prodigal with trust funds. We have an enormous trust, and neither sentimentality nor an undue sense of speed should be allowed to affect our acts. We are, after all, attempting to do in eight years and a half, for a population illiterate as
430
to the vast majority, what nowhere else has been done under five or six hundred years, and we cannot forget, I think, that those who to-day urge us, as His Majesty's Government do, to use concession, must be presumed to consider India fit for self-government to-day. If that is so, if they think honestly that India is so fit, then our work is done, and what meaning is to be attached to bargaining about all these safeguards?
I believe you are going to find it enormously difficult in practice to set up any safeguards that will be effective in action. I notice that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack did not sketch, and did not even attempt to sketch, the manner in which those safeguards are going to be carried out in practice. I may add, with all respect to the noble and learned Lord, that he did not do so because he knew he could not do so. If a century of noble service in India is to end in huckstering for concessions, to deprive the Viceroy of his power and yet to demand for him a petty power of intervention which must be both exasperating and, I think, ineffective, that is not my conception of generous statesmanship, whatever the Government's spokesmen may claim for it. I think the Government's insistence on safeguards and the noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading's patent anxiety about safeguards are just as significant as Mr. Gandhi's candid refutation of them.
I do not believe that there is anybody in this House who, honestly speaking his mind, would deny what I say when I affirm that India is not yet fit for full self-government; what is more, His Majesty's Government know it. The Government plead for a united front as essential to the solution of the problem. I agree, but are they in a happy position to make this plea? I think it was the noble Marquess who preceded me who argued that the work of the Simon Commission was not, in fact, thrown on one side. I am afraid that I cannot concur. It may be true, no doubt it is true, that the Report of the Simon Commission was carefully perused and was very valuable to those who sat in that Conference. But the Commission had a wider purpose, and their Report was meant to be the foundation for Parliament's discussion and the basis of all Parliamentary action.

431
That is what it was intended to be, and that is why I say, with all respect to the noble Marquess, that he is wrong and that it has been thrown on one side. The Government wantonly discarded the great labours of that Commission, they wrenched the whole question violently out of the dispassionate non-Party framework in which it then revolved and initiated a new policy which certainly has gravely risked leading to Party division.
My Lords, between ourselves and Congress in India there is a fundamental difference of opinion which can never be reconciled in public conference except by concessions on our side. Think for a moment of the position of India and of Congress and you will see that Indian politicians, having taken the standpoint that they are fit for immediate self-government, cannot in the nature of things surrender that standpoint in public discussion. The only way they can modify their position is in response to the inexorable pressure of facts which we and they know to exist. I therefore venture to put before His Majesty's Government this thought: that the only real hope of progress is to bring all concerned face to face as quickly as may be with the practical difficulties of the situation as it really is. This will never come about so long as we merely continue Conferences, one after the other, and deal in words and pieces of paper.
If I am not detaining your Lordships too long, may I briefly recapitulate and, if you will forgive me, strike a personal note? I am openly a critic of His Majesty's Government—last and least of all in any Party spirit, but I hold that this is as solemn a decision in regard to India as we have ever had to face in this country, and that upon its correct solution depends the whole fate and repute of our people. I hold it as nothing less than abhorrent that into this discussion should be introduced external considerations, whether of private or public friendship. Many of us are now suffering and sacrificing much for convictions that we have held for the whole of our lives, and yet we are often accused of having no better motive than some Party objective or some personal feeling. I subscribe whole-heartedly, as I have subscribed for the last twelve or fourteen years—and I think nobody will accuse me of not stating my views
432
Openly—to the policy of the development of responsible government in India.
I am eager to see that policy carried forward as rapidly as the facts permit, but I am convinced upon the facts that India is not yet capable of immediate and full self-government or, in the present state of religious animosity and caste differences, of providing that impartial administration which is the only administration for which we can in any shape be responsible. That being the case, it seems to me that the only possible safeguard for the interests of the great mass of Indians is that the ultimate decision should effectively remain in the hands of Parliament, and should not be decided over our heads, or over the heads of more than 250 millions of Indians whose confidence is reposed in us, by any prejudgment of the issue. However onerous and painful our trusteeship may have become, I do not believe that we can yet divest ourselves of it without smashing the great work which we have done in the past. We have got for the time being to resume again, in the interests of India, some of that trusteeship and some of those functions which, for the last two years, we have regretably abandoned. We have got to face ourselves, and to get India to face, the realities of the situation. We have now, thanks to the work of the Royal Commission, a definite goal to aim at—the federation of the whole Continent of India.
