Sitting of 11 May 1933

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
UNEMPLOYMENT (TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS).
Mr. McKEAG: I beg to present to this honourable House a petition which has been signed by 14,288 of my constituents in the Parliamentary Division of Durham. The burden of the petition is a protest against the operation of the means test for transitional payments to the unemployed, and embodies a plea for its abolition because of inequalities and injustices inflicted by it, and the danger of provoking disaffection and lawlessness among good citizens.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill (King's Consent and Prince of Wales's Consent signified),
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    NUNEATON.
    Captain NORTHasked the Minister of Labour the latest figures available for the number of unemployed persons on the register at Nuneaton; and how such number compares with a year ago?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): At 24th April, 1933, there were 2,601 unemployed persons on the registers of the Nuneaton Employment Exchange and Juvenile Employment Bureau. This was 73 less than the number at 25th April, 1932.

    EXCHANGE FACILITIES (ALLOTMENT HOLDERS).
    Mr. GLOSSOPasked the Minister of Labour whether, in order to assist able-bodied unemployed men working on
    1678
    allotments, he will see that facilities are provided at Employment Exchanges so that these men may sign on at 9.45 a.m.?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's desire, but I am sure he will appreciate that, with the large number attending local offices to prove unemployment, at the present time, it is impossible to give facilities for more than a minority to attend before 9.45 a.m. In fixing times of attendance, however, regard is had, so far as practicable, to a claimant's special circumstances, and I am sure that every effort is made at local offices to meet the convenience of claimants who work on allotments.
    Mr. GLOSSOP: Will the right hon. Gentleman circularise to the managers of Employment Exchanges the statement he has given this afternoon?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes, I will see that the answer to this question is brought to their notice.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED (ME. T. EVANS).
    Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. T. Evans, 56, Stanley Street, Atherton, near Manchester, who had been under treatment allowance and was thus unable to qualify for unemployment benefit under the 30-stamp rule, the claim having been made under the 10-stamp rule, disability pension, and disallowed by the court of referees; and whether he will inquire into this case?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The hon. Member recently wrote to me about this case and I informed him that the claim for benefit made by Mr. Evans had been considered by the Umpire appointed under the Unemployment Insurance Acts and disallowed. I am sending the hon. Member a further copy of the Umpire's decision for his information. The Umpire's decision is final, and there is no action that can take in the matter.
    Mr. TINKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man's disability is due to war service and cannot he see his way to bring in this class of case?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: As the hon. Member knows, under the Act of 1927 there is this advantage to persons suffering from disability, and in receipt of a disability pension, if he shows that

    1679
    his inability to get work is due to his disability. In this case, the man is not in receipt of a disability pension, but is in receipt of a treatment allowance. I have the umpire's decision before me, and I will give it to the hon. Member.
    Mr. TINKER: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of putting this class of case in the same category as those in receipt of pensions?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I will certainly consider it, but, of course, nothing can be done without legislation. The legislation, as I say, is contained in Section 5, I think, of the Act of 1927.

    HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFIT.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELL (for Mr. David Williams)asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the representations made to him by approved societies and other organisations protesting against the loss of medical benefit by insured persons lapsing membership consequent upon unemployment, he will now state what steps he proposes to take to alleviate the position?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 9th March to the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Leckie).

    FLYING REGULATIONS (PROSECUTIONS).
    Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were prosecuted for low flying over prohibited areas during 1932?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): The police have instructions to report to the Air Ministry all cases of low flying over the prohibited areas which are scheduled in the Air Navigation Order, and I understand that no such case was so reported in 1932. There were in 1932 a number of prosecutions in respect of low flying over populous places contrary to Articles 9 and 10 of the Air Navigation Order. There were two such cases in the Metropolitan Police District, but I am not in a position to give the corresponding figure for the country as a whole.

    HERR ROSENBERG AND HERR THOST.
    Mr. COCKSasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the arrival in this country of two prominent members of the German Nazi movement, Herr Rosenberg and Herr Thost; whether he has any information as to the length of time these individuals will remain in this country; and whether they have given any undertaking to refrain from propaganda during their stay?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that Herr Rosenberg proposes to stay in this country for a few days only. Herr Thost, who is a foreign newspaper correspondent, has been residing in this country since October, 1930. They have not been asked to give an undertaking in the sense referred to.
    Mr. COCKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to Herr Rosenberg's lack of tact, there has already been an unfortunate incident at the Cenotaph, and, before any further incident occurs, will he please inform this gentleman that we prefer his room to his company?
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: Why should there be a difference in treatment between these propagandists and Communist propagandists?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not think there is any difference in treatment. Of course, if people do things which are contrary to the regulations and rules they will be dealt with.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case, when Russians are coming into this country for a short stay, that they are called upon not to indulge in propaganda, and, if that is so, why is not the same treatment meted out to this gentleman?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: There is no difference in the undertaking anybody is asked to give who is coming into this country.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that a known Russian or German Communist coming into this country has to enter into an obligation not to indulge in propaganda, and very often, even if he is willing to give that undertaking, he is not permitted to come in? The point we are putting to the right hon. Gentleman is why should a Fascist agitator, a propa-

    1681
    gandist, and a prominent one, be allowed the free run of London, when he will not allow a Communist in?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Each case is considered on its merits.
    Mr. LANSBURY: We want the Home Secretary to tell us what are the merits which enable this man to be in this country as a propagandist for Hitlerism. We want to know?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: What is wrong with the Home Office that they allow this sort of thing? This is not the first time. They stop the propaganda for the boycott, and now they allow this man to come here.
    Mr. MAXTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a specific question? Why he refused a request from me a fortnight ago to permit Mr. Leon Trotsky to come to this country, a much more distinguished figure in world politics, and now allows this man to come in?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As I say, each one of these cases is considered on its merits—
    Mr. LANSBURY: What are the merits?
    Mr. THORNE: Give him his marching orders.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: —and if anybody does anything which is contrary to the interests of this country I will give orders.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is Fascism considered of interest to this country?
    Mr. SPEAKER rose—
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we not entitled—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Colonel Wedgwood.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement regarding the conversations between his Department and Herr Rosenberg?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne).
    Mr. THORNE: Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman hear the reply of the
    1682
    Home Secretary on this question, and will he advise the Government to give this man his marching orders at once?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I cannot add anything to the answer that my right hon. Friend gave.

    GERMAN SOCIALIST LABOUR PARTY.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that there is a branch office of the Nazi party in London, at Park Gate Hotel; can he state how many persons are on its staff; since when they have been in England; on what grounds they have been admitted; and how they are employed?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The premises referred to are used as a meeting place for Germans resident in this country who are members of the London group of the National Socialist German Labour Party. This group was formed, I understand, in December, 1931. Its leader is an agent for a German business firm, who has been in, this country since 1927. The secretary, who is a representative of another German firm, has been here since 1925. Both persons were admitted on the usual trade grounds for which many representatives of foreign firms are admitted to this country.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman discovered whether these people are paid by the Nazi party; and may I ask whether be thinks that we need treat this Nazi house differently from the Bolshevist house in the City which was raided?
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether these Socialists are over here for the purpose of promoting the taxation of land values?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The question is whether the Germans we allow over here are to be refugees fleeing from tyranny, or the tyrants themselves to -spy on Germans in this country?

    METROPOLITAN POLICE (TRAINING SCHOOL).
    Brigadier-General NATIONasked the Home Secretary what is the present position with regard to the acquisition of

    1683
    a new building and grounds suitable for the provision of an adequate training school for the Metropolitan police force?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Efforts are now being made to secure suitable accommodation for this purpose, and I am hopeful that they may be successful.
    Brigadier-General NATION: Could the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what he estimates will be the total cost of acquiring the new property?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I could not give an estimate at the present stage.

    FIRE BRIGADES (ORGANISATION).
    Mr. THOMAS COOKasked the Home Secretary the attitude of the Home Office towards the possibility of organising publicly and privately-owned fire brigades with a view to bringing into existence an effective fire-fighting scheme throughout the country?
    Sir JOHN GILMOUR: I am in agreement with the view held by previous Secretaries of State, since the report of the Royal Commission on Fire Brigades and Fire Prevention was made, that a more effective service could be provided and expenditure be avoided in some directions, with an improved organisation and more general co-operation among fire brigade authorities throughout the country, for purposes of fire defence. I doubt, however, whether any general scheme could be introduced without further legislation, and I regret that I can see no prospect of the matter being taken up by the Government this Session.

    HOME OFFICE INDUSTRIAL MUSEUM.
    Marquess of HARTINGTONasked the Home Secretary what is the annual cost of maintenance of the Home Office Industrial Museum in Horseferry Road; what are the rates paid thereon; and what is the estimated value of the building and site?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The average annual cost of the maintenance of the building is £1,850, and £1,000 is provided in Class III of the Civil Esti-
    1684
    mates for the Home Office expenses in connection with the museum. A contribution of £531 in lieu of rates was made during last year. Owing to the special nature of the building, it is not possible to give an estimate of the value at short notice, but I may say that £21,518 was expended on the erection of the buildings as a charge against the provision, which was made for this purpose, by the Public Buildings Expenses Act, 1913. No estimate of the value of the site, which is held on a lease for 999 years from 1912, is available.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many people go each year to this house?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There is another question on the Paper about that.
    Marquess of HARTINGTONasked the First Commissioner of Works what has been the average number of visitors per week, since 1st January, 1933, to the Home Office Industrial Museum in Horse-ferry Road?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have been asked to reply. The weekly average has been about 128.
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: Is there any means by which this most instructive and helpful institution can be given wider publicity, so that people may visit it in larger numbers?

    FILM PRODUCTION (PUBLIC FACILITIES).
    Mr. T. COOKasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that the police held up the traffic for a considerable time for the purpose of cinematograph acting in Avenue Road, St. John's Wood, on the morning of Saturday, 6th May; and will he give instructions against a repetition of this practice?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that, on the occasion in question, traffic was held up three times for not more than one minute each time. It is not the practice to prohibit the taking of films in streets, provided that due regard is paid to the convenience and safety of the public, and that no serious obstruction is caused, and I am informed that the police found no ground in this case for asking that the project should be abandoned.
    Mr. GLOSSOP: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any truth in the statement published in the Press that one of the persons held up in that block travelled at an average of 43 miles an hour between London and Norfolk, and whether there is any truth in the statement that pigeons fly faster than motor cars?

  EDUCATION.

    SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, STAINFORTH.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether the West Riding, Yorkshire, education committee have yet submitted plans for a new school at Stainforth; and, if so, how many school places are to be provided?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): No plans have yet been submitted; but preliminary proposals for a new school to accommodate about 480 senior children were recently received and were approved by the board on the 9th May.

    TECHNICAL, STUDENTS (INTERCHANGE OF VISITS).
    Sir WILFRID SUGDENasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what steps are being taken by his Department to provide facilities of interchange of visits by students in technical instruction institutions of this country and those in similar institutions of Germany, France, and Italy?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The Board welcome experiments in this direction, but the actual provision of facilities for interchange of visits by students rests with the authorities of the institutions concerned.
    Sir W. SUGDEN: If the organised trade unionists and the masters' federation are prepared to come with a scheme to the hon. Gentleman, will he give it his support and will he make arrangements for other countries to assist him?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The Board are always glad to welcome such visits, which are very fruitful, but the initiative for arranging them must lie with the institutions themselves.

    SCIENCE LABORATORIES (SIZE OF CLASSES).
    Captain SPENCERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that classes of mere than 30 pupils are working in the practical science laboratories of certain secondary schools; and if he is satisfied that under such conditions adequate supervision can be exercised by one teacher?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: My Noble Friend is aware that there are some such cases. While the Board take the view that a full form of 30 pupils can be taught in a practical science laboratory, they recognise that, where the number of pupils exceeds this figure, difficulties of supervision may arise, unless the teacher in charge has the help of a competent assistant.
    Captain SPENCER: Will the hon. Gentleman see to it that the regulations are complied with?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: There is a temporary difficulty, due to the size of the classes, on account of the bulge of population which is passing through the schools. I am not satisfied that the difficulty calls for the intervention of the Board.

    TEACHERS (EMPIRE DAY).
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will issue a circular to local authorities to the effect that teachers in State-aided schools who desire, on conscientious grounds, to refrain from participating it the forthcoming celebration of Empire Day, shall be allowed to do so without exposing themselves to subsequent victimisation?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. GRENFELL: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise the difficulty in which these teachers are put in having to assist on this occasion, not in encouraging patriotism, but in vulgar militaristic displays?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The matter can safely be left to the discretion of the local authorities.
    Mr. GRENFELL: School teachers of exemplary character and behaviour in every way are sometimes threatened with dismissal, because they do not want to identify themselves with this occasion.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    MILK (SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS) ORDER.
    Captain McEWENasked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to state when the promised alterations in the Milk (Special Designations) Order, 1923, are to be effected, with special reference to the dating of milk bottles?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply I gave him on the 2nd March. I would remind him that no promise has been given as to the alteration of the Order, in the manner suggested.
    Captain McEWEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a leading dairy farmer in Scotland is now milking his cows at 12 midnight, and 12 noon, instead of at the normal hours, in order to comply with the law? Can he not definitely state the reason why this boon cannot be conferred upon dairy farmers, quite apart from the wider consideration to which he previously referred?
    Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir. I have no information, on the subject of the hours of milking so far North, but I will certainly take the information from the hon. and gallant Member.

    DEATH-RATE, STOCKTON-ON-TEES.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Health whether he can now state the result of his consideration of the report of the medical officer of health for Stockton-on-Tees on the death-rate for the Mount Pleasant area, which has averaged 33.55 per 1,000 of the population for the last five years as compared with the death-rate for the same period of 10.5 for England and Wales?
    Sir H. YOUNG: This report is still under consideration and requires inquiries in other areas, which I am causing to be made.

    WATER SUPPLIES.
    Mr. LEVY (for Mr. CHORLTON)asked the Minister of Health if he will seek legislative powers to enable him to compel an authority which has an excess in its water supply to make that excess available for, or put it at the service of, other districts where a scarcity exists?
    Sir H. YOUNG: Experience indicates that there is not a sufficient case for
    1688
    further legislative powers. Where an authority has a real surplus of water, it is usually glad to find customers. Where difficulties occur I am glad to use my good offices.
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of the number of rural areas which have made application and are unable to carry on without financial assistance from the Treasury or some other source?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I shall be glad to inform the hon. Member if he will give me notice.
    Mr. LEVY: What action does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take to alleviate the scarcity of water in these districts?
    Sir H. YOUNG: That is a general question the best answer to which is the recent Debate on the subject.
    Mr. LEVY (for Mr. CHORLTON)asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the scarcity of water in the Denby Dale district; and what steps he proposes to take to see that a supply is made available from the aqueduct of a neighbouring authority?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I am aware of the conditions here, and I am in communication with the local council who are at present actively negotiating for a supply of water from the aqueduct of a neighbouring authority.
    Mr. GLOSSOP: Is it not a fact that ever since the recent epidemic at Denby Dale, the local authority arid the Minister of Health have been in close co-operation?
    Sir H. YOUNG: Yes. Serious and very active measures are in process of elaboration between the local authority and the Minister of Health.
    Mr. LEVY: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he realises the gravity of epidemics arising out of water which is of doubtful purity?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I really think no assurance is necessary from the Minister of Health that he realises the gravity of epidemics of the sort.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Captain SPENCERasked the Minister of Health if his attention has

    1689
    been drawn to the fact that disabled ex-service men who are unable to obtain employment because of their disability are not entitled to the old age pension at 65; and will he take the necessary steps to remove the disqualification in such cases?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The contributory pensions Acts do not distinguish between ex-service men and others. The ex-service man who complies with the statutory conditions is entitled to an old age pension at 65, even if he is in receipt of a War disability pension. The proposed relaxation in the statutory conditions in the case of ex-service men would be contrary to the contributory basis of the scheme, and I could not contemplate legislation for the purpose.

    RIVER CRANE (POLLUTION).
    Captain CUNNINGHAM-REIDasked the Minister of Health if he has any information regarding the recent pollution of the River Crane; and if there is any danger of such pollution affecting the River Thames?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I have no information regarding the recent pollution of the River Crane. If my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish me with particulars, I will look into the matter.

    SUPPLY SERVICES (ECONOMIES).
    Mr. BROCKLEBANKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the amount saved during the last financial year through the cuts in salaries and wages and from other sources, respectively?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): If the major economy measures of the autumn of 1931 had not been taken, I estimate that the Exchequer expenditure on Supply Services in 1932 would have been increased by at least £81,000,000. Of this sum, reductions in remuneration generally account for about £11,250,000, reductions in the rates of unemployment benefit account for £13,750,000, while the balance of £56,000,000 represents the effect of other economy measures taken by the Government, including those set out in the White Paper issued in connection with the economy programme in
    1690
    September, 1931. The very large savings in interest and sinking fund charges, which were effected during 1932, did not result in any reduction in the statutory charge for the service of the National Debt in that year, and are therefore not included in the above estimate of savings. The full benefit, which on interest charges alone is £52,000,000, will accrue during the current year.

  FINANCE BILL.

    CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (TAXATION).
    Mr. COCKSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has been able to come to any decision regarding the publication of the evidence given before the Raeburn Committee on the taxation of co-operative societies?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the Financial Secretary explained in answer to a question by the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on the 8th March, the evidence is very voluminous, and I had hoped to avoid the expense of publication. In view, however, of the representations which have been made to me, I have now given orders for the evidence to be printed and published.

    HEAVY OILS DUTY.
    Colonel ROPNERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he is aware that the proposed tax on fuel oil will result in an increase of from 6 per cent. to 8 per cent. in the manufacturing cost of glass which, for technical reasons, cannot be made by using coal; and whether he will give an estimate of the cost to the Exchequer of allowing this industry to obtain tax-free supplies of oil;
    (2) whether he is aware that the proposed tax on fuel oil would add from 33 per cent. to over 50 per cent. to the fuel bill of coastal ships; and whether he will give an estimate of the cost to the Exchequer of exempting from the proposed tax all fuel consumed by coastal shipping which already has to meet the competition of road and rail transport?
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that orders for motor ships by Scottish firms have been cancelled at Ardrossan and Leith because of the tax of 1d. per gallon on heavy nil, which will increase the cost of operating motor ships by 33

    1691
    per cent.; and will he give an estimate of the cost of exempting shipbuilding and engineering from this tax, in view of its injurious effect on trade and employment?
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that orders for two ships for coastal trade, which had been given to Scottish shipbuilders, have been cancelled, the reason given being that the proposed tax of 1s. per gallon on oil fuel would make it too expensive for such ships to be operated; whether he has made any investigations into the matter; and whether he can state what action will be taken to enable the orders for such ships to be renewed, and thereby give employment to shipyard workers?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I said in the Debate on the report of the Resolution that, without making any promise, I should be prepared to consider representations, and I am carefully examining those which have reached me. These include the particular matters referred to in these questions, and I should prefer not to answer in detail until I have had time to complete my examination.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Might I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that in Ardrossan 150 men have been thrown out of employment through the cancelling of an order for ships and would he consider whether the cost of unemployment benefit to them and to others throughout the country would not balance any saving or gain?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am prepared to take into consideration all the representations that are being made to me, and that will be one of them.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    IMPORT DUTIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
    Captain SHAWasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, seeing that when appointing the three Englishmen who comprise the Import Advisory Committee he avoided choosing members on the ground of their special familiarity with the conditions of particular industries or particular parts of the United Kingdom, he will ask this committee to consider holding a number of sittings in
    1692
    Edinburgh every year so that they may be brought and kept in closer touch with Scottish needs and conditions?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Subject to the requirements of the Import Duties Act, the procedure of the committee is a matter entirely within their own competence.

    TIMBER PROPS (IMPORT DUTY).
    Mr. SOPERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the question of the 10 per cent. import duty on partly-squared Norway timber, which is used for plops and bars in coal mines, has been before the Import Duties Advisory Committee for several months; and when a decision is likely to be reached?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I regret that I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on the 4th May.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman say how long it will be before a decision is reached, seeing that the case has been before the committee for five months? Does it take longer to consider putting articles on the Free List than putting additional duties on other articles?
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: Was not a pledge given in the House that duty would not be chargeable on this timber?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That pledge has been observed.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what opportunity any Member of the House may have of approaching the Advisory Committee in a case of this kind?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The whole idea of the Import Duties Advisory Committee is that it should be free from political pressure. When a request is made to the committee by a particular interest, it proceeds with a proper investigation, and a full investigation must take time.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can we be assured that, when applications are made to include an article in the Free List, they receive the same sort of treatment as applications to increase a duty?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certainly.

    IDEAL HOMES EXHIBITION (INTERNATIONAL REFRIGERATOR COMPANY, LIMITED).
    Captain CUNNINGHAM-REIDasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that, at a recent trade exhibition, electric refrigerators of American manufacture were on exhibition in circumstances tending to suggest that they were British; and if he will take steps to make an Order-in-Council, under Section 5 (2) of the Merchandise Marks Act, in regard to electric refrigerators?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): As my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade stated yesterday in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland), investigation is being made into the circumstances referred to in the first part of the question. Orders under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1026, can only be made on the recommendation of the committee which has been set up under the Act, following an application to the Board of Trade by the interests concerned. No such application has so far been received.