When, I ask, are we going to begin the work? Not by all these Conferences. There are not yet in existence the units which will ultimately form that federation. Yet apparently the Government is proposing, by public Conference, to set up a Federal Constitution immediately—to arrange, in fact, a marriage between children yet unborn. All history teaches us, and all the great authorities agree, that true federation can only arise out of the willing surrender by autonomous States of such portion of their autonomy, in favour of the central authority, as may be necessary to secure union; and that even where union has been ardently desired, the negotiations between States have been long and difficult and agreement very hardly won. Indian history and Indian experience both teach us that the Provinces have an internal task ahead of them of the very greatest

433
difficulty, in provincial autonomy alone. The noble Marquess knows that full well. They will have to take over for the first time responsibility for their finances and for the maintenance of law and order, at a moment when both are in a chaotic state. Successfully to achieve this, they will require the concentrated energy of all the best men and the best brains that each Province possesses, and the same concentration will be needed to bring the negotiations for federal union to a successful issue.
Therefore this attempt to set up at the same time a hastily and arbitrarily compounded federation at Delhi, and to thrust upon it the task of guiding the whole of India, will inevitably mean that the best brains will be drawn from the Provinces, where they are so badly needed, to the centre; that attention will be diverted from the bask before the Provinces at a moment when they need it most urgently, and that, therefore, every seat of government in India will become overloaded and undermanned at the same time. These, my Lords, are some of the reasons why we, who differ from the Government policy, plead for a business-like conception of this great problem of federation. What is the use of talking about the spiritual ideals of federation? Idealism yoked to inexperience looks like to ruin India! No country like India, with so many diverse peoples, can possibly support a dual experiment of such magnitude at the same time. Are we not surely right then in saying that the Government are showing a disregard of the facts so light-hearted as to appear almost cynical? Are we not right, too, however much criticism we may earn, to counsel caution and moderation in this enormous problem, and to suggest that procedure step by step is the only practical means of securing a sure foundation and a durable building? I hope your Lord ships will agree that when the problem is viewed thus, in its proper perspective, no other course is either honourable or expedient.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, at this hour it is unnecessary for me to say that my observations shall be as brief as possible, but there are one or two remarks which I would like to make arising out of the Motion which has been submitted to the House by the Duke of
434
Marlborough. I cannot claim that recent intimate experience in Indian matters which some of the distinguished noble Lords who have spoken can claim, but some years ago I had over six years intimate experience, uninterrupted, of the administration of India, and as Under-Secretary of State during that period it was my business, along with others, to participate in the main spade work of the 1919 India Reform Act. It was admitted in those days to be a very great experiment. It was inevitable, in those early days, that such an experiment, giving autonomy to the Indian community in many subjects, should have imperfections, but I believe that in spite of the imperfections, from experience ranging over ten years since the inception of the Act, it may be said, and is said by many qualified to give an opinion, that in many of the Provinces (I do not say all), the Legislatures and their Executives have worked well under that Act. That Act was, of course, as has already been said, an inevitable and necessary corollary of the previous Act, known as the Morley-Minto Act, and under that 1919 Act there was instituted the system of diarchy.
Recent investigation, rather widespread as it is, has criticised severely the working of the diarchical system. Looking back upon it, whilst I had deep apprehensions as to its workings, I think it may be said that with all its imperfections it produced those practical and sensible safeguards in the experiment of a new Constitution which are being abandoned to-day in the proposals, as I submit, of the Government. Diarchy may be a clumsy thing, but it was at any rate not due to diarchy, or any of the provisions of that Act, that we have had the situation in India that we have seen during the last year. I venture to say that it has been due to the lack of promptness and effectiveness of the administrative powers to whom the duties have been entrusted. It is proposed to abolish the diarchy and to put safeguards in its place. I look with deep apprehension at provincial autonomy as now accepted by all Parties. I have no fear of being called a reactionary in these matters. I merely say this in face of all that has taken place in India and what we know has gone on there, that I cannot conceive that you could have any provincial system of autonomy with an Indian

435
as Minister in charge of that Department which has regard to safety and security by the administration of the police. You have divergent and conflicting races, and as it has been in the past so I believe it will be for many years in the future. If you are to ensure security you must have British impartiality to preside over the administration.