    RUSSIAN GOODS (IMPORT PROHIBITION).
    Mr. DORANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Soviet boat "Ian Rudzutak" landed at a London dock on the 6th May with a cargo of Russian butter and bacon, on which there is now an embargo; whether his Department issued any special licence giving permission for these Russian products to be landed and, if so, to whom; and in what circumstances was the licence issued and for what quantity of each product?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am informed that the ship referred to by my hon. Friend did not have Russian butter on board. Bacon is not a commodity the import of which is prohibited. The second and third parts of the question do not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. DORANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Soviet boat "Dniestr" arrived at Hay's Wharf, London, on the 5th May, with 225 tons of Russian butter and 72,000 head of poultry, notwithstanding the embargo on these products; whether his Department issued any special licence giving permission for these products to be landed: and, if so, under what circum-
    1694
    stances and to whom the licence was issued?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the cargo referred to by my hon. Friend. Three licences have been issued in respect of consignments of butter and poultry shipped on the "Dniestr." The ground for the issue of the licences was that before the Proclamation under the Russian Goods (Import Prohibition) Act was issued these goods had been substantially paid for by the British importers concerned.
    Mr. MAXTON: Is it not perfectly legitimate for the President of the Board of Trade to issue a licence under the Act in respect of Russian goods coming into this country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir, so long as the issue is within the terms of the Act.
    Sir ALFRED BENT: Could the right hon. Gentleman say to whom the licences were issued?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir; it would be quite contrary to practice to disclose the names.
    Mr. TINKERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the protests sent to him from the Tyldesley Trade and Labour Council and other places in Lancashire against the embargo on Russian trade because of the increase of unemployment in that county through it; and will he take some action in this matter to alleviate the distress caused, especially to Lancashire?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Responsibility for any trade dislocation must rest with the Soviet Government.
    Mr. TINKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lancashire is getting more than its fair share of this embargo, and is suffering greatly; and may I ask that Lancashire should be considered in the matter?

    BARTER.
    Sir W. SUGDENasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken by him to establish systems of barter between suitable industries of this county and the commercial associations in such European and

    1695
    Eastern countries where the currency rates do not permit of interchange of trade on a monetary basis?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Bartering arrangements are generally unsuited to the requirements of British trade, and no steps to this end are being taken by His Majesty's Government, who prefer to leave that matter to the interests concerned.

    CANADA (IMPORTS).
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of Canadian imports from the United Kingdom for 1932; the total value of Canadian imports from the United States of America in the same year; what was the value of free imports in each case; and the average rate of duty on dutiable imports from the United Kingdom and the United States of America, respectively?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    During 1932 the total value of imports into Canada consigned from the United Kingdom and the United States amounted to 93,508,143 dollars and 263,549,346 dollars respectively. The latest information available in regard to the remainder of the question relates to the year ended March, 1932, for which period the particulars were as shown below:

    Year ended March, 1932.

    From United Kingdom.

    From U.S.A.

    $

    $

    Imports into Canada

    106,371,779

    351,686,775

    Of which free of duty.

    26,678,049

    122,047,039

    Average rate of duty on dutiable imports.

    29·2%

    27·5%

    SHIPPING INDUSTRY (FOREIGN COMPETITION).
    Colonel ROPNERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the proportion of British tonnage to world tonnage shows a steady decline: and whether the question of the competition of foreign ships which receive Government subsidies will be a sub-
    1696
    ject for discussion at the World Economic Conference?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the shipping combines of this country to stop them from selling ships that will not pass Lloyd's examiners to Greece and other countries, to be used in competing against firms who have to keep up to the standards of Lloyd's, Veritas, and the Board of Trade?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: In every case in which a ship is sold from the British register to a foreign register, a permit from the Board of Trade is required, and each case is examined on its merits.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: So that the President of the Board of Trade takes the responsibility for the great number of British ships, obsolete as far as the British Board of Trade examination is concerned, which are being placed in a position to compete with this country? He has saddled himself with that responsibility; that is what he has said.

    CHILE.
    Mr. LOUIS SMITHasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that the reshipment of the consignment of British industrial machinery is being held up by the Chilean Exchange Control Commission on the ground that it would represent a flight of capital; and what steps are being taken to protect the interests of the British firms concerned?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The re-export from Chile of goods which have been cleared from the Customs is authorised only when security is given that the value of such goods will be remitted to Chile. Conversations on difficulties thus arising have taken place between His Majesty's Embassy and the Chilean Government, and these are continuing. If my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of the case he has in mind, I shall be glad to look into the matter.
    Mr. SMITH: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman take any steps to prevent traders from being subjected to similar hardships in future?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Conversations are now proceeding on this very question.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    MESSENGERS AND PAPER KEEPERS.
    Sir W. SIJGDENasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the respective numbers of established and unestablished messengers and paper and record keepers employed in the headquarters and ex-headquarters departments of the Civil Service on the 1st

    Messengers, Paper Keepers, Press Keepers and Record Keepers.

    Numbers employed on 1st April, 1932, showing separately those whose first appointment to Government service was (a) prior and (b) subsequent to the let April, 1926.

    Grade.

    Appointed to Government Service

    Total.

    (a) prior to 1st April, 1926.

    (b) subsequent to 1st April, 1926.

    Messengers:

    Established

    420

    4

    424

    Unestablished

    1,897

    752

    2,649

    Paper Keepers, Press Keepers and Record Keepers:

    Established

    165

    5

    170

    Unestablished

    374

    46

    420

    CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether there has been any increase in the staff of the Customs Department since the introduction of import duties; and, if so, the number and estimated cost to date?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The staff of the Customs and Excise Department has been increased since October, 1931, by 1,360, at an approximate annual cost of £270,000.
    Mr. CHARLES BROWN: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the statement of his right hon. Friend yesterday that tariffs are now useless; and will he at once take steps to annul the Import Duties Orders and save this expense?

    TRANSPORT (TRAFFIC SIGNALS).
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Minister of Transport when the report of the Departmental Committee on Traffic Signals is expected?
    April, 1926; and the number of unestablished messengers and paper and record keepers recruited to these posts since the 1st April, 1926?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Information in the precise form desired by my hon. Friend is not available, but I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table of the numbers of these grades employed on 1st April, 1932, showing separately those whose first appointment to Government Service was (a) before and (b) after the 1st April,)926.
    Following is the table:
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I understand that the Committee hope to complete their report before the end of this month.

    DOG RACECOURSES, SCOTLAND (TOTALISATORS).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Lord Advocate the reason why, in the case of Albion Greyhounds (Glasgow), Limited, the totalisator in question is being allowed to be operated, whilst totalisators at other dog racecourses have been stopped?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Craigie Aitchison): The operation of a totalisator has not yet been declared by the Scottish courts to be illegal. It is not the ease that totalisators at other dog racecourses in Scotland have been stopped.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is there likely to be any further delay? Has any appeal been lodged?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: There has been no delay of any kind. The case was down for hearing on 27th March, and was continued until 17th May to allow a minute of admissions to be adjusted upon which the question can be decided.

    TREATIES, CONVENTIONS, AND AGREEMENTS.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will indicate to the House, giving examples, the type and nature of the various documents classified by the Foreign Office as treaties, conventions, agreements, and exchanges of notes, respectively
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE (for Sir J. SIMON): As the answer is long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: There is plenty of time left; could we not have the answer read? Otherwise, I should like to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am sorry that I did not catch my hon. Friend's question at first. The answer occupies three closely typewritten pages. If the House desires it, I will, of course, read it.
    Following is the answer:
    International instruments dealing with matters of the highest political importance such as an alliance, a peace settlement, and in more recent times, the limitation of armaments and the renunciation of war have generally, but not invariably, been called treaties. The following may be quoted as examples: the Treaty of Versailles, 1919; the Treaty of Lausanne, 1923; the Treaty for the Renunciation of War, 1928; the Treaties for the Limitation of Naval Armaments of Washington, 1922, and London, 1930.
    Other important matters, such as peace and friendship, general commercial relations, extradition and arbitration are often, though not invariably, made the subject of "treaties."
    The term "Convention" is usually though not invariably applied to international instruments dealing with the less important political matters, commercial
    1700
    arrangements, and boundary settlements, and a large number of technical questions are so dealt with. Extradition forms the subject of conventions as well as of treaties. The following examples may be quoted: The Convention with France of 1904, regarding Newfoundland and West Africa; the Commercial Convention with Japan, 1925; the Convention of 1926 regarding the boundary between British Guiana and Brazil; the Copyright Convention of 1928; the Extradition Convention with Estonia, 1925.
    The more important multilateral instruments concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations are generally called "Conventions."
    "Agreements" generally supplement or amend existing treaties or conventions or deal with matters of technical or administrative interest. Some examples are: The Anglo-French Telegraphic Money Order Agreement supplementary to the Convention of 1882; the Agreement of 1920 modifying the Anglo-Persian Commercial Convention of 1903; the Agreement with Germany, 1928, regarding the taxation of shipping profits; the Agreement of 1929 with Ecuador relating to commercial travellers; and the Agreements with Austria and Hungary of 1930, for the Liquidation of Austrian and Hungarian Properties.
    "Exchanges of Notes," as the term implies, do not differ in form from the ordinary official diplomatic correspondence between accredited diplomatic representatives and the Government to which they are accredited, but they are a recognised and frequently employed form of concluding international agreements. Agreements in this form generally though not invariably deal with nonpolitical matters of a technical or administrative nature and subsidiary points arising out of, or in some way connected with, existing treaties or conventions. As examples reference may be made to the Exchange of Notes of 13th April, 1931, regarding Documents of Identity for Aircraft Personnel; the Exchange of Notes of 15th December, 1931, regarding the regulations for the Administration of the New Hebrides; the Exchange of Notes on signature of Anglo-Guatemalan Commercial Treaty, 22nd February, 1928; the Exchange of Notes relating to Newfoundland supplementary to the Anglo-French Convention of 1904.
    No definite rule, however, exists as regards the use of any of the foregoing types of treaty instruments, and numerous exceptions could be quoted to the classification outlined above.
    The question whether the name "treaty," "convention," or "agreement" should be given to an agreement not in the form of an exchange of notes appears to have been determined as a mere matter of appreciation as to which name appears to be most suitable and convenient in all the circumstances of the case, and no inferences can be drawn with certainty from the name selected in any given case.
    The binding effect of all four types of instruments is the same in international law, and the examples given above are instances selected from a very large number of instruments of each type. Moreover, the four terms dealt with above are not an exhaustive list of the expressions used to describe international agreements. There are others in general use such as Protocols and Acts.

    THEATRES AND CINEMAS (WORKING HOURS).
    Mr. PARKINSON (for Mr. RHYS DAVIES)asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider promoting legislation to enforce a maximum eight-hour day for employés engaged in the cinema industry in this country on the lines of the law recently passed by the French Government?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I understand that the question of applying the Eight Hour Day Act to persons employed in theatres and cinemas in France has been considered by the French Government, but that no such action has yet been taken. I Am informed that an agreement is being discussed between employers' and work-peoples' representatives in London and the Home Counties, and I am of opinion that voluntary action of this kind is more likely to be successful than rigid legislation such as the hon. Member suggests.

    MAGISTRATES (COSTS).
    Mr. GROVESasked the Home Secretary whether any scale of costs exists for the guidance of magistrates in awarding costs?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: In a summary case magistrates can ordinarily award such costs as seem to them "just and reasonable." It is a matter within the discretion of the magistrates in each case. No prescribed scale, therefore, exists.

    JUVENILE OFFENDERS.
    Mr. PARKINSON (for Mr. RHYS DAVIES)asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the growing practice in a certain section of the Press of publishing the names of juvenile offenders, particularly in connection with sexual offences, charged in summary courts of justice, he will issue a circular recommending magistrates to request all Press reporters to refrain from this practice?
    Sir J. GILNIOUR: As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the effect of sections 39 and 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, will be to prohibit generally the publication of the name of any child or young person concerned in any proceedings in a Juvenile Court, and to enable any other Court to direct that no newspaper report shall reveal the name of any child or young person concerned in any proceedings in the Court which arise out of any offence against decency or morality. These provisions will take effect on 1st November, the date on which I propose to bring the Act into force. I have no evidence of any such growing practice as the hon. Member refers to, and as I feel sure that the Press generally may be relied on to give effect to the spirit of the provisions contained in the Act, I do not think it necessary to issue any special circular to magistrates.

    CUNARD STEAMSHIP COMPANY.
    Captain McEWEN (for Miss WARD)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress, if any, has been made in the negotiations proceeding between the Cunard and White Star Companies; and whether the information is such as to justify the Government offering financial assistance for the completion of work on Liner 534?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The negotiations are continuing. I cannot at present usefully add to what I said in the House in the Debate on 16th February and in

    1703
    answer to questions by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) on 23rd February.
    Captain McEWEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the advisability of exerting pressure on the companies in order to assist them in coming to an agreement?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not understand what my hon. and gallant Friend means by exerting pressure.

HERR ROSENBERG AND HERR THOST.
Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely:
"The admission of certain German Fascist propagandists to this country, and the refusal of the Home Secretary to secure undertakings from such persons that they shall not engage in Fascist propaganda."
Sir J. GILMOUR: May I make a statement in regard to this question? Herr Rosenberg came to this country for a visit of a few days, and, in view of the fact that the German Ambassador interested himself in the circumstances of that visit, I saw no reason to make a special arrangement in the circumstances.
Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely:
"The admission of certain German Fascist propagandists to this country, and the refusal of the Home Secretary to secure undertakings from such persons that they shall not engage in Fascist propaganda."
I think the right hon. Gentleman will realise that that matter cannot be discussed in accordance with any of the provisions of Standing Order No. 10. Consequently, I cannot allow it.
Mr. LANSBURY: The two gentlemen who, have been admitted, apparently through the Foreign Office, are definitely Fascist propagandists, teaching Fascism, which they are at great pains to explain, through the Press, is for the purpose of overthrowing this House and the Constitution of this country. Headquarters of this organisation, a German organisation, have been set up in this country.
1704
The Home Secretary, in dealing with another political creed, Communism, forbids the entrance into the country, even with guarantees, of propagandists of that organisation.
Lieut.-Colonel MacANDREW: On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman now speaking about your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, or what is he doing?
Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is putting his case to me.
Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman exercises his power to keep out certain political propaganda and he exercises his power to admit certain political propaganda, both of which are revolutionary. We maintain that it is the right of this House to discuss and to determine the conduct of the Home Secretary. With great respect, I read the Rule, and in our judgment this is a matter of definite and urgent public importance, because the propaganda is going on at this minute, and an organisation is being set up in this country for the purpose of overthrowing this Constitution, and also to provoke disorder. We have no chance except this to discuss the matter. We thought that the Rule in the Standing Orders of this House was for the purpose of enabling the House instantly to deal with a Minister who, in our judgment, is discriminating between various revolutionary opinions as to which he will allow in and which he will keep out. I respectfully submit that you should give some consideration to that point of ivew.
Mr. SPEAKER: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have given every consideration to that point of view, but there are certain conditions which are necessary for the compliance of a Motion of this kind with Standing Order No. 10. I have to interpret those conditions, and I have come to the conclusion very definitely that this particular Motion does not conform with what was intended in Standing Order No. 10.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I raise one further point? Already actions have been taken in the City of London, even within the precincts of this House, which might have led to riots. Almost outside our doors, at the Cenotaph, something has happened which I should have thought it impossible to happen. I have tried to

1705
tell you that propaganda is going on, and the Home Office which is supposed to safeguard us and to act fairly between people who apply to come in have done nothing of the kind. They have discriminated to allow one form of revolutionary propagandists to come in and to keep others out.
Mr. LAWSON: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether in coming to your decision you have borne in mind the fact that the gentleman concerned is even more a representative of Prussian militarism than he is of the Fascist ideas?
Mr. BUCHANAN: The Motion has to prove that it is definite, urgent and important business. May I submit that it is a definite matter of urgent public importance, seeing that the Government have made a departure from their previous definite policy? Hitherto, all Governments have laid it down that no foreign Government or representative of a foreign Government shall endeavour to come here if they intend by extra-constitutional methods to upset what may be described as the ruling system. In the past, all Governments have been subject to that rule. It is, I submit, a definite and urgent problem that the Government have departed from that policy by allowing people to come in who are challenging by extra-constitutional means the authority of the Government. That is a departure from the established practice—whether that practice be good or bad I am not arguing—and it is a matter of importance and urgency in the sense that every day that goes by there is a condition of affairs arising that may lead to conflict of one kind or another. I therefore submit that, in essence, the Motion satisfies the condition that it is important in the sense of this grave departure from the action of Governments in the past, and that it is urgent as it affects our relationship with other countries and the action of the Home Office.
Mr. SPEAKER: All these points may be perfectly true, but they do not alter the fact that the Motion in my view does not comply with the conditions laid down in Standing Order Number 10.
Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: If the individual about whom the Leader of the Opposition is asking, and upon whose case the Motion for the Adjournment has been moved, has visited the headquarters of
1706
the Nazi organisation in London, can that be construed into his recognition and assistance of the, propaganda in this country of German Nazism, and, in that case, does it not come under the Standing Order?
Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.
Mr. MAXTON: May I ask whether your Ruling implies that if the business to-day is finished before Eleven o'clock this subject, which has been made the basis for a Motion for the Adjournment, would not be precluded from being discussed? Would it be out of order?
Mr. SPEAKER: No, certainly not. If the Business for the Day is concluded before Eleven o'clock, or if the Business is concluded at Eleven o'clock, the matter can be raised on the Motion for the Adjournment. There is nothing against that. All I am ruling now is that the Motion does not conform to the conditions laid down in Standing Order Number 10.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I give notice, so that the Home Secretary may know, that if there is time this evening I propose to raise this matter?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LANSBURY: Will the Prime Minister tell us the business for next week, and may I at the same time ask how far the Government intend to go to-night?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The Eleven o'clock rule is being suspended in order to obtain the Second Reading of the two Scottish Bills and the Financial Resolution relating to Administration of Justice (Scotland). The Motion to approve the Scottish Milk Marketing Scheme, which will be taken tonight, is exempted business.
The business for next week will be:
Monday, and until 7.30 on Tuesday: Report and Third Reading of the Rent Restrictions Bill. There will also be taken on Monday the Third Reading of the Exchange Equalisation Account Bill.
After 7.30 on Tuesday: Consideration of Motions approving the Irish Free State (Special Duties) (No. 2) Order. 1933, and Additional Import Duties Orders Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 8 of 1933—these orders are

1707
now in the Vote Office—the remaining stages of the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill, and the Second Reading of the Education (Necessity of Schools) Bill, which has come down from another place.
Wednesday: Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Thursday: Supply (5th Allotted Day).
The Vote to be discussed will be announced later.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders may be taken.
It may also be convenient if I remind the House that Friday will be the last of the days set apart under the Standing Orders for the consideration of private Members' Bills.
Mr. LANSBURY: May we know in regard to the Exchange Equalisation Bill whether any modification is to be brought forward? I understand that we did not take the Third Reading last night in order to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity—[Interruption.] The question I wish to ask is whether it is intended to meet the almost unanimous desire of the Committee last night that some modifications should be made in regard to the powers of the Auditor-General. If not, there is likely to be very considerable discussion on the Third Reading, and will it be fair to the House on so important a matter to take it after Eleven o'clock? The Prime Minister was not here last night. If he had been present he would have found that Members in all parts of the House desired the alteration, and I do not think that they will have altered their minds by Monday. I am not at all sure that the Government should ask for the whole of the business put down for Tuesday. I am aware that the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill and the Education (Necessity Schools) Bill are non-controversial, but the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Order and the Import Duties Orders may prove to be very controversial. They are matters which the House has a right to discuss at some length. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us another day for the discussion of the Finance Bill. We have had an opportunity of seeing the Bill, and there is a very important portion of the Bill, which has not yet been before any Committee or before the House, dealing with the Post Office and the allocation of the funds of
1708
the Post Office, which, I should think, will take up a good deal of the time of the discussion. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us another day.
The PRIME MINISTER: As regards the Business last night—and I am always very sorry when I cannot be in the House—the situation was reported to me. The reason why we could not go further last night was that this is a Money Bill each stage of which must be taken on separate days. Obviously, there can be no change in the Bill on the Third Reading, so that the Bill which will be brought forward for the Third Reading will be the Bill as it left the House last night. It is not quite my business to say that I agree with regard to the suggestions concerning the Business on Tuesday, but let us see how we get on. As to the Business on Wednesday, it has been the rule, almost without any break—although I agree that there have been breaks when the Finance Bill has contained matters of very great importance—that not more than one day has been given for the Second Reading, and I should hope that the Bill will get its Second Reading on the first day. The point which my right hon. Friend raised, for instance, about the Post Office is pre-eminently a Committee point, and again I say, let us see how we get on. I would like to conserve as much time as possible. There are the usual channels through which to make any reasonable request regarding Business.
Mr. LANSBURY: I certainly think that we ought to press for and have a second day for the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. There is another matter which I think we shall hear something about on the Second Reading, and that is the proposal to tax the co-operative societies. I can hardly imagine that.by Wednesday the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not have something to say, but I have no choice but to accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that we may possibly get an extra day. On the Exchange Equalisation Bill I would press the Chancellor of the Exchequer as strongly as I possibly can to give us time before eleven o'clock to discuss the Third Reading of the Bill. We, and, I believe, many Members in the House, think that the public ought to know all that there is to know about the Bill and about the fact that the Government are to be entrusted with an

1709
enormous sum of money, almost without any check being placed upon them even months after their operations.
Mr. DAVID MASON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the fact that it was ruled out of order last night, to amend the Exchange Equalisation Bill and that it was not definitely stated that it would not be possible to incorporate such an Amendment in the Finance Bill, whether he will bear in mind the wishes expressed to him so well by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition when we come to the Finance Bill and consider the question of an Amendment being incorporated in the Finance Bill?
The PRIME MINISTER: I would remind the House that the point which has just been raised has nothing whatever to do with me. It has to do with the Chairman of the Committee. The question of a Co-operative tax, or anything else, must be subject to a special Resolution and cannot be discussed, I think, on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. It can only be embodied in the Finance Bill if a Resolution has been moved and a full discussion has taken place.
Mr. MAXTON: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government have considered dropping the legislation against the Irish Free State having regard to the impending World Economic Conference and the Tariff Truce arrangement?
The PRIME MINISTER: I think that when I announced the business for next week it showed that we have not decided to drop it.
Mr. MAXTON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think, having regard to the effect it might have on the World Economic Conference, that it would be worth while considering the dropping of these duties?
Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: With regard to the Exchange Equalisation Account Bill, although an Amendment would be out of order on the Bill, may I say that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could
give some assurance that the point which was raised last night would be met in some other way, say in the Finance Bill, it would make the Third Reading of the Bill no longer controversial?
The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that my right hon. Friend cannot give any assurance of that character.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Has the Prime Minister yet considered making any announcement on the question of Unemployment Insurance, as he will be aware that the present Act expires on the 30th June, and that it is possibly the most important problem which the House can be called upon to face in the interests of the care and well-being of the unemployed. In view of the great anxiety in regard to the matter, is he in a position to make any announcement as to future plans? If not, can he give us any idea when an announcement on this matter which has been held out to us for so long is likely to be made?
The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that at the moment I cannot make any statement as to when an announcement will be made, but my hon. Friend knows that no Ministry can forget the 30th June.
Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the great anxiety and the large number of people affected, will the right hon. Gentleman see that an early announcement is made as to whether it is the intention of the Government to carry on the Act as it is, or to make vital Amendments? Will he see to it that an early announcement is made?
The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly, an announcement will be made at the earliest opportunity.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings on Government Business 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, 265; Noes, 37.

Division No. 164.]

AYES.

[3.51 p.m.

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)

Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

Balllle, Sir Adrian W. M.

Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Albery, Irving James

Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Beaumont, Hn. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

Hales, Harold K.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

Belt, Sir Alfred L.

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Palmer, Francis Noel

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

Patrick, Colin M.

Bernays, Robert

Hanley, Dennis A.

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Borodale, Viscount.

Harbord, Arthur

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Boulton, W. W.

Harris, Sir Percy

Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

Hartington, Marquess of

Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Hartland, George A.

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Boyce, H. Lesile

Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Brass, Captain Sir William

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Ramsden, Sir Eugene

Broadbent, Colonel John

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Ray, Sir William

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Rea, Walter Russell

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

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

Burghley, Lord

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Reld, James S. C. (Stirling)

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Holdsworth, Herbert

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Burnett, John George

Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

Robinson, John Roland

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Ropner, Colonel L.

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Hornby, Frank

Rosbotham, Sir Samuel

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Howard, Tom Forrest

Ross, Ronald D.

Carver, Major William H.

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

Runge, Norah Cecil

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

Hurd, Sir Percy

Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)

Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Blrm., W)

James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.

Salmon, Sir Isidore

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Jamieson, Douglas

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Janner, Barnett

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

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Clarry, Reginald George

Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

Savery, Samuel Servington

Clayton, Dr. George C.

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Scone, Lord

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

Kimball, Lawrence

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Knight, Holford

Shuts, Colonel J. J.

Cook, Thomas A.

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Cooke, Douglas

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)

Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

Law, Sir Alfred

Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

Crooke, J. Smedley

Lees-Jones, John

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Smithers, Waldron

Crossley, A. C.

Levy, Thomas

Somervell, Donald Bradley

Culverwell, Cyril Tom

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Soper, Richard

Curry, A. C.

Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

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

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Davison, Sir William Henry

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Dlckie, John P.

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

Donner, P. W.

Mabane, William

Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

Dower, Captain A. V. G.

MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)

Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)

Drewe, Cedric

McCorquodale, M. S.

Stones, James

Duckworth, George A. V.

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

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Duggan, Hubert John

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

McKeag, William

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

McKle, John Hamilton

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Sutcllffe, Harold

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

McLean, Major Sir Alan

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

Elmley, Viscount

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Macmillan, Maurice Harold

Thompson, Luke

Ersklne, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

Magnay, Thomas

Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

Maltland, Adam

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

Maklns, Brigadier-General Ernest

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Everard, W. Lindsay

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

Fleming, Edward Lascelles

Meller, Richard James

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Milne, Charles

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

Fox, Sir Gifford

Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

Weymouth, Viscount

Fraser, Captain Ian

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

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

Moreing, Adrian C.

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Gledhill, Gilbert

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

Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

Glossop, C. W. H.

Morrison, William Shepherd

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Moss, Captain H, J.

Womersley, Walter James

Goff, Sir Park

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Munro, Patrick

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Granville, Edgar

Murray-Philipson, Hylton Ralph

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

Grlmston, R. V.

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Normand, Wllfrid Guild

Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Nunn, William

George Penny.

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

1712

1713

NOES.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Banfield, John William

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

Mainwaring, William Henry

Batey, Joseph

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Maxton, James

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Owen, Major Goronwy

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

Hirst, George Henry

Parkinson, John Allen

Buchanan, George

Jenkins, Sir William

Price, Gabriel

Cape, Thomas

John, William

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Thorne, William James

Daggar, George

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Tinker, John Joseph

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Kirkwood, David

Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Edwards, Charles

Lawson, John James

George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

Lunn, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Groves and Mr. C. Macdonald.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

BILLS REPORTED.

  PHARMACY AND POISONS BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 101.]

  FRIMLEY AND FARNBOROUGH DISTRICT WATER, BILL.
    OXFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Torquay) Bill, without Amendment.
  Durham Corporation Bill, with Amendments.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

    STANDING COMMITTEE A.
    Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member:, from Standing Committee A: Mr. Batey, Mr. Briant, Mr. Chorlton, Mr. Thomas Cook, Lord Fermoy, Sir Gifford Fox, Mr. Greene, Mr. Hirst, Mr. Lawson, Miss Rathbone, Captain Cunningham-Reid, Lord Scone, and Miss Ward; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. David Adams, Sir John Sandeman Allen, Sir Charles Barrie, Major Carver, Sir Henry Cautley, Mr. Dobbie, Mr. George Hall, Mr. Lovat-Fraser, Lieut.-Colonel Charles MacAndrew, Mr. McKeag, Sir Basil Peto, Sir William Ray, and Mrs. Tate.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.1 p.m.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The object of the Bill is to amend the existing Act of 1899 for the special purpose of bringing a larger volume of Scottish private legislation within the procedure established by that Act. The House is aware that by that Act a novel procedure was introduced. Speaking generally, that procedure is as follows: Draft Orders are deposited in place of Private Bills, and the Chairmen of both Houses have the duty of deciding whether they should be dealt with as Private Bills or inquired into in Scotland, under the name of draft Provisional Orders, by four Commissioners, usually two from each House of Parliament. If the report of these Commissioners is favourable, a Provisional Order may be made by the Secretary of State. This is afterwards submitted by him to Parliament as a Schedule to a Confirming Bill.
  The system has been in constant use since 1899 and, as the House knows—and I think my colleagues from Scotland will agree with me—has worked most satisfactorily both from the point of view of the promoters of private legislation and from that of Parliament itself which has been relieved of the burden of detailed examination of some 540 of these Measures in the last 34 years. But in 1899, when the Act was established, the procedure was entirely novel and, not unnaturally, certain exceptions were made to, and limitations put on, its use. As all concerned have become increasingly familiar with it, the feeling has grown in Scotland that the time has arrived to review these exceptions and limitations and widen the scope of the operation of this system of Provisional Order and Confirming Bill. On becoming Secretary of State I reviewed the situation and, as the House will recollect, stated in the Debate on the Address last autumn that the extension of this system was one of
  1724
  the improvements in the public life of Scotland which I had in contemplation.
  What, then, are the exceptions and limitations embodied in the Act of 1899? First and most important is this: If the Chairmen of Committees, or either of them, are of opinion that a, draft Order is of such a character or magnitude, or raises any such question of policy or principle that it ought not to be dealt with by a Provisional Order, the matter can only be proceeded with by way of Private Bill. The House will see, therefore, that either the character, or the magnitude of the draft Order, or its dealing with questions of policy or principle, are at present reasons for it being excluded from this procedure. These four existing categories, namely, character, magnitude, policy, or principle, are by the present Bill reduced to the single category of "questions of public policy of such novelty and importance" that they ought to be dealt with by Private Bill. The importance of this amendment may be judged from the fact that proposals for the extension of Scottish burghs, frequently dealt with on the ground of magnitude as Private Bills, will now be inquired into in Scotland as Provisional Orders. The vague word "character" also disappears. But the limitation in its new form will, I think, commend itself to the House. It secures that where a proposal involves questions of public policy, both novel and important, the House will have on the Second Reading of the Private Bill the opportunity of deliberating and deciding upon them. In my view, on such broad issues as these, Parliament cannot readily delegate its powers to Commissioners.
  The second exception in the Act of 1899 is that the system cannot be applied to the authorisation and regulation of the supply of electricity for lighting and other purposes. There seems no good reason why this exception should be continued. It was introduced, perhaps, because in 1899 the use of electricity was still in its infancy and Parliament apparently felt that it should retain direct control over the extension of this dangerous and then unfamiliar force. Such a view belongs to a bygone age, and I think the House will agree it is time to discard it.
  To summarise, I estimate that by the amendments I have just mentioned at

  1725
  least one-half of the Scottish Private Bills which came before the House of Commons would have been dealt with as Provisional Orders. For the future, if this Bill becomes law, every purely Scottish Private Legislation proposal, except those dealing with novel and important questions of public policy—
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Who is to decide that?
  Sir G. COLLINS: The Chairmen of Committees.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: The Members of the House of Commons could be deprived of their rights by the Chairman.
  Sir G. COLLINS: No; he safeguards the rights of Members.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, but the point is that the Chairman can decide on a question of the utmost public importance and a. Member of Parliament has no redress against the Chairman. If the right hon. Gentleman can tell me what redress there is against the Chairman, I shall be obliged.
  Sir G. COLLINS: It has been the case since 1899 that the Chairmen of both Houses have much larger powers, and I propose to reduce their powers very considerably. As I say, all these Measures may proceed by way of Provisional Order unless questions of novelty and importance are included. I think, therefore, the hon. Member will see that I have taken a large step to secure that these Measures will proceed by way of Provisional Order. Therefore for the future, as I was saying before the hon. Member asked a very proper question, if this Bill becomes law, every purely Scottish private legislation proposal, except those dealing with novel and important questions of public policy, will be inquired into first in Scotland, and, on the basis of the past, less than 10 per cent. will proceed by way of Private Bill, and even a smaller percentage than 10 per cent, in the case of opposed Measures. I can assure the House that the saving of time and money will be considerable, and that the extension of a system now so well tried out in practice will be regarded with satisfaction, I think, by all those who have to conduct local government or public undertakings North of the Tweed.
  1726
  The rest of the provisions of the Bill deal only with questions of machinery, but there is one which, though it can be so described, I think I should mention. It appears in Sub-section (4) of Clause 1 in language which is unavoidably somewhat complicated. It deals, however, simply with a situation which must be provided for. Let me explain it by way of example. An institution carries on its work in Scotland and in England. It desires private legislation which will affect it in both, countries. So far as Scotland is concerned, it would at present commence operations by a draft Provisional Order. So far as England is concerned, it would promote a Private Bill. The result might be that it would get different powers in England and in Scotland. This is a disadvantage so patent that it has, in practice, been dealt with as follows: The Chairmen of Committees have held that the Scottish Provisional Order was of such a character that it should be a Private Bill. Thereafter, there being two Private Bills, one English and one Scottish, these have next been consolidated and in that form passed through Parliament.
  The House will agree, I think, that such a procedure is absurdly cumbrous. The Bill proposes to alter it as follows: Those who at present would have to present the draft Scottish Provisional Order will make application to the Secretary of State who, in consultation with the Chairmen of Committees, will, in proper cases, permit them to embody all the provisions in a Private Bill which will be common to both countries. I mention this not only because it is, in my judgment, necessary, but also because since the Bill was printed and circulated the complexity of the phraseology to which I have referred has resulted in a certain amount of misunderstanding and misapprehension of the proposed change. I do not intend, however, that the cases so dealt with should be extended as compared with the existing practice.
  In framing the Bill I have had the advice and experience of the Chairmen of Committees, and I desire to express my appreciation of their valuable assistance. May I add that the provisions which affect their powers have been concurred in by them. If the House gives a Second Reading to this Bill I propose to move that the Bill should be com-

  1727
  mitted to a Committee of the Whole House. This appears to be the appropriate and convenient course, because I understand that if the Bill is automatically committed to a Standing Committee, the Ruling will be that this is not a Bill relating exclusively to Scotland. Accordingly, the Bill would not go to the Scottish Standing Committee, but to one of the other Standing Committees. Let me say, in conclusion, that although Scotland, which is keenly interested in this question, is a small country, it is inhabited by a proud race, and our national pride has at times resented the fact that purely local affairs such as burgh extensions and electricity Orders, which excite keen local interest, could not be dealt with in Scotland. This Bill proposes to rectify that state of affairs and opens the door to a large extension of the Scottish procedure.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: As far as the Scottish section of the Opposition is concerned, we do not intend to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. There are, however, certain provisions in it, which, while we do not take exception to them on points of substance, we wish to have amended, in order either to achieve greater clarity or to give greater power in the methods to be adopted for the conduct of private legislation in Scotland. An amending Bill to the original Statute, as this is, was highly necessary. With the various applications for powers that are put forward by municipalities and other bodies in Scotland that necessity has become more apparent. Local bodies seeking powers have had to come to this House, bringing from Scotland large numbers of expert witnesses and briefing counsels to appear for them here. This entailed very heavy expenditure, sometimes upon very small burghs. Those small burghs often had to incur that expenditure in opposing the extension of larger burghs which threatened to swallow them. There were also burghs which desired some extension of their franchise with regard to public services such as transport services. These had to bring their witnesses to London and, in the case of the Glasgow Corporation, witnesses have had to be kept in hotels here in London for several months when a Bill was going through Committee.
  1728
  This Bill, at any rate, will have the satisfactory result of keeping in Scotland a considerable amount of the inquiry which has to be undertaken before powers are given or refused to the local body which is seeking them. As I say, we do not oppose the Second Reading but we reserve our right to do what we can in the Committee stage to give strength to the Bill and to bring it a little nearer to approximation, at least, to Home Rule for Scotland, in the matter of local legislation. If we cannot get Home Rule in regard to Scottish national legislation, we shall try to bring a little nearer to the people of Scotland, Home Rule in the legislation which affects their burghs and counties and local services. I hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading and that we shall be able to get to work upon it, to do our best as an Opposition to improve it and make it more helpful to the people of Scotland.
  4.19 p.m.
  Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: It is very gratifying that the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) has given his blessing to this Bill. He has had a good deal of experience of sitting on committees in Scotland dealing with important Private Bills. That brings to my mind a Debate in this House, nearly 10 years ago when my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan)—may I remind him of the fact in all good nature—appeared to be oblivious of the fact, as many people in Scotland are to-day, that there is such a thing in Scotland as this Private Bill procedure. Many of us take a great deal of trouble to sit in Glasgow and Edinburgh and elsewhere; according to requirements, for perhaps five or six days at a time. But one's closest friend may meet one in Princes Street, during some of these very important and interesting inquiries and say, "So they have let you away from the House. I hope you are enjoying your holiday." One of the things we want to get into the minds of the Scottish people is that we have Home Rule in Scotland at the present moment. [An HON. MEMBER: "Limited."] Yes, limited Home Rule but just the right kind of Home Rule, the kind we desire and deserve.
  I am glad that after more than 30 years Members of this House are joined in appreciating what excellent legislators

  1729
  were Sir John Macdonald and Lord Balfour of Burleigh. We want Scotland to know, through this Debate, that no Scottish Local Bill will be sent to this House without previous inquiry in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals who looks out for the weak points in everybody's armour, asked the Secretary of State how he was going to preserve the rights of this House. I have been on many of these commissions and as far as I know what always happens is this. At some time after the commissioners have given their decision, the names of the Bills are read out here in the House, generally about eleven o'clock, for Second Reading. If my hon. Friend is as vigilant in the future as he has been in the past, he will be here on such occasions and if he does not desire one of these Bills to get a Second Reading, he can jump up and object and in that way he will ensure that that Bill will not get through without the rights of the House of Commons being considered. What we are doing this afternoon is extending a great piece of Tory legislation. Hon. Members on the other side used to call us "Tories." In recent years they have been more civil and have called us "Conservatives" but that does not matter. This was Tory legislation and it was good legislation and progressive legislation and it has done a great deal in the interest of Scotland. When this amending Bill has been placed on the Statute Book, the names of the Secretary of State and of Lord Balfour of Burleigh will go down to posterity for giving us what we really desire, the proper kind of Home Rule for Scotland.
  4.24 p.m.
  Mr. MILNE: This Bill requires no apologies. It is a Bill to improve and extend the procedure under the Private Legislation Procedure Act which was passed in 1899. Though 34 years have elapsed, that Act has never been overhauled and the time is ripe for its amendment. When the Act was passed, many people prophesied its failure and said that the machinery was bound to break down, but the experiment has now been tried out and the system has been triumphantly vindicated and the system has come to stay. The purpose of the Bill is one which must appeal to all men of good-sense and good-will and I take it that the Second Reading is assured but there are certain features of the Bill
  1730
  which, I humbly think call for criticism, or at any rate comment.
  Under the provisions of the principal Act a tribunal is established whose duty is to determine whether an Order which has originated in Scotland is appropriate for the Scottish procedure or whether it should be sent to London as a Bill. That tribunal consists of the Chairman of Committees in another place, and the Chairman of Ways and Means of this House. We have become so accustomed to the performance of this duty by these gentlemen, that it never occurs to anybody to question whether they are entirely suitable as the tribunal for this purpose. Nobody ever has and nobody ever could question their competence or their impartiality. But are they really the most appropriate tribunal to determine questions such as this? I venture to think not. The Secretary of State for Scotland is aware of all the facts and knows the local circumstances. He is equipped with a knowledge of the whole environment of the Order which is not available to either of the two Chairmen.
  It may be said, however, that if this function were transferred to the Secretary of State for Scotland it would impair Parliamentary authority and would be an invasion of Parliamentary prerogative. Not in the least. I can assure the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that effective Parliamentary control is entirely secured in this way. Even an Order pronounced by the Secretary of State for Scotland has no force or effect unless and until it receives the imprimatur of Parliament and has been passed by both Houses. My proposal is not in the least revolutionary. It is not even novel, because it was the original idea of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, the author of the principal Act, and he was not a revolutionary.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Compared with the present crowd he was.
  Mr. MILNE: With a former generation the name of Lord Balfour of Burleigh carried more weight than any other name in Scotland. He was a man of sound judgment and vast Parliamentary and public experience. He, of all people, was jealous of the rights of Parliament and he would not have sanctioned any relaxation of Parliamentary control. The original Act was preceded by an inquiry. A Select Committee was appointed and