It is said also that much has been done at the Round-Table Conference. From the very start, with I admit, my immature experience of India and its people, I was opposed to the Conference. I realised in the early days the wisdom of inserting in the Act of 1919 an instruction to Parliament to appoint, at the end of ten years, a Statutory Commission to go out to India. For what purpose was that Statutory Commission appointed? It was not appointed, as it seems to most Indians and, I am sorry to say, to many of my fellow-countrymen, to be a starting-off point for a gigantic leap from the early stages of constitutional government as laid down in the Act of 1919 to practically complete self-government. That was not in the mind of the most enthusiastic of the authors of that Act, the late Mr. Montagu, who was Secretary of State for India and a colleague of mine in the office. He, together with everyone else (and Parliament realised the sense of it at the time), put this forward and it was inserted in the Act in order that after ten years of this tremendous experiment—for it is a tremendous experiment—an impartial British Commission should go out to India to see what had been successful, what had been wrong and what had failed, and to propose the necessary corrections to Parliament. Of course, where there had been success, it was to propose a prudent and sensible advance of the existing Act. But it was never suggested that there should be a jump to practically entire self-government in the Provinces and by means of the brand new central Federal Legislature and Executive now being proposed or suggested by the Round-Table Conference.
The more I look into the past the more I am satisfied of the wisdom of laying down very precisely in 1919 the conditions and terms of this new reform Act. It was laid down most precisely that Parliament should hold the whole matter in its hands and that Parliament
436
alone should consider and decide what the advance should be and when it should be made. I hope the country will be brought to realise when this question comes forward in the form of new legislation, how long it is since this tremendous experiment has been at work in India. It is a short decade. During that time a great deal has taken place in India which it is very unfortunate should have taken place. Had the giving of immense powers to Indians for the first time concentrated their attention on the administration of the duties with which they were entrusted, it would have been very much easier to suggest a much wider advance. But now we have an advance in provincial autonomy, accepted by all Parties, which means that the administration of finance and of security through the police is to be handed over lock, stock and barrel to them. I say, without regarding myself for one moment as reactionary in any sense, that this is one of the gravest of the proposals and one which I hope the country will fully note and consider before giving acceptance to it through Parliament.
It was understood by the authors of the scheme of 1919 that the journey would be a long one; not a journey of one decade followed by a swing right to the end with certain safeguards only. This is the first stage of the second period, and I sincerely hope that when the time comes Parliament will consider it fully and not be hampered or impeded in its decision by outside and extraneous influence from wherever it may come. It will be the duty of Parliament and of Parliament alone to decide it. It is the duty of the British people to decide this great responsibility because it is a great responsibility, and not merely to gratify the wishes of a handful, relatively speaking, of political Indians. It is a responsibility to the vast millions of all races in India. The world is anxiously watching Great Britain to-day to see how she will come through this difficult ordeal. I trust that the common sense of the people of this country will so re-assert itself that they will send to Parliament, when the opportunity occurs I trust at no distant date, representatives who will realise their vast responsibilities in regard to India and its people.
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, as the hour is late I will not attempt to say all that

437
I desired to say upon the Motion which is before the House. Your Lordships, I know, are very anxious to hear the reply of the Government upon the debate. I rise simply to summarise in two or three sentences my interest in and estimate of the present situation in regard to India. It happens, as some of your Lordships may know, that throughout my time in Parliament I have taken a somewhat special interest in Indian affairs. I cannot help thinking of the contrast between the position in India to-day with what it was twenty-five or thirty years ago when I used, in another place, every year, upon the debate on the Indian Budget, on the last day of the Session, to bring forward a Motion asking Parliament to grant to the people of India a closer association in the administration of their own affairs. It is no use going into the past now. We must deal with present actualities, but I cannot help feeling that the explanation to a large extent of the present serious position in India is not that we in this country have not been willing to do the right thing, as we conceive it to be, to India, but that we have almost always been too late in doing it.