  1731
  evidence was laid before that committee. I have had the curiosity to turn up that evidence and read what Lord Balfour of Burleigh had to say on this point. He was asked:
  "Would you object to a provision that the Scottish Office in some fashion or other should determine whether any proposal ought to proceed by way of a Bill, leaving it to the parties to appear before the Scottish Office?"
  His answer was:
  "Personally, I should not object at all, but I am afraid that those who think that the Secretary for Scotland has too much power in the Bill as at present drafted, would object to the proposal, and to obviate such an objection as that the Chairman of Committees was chosen."
  So, the original idea of Lord Balfour of Burleigh was that the appropriate person to deal with such matters was the Secretary for Scotland. The authors of this Bill seem to recognise the advisability of invoking the assistance of the Secretary of State for Scotland, because in Sub-section (4), of Clause 1 we find that the Secretary of State is conjoined with the two Chairmen for the purposes of that Clause. I wish that the authors of the Bill had had the courage of their convictions, and that throughout the Measure the name of the Secretary of State had been substituted for the two Chairmen; or, if that be too bold a proposal, that the name of the Secretary of State had been conjoined with that of the two Chairmen.
  I turn to another feature of the Bill which also calls for some comment. The duty of this tribunal is to determine whether a proposed Order shall proceed as an Order or he removed to London. The original Act furnishes a test for the guidance of the two Chairmen and provides them, so to speak, with a formula. I am glad to see that the formula has now been altered, as the Secretary of State has told us. The word "magnitude" has been dropped out, and the result will be that in future an Order will not be withdrawn from the procedure and taken to London merely because it is an Order of magnitude, but have the authors of the Bill really arrived at the right formula? The formula which is at present in force says that
  "the Chairmen are directed to consider whether the provisions or some provisions of the draft Order do not relate wholly or mainly to Scotland."
  1732
  If they relate mainly to Scotland, at present the Chairmen have no discretion to withdraw the Order from the procedure. I should have expected to find in the formula in the Bill that the discretion of the tribunal would be restricted. Instead of that, I find that it has been enlarged. The proposal in the Bill is that the Chairmen are directed to consider whether in their opinion the provisions or some of the provisions of the draft Order relate to matters outside Scotland to such an extent that they ought to be dealt with by Private Bill and taken from the procedure. It might happen that an Order which related mainly to Scotland and which could not at present on those grounds be taken out of Scotland, could now be withdrawn from the procedure. I do not suggest that the Chairmen are likely to withdraw an Order which almost entirely related to Scotland, but nevertheless this provision is capable of being misapplied and misconstrued, and I suggest that it should be altered.
  I pass to another feature of this Bill which I make bold to say is unreservedly to be condemned. It is the proposal in Sub-section (4) of Clause 1, to which the Secretary of State has referred. This deals with the case of what is called double promotion. A promoter may have an undertaking, let us say, in Dundee and another in Bristol, and he requires Parliamentary sanction in connection with the Dundee proposal. Under the existing practice he presents the petition for an Order and it goes by way of our procedure. If he wants similar Parliamentary authority in connection with his Bristol undertaking, he obtains at the same time a Private Bill. I am sure that the authors of the Bill did not intend this proposal. It is not the practice to attach side notes to Subsections, but if it were, I should suggest as a side note for this Sub-section "Invitation to London. Come to London." This provision may operate to incite and to instigate promoters to desert the Scottish procedure and to come to London. The Sub-section provides that where a promoter represents to the tribunal that he has an undertaking in Scotland and in England, and that for the sake of uniformity he would like to have the matter dealt with by one enactment, the Chairmen are authorised to withdraw the Order from the procedure

  1733
  and send them both to London to be dealt with as a single Bill.
  I do not like that word "uniformity." It is too often prayed in aid when, the idea is really to assimilate our Scottish law and practice to that in England, to bring it into line with that in England, and to level it up or down as you please. There is a far worse objection to this proposal than that. It throws wide open the door to abuse, and it could only have been conceived in the mind of a draftsman far removed from the world of realities. I remember that some years ago a man, who knew well what he was talking about, said to me: "You would not believe me if I told you the amount of wire-pulling that goes on to have these Bills taken in London."
  Mr. BUCHANAN: That is a serious charge to make.
  Mr. MILNE: It may seem strange to some hon. Members that there should be wire-pulling to have Orders taken in London. To us the 400-mile journey from Scotland to London is a weary, purgatory, but it is not viewed in that light by some other people. The hearings of these Orders are taken in London in the spring and early summer when London is at its brightest and best. A trip to London and all expenses paid. This Sub-section ought to be dropped outright. With regard to the provisions of the Bill generally, will they accomplish much? A responsible person said to me: "I do not think that there is much in your Bill." For my part, I hope and I expect that it will do a great deal to extend and improve the procedure, but, if the plain truth be told, our Scottish procedure will never function as it ought to be functioning unless and until another matter is attended to—a matter which is of urgent public importance: the Scottish Office must be moved to Edinburgh. The procedure Act has to a considerable extent disappointed the hopes of its authors. To some extent the Legislature has been frustrated. It was the hope and intention of the authors of this system that the draft Orders would be drafted by Scotsmen in Scotland. Lord Balfour of Burleigh attached great importance to that. I will again read from his evidence at another inquiry. He was asked:
  1734
  "Is there a separate class of Parliamentary agent at Edinburgh as distinguished front writers or solicitors?"
  Here is his reply:
  "No, I should say there is no profession of Parliamentary agents in Edinburgh, and the absence of that particular professional skill, I do not mind saying, has been a certain amount of disadvantage. … Undoubtedly the hold which the profession have in London upon that class of business has made it less easy to transfer much of the details of the work to Scotland than it would otherwise have been."
  I wonder if the House and the public realise that practically all these Orders—at any rate, all the more important Orders—are drafted in London by London solicitors. They are drafted by persons who are sometimes unfamiliar with the language of the law of Scotland, imperfectly acquainted with that law and have small knowledge of our customs and practices. I have no ill-will towards the London Parliamentary solicitor. I have no doubt that he does his work faithfully at an adequate remuneration, but I say to him: "We do not want to lose you, but we think you ought to go." It would be a depressing prospect perhaps for the London solicitors, but, if the London solicitors were depressed, their Scottish brethren would be correspondingly elated, so that the Secretary of State may rest assured that the sum total of human happiness would be undiminished.
  The House would be impatient with me if I merely put it on those grounds. The reason that Lord Balfour of Burleigh attached importance to it particularly is that these Orders are afterwards to be turned into Acts of Parliament which will intimately affect other interests—Scottish interests—besides those of the promoters, and they ought to be moulded and fashioned by Scottish hands. It is true that the Secretary of State's expert advisers revise the drafts. All the initial stages of the procedure are still carried out in London before the Examiners, who carry out their work in London. That was not the intention of the Legislature. Section 14 of the original Act makes careful provision for the travelling expenses of the Examiners, but I am told, on inquiry, that long ago Examiners have been known to travel to Edinburgh, but within recent memory no

  1735
  one has ever seen an Examiner north of the Border.
  What is the reason for all this? It is manifestly plain: it is that the Scottish Office still lingers in London. A year ago we had in the House a welcome announcement from the Under-Secretary that the Scottish Office should be moved to Edinburgh, and I rather think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) gave it his powerful support. Here is a task which will call forth all his energy, resolution and courage. I had occasion to visit the Scottish Office some time ago. It is always a pleasure to pay a visit there, for the officials are always helpful and ready to give advice, but I left the building with a certain sense of despondency, for I found it in the hands of the painters and decorators. They contemplate a lengthy stay, and there are no signs of an early flitting. The Scottish Office in most places in Scotland is viewed with feelings of dislike and distrust. I believe that nobody who is acquainted with the officials of the Scottish Office shares that view. This hostile atmosphere is largely due to lack of acquaintance. I believe that, in spite of all that is said against and about the Scottish Office, we in Scotland have a warm place in our hearts for it. The attitude of Scotsmen to the Scottish Office would best be described in the language of the poet:
  "I do not love thee, no, I do not love thee, But yet, when thou art absent, I am sad."
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: "Absence makes the heart grow fonder."
  Mr. MILNE: If the home-coming of the Scottish Office be long delayed, I believe that we can do something to extend and improve the procedure of our private legislation by voting for this Bill.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. JAMIESON: Until I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Milne) I had very little to say about the procedure introduced in 1899, but the hon. Member's long official experience in connection with that procedure seems to have had a deteriorating effect upon his arithmetic. I do not altogether agree with what he says. I do not agree that the Scottish Office is
  1736
  looked upon with distrust in Scotland, but I do agree with him that it would be a great benefit to Scotland if a great deal more of the work of the Scottish Office could be transferred there. I agree with that on the same principle which leads me to agree with this Bill, the principle being that so far as purely Scottish local affairs are concerned, they should, subject to the control of Parliament, be conducted in Scotland. There is a general desire in Scotland that the 1899 Act should be extended so that more of the private legislation work could be conducted in Scotland than has been the case hitherto.
  In introducing any reform it is necessary to see that you are not going to do something which is not practicable and that you do not sacrifice efficiency. While I agree entirely with the Bill, I would like an assurance from the Government that they have considered the question, and that they are satisfied that it will be practicable to man the tribunals and to conduct these inquiries in Scotland with Members of this House and Members from another place who have experience in this work, and who will be able to devote the necessary time to holding long inquiries in Scotland. This question arose when a Bill was introduced in 1898 and was sent by this House to a Select Committee to report on the Bill. That Committee took evidence, and among other witnesses who were examined was the then Lord Chairman of Committees in another place. Mr. Lowther, who was then Chairman of Committees in this House, and Lord Balfour of Burleigh, both reported that in their opinions it would be doubtful whether Members of the two Houses would be available for the conduct of local inquiries, which in some cases might be of considerable duration. The view of the Committee as disclosed in their Report was that, so far as this House was concerned, they thought it would be possible to get Members to go, but they did point out the very great objection that to detach Members for that work and send them to Scotland was going to deprive their constituents of their services and keep them away from this House when matters of great public importance might be taking place here.
  That Bill in 1898 was not proceeded with, but in 1899, when the Bill which has now become the principal Act came on

  1737
  for Second Reading in this House, this question was again raised. The Lord Advocate of the day, Mr. Graham Murray, said that in his view it would be possible to get Members to go to Scotland to hold the inquiries, but as a safeguard, in case that proved not to be possible, an extra Parliamentary panel was set up.
  Sir S. CHAPMAN: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us how many Commissioners have gone from this House every year since that Bill came into operation?
  Mr. JAMIESON: I was just going to say that I am glad that the Select Committee were right and that Mr. Graham Murray was right. The extra Parliamentary panel has only in very exceptional cases been called on at all, and the Commission bas been manned by Members of this House, of whom my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman) is a notable example, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. McLean). Hitherto there have been no difficulties. But we are now faced with a very different position. Hitherto it has been only the smaller Orders which have been taken in Scotland, and where an application for Parliamentary powers of very considerable magnitude has been presented the Chairmen have ruled that it should be taken by way of a Private Bill. A notable example was the Glasgow Boundaries Extension Bill, which occupied a Committee upstairs for 27 days. That, no doubt, was the high-water mark. But there have been many Scottish inquiries here before Committees upstairs, which have taken a week, a fortnight, or perhaps three weeks.
  There is no doubt that when this Bill passes, as I hope it will, the call on the time of Members of this House who serve as commissioners is going to be very much more severe. If the work is going to be a success it is perfectly obvious that we must have commissioners who have experience and are qualified to do the work. The importance of a strong commission is obvious. The commissioners must command the respect and the confidence of both the promoters and the opposers of an Order. Not only that, but this procedure is a direct departure from our constitutional bi-cameral system of Legislature, because the decision under
  1738
  this procedure is given once and for all, whereas under our ordinary Parliamentary procedure, which applies to Private Bills just as much as to Bills introduced and discussed throughout in this House or in another place, if objectors have been unsuccessful in their objections before a Committee in one House, they have always the right to get their case re-heard by a Committee of the other House.
  It may be said that under the 1899 Act provision is made for a Motion in this House, when the confirming Bill comes on for Second Reading, that the Bill should be committed to a Select, Committee of both Houses. That is not a proper safeguard. No one suggests that a Motion in this House objecting that the commissioners have gone wrong on the merits of the Order would for a moment be entertained. I have made inquiries, and I understand that that Section has been put in operation only once. In 1904 when the Leith tramways were promoting an Order, the Edinburgh tramways undertaking was refused a locus standi, and this House remitted the Order to a Joint Committee of both Houses. It was only in cases where the commissioners may have been flagrantly wrong that the machinery provided under the 1899 Act could be put into operation.
  I have thought it right to raise this matter because it is very important at this stage. I would like an assurance from the Government on the point, because it is up to this Government and every future Government, if Scotland is to get proper attention to her rights under this procedure, to see that they send up, to conduct these inquiries, Members of this House and of the other House who have experience, and who are properly qualified to do the work. I was very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about Subsection (4) of Clause 1, but I would seek from the learned Solicitor-General, who is to reply, some further information as to how far this Bill relates to matters which do not arise wholly in Scotland. One would gather from the Clause that unless the Chairmen order the proceedings to be taken by way of a Private Bill, if the matter relates to something out-with as well as within Scotland, it will be necessary to have both a Provisional Order and a Private Bill. But when one

  1739
  turns to Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 one finds it provided that if the provisions of the draft Order relate to matters outside Scotland to such an extent that they ought to be dealt with by Private Bill, it may be so ordered. I shall be glad if the learned Solicitor-General will give me and the House some explanation of how far the procedure provided for in the Bill is applicable to matters which do not relate wholly to Scotland.
  There is one other question that I would like to raise. While many of the other provisions in this Bill are most useful, there is one very prominent omission, and that is with regard to how far Government Departments ate entitled to come forward and get modifications of an Order. Under the law as it exists at present, after a draft Order has left the Commissioners, after it has been approved by them, the Secretary of State may make modifications in it which are brought to his notice by other Government Departments, and it goes as far as this—that before making and issuing an Order he shall have regard to the recommendations of the Chairmen and of the Treasury and of other public departments.
  The procedure with regard to the reports of Government Departments is most haphazard. Sometimes they arrive before the hearing by the Commissioners, sometimes they arrive only after the hearing has started. Sometimes the promoters and the objectors are able to get copies of the reports and sometimes they are not. I should like to see introduced into this Bill a provision that all reports and recommendations by Government Departments must be lodged with the clerk to the Commissioners in time to make them available to the Departments, and that machinery should be set up for making them so available. Further, I would like to see the Section of the 1899 Act to which I referred amended, because I think the procedure ought to be brought into line with that of Private Bill procedure here, that any recommendations of Government Departments ought to be supported by the Commissioners, who are the representatives of Parliament just as the Committees upstairs are, and that once these have been considered by the Commissioners, no further alteration should be made to the Order after it has obtained their
  1740
  approval. I hope the Government, before this Bill reaches Committee, will consider that point. In conclusion, I would like to ask how it is that the draftsman of this Bill has not given to the Secretary of State for Scotland the status which I am glad to say he now possesses, because throughout he is described as "the Secretary for Scotland."
  5.2 p.m.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I welcome this Bill, principally because it opens up the opportunity for us here in this House to draw attention to the necessity for further devolution of the business of this House, and it gives us an opportunity of putting in a word for Home Rule for Scotland. The peculiar thing about it is that it is only a case of devolution concerning matters affecting the lawyers of Scotland. I support it, because it is a Scottish idea. The only objection I take to it is that the lawyers of Scotland should use all their available time and ability at this juncture, when Scotland is right up against it and when poverty is rampant in the country, to further the interests of the lawyers of Scotland. Suppose Glasgow wants to extend, owing to its housing schemes, and wants to go outside its original borders. We had a case in point a few years ago, when Glasgow annexed a great amount of territory to enable it to go in for extensive new housing schemes. To do that, they had to come down here, and it cost the city of Glasgow and the adjacent counties a quarter of a million of money. That money was spent here in London, and the lawyers in Scotland, quite naturally, object to all this money being spent down here and English K.C.s getting the cream of all the money spent in that way. They see all this money, all those briefs, going past their doors. I have no objection to that attitude, but what I object to is that they should have the power—this is the second time within a month—to use up the time of this House in the interests of the lawyers of Scotland instead of looking after the people whom they were sent here to represent.
  The hon. and learned Member for Maryhill (Mr. Jamieson) refuted the statement that was made by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Milne), but I support the hon. Member for West Fife all the way. When you go into the Scottish Office, you are met with a

  1741
  douche. It is the coldest place, and they are the most austere officials that I have ever met in the British Government; and I have dealt with officials in all the Departments in the years that I have been here. There are none so cold as Scottish officials, the reason being that, they do not understand us; they are so far removed from the seat of trouble. They are 400 miles away, and they are a foreign race to us. This Bill is a proof of that. We are dealing here with another race, the Scottish race, a distinct race, and their problems ought to be dealt with in Edinburgh or Glasgcw—I do not care which. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am not putting up a plea for Glasgow just because I am a Glasgow man. I would be quite satisfied with "Scotia's darling seat" being again the seat of the Legislature. Well pleased would I be, and the very fact that we have this Bill is a proof that we Scots have distinct laws as apart from the English. Therefore we should not have to come down here and require to get power from an English Parliament to carry out what we and the folk in Scotland have decided should be carried out.
  All the Members, even the Tory Members here, have spoken in favour of devolution and have agreed to it. This private legislation procedure for Scotland is essentially a lawyer's matter, and it is difficult for me as a layman to understand all that is involved here. I have to be very careful, because we have those who are on our tracks in anything where we may happen to deviate. If we do not understand something, they will take full advantage of it. They are mean enough for anything, so we have to be careful when we are dealing with any of these Bills that happen to be put before us by the legal fraternity. As I said at the beginning, I welcome anything that will give to us in Scotland the power to carry out our own wishes in Scotland as apart from England. With reference to a remark that fell from the hon. and learned Member for Maryhill, as to the individuals who form those Commissions, I have sat with them, and they are just as able as is the hon. and learned Member for Maryhill.
  Mr. JAMIESON: If I had known that the hon. Member had so sat, I would have included him among the notable
  1742
  examples of those who had performed their work so well.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD.: It is not that you did not include me. I am not worrying about that. I am worrying about what you said, because, to me, you insulted Scotland.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I did not insult Scotland. The hon. Member must address me.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: The hon. and learned Member for Maryhill said he did not want matters of grave importance to be handed away to Commissioners, that those Commissioners would sit in Edinburgh, and that they would be settling matters up there which it would be far better to bring before this House, and then we should have all the ability of this House as against the ability of the Commissioners that had been appointed by the Select Committee or by the Secretary of State.
  Mr. JAMIESON: The hon. Member quite misunderstood me. I did not say that these matters ought not to be put before the Commissioners. I said that I hoped that, if Scotland got her rights, the Government would see that Commissioners who were well able to perform the task would be sent to Scotland to do it, and I certainly want these Measures to come before the Commissioners in Scotland rather than to be taken before a Committee upstairs.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is the very point that I am making, that the hon. and learned Member said they had to be sure, as if in the past they had not been sure. There is no doubt that he was casting reflections on the Commissioners who had been appointed, and that is tantamount to saying that we should not have those Commissioners, but should continue with the old procedure, that the old procedure was far better than the new idea which is put forward in this Bill, of taking business away from this House. This House has too much business—it cannot conduct all its business now—and a great amount of business which should be done in Scotland is brought down here. On those lines, and as far as I understand this Bill, I welcome it.
  5.13 p.m.
  Mr. ALBERT RUSSELL: I think the Secretary of State must be gratified that

  1743
  in this Debate, so far, no Member has done other than give his blessing to the Bill. That is especially gratifying if one considers that several of those who have spoken have had actual working experience of the procedure as Commissioners as it has been carried on in Scotland in the past. The provisions of this Bill are designed to extend the scope of the private legislative business which has to be carried out in that way. I am sure one cannot under-estimate the importance of private legislation and very often the overwhelming necessity for taking great care, on the part of those who have to adjudicate, not only in acting in a judicial capacity in determining questions of fact, but in acting also in a legislative capacity, in determining what is the right policy to adopt, whether the granting of compulsory powers is expedient in the circumstances or whether the private interests that may be involved and endangered are adequately safeguarded in the Bill or Order which is presented. While one knows that the Act of 1899, at the time it was passed, occasioned a good deal of doubt as to whether it would prove satisfactory in working, one is glad to get the assurance of the Secretary of State that the procedure has given universal satisfaction in Scotland, and that no less than one-half of all the private legislation initiated in Scotland in those years has been dealt with by that procedure. It is remarkable as a tribute to the commissions who have been entrusted with the work in past years. It is always a question whether one should delegate powers which are reposed in Parliament to a small body, but I am quite sure that the satisfactory manner in which the scheme has worked has justified what the Secretary of State said about it.
  But although the scheme has worked satisfactorily, and is now to be extended in the way this Bill provides, there is inherent in the scheme what one might call a certain measure of overriding control by a Department of Government, because even where an Order has been approved by the Commissioners, who have found everything satisfactory, there is still power under the Act of 1899 for the Secretary of State for Scotland to modify the provisions of that Order in such way as may appear necessary. There is one thing which I am sure this House does
  1744
  not wish to impose upon Scotland, and that is any extension of the system of Government by bureaucracy, any extension of the power of legislation or quasi-legislation given to a Secretary of State or to a Government Department. I myself have come across instances in which Departments of State have come forward very late in the day at an inquiry with some point with which the promoters had not time to deal. The points were not decided by the Commissioners, because the necessary information was not there, and after the Commissioners had approved of the Order modifications in it have been made in the Secretary of State's Department in order to give effect to a Departmental requirement or to some modification which the Secretary of State thought right.
  It would remove one criticism, a minor criticism, admittedly, which has been put forward against the operation of the Act of 1899 if the Government would promise to insert in this Bill provisions to ensure that any modification which the Secretary of State desires to make in the provisions of an Order, or any suggestions which a Department desires to put forward, shall be submitted prior to the holding of the inquiry, and made known to the promoters and to those who are petitioning against the Order, so as to enable the point to be put before the Commissioners and to be decided on by them. And let that be the final say that Parliament has in determining the official form which the Order is to take, subject always to the reserved right of Parliament, when the Bill is introduced to the House for Second Reading, to modify it otherwise if it thinks fit. One has had experience of cases where the Secretary of State and his Department and other Departments such as the Ministry of Transport have brought forward modifications which were put into an Order without the Commissioners having had the opportunity of considering them. When we are extending the scope of the delegated powers it is most important that the power of Parliament should be delegated to those people whom Parliament sends to Scotland, and should not in the last resort be delegated to a Government Department. I press upon the Secretary of State the advisability of making some provision to meet what is, I think, a grievance in connection

  1745
  with the working of an otherwise very good system.
  There is no doubt that hitherto no difficulty has been encountered in finding Members of Parliament to go down to Scotland to discharge the duties which this private legislation procedure puts upon them, but we must contemplate the probability that the work will be doubled in the future. While the volume of private legislation is not very big at the moment, we must realise that in the future it is going to be at least double what it was in the busiest time of Scottish private legislation under this Act. If that be so, steps must be taken to ensure that Commissioners from the Parliamentary panels will be willing to go down if it is known beforehand that a Provisional Order may well occupy three or four or five weeks of working days before the Commission. I think that difficulty might be met by increasing the Members on the Parliamentary panels. At present there are 15 from the House of Commons, 15 from the other place and an extra-Parliamentary panel of, I think, 20. If the volume of work is going to be doubled, and if any one particular Order is one which may last for several weeks, we want to make sure of finding people who will be able to absent themselves from this House for that time.
  In conclusion, I would like to welcome the Bill as a further stage in delegating to Scotland control in a manner which relieves the work of the Imperial Parliament and in a manner which is dealing with purely local Scottish matters. It will undoubtedly result in a saving of time, trouble and expense to all concerned, and be of vital interest to the ratepayers of the municipalities who very often are the promoters of these Orders. If this procedure enables the work to be done on the extended scale as efficiently as it has been done in the past, with an added saving of time and expense, and if it should synchronise with the setting up of a Scottish Office in which we shall really have available in Edinburgh not only a mere offshoot of the London Scottish Office in Whitehall but a real, living, active Scottish Office, with officials who are administering the affairs of Scotland, I think it will do a great deal to remove a good deal of what one must realise is spurious and slightly thoughtout arguments as to the necessity of some measure of Home Rule for Scot-
  1746
  land. I welcome the Bill, and I trust that in Committee such Amendments as I have suggested may be made, perhaps introduced by the Government itself, to remove the defects to which I have referred.
  5.26 p.m.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I must confess that I cannot see the changes which are proposed in this Bill. As I understand it the Bill means that certain Provisional Orders which used to be considered in London will now be dealt with in Scotland. How many Bills have been taken in London recently? In the 10 or 11 years during which I have been in the House I can recollect only half-a-dozen, and yet we are told about the immense saving of time which will be effected. Even this Bill does not guarantee that a Bill will be taken in this House, because, as the Secretary of State fairly said, the Chairman of Ways and Means still has power to direct that Bills shall be considered here if he thinks they contain elements of public importance. In my time there has been a Glasgow Corporation Bill—two Bills, I think, and the Greenock Corporation have had a Bill. Those are all I can recollect, speaking from memory. I do not know whether the Solicitor-General can remember any more, but I cannot remember more than half-a-dozen in the last 20 years.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Normand): Oh, yes, I have dealt with half-a-dozen here myself.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: How many were there in the last 10 years?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: There were nearly 50 in the 15 years.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, but the hon. and learned. Gentleman must remember that five of those years were not ordinary years. From the point of view of local legislation, the first five years following the War were a, different five years from any other live years. Nobody has proceeded with local legislation during the War, and there was a good deal to be done afterwards. But even accepting that there were 50 in 15 years, that works out at only a little over three a year, and yet we are told about the immense saving of time and money that is to be effected. I cannot recollect a Scottish Bill being taken in this House since this

  1747
  Parliament came in—not one. As a matter of fact, each year sees the tendency grow less. The chief corporation affected has been the Glasgow Corporation, and the chief subject dealt with was the amalgamation of boundaries. Take away extensions of boundaries, and there is very little left. At that time, the Chairman of Ways and Means would have decided that it would be heard here in any case, for the reason that there was a Commission sitting, dealing with boundaries in every part of the country. There are certain limitations as to how far towns may go on increasing in size. As a matter of public policy, the Chairman of Ways and Means was bound to have permitted that Committee to deal with the question, which was of very great public importance, because the Government was undertaking the limitation of the size of towns.
  I cannot see anything in the Bill at all in regard to Lanarkshire. It proposes that, in these matters, the Chairman of Ways and Means shall allow them to be taken at the rate of three and more a year in Scotland. It is doubtful if there are three a year. We are told that this will mean extra people, but I cannot see that there is much in the Measure. I am anxious to safeguard questions of procedure and the rights of Parliament. I want to be perfectly frank, and say that in regard to these Provisional Orders there is a question which might have a different relationship and which raises a question of public importance far outweighing the town. There was a small Provisional Order which had one Section asking that Greenock should be given certain powers, which Greenock might have thought desirable, but which every other town in Scotland would have wanted, once they had been granted to Greenock. If general powers are to be granted, they should not be granted by a side wind, but by a Parliamentary Bill. Parliament itself should either undertake the responsibility or reject the proposal.
  I cannot see that this Measure makes any great change in the present procedure. The position remains substantially the same. The Chairman of Ways and Means has to say whether these matters are of public importance before he allows three a year to be taken, but that is the working procedure now. The Chairman of Ways and Means rarely
  1748
  sends a Bill here unless it raises some fundamental question of public importance. If one goes over the figures for each year, one will find that the Chairman of Ways and Means is lessening the number that are taken here, until now there are almost none taken. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Milne) has done credit to someone holding revolutionary views. He speaks about someone manoeuvring to get trips. If I had said it, the whole House would have been up in arms. I will say this in defence of Glasgow, that everyone who knows that city knows that it likes its measures to be taken here. I was in the Glasgow Corporation for six years, but I was never on any deputation nor had I the time nor inclination for that. My experience has been that members of Glasgow Corporation always brought their measures here.
  Glasgow is the object of a great deal of envy and jealousy from outside burghs. When the right hon. Member for Hill-head (Sir R. Horne) was responsible for the amalgamation, I was the only one to oppose the amalgamation proposal. Everybody else was looking to Glasgow constantly expanding its area, far outside Lanarkshire or Renfrewshire. There is a feeling among the small places, as one can see if he reads the proceedings of the Convention of Royal Burghs, for grouping together, in order to defend themselves against the oncoming of what they think are the big corporations. Glasgow must be considered. It has fully a fourth of the population of Scotland. Glasgow finds when Bills are taken locally—let us be frank—that while the commissioners try to do their work well, there are men who cannot step aside from the prejudices of a lifetime, and the consequence is that Glasgow would rather come here, because they feel that they get a much more impartial hearing and that their wishes are not viewed as those of a big city expanding, but impartially, in accordance with their needs.
  I say that in common fairness to the City of Glasgow. I do not share the view that lawyers are not capable people. If I were in a criminal dock to-morrow, the more serious the charge with which I was concerned the more concerned I would be in seeing that there was a qualified legal man on the bench. I have said this in connection with another

  1749
  matter. One of the tendencies growing up and which is wrong is the preference for lay administration. I cannot understand this idea that Glasgow town councillors want a trip to London. Most of them, comparatively speaking, are comfortably off. They can take a trip to London whenever they like. Their business interests will give them all the trips to London that they want. You are likely to have manoeuvres much nearer to West Fife than you are to London.
  Mr. MILNE: I never mentioned the great City of Glasgow, and I had not Glasgow in my mind.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: It was Glasgow that does the manoeuvring and it is Glasgow Bills that come here. The meaning was obvious to anyone.
  Mr. MILNE indicated dissent.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I differ from the hon. Member who said that the first people to be considered were the ratepayers. The first consideration of this House ought to be to see that justice is done. It is of no use this House saving £1,000 or £5,000, if, at the end, litigants do not feel that justice has been meted out to them. The most important question is not that of saving a few paltry pounds, but that people should feel that they have had a proper trial and a decent consideration of their case. The number of cases affected is comparatively small, and so trivial as not to matter. In a great majority of cases, no alteration is made in the proceedings. The rights of Members of Parliament are still amply safeguarded in this House, and neither in the Committee stage nor now can I see myself rigging up a fight on this matter. I can see myself doing it on the Trout Bill and on a number of others, but this Measure is more a make-believe, and I cannot see a decent criticism to make upon it. I will allow the Bill to pass, neither condemning its promoters nor complimenting them, but saying that time will prove whether they have done good or bad.
  5.42 p.m.
  Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I wish to compliment the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, on his success in commending this Bill to the House, a success so great that even the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is unable to conceive any
  1750
  criticism which could be brought against it. Hon. Members have raised a number of minor but very interesting points, and a number of different views have been expressed. We are all, in every part of the House, interested to see that the Secretary of State is throwing open as wide as possible the door to the adoption of that Scottish Private Bill Procedure which, in the opinion of nearly every speaker, has worked so well during the last 20 years. In my view, he has thrown it open as widely as he can.
  One question was raised by the hon. Member who has just sat down as to the powers of the Chairmen, and the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Milne) questioned the composition, and tried to suggest an alteration in the composition, of the tribunal which has to decide whether a draft Order gets, the benefit of this procedure. For my own part, I cannot think that it would be right to throw this additional burden upon the Secretary of State, as he seems to suggest. When he was discussing the composition of the present tribunal, he admitted that it was impartial and competent. I hardly think that you can find a better tribunal than one to which you can pay so high a tribute. I think that we were not only right from the constitutional point of view to retain power in the hands of the officers of Parliament to decide which Bill should enjoy the procedure but that, as we have a competent and impartial tribunal, we shall do well to keep it.
  The hon. and learned Member for Maryhill (Mr. Jamieson) raised the question of the additional work which will be placed upon the Commission, and, therefore, on the Scottish Members of the House who will man it under the provisions of the Bill; but, while that point is an important one, I do not think that his doubts regarding it really bore the construction that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) tried to put upon them. I do not think he desired to criticise the members of past Commissions, but what he feared was that it would be difficult to find competent people able to give the time for this additional work in the future, and that is a point which will have to be borne carefully in mind. On the other hand, I do not think he attached sufficient importance to the safeguard of control by this House, which undoubtedly exists in the fact that the House can, after a Provi-

  1751
  sional Order has been examined by the Commission, refer it to a committee. It is true, as he said, that that has only been done once, but that shows that it can be done—that the House has used this power, and would, if necessary, use it again. I think, however, that the House has been very wisely guided in determining not to use it except where the conviction is borne in upon Members of the House that it is absolutely necessary. We have sent these commissions to Scotland, they have been able men, and have done their work well; and the House has been right in saying, "These people have heard the case on the spot, they have been in touch with the people mainly concerned, and we are going to stand by the decision to which they have come." But the control which remains in the House of Commons, and which has on one occasion, though on one only, been effectively used, is an ample security on which we can rely.
  I have some sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Member for Gorbals. I think the Secretary of State put the case perhaps a little high when he talked about the proud race widely extending its control over its local affairs. I certainly do not think that this will meet in any degree the views of those sections of public opinion in Scotland that believe it to be necessary and desirable that Scottish men and women should have fuller control over their own domestic affairs, nor will it meet the views of those who have pressed in all quarters of the House that there should be a greater control in Scotland over Scottish administration, that the centre of Scottish administration, as the hon. Member for West Fife has said, should be removed to Edinburgh. The Bill does not attempt to go as far as that; it has, indeed, a very modest scope; but still it is a useful Measure, which, for my part, I am glad to welcome, and which I shall hope to support in its different stages as it passes through the House.
  5.49 p.m.
  Sir ROBERT HORNE: Few Bills have come before the House which have received so much appreciation as that which the Secretary of State for Scotland has introduced to-day. My remarks upon it will be brief, for three reasons. In the first place, I must maintain our native
  1752
  characteristic of economy in words; in the second place, I must keep before my mind the fact that this afternoon everything has been said with regard to the Measure that I think can he wisely or usefully or reasonably said; and, in the third place, I myself have some responsibility for having taken up this question previously in the House, and, indeed, the principles of this Bill are those which at that time I put forward. It was a refreshing experience to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). My right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) succeeded in dragging in some perfervid words with regard to the question of Home Rule for Scotland, but we are well aware of the attitude that he has taken up in the past on that question. It has always been one of a character which ended with a peroration, but it has seldom been reduced to anything in the shape of a scheme of practical politics, and one of the things that I hope to live long enough to see is the actual Bill which my right hon. Friend will some day, at long last, bring forward, I hope before we are all too grey to be strong enough to give effective consideration to his proposals.
  As one who has read much in the public journals of speeches made in Scotland in recent times, I must confess that the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals produced on me an effect which another Member said he had had produced upon him—the effect of a cold douche. I am living in an atmosphere of belief that the fiery cross has been going round the Highlands on this subject; that the Clyde has been on fire because Glasgow's witnesses have to come to London in order to give their evidence in cases affecting merely local affairs, and that the beacons have been out on the Border hills in protest against the fact that Scottish lawyers are not allowed to conduct business which those in London have found so lucrative. To all that type of theory my hon. Friend brings a very cold, and, indeed, as I said before, refreshing douche. At any rate, he minimises the effect of this Bill, quite rightly, but I do not think—
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I am afraid that, even with a fee, the right hon. Gentleman could hardly do otherwise.
  Sir R. HORNE: I do not think that this Bill is of so small a character as my hon. Friend believes, though it is not, perhaps, of so large and spacious a type as the perfervid patriots of Scotland who seek Home Rule would desire. Certain views of differing character have been presented this afternoon. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) said that this was a lawyers' Bill. I hope he did not mean by that that it is a Bill from which only lawyers will derive benefit, because its chief characteristic seems to me to be that it will benefit people of very small means in Scotland who are often prevented from putting forward the opposition which they otherwise would put forward because of the expense of stating it in London. For example, if the sacred soil of Dumbarton were invaded by the great community of Glasgow, there are many people who, under the old arrangement, because of the magnitude of Glasgow's Bills, would find their mouths closed, but who, under the new provisions of this Measure, will, as I hope, be enabled at small expense to state their proper objections. I also listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Milne)—
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that the lawyers will benefit by this Bill much more than they would under the old conditions? The Glasgow Extension Bill has been mentioned, which was required to come here, and they will not benefit any the less by these proceedings being conducted in Edinburgh.
  Sir R. HORNE: I hope the Bill will benefit all classes in Scotland, and not only lawyers, as my hon. Friend suggests. On the contrary, my view is that the whole of the populace north of the Tweed will have this opportunity of asserting their rights in a way that is denied to them to some extent to-day. My hon. Friend the Member for West Fife suggested, in his interesting and entertaining speech, that the Secretary of State for Scotland should be the sole judge as to whether a Bill should go forward as a Provisional Order or not. He deprecated any further appeal to the Chairmen of Committees; he thought that the Scottish Office might be left to undertake the duty of deciding that matter upon their own point of view. I have considerable sympathy with that opinion,
  1754
  but, at the same time, there are other considerations which have to be kept in mind. It is advisable that we should have the experience of everyone at our disposal in this matter, and, while I have the greatest confidence in the officials of the Scottish Office, at the same time they naturally have not the same wide experience as the Chairmen of Committees of both Houses, and, if it is necessary to consider, as I think it is, whether a particular Bill raises questions of principle affecting not merely local affairs but the interests of the whole Kingdom, it is right that that fact should be taken notice of, and a proper form of procedure observed.
  It has also occurred to me that something might be done to enable papers in connection with these matters to be lodged in Edinburgh as well as in London, or in Edinburgh in preference to London. Many people, in order to lodge papers in London, have to employ London Parliamentary agents, and I think that that is an expense which might well be cut out. I hope that it may be possible to do something, even short of the ambitions and aspirations that we all enjoy—short of setting up the Scottish Office in a much more independent form in Edinburgh than it is to-day—whereby it might be possible to allow people to make their proper opposition to Provisional Orders by lodging their papers in Edinburgh. I hope, myself, that the day is not far distant when the Scottish administration shall operate to a far fuller extent in Edinburgh than it does to-day. In fact, my hope would be that the time may come when only that portion of the Scottish Office will remain in London which is necessary in order to conduct our business in the British Parliament, and I am glad to hear that at the present time arrangements are being suggested whereby the Scottish Office, in such circumstances, may be suitably housed.
  I pass to the last consideration, namely, that which was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mary-hill (Mr. Jamieson), and this is a point to which I would like to direct the attention of the Secretary of State. Section 8 of the principal Act of 1899 provides, as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, that, even after a Provisional Order has been disposed of so far as procedure is

  1755
  concerned, it then comes before the Secretary of State, and also before the Departments of Government. Individual provisions in the Order may be entirely dispensed with for reasons which may seem to the Scottish Office, instructed by the public departments, to militate against the reasonableness of those Orders being passed. That Section looks to me like a safeguard which was put into the original Act in reference to a new and untried form of procedure in order that, at the beginning at least, every precaution might be taken to guard against the possibility of mistakes being made. We have now had considerable experience and we might throw off some of our swaddling clothes. If the Government Departments have anything to say, they should say it in the presence of the commission, to whose members their contentions should be put forward. It seems to me to stultify in a considerable degree the very prerogatives which have been granted to Scotland in this matter if this final hurdle is allowed to check or nullify the considered opinion of the tribunal.
  In principle this Bill seems to be sound. I think it will effect a considerable change in Scotland which will enure to the benefit of our people. The hon. Member for Gorbals pointed out that there have been only a very few Measures which have been treated by Private Bills from Scotland in recent years, but we must remember that these have been years of depression and, when the country recovers, I have no doubt that you will find a reversion to something like the figures that you had early in the century, and under the provisions of this Measure many proposals will be considered by Provisional Order in Scotland which otherwise would have been heard under the old procedure in London. The great change that is made is that no longer does magnitude form an element to be considered in deciding whether a particular proposal is to be heard by Provisional Order or by Private Bill. No Measure is going to be too big to be dealt with locally in Scotland. It might be of such novelty and importance that it would not be wise to deal with it entirely locally, but, short of that, every proposal that is made with regard to local affairs in Scotland is to be heard in the form of a Provisional Order. In those circum-
  1756
  stances, I think a great advance is being made and one in which the Scottish people will ultimately rejoice.
  6.4 p.m.
  The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: The Government have every reason to congratulate themselves on the reception of the Bill by the House. So far as I have been able to discover, they may equally congratulate themselves on its reception in Scotland, for I do not find anywhere any criticism of the principles of the Bill expressed either in the country or in the House. It is gratifying to know that it will receive the support in the Committee stage of those for whom the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) speaks as well as those for whom the right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) speaks. There was, indeed, perhaps some, I will not say criticism, but minimising of the Bill in the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). He said there had only been some 50 Measures in the last 15 years for Scotland which had come before Parliament and been dealt with by Private Bill. The right, hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) has pointed out that period includes several years of ft e most acute depression. Perhaps in the last two or three years fewer Bills of any sort have been presented to Parliament by private promoters than in any period of recent history.
  But that is not the only point. What caused these Bills to be sent to Westminster instead of allowing them to be dealt with in Edinburgh was the provision regarding "magnitude." The consequence was that all the most important and the most lengthy promotions required to be dealt with by Bill. I speak from experience. There was the Greenock Bill and the Paisley Bill, and the Glasgow Bill only the year before last which occupied the time of Committees upstairs for weeks. Another provision of this Bill provides that in future all promotions for the purpose of electric supply will go to Scotland. I was in three successive Bills dealing with hydro-electric schemes which occupied me for many weeks continuously. Those Bills under the provisions of this Bill will be dealt with in Scotland.
  The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) hinted that in

  1757
  his view this was a Bill for the benefit of lawyers. I think he meant for the benefit of Scottish as opposed to English lawyers. He was never more mistaken. If it were a choice between appearing for a certain number of weeks in Committee Rooms upstairs or appearing in Edinburgh on a Private Bill, I would never hesitate to choose if I were to regard only my private financial advantage to come to Westminster. Another point made by the hon. Member for Gorbals was that the essential thing was to secure justice. The roost important reason perhaps for the introduction of the Bill is that it secures justice. What happens at present? A wealthy promoter, when he starts a Bill, desires above all things to come to London. He does everything to magnify its importance, because he knows that the small man who would be an objector dare not face the expense which will he incurred, not only before a Committee of this House, but before a Committee of the other House in the event of its passing the first.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that in the Glasgow Extension Bill only two years ago Sir Lynden Macassey would not come into the business if it was in Edinburgh?
  The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: No, that is not so. Any member of the English Parliamentary Bar can appear before the Committee in Edinburgh and any member of the Scottish Bar can appear upstairs here. Scottish counsel repeatedly appear here and English counsel in Scotland. Justice is far more likely to result from a procedure which is not bicameral in the Committee stage and which is certainly cheaper than by a procedure which is far more expensive, for the simple reason that it will allow a poor man to be heard whereas under a more expensive system he dare not risk the costs which he may incur, and is forced to abstain from expressing legitimate objection.
  There have been one or two other points raised which I think I ought to answer. The most important perhaps is that raised by the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Jamieson), who said: "What does it matter how you alter your procedure if you do not make sure that your inquiries will hereafter be conducted with the same care and efficiency with which
  1758
  they have hitherto been conducted?" It is, of course, true that there will be imposed upon those who may go up to Edinburgh a greater strain in the way of exercising patience than has been customary hitherto. But there is no reason to doubt that any Member going to Edinburgh to consider a Bill of some special magnitude will properly discharge the duty he owes to Parliament and to himself. As far as the Government is concerned, there is no doubt that the Government, and I hope every future Government, will do all that can be done by the Government to make the discharge of the duty easy, and to secure that the consideration given to Provisional Orders by Commissioners in Edinburgh or elsewhere in Scotland shall be as full, fair and patient as are the proceedings in Private Bills at Westminster.
  Another point raised was whether the decision that the promotion should proceed by Bill or by Provisional Order would rest with the two Chairmen. Hereafter it must be by the unanimous decision of the two Chairmen before a. Scottish Bill can be sent to Westminster. That is an important change. I agree with what has been said by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and by the right bon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead. The proper tribunal is not the Secretary of State for Scotland, but the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Lord Chairman who in this matter represent Parliament. They are the proper constitutional authority, and they are undoubtedly possessed of the necessary knowledge and impartiality. It is queried whether we have devised the right formula for them to apply in order to determine whether the proceedings should be by private Bill. Of course, that is pre-eminently a point for the Committee to consider. The hon. Member for Maryhill asked to what extent the expression
  "provision relating to matters outside Scotland to such an extent that they ought to be dealt with by private Bill"
  affects the present situation. At the present time the words are somewhat different. They are:
  "relating wholly or mainly to Scotland."
  Under those words, a difficulty does in fact arise in practice. Sometimes the