Just one word as to the Round-Table Conference. I do not agree with what is said in the Motion in regard to the Round-Table Conference. On the contrary my own personal view is that the Round-Table Conference is one of the most remarkable events of modern times, remarkable first of all for the character and extent of its representation, remarkable because of the paramount importance of the issues which it has had to discuss, remarkable in respect of the perplexity and the difficulty of the problems it had to consider, and remarkable also because of that spirit of good will, conciliation and understanding, which at all events it seemed to me, was displayed.
I also feel that a very material advance has been made through the reaching of an agreement as between the Viceroy and Mr Gandhi. It is impossible under present conditions to forecast definitely what will happen, but undoubtedly that agreement, that truce, has paved the way to what I would call a better chance of success in regard to reaching a final settlement of this most difficult problem. I am not pessimistic as to the future. What is required, I think, is that we should all devote our energies and the best
438
powers of our minds to helping forward the solution which we believe to be in the interests of India and of our own country. One essential condition of this is that what we offer to India later on should come not from one or even two Parties in Parliament, but from Parliament as a whole. Without detaining your Lordships any longer my own hope and belief is that with continuing patience, sympathy, understanding and good will, a settlement will finally be reached honourable alike to India and to ourselves.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): My Lords, it perhaps would not be seemly to let, shall I say, the report of this debate close without a few sentences at least in answer to some of the points which have been put to His Majesty's Government. I do not apologise for putting them very briefly, but I must put them. A most conspicuous feature of this debate has been the insistence by one speaker after another, even some of those who did not personally agree with the fact, that there is a concurrence of opinion among all Parties with regard to the policy which is being pursued, and has to be pursued towards this Indian question. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said he entirely disagreed, but even he stated that the policy had the concurrence of all Parties, and that is a singular and happy feature. I want to state clearly, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has intimated, that it is the policy of the Government to go on with the co-operation of all Parties if other Parties are willing, and the Government will leave no stone unturned to secure that continued cooperation, subject to its own necessary responsibility for action, as long as possible; and instead of, as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said, the representatives of the other Parties having to force their way in. I want to say here and now that the Government wish to have the co-operation of the other Parties.
The noble Earl, Lord Peel, asked me certain specific questions. I cannot deal with them in detail. He wanted to know what has been done in the last two months. The noble Lord can probably have inferred from his own experience that what has happened during the last two months has been a detailed examina-

439
tion of the questions considered by the Federal Structure Committee and the Committees of the Round-Table Conference, and that consideration has been going on, together with the expert examination of the correlated questions which were not specifically dealt with by the Federal Structure Committee but which are found on further examination of their programme to need settlement. That is going on; and, similarly, with regard to the noble Earl's question about the further assent of the Princes to the principle of federation, I think that all I can properly say at this moment is that the Government have been considering, in close conjunction with the Viceroy, the best method of facilitating the necessary discussion and agreement, and that the Viceroy is dealing with that in constant communication with the Secretary of State for India. I may remind noble Lords that many of the Princes are at this moment at Delhi attending the current Session of the Chamber of Princes, and it would not be obviously divulging any secret to say that the Viceroy is in constant communication with those Princes, and presumably on that subject.
I think the noble Earl, Lord Peel, would not grudge me passing away from his very interesting and excellent speech in view of the late hour. I must refer for a little while to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, who very frankly and very candidly announced himself as an opponent and a critic of what he called the new policy which he thought had been undertaken by His Majesty's Government ever since it came into office. I will not attempt to argue that at this hour, it would take too long. I would like to remind the noble Lord, as to the policy for which His Majesty's Government are of course responsible, that I am not going too far in saying it is a policy which is fully concurred in by the Viceroy. The Viceroy was not appointed by His Majesty's present Government, but His Majesty's present Government have absolute confidence in him and with him His Majesty's Government are proceeding step by step without any difference between us. I do not say that in order to shelter under the shadow of the Viceroy for the policy of the Government, but it is necessary that it should be.
440
known that we are not overruling the Viceroy, that we are not dictating to the Viceroy in this matter of policy, that we are being guided and assisted by his great knowledge and experience, and by the confidence which the Government, and, I venture to think, all Parties do place in Lord Irwin's judgment and statesmanship.