  1759
  emphasis is laid on the word "wholly," and the phrase is construed as meaning "wholly or nearly so." On the other hand, the emphasis is sometimes laid on the word "mainly" with the result that the scope of the phrase becomes much wider. I do not know that we have devised the very best phraseology, but at any rate we have eliminated the alternative, which has given rise to the difficulty. There is no longer a choice between "wholly" and "mainly." What we say is that before a Bill is sent to Scotland it must be found by the Chairmen that it relates to matters outside Scotland to such an extent that that course ought to be followed.
  Another important question which was raised was whether the Secretary of State ought to have power, after the commissioners had reported to him, to modify the terms of the Provisional Order in consideration of representations made to him by Government Departments. At present, after the commissioners have decided upon the Clauses of a Bill, it is the duty of the Secretary of State to consider the Clauses before he presents a Bill to Parliament for the purpose of confirming the Order. The Statute places upon him the duty of considering representations from other Government Departments, and that power is not in disuse. It has been exercised, and it is exercised at the present time. It is suggested that there should be an additional Clause in the Bill depriving the Secretary of State of that power and relieving him of that duty, so that every Provisional Order will necessarily become law, if it becomes law at all, in the form in which it is reported by the commissioners.
  Mr. JAMIESON: I would like to ask the learned Solicitor-General for Scotland if he could not substitute any alteration which the House might make for confirming those provisions?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I recognise that the point should be carefully considered, but I would point out the real practical difficulties. Bills are sometimes reported with Clauses which contain defects and require alteration. That fact may not be noted until the very last stage of the Bill before the commissioners, because some Clauses
  1760
  may be added on the very last day Instances have arisen in which the Secretary of State has intervened. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. C. Milne), who has taken part in advising the Secretary of State, will bear me out. It will be almost impossible to devise any other method than the one already on the Statute Book for achieving that result, except that the Secretary of State might present a confirming Bill to the House containing the terms of the Provisional Order, and, at the same time, put down an Amendment to it. I do not believe that that is a satisfactory means. I believe that the present method is the best, but I by no means close the door to the consideration of that and many other minor matters which have been raised in the Debate to-day and which will properly be considered on the Committee stage. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead said that there ought to be a Clause enabling Scottish solicitors representing petitioners to lodge documents at Edinburgh, and that it should not be necessary to come up to London in order to do so. There must be some misapprehension. The matter is not regulated by any Act of Parliament at all but by the Standing Orders, which provide that any petition, for example, may be sent to the Scottish Office in London by registered letter. It is erroneous to think that it is necessary to employ a Parliamentary agent to attend at the Scottish Office in order to lodge petitions.
  It would be unnecessary, and the House would not expect me to follow up all the points which have been raised, and which can properly be considered in Committee. The Government by no means want to avoid any criticism of any sort. If any Member has either an Amendment of the Bill or a new Clause to suggest which will have the effect of achieving better the result at which the Government aim, we shall most sincerely welcome what will appear in due course on the Amendment Paper. Our sole purpose is to make it easy and less expensive for Scottish promoters to get the Bills they require, and to have them examined in Scotland at less expense both to themselves and to the objectors, and at the same time to make it easier for those who have legitimate objections to such promotions to have their cases

  1761
  heard and studied by the appropriate Parliamentary tribunal.
  Bill committed to a, Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Sir G. Collins.]

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
6.21 p.m.
The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Craigie Aitchison): I beg to move, "That, the Bill be now read a Second time."
I propose to state very briefly to the House, and as clearly as I can, the main purpose of the Measure. The Bill, as the title indicates, relates to the administration of justice in Scotland. It is a matter of more than professional interest. It affects the general community. Every community has a profound interest to see that a machinery of justice exists which is at once efficient and adequate to meet the requirements of the people. The primary purpose of the Bill is the simplification of procedure in the Court of Session. We aim at greater directness and simplicity, the cutting away of cumbrous and unnecessary forms, so that our forms of process and procedure shall not impede but assist and accelerate the doing of justice.
When we reflect that it is now more than 65 years since the last Act relating to the procedure of the Supreme Court in Scotland was passed—the Court of Session Act, 1868, the need of reform becomes self-evident. The methods which were suitable a century ago, or even half a century ago, are no longer in harmony with the requirements of to-day. The method to be followed in obtaining the desired simplicity is that we propose to entrust to the Court, and by the Court I mean the judges of the Court, with the assistance of the Rules Council to be set up under the Bill, the task of framing the simplified processes which are regarded as necessary for the due expedition of the business of the court. The proposal has called forth a certain amount of criticism. The view has been expressed in certain quarters that it would be better if the Government were to frame the simplified forms
1762
of process and put them into a Schedule or Schedules of the Bill. We have given very careful consideration to the matter, and we take the view that it is not desirable to stereotype forms by statutory enactment. While there must be uniformity, it is desirable to have flexibility, and we think that that can best be accomplished by leaving it to the Court, with the assistance of the Rules Council, to fashion such rules and procedure and forms of process as circumstances may require. Apart from that purely formal matter, the Bill contains some changes which go beyond mere matters of form.
I will indicate to the House very generally, without entering into details which will be appropriate to the Committee stage of the Bill, what these matters of substance are. In the first place, we propose to make provision for the summary trial of civil cases. The important Clause is Clause 10 of the Bill. If parties choose, they may short-circuit procedure. If they are agreed they may invoke the assistance of an Outer House Judge, who is really to be in the position of an arbiter whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties, and not reviewable. It is a very valuable and far-reaching provision, and ought to be of the very greatest value to a commercial community such as we have in the city of Glasgow. It means that if a dispute arises, say, between two members of the business community, regarding any matter, say a matter of contract, it will not be necessary for the one party to institute an action according to the existing forms of process which are relatively cumbersome and out of date, but the parties can agree to go before a Judge with a very simplified process which will enable the matters in dispute to be adjudicated upon and a decision obtained. This proposal is not in any way confined to actions relating to mercantile disputes. The Clause applies to any disputes or questions that may arise on which it is desired to obtain a decision of one of His Majesty's Judges, except questions of status which, for obvious reasons, we exempt from the scope of the new provision.
Another change of substance in the Bill is the provision for enabling trustees under any trust deed to obtain the direc-

1763
tion of the court on questions relating to the investment, distribution, management or administration of a trust estate. That is provided for in Clause 17. We think that such a provision is long overdue, and we hope that it may be of very great value to trustees who are charged with important and often very difficult questions of trust administration. I ought to mention another point of real importance. By the provision contained in Clause 16 (e) the court is empowered
"to provide for the admission, on such conditions as may be prescribed, of affidavits, in lieu of parole evidence, in any issue not affecting the status of any person."
We have borrowed that from English practice. The method of proving facts by affidavit has hitherto been contrary to our practice in Scotland, but we have thought that there is room for introducing into our practice a method which has for long satisfactorily obtained in England. Accordingly, we propose to empower the Court to make regulations dealing with that matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "By what process?"] By an Act of Sederunt.
Sir A. SINCLAIR: Will the Lord Advocate, for the benefit of those who are not lawyers, explain what issues affecting status mean?
The LORD ADVOCATE: I can answer that question by illustration. For example, a matrimonial cause such as the question of the right of a party to divorce, or again there are questions affecting legitimacy; the claim of a person to be declared legitimate or a question of paternity. Any question of that kind affecting what we call status would be removed from the ambit of the provision which allows arbitration, and the ordinary process would need to apply.
I would also like to draw the attention of the House to one further provision contained in Clause 16. We propose to empower the Court, by paragraph (f),
"to provide for the payment into Court and the investment or application of sums of money awarded in any action of damages in the Court to a pupil or a minor."
That is, I fear, a very much needed reform. In many cases that have come to my personal notice sums awarded to children in pupilarity or to a minor have been dissipated, and it is important that
1764
the Court should be given power in the suitable case, which would be the exceptional case, to safeguard any funds that might be awarded either by the Court or by a jury, in the interests of the pupil or the minor on whose behalf and to whom the award has been made. Those are some of the more important changes proposed by this part of the Bill.
The most important thing, apart from the simplification of forms, is the setting up of machinery to enable litigants to invoke the jurisdiction of a judge in the Court of Session as arbiter. I do not propose to enter into further detail on this part of the Bill, because the questions that arise are more suited to discussion and consideration in Committee than to exposition on the Second Reading. I should like, however, to mention what I might call a negative feature of the Bill. I should have explained earlier that the Bill is based upon the Report of the Royal Commission on the Court of Session, which was presided over by Lord Clyde, the Lord President of the Court. The Commission in their Report made certain recommendations in regard to jury trial in civil courts. Under our existing law and practice there are certain types of action which are appropriated, as we say, to jury trial, and the Commission has reported, on page 95, as follows:
"We further recommend that the last traces of appropriation should be swept away by repeal, leaving the parties themselves (if they agree), or the Court (if they do not agree) to select—in any case whatsoever—that method of inquiry which the character and circumstances of the dispute render most suitable."
We have not embodied that recommendation in the Bill. If parties are agreed under the existing law and practice to dispense with jury trial, there is nothing in our existing procedure to prevent that being done, but, on the other hand, if parties are not agreed then, for my part, I think there should be no interference with the existing law and practice. We ought not to forget that the right of a citizen to jury trial in civil cases is a very important and valuable one. It is a right which is sanctioned by the practice of more than 100 years and, in my view, it ought not to be lightly interfered with. It may be true that in an odd case a jury may be swayed to some extent by considerations of sympathy, but I cannot help thinking that it is better

1765
that juries should be swayed by sympathy than that judges should be swayed by too purely legal and technical considerations. I am opposed to the embodiment of that particular recommendation in the provisions of the Bill, but in this matter, as upon every other matter, we shall welcome the freest discussion in Committee.
Another chapter of the Bill relates to criminal jury trials. That is dealt with in Clause 19. I can explain in a very few words what we propose to do in this matter. At the present time the jury in a criminal case consists of 15 jurors. It is rather an odd thing that the number 15 is not statutory. It goes far back in our legal history. It seems to have grown up through centuries of practice as the number that was regarded as a reasonable number for the adjudication of criminal matters. But experience has shown that if a trial is prolonged there is always the risk of a breakdown through the illness of a juror. If that occurs, it means that the trial has to start all over again, in the event of the juror not recovering so as to be able to proceed. If he does recover, the situation may be met by the Court adjourning. When you are dealing with a lengthy trial, or what is likely to be a lengthy trial, nothing could be more inconvenient than that. We had an experience within the last 18 months in a case which ran for six or seven weeks where after 10 days a juror broke down, through no fault of his own, with the result that we had to adjourn for a period of 10 days. If the juror had been unable to resume we should have had to begin all over again.
That, I am satisfied, is bad from the point of view of the administration of criminal justice. It is bad from the point of view of the prosecutor, because the prosecutor is working under a constant sense of the danger of a breakdown. It is equally bad from the point of view of the defence, because the defending counsel knows that if in a serious case there is a breakdown the prosecution would be almost bound to proceed with another prosecution. Therefore, the defence has nothing to gain by a breakdown. The question bow a situation of that kind is to be dealt with is one upon which there has been a considerable variety of suggestion. It has been suggested on the one band that more than 15 jurors should be sworn, that 20, say, should be sworn, and that if one of the
1766
15 dropped out another one should come in. I do not like that method. The method we propose is this—again it is a matter for consideration in Committee—that if a juror breaks down, we should go on with 14. If another breaks down we should go on with 13, and if another breaks down we should go on with 12, but if another breaks down then we should not go on at all, but should have to start over again. Down to the number of 12 we can go on, with this very important safeguard that in any case we must have eight of the jury for guilty before you can find a verdict of guilty. We maintain a majority of the original number of 15. It is a safeguard for an accused person that a jury cannot find a verdict of guilty unless there are eight jurors in favour of a verdict of guilty, that is a majority of the original number of 15 jurors.
The next part of the Bill relates to the staff of the Court, and to what are matters of office administration. I will not trouble the House with the details. Part IV of the Bill relates to sheriffs and sheriff court. Again, we propose to make provision for a simplification of procedure on much the same lines as we propose to follow in the Court of Session. The Bill also proposes to confer power upon the Secretary of State to unite sheriffdoms. This proposal has called forth a good deal of criticism. At the present time, while There is power in the Secretary of State to reduce the number of sheriff-substitutes, there is no power to reduce the number of sheriffs. Although the proposal has been put in the Bill the Government have an entirely open mind on the matter. There is a good deal to be said for the view that each shire in Scotland should have its sheriff, and it must not be forgotten that, a, sheriff holds not only a judicial office but a very important administrative office, and discharges important administrative functions. Accordingly, this is a matter upon which we shall welcome very full consideration and criticism in Committee.
The remaining part of the Bill, Part V, deals with various miscellaneous matters, and I will only mention one. At the present time agreements are sometimes made between law agents for the sharing of fees, and it is proposed that where arrangements of that kind are made they

1767
should be disclosed to the client. It is only right to say that this proposal came from the solicitors' branch of the profession, who feel as strongly as we do that when these agreements are made they should be stated openly so that the client may know the position. I am sure the House will not think it necessary for me to enter into further detail—
Mr. KIRKWOOD: In order to save time, will the Lord Advocate explain how the Bill proposes to deal with the case of sheriffs and deputy sheriffs. Can they be promoted judges?
The LORD ADVOCATE: It is not necessary to make any statutory provision in that matter. According to the existing law there is nothing to prevent a sheriff-substitute being promoted sheriff. There is nothing to prevent a sheriff or a sheriff-substitute being promoted to the bench of the Supreme Court.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Hitherto, in the sheriff court it has been possible for a solicitor to become a sheriff, but as I read the Bill we are departing from this practice. He must be an advocate. The Bill says that the person so appointed must be an advocate of at least five years standing. The point is that a practising solicitor may now be a sheriff, but the Bill says that in future he must be an advocate.
The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. He is quite right in saying that under the existing law a solicitor of five years standing can be appointed sheriff-substitute. We do not propose to interfere with that. I am not aware of any Clause in the Bill which interferes with the existing law in that respect.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Sub-section (4) of Clause 31.
The LORD ADVOCATE: That Subsection only deals with interim appointments of sheriff-principals, not sheriff-substitutes.
Mr. BUCHANAN: It means, in effect, that no sheriff-substitute who is a solicitor now can become a sheriff-principal or a judge.
The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. Member must read Sub-section (4) of the Clause carefully. It says:
1768
"When a vacancy shall occur in the office of sheriff or any sheriffdom the Secretary of State may, if he deems it expedient to do so, pending the consideration of the question whether an order under this Section affecting such sheriffdom should be made, or the coming into force of any such order, appoint a sheriff of some other sheriffdom, or an advocate of not less than five years' standing, to act as interim sheriff of such sheriffdom."
That is merely a provision for the interim regulation of the matter, and I want to assure the hon. Member that there is no intention of interfering with the existing law which makes a solicitor eligible for appointment to the office of sheriff-substitute. The Bill does not touch that matter in any way.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am interested in this matter, and I want to put the point to the Lord Advocate that there is nothing in the Bill which is going to alter the present law, that a deputy-sheriff or sheriff-principal can now reach the office of judge. There is nothing which debars him from being made a judge?
The LORD ADVOCATE: At the present time there is no legal barrier to any sheriff or sheriff-substitute being appointed to the Supreme Court, possibly with this limitation, that a sheriff-substitute who has been a solicitor and not a member of the bar may not be eligible for appointment.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: There was the case of a solicitor, I canot remember now the name of the judge, who once was made a judge of the Court of Session in the middle of the last century.
The LORD ADVOCATE: That may be so, but I do not think that you will find that many people have been appointed to the bench who were not members of the Faculty of Advocates.
Sir R. HORNE: There was a Lord President of the Court of Session, who was a Church dignitary.
The LORD ADVOCATE: The right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) reminds me that there was a Lord President of the Court of Session, I cannot recall his name, who was a Church dignitary—
Mr. KIRKWOOD: The faculty would not stand that now.
The LORD ADVOCATE: If the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr.

1769
Kirkwood) desires to put down an Amendment to this Clause we will give the matter due consideration. I hope the House will absolve me from the necessity of referring to these matters in detail and will not think that I am dealing with the matter in a somewhat summary fashion. The Bill, after all, is one for Committee. If I thought it represented the end of legal reform in Scotland I should have very little satisfaction in introducing it. I hope it will not be the end of legal reform in Scotland but, on the contrary, will be regarded as the beginning of legal reform. There are many directions in which we may look to effect legal reforms. A great deal might be done in the direction of cheapening litigation. I do not know whether it is appreciated by the House that at the present time litigants in Scotland have to pay considerable sums of money to maintain the machinery of justice. They have to pay what are called court dues, which are used in order to maintain the machinery necessary for the administration of justice in Scotland. That is fundamentally wrong.
The cost of running the machine which is required for the administration of justice should be a State charge, and I hope in easier times that it may be possible to make effective representations on that matter in the proper quarter. I should like to see all financial barriers that may exist at the entrance to a great profession removed. I feel that the doors of a great profession such as the Bar should be flung open to those of the most modest and humble means. That is a matter which is receiving the anxious consideration of the Solicitor-General and myself. I should like to add this. It is now more than 400 years since the institution of the College of Justice in Scotland. During those centuries the College of Justice, or as we now call it the Court of Session, has played a great part and has discharged a great function in the life of Scotland. Whatever criticisms may be made upon it—and no human institution is immune from criticism—I believe it commands to-day in a high degree the respect and confidence of the people of Scotland. That is why I invite all sections of the House to give this Bill a Second Reading and, in Committee, to co-operate with the Government in creating machinery which
1770
will be adequate for the administration of justice in Scotland.
7.1 p.m.
Mr. MACLEAN: Speaking as a layman, I wish to say that at this stage we will offer no opposition, by way of dividing the House, to the Bill which has been moved by the Lord Advocate after his very able explanation of the different terms contained in it. I would also like to inform my right hon. and learned Friend, and his colleague, that we will take advantage of the opportunity afforded in Committee to put our views forward and endeavour to get the Bill altered as we would like it. Afterwards we hope to get the House to accept any proposals we may make. The Bill, as now introduced, is a really laudable effort, not merely to simplify procedure in the courts of Scotland, but also to reduce expense to the litigants. That is a very laudable object indeed, and one which I agree with the Lord Advocate has been "a lang time cumin."
The cost of litigation was shown recently when we had to vote law charges for Scotland with regard to one particular trial. That was evidence of the necessity for some improvement being made. I do not intend to take up much of the time of the House. Most of the things we have to say can be as well said on Amendments in the Committee stage. I would, however, like to draw the attention of the Lord Advocate to one or two things of which I have made a note, and which the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) has already mentioned. At the present time it seems almost impossible for any man without money, although he has been educated and gone through the necessary stages of education in the law, to stand in the Court of Session and speak on behalf of anyone there. It is impossible for him, unless he has the necessary fees to pay to the Faculty of Advocates. Of two individuals going through the same classes of the University, taking the same degrees, qualifying and being capped on the same day, one, because he fails to have the necessary money for a deposit with the Faculty of Advocates, will not be permitted to go into the honourable profession of advocate, and go on to the highest positions in the Justiciary in Scotland. The other man, who has gone to the same classes, taken the same

1771
degrees at the same time, and probably gained the same points in his various classes, is called to the offices that the first individual, by reason of the poverty of his parents, is prevented from reaching in the higher stage of the profession. That is an evil in the Scottish legal procedure, and is one which has long demanded removal.
The LORD ADVOCATE: With regard to the financial barrier, it was that I had in view when I said we had it under consideration. The problem is complicated by two factors. One is that the entrance fees are mixed up with insurance, and the other is that they are mixed up with maintaining the Library, which is absolutely essential if our Courts are to be run. I entirely sympathise with the hon. Member's point of view.
Mr. MACLEAN: I was going to refer to the remarks made by the Lord Advocate, and to say how welcome they were in many parts of this House, and outside this House as well. Where people are having sons educated in the legal profession they feel that there is a very severe barrier. The Lord Advocate has taken up that point, and we are pleased to have support in such high quarters as the Lord Advocate's office in our endeavour to remove any financial barrier. As to the Library, libraries have to be kept up and yet the same sums have not got to be paid in England. The sum paid to the Faculty of Advocates has to be portioned out for various purposes, but the fact that we have such a high financial barrier in Scotland has long been a sore point. The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland know that it has long been a sore point, not only in the legal profession but among families who desire to have sons educated in the legal profession, and who are providing for these sons by various methods of sacrifice while they are at the universities. I am glad that point has been cleared up, and hon. Members of this House among whom are included Members of the Faculty of Advocates will not stand, I am sure, upon their dignity, or privilege, but render all the assistance possible in giving opportunities to the sons of poorer families to have the same privileges, and the same right of entry to the profession and the highest places, as they enjoy at the present time.
1772
There is another point. It is not one confined to this Act. It is one which has occurred very often in recent Acts, and in fact practically in every Act passed in this House giving administrative powers to any Department. With regard to the issuing of regulations, almost every Act passed by this House which is to be administered by one of the Government Departments, is an Act which only gives enabling powers. The actual powers themselves are contained in regulations which are laid before this House and, after lying upon the Table in the usual form for a certain number of days, become operative in the country. Unless one is following very carefully the regulations laid upon the Table of this House one does not actually know what the law of the land really is, until one probably receives a message from some constituent telling him of things which are happening. If an hon. Member looks up any particular Act he does not find the matter there, but he finds that a regulation has been passed some months, or years, before giving a Department power to carry out a particular matter, and that it has been done in a way which has caused grievance to this particular individual. I find in this Bill practically the same grievance and also, I should say, a continuation of the same evil of regulation. The regulations upon which the law acts are called Acts of Sederunt. I find here, in Clause after Clause and paragraph after paragraph, reference to the Secretary of State who may, or shall, by Act of Sederunt do certain things—in other words he is empowered to issue the type of regulation which we know in Scotland under that name.
The LORD ADVOCATE: As far as regulations are made, they are made by the Judges of the Court, with the assistance of the Rules Council, and embodied in the Acts of Sederunt. These will be laid on the Table of the House for the approval of the House, and for the approval of the House in the sense that they will be void if a Resolution is passed by either House.
Mr. MACLEAN: Under Part I of the Bill entitled "Court of Session," and all through, we have this thing occurring. It goes on Clause after Clause. The question I would like to put to the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland is this: Is it not possible, as

1773
far as can be humanly done, to put into the Bill itself the various powers which we are prescribing for the Court of Session to apply by Act of Sederunt? It would make the law of Scotland, and also the law of England if it could be carried into that law, more understandable by the people who have to read it, and those people who are sometimes hauled up for the violation of what is called an Act, and which is really a violation of regulations which a Minister, or the Court of Session, has been empowered to issue under a particular Act of Parliament. Government by regulation is becoming really a danger in the country—a menace. People do not know by what Acts of Parliament they are being governed. They are not being governed by Acts of Parliament in reality; they are being governed by regulations which very few Members of the House of Commons have ever seen. There was an Act, passed two or three years ago, every section of which commenced with the words, "That the Minister shall by regulation." There were six Sections in that Act and every one was carried into effect, not by the Act of Parliament upon which the House had deliberated and discussed before finally passing, but by regulations the Minister was empowered to issue after laying them for a certain period on the Table of the House.
This House has the duty of passing Acts of Parliament. It is looked upon as the law-making assembly of the nation and is regarded as the power which imposes laws upon the people of the country. It is high time that the House had this grievance brought to its attention. It is not that anything can be done in this Bill to deal with it, but at least some attention should be paid to my complaint and to the fact that this grievance exists and the House should see to it that future Bills, whether English or Scottish, shall contain the actual powers which are to be exercised under them. The country should be ruled according to Acts of Parliament and not by a series of regulations issued from time to time by Departments. Few Members of the House know anything about these regulations and even lawyers are not acquainted with them, unless in connection with some special case upon which they have been asked to give an opinion. If I may say so we
1774
should see to it that a saner form of legislation is passed by this House.
The Lord Advocate has brought before us a Bill which will be welcome. I am particularly glad at the interpolation which he made, a short time ago and that the matter then referred to is being considered by the Faculty of Advocates. I hope that at no distant date we shall see the avenue to the Lord Presidency, the highest judicial position in Scotland, opened to the son of the poorest family in Scotland. Poor families as I have said may be making sacrifices day after day to send a son to the University to study law, and the son of a poor family ought to have the opportunity of rising to the highest and most respected position in the legal profession in Scotland.
7.18 p.m.
Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: Every Member of the House, I am sure, will congratulate the Lord Advocate on having had the honour of introducing such an ambitious Measure. It is not only ambitious, but is of far-reaching importance. It is rather unusual, by the way, for this House to consider in one day two Bills pertaining to Scotland alone. This is a highly technical Bill and one which can only be discussed adequately by experts. We are fortunate in having in this House a very strong team from the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh, and I have no doubt we shall listen to their views on this Bill with attention. Those of us who are not members of the Faculty will, no doubt, be very largely guided by those views, but it would be a pity if the discussion of this subject were left entirely to the experts from Parliament House. Membership of the Faculty, although it may be a qualification for discussing this Measure, is also to some extent a disqualification. There are certain matters of some delicacy upon which those who do not belong to that august body may speak with greater freedom, and I should like to make some comments as an outsider. Everyone will agree with the object of the Bill which is to cheapen and accelerate justice. There is one proposal on which the Government may be congratulated particularly because it is a revolutionary proposal and the experiment which it indicates will be watched with great interest. That is the proposal for the summary trial of certain cases in

1775
the Court of Session. I believe the commercial community will welcome this experiment and it will be of interest to see to what extent they take advantage of it and what success will attend it.
As I have said this is a Bill for experts and it is also a Bill the interest of which lies to a great exent in its details. Therefore its consideration must be left largely to the Committee stage, but there are two questions of major importance to which I invite the attention of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General. Everyone has noticed the rise in the prestige and importance in the judicial life of Scotland of the sheriff courts in recent years. Hardly a Scottish Act has been passed recently which has not put some additional work on those courts. I have often had doubts as to whether, under present conditions, the prospects and emoluments of sheriffs-substitute are sufficient to ensure the maintenance of the high standard necessary in the administration of the work of these courts. The status of the sheriff-substitute in Scotland ought to be much the same as that of the county court judge in England. Their duties in some respects are more difficult because they include criminal as well as civil administration and they have a wider civil jurisdiction. Yet they are paid much less than the county court judges in England. It is not that I want to give more money to this class. I want to give them as much as they are entitled to, but I aim not thinking of their interests so much as the interests of the courts and the litigants. If you do not make a position of this kind sufficiently attractive, the best men will not come to it, and the status of the courts will fall. I am not going to deal any more with the question of emoluments except to express the hope that the Government will consider it and will realise that by starving the sheriffs-substitute in this manner they may do great harm to the sheriff courts.
Then there is the question of the prospects of these sheriffs-substitute. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) referred to this matter and it is not necessary to say much more on the subject, but I think something could be done to improve the prospects of sheriffs-substitute so that they may know that there will be a reward for good and
1776
effective service on the bench, in additional chances of promotion. I realise that there is no legal objection to these judges being promoted, but it is not merely a question of whether they are legally eligible or not; it is a question of whether, in point of fact, there is any chance of promotion. Not long ago the experiment was made in England of the promotion of a county court judge to the High Court bench and one of the present judges of the High Court in England was formerly a county court judge. I hope the Government will consider whether they might not do something to assist the sheriff courts and the sheriffs-substitute by promoting some of the sheriffs-principal who are engaged entirely in judicial work and not merely those who are carrying on work at the Bar.
The other major question to which I wish to direct attention is one upon which many people in Scotland feel strongly. It is a proposal with which I myself have great sympathy, though I notice that it was considered and turned down by Lord Clyde's Committee. That is the reduction in the number of judges in the Court of Session. There are at present 13, and many people in Scotland think that there are more judges than the work which falls upon them makes necessary. I have tried to institute a statistical comparison between the work done by these judges in Scotland and the work of the judges in the High Court in London. I tried to work out the judicial statistics but it is very difficult to get a proper comparison. It is difficult to be sure that one is comparing like with like. I did my best by making all allowances and the result was such as to startle me, so much was the comparison in favour of the judges in London, as far as the number of cases was concerned. Indeed, it was so much in their favour that I am not going to give the figures to the House. I feel that I must have made some mistake, but the investigation certainly confirmed my belief that the work which the judges in Scotland do is very much less than the work done by judges of the same status in London. I suggest that the Government might again consider seriously whether the number of the Scottish judges might not be reduced. There is also this consideration to be taken into account. If we compare the Court of Appeal in England with the Inner House in Scotland, we find that both sit in two

1777
divisions, but in the Court of Appeal in England, which deals with as big cases as and probably bigger cases than the Inner House in Scotland, both divisions are constituted of three judges. In Scotland there are four judges in each division.
The LORD ADVOCATE: Is the hon. Member keeping in view the fact that in Scotland the appeal judges go on circuit, whereas in England they do not? That is a very important distinction, and if each division of the Inner House were confined to three judges only, one might be taken away on circuit, leaving only two.
Sir M. WOOD: I am aware of that, and I do not think that the consideration that the Lord Advocate advances touches the question. I think that I am right in saying that the report of the Clyde Commission said that the amount of work in the justiciary courts in Scotland amounted on the average to 150 days for one judge. If that is so, one of those judges would have been sufficient to do all the work which is entailed upon them. Even if what my right hon. and learned Friend said is correct, it does not really have any bearing on the question whether there is a real reason for our having four judges in each of the Divisions of the Inner House in Scotland whereas only three are considered sufficient in England. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman ought to consider this very carefully for I feel certain that here is an opportunity for real economy. I advance this with the greater confidence because in the earlier part of my speech I advanced something that would entail greater expenditure. I congratulate the Government in bringing forward this Bill, and we look forward with great interest to having the details of it thrashed out in Committee.
7.32 p.m.
Mr. JAMES JOHNSTON: I feel sure that the hon. Member for Banff (Sir M. Wood) must have suspected himself of some error for he proceeded upon a somewhat false basis in the conclusion he made as to the relevant work performed by the judges in England and Scotland. I know that such calculations are difficult, because I tried in vain to find a workable basis of comparison in the Civil Estimates as between the cost of administration in England and Scotland and
1778
how far in each country it is met by Appropriations-in-Aid. My inclination is to give to this Bill a reception rather more chilly than it has so far met at the hands of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) and the hon. Member for Banff. It could scarcely, I think, be received with great enthusiasm when it is based upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission whose report was received in no quarter with acclamation and in many circles qualified to express an opinion with considerable misgiving. The report commences with an investigation of the history of the volume of litigation in the last hundred years or so and appears to me to start with a doubtful assumption.
It seems to be assumed that a decline in the volume of litigation or the failure of the volume of litigation to keep pace with the growth of the population and trade is necessarily a bad thing for which it is necessary to set out to find a remedy. It is certainly a bad thing, indeed, for the legal profession, but I do not think that one ought to assume without a great deal of thought that, as a social and economic tendency, it is a misfortune that people should be increasingly disposed to settle their differences otherwise than in courts of law. We are told, however, that this Bill is designed to make litigation cheaper and more expeditious, and, if this can be accomplished without sacrifice of efficiency or deterioration in the quality of justice, it will be a great public advantage. Whether the Bill will go very far in that direction may be open to doubt, and I entertain no great expectations of the results that may flow from the proposals in this Bill. The greatest difficulty at present in forming an opinion as to the value of the Bill arises from the fact already referred to that, while it proposes to abolish many of the forms and much of the procedure to which we are accustomed, it proposes to put in their place to a great extent—we do not know what because so much is left perhaps inevitably to be provided for by Act of Sederunt.
The Bill is not altogether clear as to how the transition from the existing code to the new code is to be effected, and it would be much easier to judge the merits of the Bill if, as far as possible, the new forms to be introduced could have been scheduled, or some means could have been devised, so that we

1779
might see in draft, at all events, the new code that is to come into operation before the Bill leaves the House. I am well aware that it may be argued that, inasmuch as the court must be given full power in any case to alter and vary whatever procedure may be set up, it makes no difference whether you schedule forms and a code of procedure or not, because the court would be at complete liberty to alter them, but from a practical point of view it makes a very great difference. What holds the field is apt to stay there. What I may describe as the law of human inertia operates—a law from which the court in the matter of making Acts of Sederunt is certainly not immune. Many reforms might have been introduced ere now without the necessity of legislation.
It is impossible with a Bill of this sort, which really embodies no principle and consists of different parts and clauses dealing with distinct matters, to avoid commenting upon individual clauses, and I should like to say one or two words about Sub-section (1) of Clause 4. Clause 4 proposes to lengthen the period of the formal sittings of the Court of Session, and in my view that change is for the time being not necessary or desirable. I am not going to develop an argument about the other demands on the time of people whose business lies in the courts, but it seems to me that Sub-sections (2) and (5) of Clause 4 are by themselves sufficient to meet any requirements of the present situation without lengthening the formal sittings of the court. This subsection enables the court or any part of it to sit outside the ordinary sessions and also enables certain business to be done on Monday. At present the sessions are long enough to enable the work that comes forward to be undertaken. If longer sessions are intended to reduce the delay which is so much complained of, it should be said that to a very great extent the delay which is complained of by some people arises, not from the procedure of the court or from the congestion in the courts, but from the dilatoriness of parties themselves and their agents and counsel. Anyone walking into a court on any morning will hear 10 applications by counsel to the judge to put cases off for a fortnight for every one that is made to the judge to expedite a hearing.
1780
On a very narrow ground affecting particularly the members of the Bar, I also think that the lengthening of the sessions might be unfortunate. I think that it might make even more uneven the distribution of work among members of the Bar which is already extremely uneven. I do not think that it would be an exaggeration to say that 70 per cent. of the fees earned are earned by 20 per cent. of the practising members. The mere fact that there is a limit to what any one person can do in a short session forces a certain amount of distribution that otherwise might not take place. The lengthening of the sessions would be all the more unfortunate because of what I regard as the ridiculous convention that obliges any member of the Bar who wishes to have any chance of doing any work there to stand the whole time hanging about the precincts of the court. If he could only stay at home, he might employ his time profitably and industrially writing articles in praise of the Prime Minister and his colleagues, or in some other useful and congenial way. Under the present arrangements, a number of people of much erudition and great intelelctual attainments are condemned to spend weary and uncomfortable days of enforced idleness in a draughty and dusty building.
It is a proceeding, in my view, which is just as dispiriting and potentially just as deteriorating as it is for the unemployed artisan to spend months standing against the wall at a street corner. I have been surprised to learn what a big demand there seems to be for readier facilities for people to become members of the Scottish Bar. I have nothing more to say about Clause 4. Clause 6 proposes to put in the place of our present form of summons some new form to be prescribed by Acts of Sederunt. It is always a mistake for a craftsman to destroy the mysteries of his craft. To some extent the lengthy, obscure and pedantic language of the present summons if; a sort of mystery of the lawyers' craft, and to that extent, for sentimental reasons, I shall regret to see it pass.
Now a few words of criticism of certain proposals in the Bill which have met with very special approval from hon. Members who have spoken. Clause 10 proposes to authorise a new kind of summary pro-

1781
cedure. It proposes to enable the parties to any dispute which does not raise a question of personal status to engage one of His Majesty's judges to settle the dispute for them, not under the ordinary procedure, but by such rough-and-ready methods as the parties themselves may agree to. Judges are in the service and the pay of the Crown to dispense public justice in the courts according to the procedure there in force. In my view, who-ever wants to obtain justice in the public courts at the hands of the official judges should be prepared to submit to the ordinary forms of procedure there prescribed and established. The repute of the judges and the purity of the justice should be so great that parties will gladly submit, in order to have the benefit of it, to any additional formality of procedure that it might be possible to dispense with.
I think that this proposal is extremely derogatory to the dignity and status of judges of the Supreme Court, putting them in an invidious position, in which not even a. Justice of the Peace or a magistrate in a burgh court should find himself. I do not say that in certain classes of cases there may not be a good argument in favour of looser and less formal procedure than ordinarily, but, if it be so, the type of case and the procedure itself should be defined, and it should not be left free to parties to settle what procedure is to be adopted by one of the judges in settling a dispute that has arisen between them. I particularly welcome the provision in Clause 17 to enable trustees to obtain the guidance of the court, and I am particularly glad that it has been found possible to incorporate that in the Bill in disregard of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Upon one subject I find myself in sharp disagreement with the Lord Advocate. The Royal Commission very nearly came down in favour of abolishing jury trials altogether in civil cases. I think it would be an improvement for everybody concerned if what the Royal Commission recommended were done.
If I have little to say about other parts of the Bill, it is not because I do not read them with much regret. There are the changes to be made in the staff of the courts, and things of that sort. Clause 24 proposes that clerks of the court in future should be appointed by the Secretary of State, after consultation
1782
with the Lord President, with the sanction of the Treasury as to numbers. It seems to me that the sanction of the Treasury as to numbers should be requisite only where there is any proposal to increase the number for the time being in force; there should be a check only when there is a proposal to increase the staff. The Lord President should have final power to ensure that the courts are adequately staffed. I think, too, that under Clause 27 the Lord President should have some voice in the fixing of the remuneration of the clerks and other staff of the courts. There is Clause 31 about sheriffs. I think the uniting of sheriffdoms is far too important and serious a thing to be left to be done by the Secretary of State by Order at any time he likes. If Clause 31 remains as it is the Secretary of State will have power to abolish a sheriffdom in effect by uniting it with another, without coming near this House and without being subject to any check. If he had these powers he might well on occasion find that the pressure to which he would be subject by the Treasury would become insufferable. There may be a case now for uniting sheriffdoms. If so, let it be done and done by Statute. There may be 9 case in future for uniting two sheriffdoms. Again let it be done by Statute.
Without being too hostile, I hope that I have succeeded in my ambition to give this Bill a chilly reception. I receive it with no enthusiasm, and I bestow on it no blessing, but I hope that it may prove less subversive than I fear. I accept it as something that is more or less inevitable, in an age when what little remains of dignity and formality that is not directly and patently utilitarian, is increasingly denied any right of survival at all.
7 55 p.m.
Mr. MACOUISTEN: I agree with the Lord Advocate that the Court of Session of Scotland is a great and venerable institution, which is regarded by all Scots people with great respect. It has a, long history behind it, and it has laid down sound law for centuries. Let anyone look at the old reports of the 17th and 18th centuries, and he will be astounded at the wisdom of the much shorter decisions given by the judges in those days. It has been said that the judges have not enough to do. The explanation is very

1783
simple. It is all very well for the last speaker to say that he does not like to see people litigating, but surely it is better that people should litigate than suffer serious injustice? What might be called the middle class man in Scotland, the man of small means, is at present suffering great injustice because the doors of the Court of Session are practically closed to him for financial reasons. I have had experience both in the lower branch and the higher branch of the profession, and I know how things work out. The Lord Advocate touched upon this subject.
An action is served, and then when it is coming near the trial a representative of the insurance company comes to the solicitor for the plaintiff or the pursuer. He offers a small sum for the solicitor's client, and then a substantial sum to cover the solicitor's costs. The solicitor sends for his client and says to him: "I have this offer. I admit that it is a miserable offer, but if I go on with this case the Geddes Committee has imposed court dues which are double what they used to be, and there is 10s. an hour charge as well for your counsel's speech," as if he was a taxi-cab. Is not that a shocking state of things? A poor man may have to find £30, £40 or £50 to cover the court dues. He considers the offer and goes home to consult. Then he comes back to the solicitor and accepts the offer with great reluctance. He is not getting his due. The only people who are geting any money out of the case are the solicitors on both sides. Of course this does not apply to the very poor man or to the very rich corporation, one does not pay because he cannot and so he gets on the Poor Roll and the other can. But the vast mass of the people in Scotland, people of comparatively small means, are shut off from the courts by the enormous charges that are imposed.
There should not be any Court dues at all. They are a survival of the old days when the people went to the King for justice and gave gifts to his courtiers to get to him. The court should be open and free to all citizens without charge. The Geddes Committee, with their commercial mind, treated the courts of justice as they would a bacon factory that ought to be made to pay. They said: "You are costing too much;
1784
you must find another £9,000." I was sad when I heard what they had done because I was the means of abolishing printing in the Court of Session. The cost of that printing was very high. It was fixed about the time of Caxton. I happened to see the stencil process in a company with which I was associated, and I thought that that would be good enough for the Court of Session, and the judges approved of its use. The cost of printing had gone up during the War to a monumental figure. It cost more in an appeal than the lawyer's bill. I pointed out the absurdity of carrying on the Court of Session and having litigation for the benefit of printers. I managed to get the stencil process adopted and the cost of printing was cut by half. These fees imposed by the Geddes Committee are preposterous, and shut the doors of justice against a vast number of our citizens in Scotland. I hope that eventually the Government and the country will realise that the dues are an anachronism. Counsels' fees, too, are heavy. In the old Roman days advocates did not accept fees. It was considered to be an honoured position, and that is why counsels' fees at the present time are not legally recoverable, so they are supposed to be paid in advance. I think the theory is that we are not to take up the sordid earning of money, but to take up the task of advocacy in order to help the administration of justice.
A point was very properly made by the last speaker about the need for throwing open the gates of the Court of Session to the poorest among the people. If you can do so, do it by all means, but if a man becomes an advocate, it should be remembered that he engages in one of the dangerous trades, because advocacy is like acting, singing, or any of the other professions in which personality tells. A man may be a most brilliant scholar and have all the learning in the world, but if he has not got the personality, he is not likely to succeed as a pleader. There is no more melancholy figure than the fellow walking up and down Parliament House without a brief or the hope of a brief. Many of them disappear. Some of them are scholarly men. Some of them make fine county court judges, because very often a judge is to some extent a good judge not altogether because of his knowledge of

1785
the law, but because he has the judicial temperament. It is a thing that a man is born with, and he will make a good judge, whereas no amount of experience of pleading can take the place of a natural judicial temperament.
The main cause of the expense of entering the profession is, of course, the Widows Fund. Whenever a man enters the Faculty of Advocates he has to pay a very large sum into this fund. I know, because I have done it myself. I was middle-aged when I joined, and I paid about double what most people pay. The idea is that if an advocate leaves a widows behind him, she shall have a fairly substantial sum of money as a pension. From £80 to £120 is about the maximum pension. I was told many years ago what was the origin of the fund. I think it was in the 'thirties that the fund was established, and the reason was something like this: The advocates are a very friendly band of brothers. They are really very friendly with each other, and now and again one of them who had been taken away might leave a widow behind him, and she was very apt, if she had not been left a reasonable provision, to come up to the Parliament House and walk up and down among his old friends, more or less in a state of destitution. It became a case of more or less constantly sending the hat round for a destitute brother-advocate's widow—the importunate widow. It was a great trial and hardship, and it, was very difficult and humiliating, so they thought, "We ought to do something to put an end to this," and they started this Widows Fund. Of course, it is hard lines for a man to have to put down a substantial sum of money when he feels that possibly he may never he able to afford to marry; but that is what was done. I am not advocating the taking away of the Widows Fund. I think it is a wise provision, because, as I say, this is a very precarious profession, and it would be very unwise to abolish the fund. It is a sound provision, very much like a survival of the old, not trade unions, but friendly-societies of mediaeval times.
I was very pleased to hear the Lord Advocate stand up for the jury system, and I was the opposite of pleased when I hoard a learned junior holding that it should be abolished. I think that to abolish trial by jury would be a great calamity, and to nobody more than to
1786
the courts of justice. In my view, it is the jury trial that keeps the judges in touch with the people and with the realities of everyday life. Abolish the juries, and the judges would become more or less a class apart, like monks or Druids, away from the rest of mankind. A judge leads a very secluded life, especially in Edinburgh. He cannot mix with ordinary human beings, and the result is that his training and mentality become purely legal; and on many questions juries can do things that Judges cannot. The most celebrated case that I recollect is a case where 15 railwaymen testified that a locomotive had blown its whistle at a level crossing, and two men, totally unconnected with the railways, said that it had not blown its whistle. The jurymen, ordinary human beings, with a knowledge of human weaknesses, said to themselves, "If I had been a railwayman, I too would have spoken up for the company." They believed the two, therefore, and disbelieved the 15, and gave their verdict against the driver of the locomotive. No Judge would have thought of doing such a thing. Forgetting that he held a life appointment and had full security, he would never have thought that any man would so testify, but the jury, with sound horse sense, gave that decision. That is exactly where any 12 men are so useful. You occasionally get a sentimental decision, but in such a case the Appeal Court can usually set it aside. If you do away with juries, especially with regard to questions of damage, you will do a great wrong. We had a brief experience at the beginning of the War of doing without jury trials, and the result was that we got very small awards given. The general belief in the profession was that you got about a third awarded, as compared with what would have been the case with a jury.
With regard to the sheriff-principal, I do not think he should be abolished. There is no more valuable man in the Courts of Justice than the sheriff-principal. He is a man who does not get a large salary, he practises himself in the courts, and the only cases that he does not touch are appeals from his own diocese. The advantage of having him to consider the judgment of the sheriff-substitute is this, that if the sheriff below has made a grievous mistake, and the sum involved is not large, the parties

1787
cannot go to the Appeal Court, because of the expense involved, but they can go to the sheriff-principal and get a reversal for a few pounds. It is not the number of cases that go to the sheriff-principal, but it is the number of cases where some miscarriage of justice might take place if it were not for the existence of the sheriff-principal. He is there as a kind of safety valve, and the fact that he is busy practising the law and in the Court of Session keeps him up to date, so that you have some very brilliant men as sheriff-principal.
I finish on the note with which I began, namely, that I do not think there is a great deal in this Bill. It will not affect the courts or the vitality of the courts to any serious extent at all. The real root cause why the courts are idle and there is very little doing is simply the financial barrier that is put up in the face of litigants by these court dues. When I was a youthful practitioner the courts were busy all the time, on the old court dues. It was not that the people were more litigious than they are now, but that they knew they had a chance and were not going to be bled by the Treasury in advance. Take away this octopus of the Treasury draining the pockets of litigants, and the Court of Session will become the great and busy institution that it has been in the past, a terror to evildoers and a protection to them that do well in Scotland, as it has been for the last 400 years.
8.12 p.m.
Mr. GUY: I welcome this Bill, although I may have a few words of criticism to say about it. I think the Bill will undoubtedly make a start in a most valuable and much needed reform in the law of Scotland. I take a particular interest in this Bill for two reasons—first of all, because the Court of Session, about which the Bill is mainly concerned, is in my constituency. It has been so situated, as the Lord Advocate pointed out, for the last 400 years, and despite what Glasgow lawyers say from time to time, I think it is likely to remain there for even longer than I represent the constituency. My second reason for having such a particular interest in the Bill is that I am satisfied that there is a very definite demand throughout Scotland, as reflected by public opinion, for an overhaul of the machinery of the administration of
1788
justice. It is interesting to go back to the Report of the Royal Commission, made in January, 1927, and to compare the terms of reference with what this Bill sets out to do. It is especially significant that the terms of remit to the Commission were to inquire and make recommendations to secure the more speedy, economical and satisfactory dispatch of business in the Court of Session and before the sheriff-principal.
I think that on an examination of the Bill it will be clear that that purpose has been very largely served. There can be no blinking our eyes to the fact that in the minds of the general public in Scotland, as in England, the processes of the law and the administration of justice are too slow, too cumbersome, and too expensive, and also too uncertain having regard to the numerous appeals that may be taken from the original decision. In my opinion this Bill goes a long way to remedy those defects, but it does not go far enough, and if there were any idea that this Bill was the last word in the reform of legal procedure in Scotland, I should be frankly disappointed. I was specially glad to hear the Lord Advocate say that this was not the last word but was the first step, and that he hoped it would lead the way to even more important reforms. As regards one reform which is not in the Bill, I would like to endorse what has been said by previous speakers on the importance of reducing, if not taking away, those court dues which are not only such a deterrent to litigation but amount sometimes to a denial of justice to a prospective litigant.
While I say that I welcome the Bill, I should like also to make one or two brief criticisms of it. It is impossible to deal satisfactorily with the Bill in detail on Second Reading, and I shall reserve minor points of criticism for the Committee stage, but there are one or two general criticisms which can be made now. One feature about the Bill which I do not care for very much is the power given to the Court of Session to regulate the procedure and even to alter the law as applicable to the Court of Session. It is true that the Royal Commission recommended that the power of the Court of Session to regulate its own procedure should be wholly restored, but there was the very important qualification, that any alteration should be submitted to Parliament for its approval. That qualifica-

1789
tiou is not in the Bill, and my objection to the power given to the Court of Session would be very largely mitigated if that qualification were inserted. I cannot help thinking that those who drafted this Bill thought, after they had dealt with a number of the points referred to the Royal Commission in the terms of the original remit, came to the conclusion that it, would take too much time to think out all the details of procedure, and that, in view of the six years which had already elapsed since the report of the commission, the other details should be left to the Court of Session. In my opinion this is an instance in which Parliament is not doing its full duty.
The main purpose of the Bill is to amend the law of Scotland relating to the Court of Session and the procedure therein, and if Parliament takes upon itself that task it should make a better job of it, and complete the details within the framework of the Bill, and more definite directions should be given as regards procedure in the courts. There is a particular reason for this because an Act of Sederunt, although very carefully drawn by the judges of the Court of Session, does not get anything like the publicity that is given to an Act of Parliament, and lawyers and members of the public are entitled to know what changes, if any, are to be made in those rules of procedure. That is why I think it would be far better to cover the whole ground of procedure within the framework of the Bill. I would add that in my opinion a Schedule should be added to the Bill embodying the forms of procedure. The Lord Advocate said it was better that these forms of procedure should be flexible, and not stereotyped in a Bill, but with all respect I think it is advisable to have a certain amount of uniformity and finality and publicity, and that it would be better to have those forms incorporated in a schedule to the Bill. If a change were required in five or 10 years' time we could have another Bill. After all, the Court of Session does not bother Parliament very much. The last major Act dealing with it was passed in 1868.
Next I will say a word about the Rules Council. I think the setting up of such a council is a most excellent idea. It introduces a democratic note into the
1790
administration of the Court of Session and the business therein. But I am not altogether satisfied with the wording of the Bill as regards the duty of the Rules Council. The recommendation of the Royal Commission was that the council was to consist of so many judges, so many advocates, and so many solicitors, and that this Rules Council was actually to prepare any Act of Sederunt. As I read the Bill, the intention of the Government is that the Rules Council shall only make recommendations to the judges, which may or may not be accepted by tile judges, and that the responsibility for making Acts of Sederunt is to rest on the judges alone. I think it would be better to go back to the recommendation of the Commission.
Turning to Part III of the Bill, which deals with the appointment of officers in the High Court of Justiciary and the Court of Session, I wish to enter a mild protest against the power which at present is vested in the Lord President of appointing the principal officers being taken out of his cars and put into the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland. With all respect to the Secretary of State, I do not think he has the suitable qualifications or the knowledge of the needs of the Court of Session to be able to make a proper appointment. This is a question of efficiency, and I think it will be better for the efficiency of the court that the Lord President, who is in charge of the court, and who is responsible for the running of the court, should have the power not merely to make recommendations but to make the appointments hi the Court of Session. In regard to Part IV of the Bill, which deals with the sheriff-principal, I am in entire agreement with hon. Members who have dealt with the point as regards the maintenance of the sheriff-principal. I think that sheriffs-principal perform a very valuable work, both judicially and administratively, and it would be most unfortunate if this office were terminated. I should like to see some proposal incorporated in the Bill to make more valuable use of them as appeal judges.
At present the sheriff-principal acts as a one-man appeal judge, reviewing the decisions of the sherifs-substitute. There are very few people who have a good word to say for this form of appeal,

1791
other than on the ground of expense. No doubt it has provided an economical and local appeal from the sheriff-substitute. In my opinion, some scheme might be worked out, as suggested in one of the minority reports of the Commission, on the lines of an appeal tribunal consisting of sheriffs-principal. There might be three or four for Scotland, and three sheriffs-principal would constitute an appeal tribunal and would be responsible for their area in Scotland—for the North or for the South as the case might be. That would provide a form of appeal tribunal which would be comparatively inexpensive, as compared with appeals to the Court of Session, and would give still further confidence to the appellant to take his appeal from the sheriff-substitute.
In conclusion, I would repeat that I am strongly in favour of this Bill. I hope that the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General will deal, in their usual friendly way, with suggestions that we put forward in the Committee stage. I hope that I have not given the impression, by criticising the Bill, that I am against it in any way, in principle or in theory. As a matter of fact, I pressed for the introduction of the Bill. I am very glad that the Bill has been introduced and will get the Second Reading to-day, and I hope that it will have a comparatively rapid and agreeable passage through Committee.
8.27 p.m.
Mr. JAMIESON: I congratulate the Government on having introduced this Bill, although we have had to wait five years from the Report of the Royal Commission. The hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Johnston) referred to some statements in the Report of the Commission to the effect that the volume of litigation in Scotland had not kept pace with the growth of the population. That may be due to various reasons; no doubt litigation is no longer one of the recreations of the Scottish laird, as it used to be. The natural inference to be drawn from the fact, if it be a fact, is that the courts of Scotland are not performing functions which they ought to perform. The reason that our courts, and especially the Court of Session, have not been regularly made use of by
1792
litigants for the settlement of disputes and for the administration of justice is that the forms of procedure have for so long required reform. When a defender, as we call him, gets a paper that begins with His Majesty sending greetings to Messengers-at-Arms and goes on to describe the people as "lovites" the man who is being sued, and who gets the writ as a summons, begins to wonder whether a practical joke is being played on him. It is only when he reads through a considerable amount of typewritten matter that he finds that he is beng sued for £500 or £1,000, or whatever it may be. The hon. Member for East Stirlingshire made a reference to those forms. No doubt they are of literary and historical interest, but as a piece of practical modern writing they are archaic.
Not only are our forms of appeal out of date, but great delay takes place through want of a proper distribution of the business of the court. I welcome very much the provisions in this Bill which will allow the work of the judges to be distributed from a central office. I believe that a much greater use of the Court will result. Like the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) I have seen this from both sides, and I believe that a more important point with many litigants is the delay which is going to ensue before they get their judgment, rather than the cost that would have to be met in obtaining it. I welcome very much the provision for the redistribution of the judges' work and I also welcome the provision under which litigants may, after a summary trial, take the final decision of one judge. The hon. Member for East Stirlingshire said that it was derogatory to the dignity of the judge, but I think it would be rather an honour to him and a mark of appreciation of his ability that litigants were willing to accept his decision as final.
I hope that this provision will very largely be made use of. No doubt, in some respects it is a form of arbitration, but it lacks the very great defect in ordinary arbitrations. Ordinary arbitrations are bad for the law. They may afford a very simple and perhaps economical method by which two parties to a dispute get a settlement, and the dispute may be settled in the most admir-

1793
able manner. If it raises a question of law, that may be settled by a solicitor, a barrister or an advocate, and the parties may get just as good a decision as if they went to a court. But that decision decides that case and that case only. The law is not built up by the decisions in those cases. Under the present procedure, where the judgment of a single judge is taken where questions of law are involved, the judgments will find, their way into the reports, and while they will not have the same weight as judgments of the Appeal Court, or Inner House, as we call it, nevertheless they will be followed, and, as occasion arises, perhaps in larger disputes where an appeal has been taken, they will be reviewed, So that while it is apparently cheap for parties to settle their disputes by arbitration, the same dispute has to be settled over and over again, and in the long run it is no saving to the community. I believe that the form of process which is being introduced will be such a saving.
I would like to refer to the provision for the procedure rules. I am all in favour of those rules not being embodied in the Bill—neither the rules themselves nor the forms of writ and pleading. One of the things from which we are suffering just now is a want of elasticity in our pleadings. We have pleadings enacted in Acts of Parliament going back to 1868, and I think that, there should be power to adapt the process to the requirements of the times. When, however, I come to see how that is to be done, I have considerable misgivings. The Bill makes it merely permissive for the Lord President of the Court of Session to appoint a Rules Council, and, if that Rules Council is appointed, it is merely to act in an advisory capacity. But the report of Lord Clyde's Commission recommended something quite different, namely, that there should be a Rules Council who should initiate and frame the Rules, which should then be submitted to the Court for confirmation as an Act of Sederunt, and I hope that that will be reverted to. Moreover, why should the position of the Rules Council be left to the Lord President? Why should not the Faculty of Advocates, who are to have representatives, appoint their own representatives; and why should not the solicitors do so also? Last week we passed through this House a Bill setting up a General Council for solicitors in Scotland. If that Bill
1794
passes, as I have no doubt it will, in another place, and receives the Royal Assent, that General Council will be set up, and I see no reason why the solicitors should not themselves appoint their own representatives to the Rules Council.
There is another point to which I should like shortly to refer. The appointment of clerks is to be made by the Secretary of State, and that appointment is to include judges' clerks. Previously these have been appointed or selected by the judges themselves; they are personal clerks; and I think the judges should still have the right of appointing them. But there is a much worse menace, though it is not in the Bill itself. There is to be a reduction in number, and, if one looks at Clause 24 of the Bill, one finds that all the clerks, including the clerks to the judges, are to be under the general supervision of the Principal Clerk of Session, and are to perform such duties in relation to the business of the Court as he may require. That includes the judges' clerks. But the hidden menace is to be found in the Report of the Commission, where it is recommended that one clerk might be sufficient for two judges; so we find that judges' clerks are now to be put in the unenviable position of serving three masters, to wit, two judges and the principal Clerk of Session. I think that that, would be an impossible position. The judges' clerks are, as I have said, to a large extent personal clerks. They have to be available to the judge at any time of the day, and, indeed, practically at any time of the night, because they have to go down to his house and take down the judgments which he dictates. What is to be the position of a judges' clerk if both judges say they want him on the same night? It would hold up decisions. I hope that we may have some assurance that the Government do not intend to give effect to the recommendation of the Commission in that respect, and that that will be made clear in the Bill.
On the question of the amalgamation of sheriffdoms, there are at present 15 different sheriffdoms in Scotland. The sheriffs, with the exception of the Sheriff of Midlothian and Peebles and the Sheriff of Lanarkshire, who are prohibited from taking private practice, are entitled to practise at the Bar. It was pointed out in the Report of the Commission that not

1795
only is their work judicial, but it is also administrative and executive, and the Commission expressed grave doubts as to the appropriateness of any amalgamation. They did so for this reason, that these sheriffs are at present part-time officials, and if you amalgamate sheriffdoms and load them with extra work, you run the danger of turning them into full-time officials. If you turn them into full-time officials, you are not going to get the same class of men to take on the work. In the first place, it would not pay them to take on whole-time work of that sort. The men who hold these positions are men who have been successful at the Bar, and it is because of their position that they are given the appointments. Moreover, not only would the remuneration for a whole-time appointment not induce them to take these positions, but a sheriff is debarred from advising or taking any case in any matter arising out of his own sheriffdom. If, therefore, sheriffdoms are going to be amalgamated, that would increase the amount of work at the Bar which would not be open to sheriffs. I hope that the Government are not going to press such a proposal. Any question of amalgamation of sheriffdoms should, I think, be dealt with, not by an Order made by the Secretary of State for Scotland, which would lie on the Table of this House, but by a Bill brought in for the express purpose.
In conclusion, I should like to say a word about what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Banff (Sir M. Wood) with regard to judges. He suggested that there might be economy, and, as I understood him, he said that three judges were sufficient for a Court of Appeal in England. That may be, but the three judges who sit in the Court of Appeal in England do not require to go on circuit, as do the Judges in the Inner House of the Court of Session. The commission went very carefully into the question of whether or not there should be any reduction in the number of judges, and their report was that any reduction would render the work of the court inefficient.
8.44 p.m.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: The course of the Debate has shown that in every quarter of the House this Bill is welcomed. It
1796
is recognised by all hon. Members, that the purpose of the Bill is to make litigation a less costly and a less slow and difficult affair for those who become involved in it. I do not think that any hon. Member has expressed dissent, unless it be the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Johnston), and, if I interpreted his intervention aright, I gather that he is content that things should remain as they are, and is not in favour of any alteration of the existing law and practice. If that is his attitude I think he is unique. I know of no one else who does not desire to see some considerable reform of the procedure of our courts. I do not think it is necessary for me to deal with a great number of the points which have been put forward in the course of the Debate. My right hon. Friend told the House that the Government would welcome any suggestions that may be put forward in Committee and would give them their fair and most anxious consideration with a view to improving the Bill. The main points which have been put forward are, indeed, Committee points.
There are only some three matters to which I should like to refer. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Banff (Sir M. McKenzie Wood) referred to the number of judges. He told us that he had entered into a comparison of the work done by the members of the judicial bench in Scotland and that done by the Judges of the High Court of England. If he entered into any such comparison, I can tell him straight away that his basis of comparison is radically erroneous. He cannot get a basis of comparison on that footing at all, because a large proportion of the work that is done by judges in Scotland is work that is done by subordinate officials of the English courts. In the second place, he assumed that there were at all times only two divisions sitting as courts of appeal. Again, that is radically erroneous. For a portion of the year there is a Land Valuation Appeal Court sitting and there is power already in existence, which is confirmed by this Bill, to appoint a third division. I have frequently known in practice a third division of the Court of Session sitting. Moreover, there is one thing that requires to be taken into account. Litigants have always felt that the re-

1797
view of their case which might result in a decision by the Court of Appeal different from the decision of the judge of first instance, it might be by a majority of one in a court of three, was very unsatisfactory. That left the litigant in the unfortunate position that, out of four judges in all who had decided, two had decided in his favour and only one against. I know that many people are of the view that that is unsatisfactory.
Sir M. McKENZIE WOOD: If you have four judges, you have the same difficulties, because then you have three to two.
The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: You have a majority in your favour, which shows that there has not been an equal division among the judges who have considered the case. Moreover, this matter of the number of judges has been carefully considered by the Royal Commission. Therefore, the Government do not propose to alter the statutory number of judges. That statutory number has existed, I think, for century or more, since a time when the population of