I must say one word about that because the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, very eloquently referred to the fact. Are we, he said, who have had experience and practical knowledge of India and all these questions, not right in opposing this enormous change which, he said, is due to His Majesty's Government? I cannot quite make out for whom the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, was speaking when he said "we," but if I am asked to choose between the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and the view which he has candidly and so consistently expressed, and that of the Viceroy, I am making my choice and the choice of His Majesty's Government: we are putting our money on the Viceroy, and it is no disparagement to the noble Lord to say that we are justified in placing our confidence in the Viceroy. I am not arguing whether it is a new policy. I think I could prove it was not a new policy. I think the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, laid great stress on that fact. But even if that policy has to be expressed in new ways, may I not remind the noble Lord that new circumstances have arisen possibly even since he was in India? India has changed, and the circumstances of the last two or three years in India have to be met, and would have had to be met by any Government under any Viceroy. You can do a great deal with bayonets, but as has been said, you cannot sit down upon them. When you get a change in the spirit of India, even though that change may not penetrate into the remotest village and to the humblest ryot, when you get a change in spirit manifesting itself as it has, any Government would have to take notice of it and would have to adapt its policy to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Islington, spoke of the shortness of time. The time may be short since the Act of 1919, measured in years, but the time is not short measured by the magnitude of the change. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said that the safeguards would be found

441
difficult and would be found to be even impossible. That is not the judgment of those members of his own, Party who attended the Round-Table Conference. We proceeded step by step with them as well as with the representatives of the Liberal Party. That is not the judgment of the Viceroy, and that is not the judgment of the India Office. We believe that these safeguards—which were insisted on, I am glad to say, by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and were emphasised by the noble Marquess as a sine qua non of responsible government—can be worked out in a way which will make them, as far as anything can be real and effective, real and effective. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd—here I must ask his pardon before departing from his speech—said what was the good of going on with these things, that we must be brought face to face with the practical difficulties, with realities. I would ask the noble Lord: Are not Conferences one of the ways of coming face to face with practical difficulties? Is not one of the practical difficulties the opinion of those who are trying to speak for India? To meet and discuss with them is one of the ways of coming face to face with the practical difficulties.
LORD LLOYD: The noble Lord addresses a direct question to me. Otherwise I would not interrupt him. What I mean by facing practical difficulties is coming into contact with the difficulties of daily life, which are not to be found in the Conference room, but which occur in every town and village of India every day.
LORD PASSFIELD: I would not wish to compete with the noble Lord in practical experience of that kind, but does he suppose that the Government are acting without advice from people who have had as much practical experience as he has had? Does he suppose the Government are acting without that knowledge? We cannot have, and I do not see how any Government can have, practical experience. A Government must rely on those who have had it. The ultimate decision must be, as the noble Lord rightly said, with Parliament. He knows perfectly well that the ulti-
442
mate decision will be with Parliament embodied in a Statute. What I think he wanted to say, and did make clear, was that Parliament was being committed in advance and that the matter was being prejudged by all these Conferences. I think very likely that may be true to a certain extent, but how is Parliament to act otherwise? The noble Lord himself did not object to the union of the three Parties in this Conference. It is the policy of the Conservative Party to act in conjunction with the Government as far as it can in this matter, it is the policy of the Liberal Party, and that necessarily does prejudge the work which results ultimately in a Parliamentary Statute. I suggest to the noble Lord that if we were to bring forward a Statute which had not been discussed beforehand, Parliament would not be in a position to consider it with any utility or value. The noble Lord also said that the decision was finally with the British people. The British people cannot be brought in except by discussion beforehand, and consequently I suggest to the noble Lord that if he will try to give us a little credit for honesty of purpose and—
LORD LLOYD: I think I threw no possible doubt on that. I hope I did not say anything which could be interpreted in that way.
LORD PASSFIELD: —a certain simplicity and directness, he would be doing the Government more justice. I must bring this to an end. I appreciate how absurd it is that I should be acting for my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor in this matter, but as I have said, it would not have looked well in the Report if the debate had ended without anything being added from this side of the House.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Duke, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

YORKSHIRE (WOOLLEN DISTRICT) TRANSPORT BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

COVENTRY EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Middlesex County Council Bill [H.L.] do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Coventry Extension Bill [H.L.]:
444
Read, and agreed to: All Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock.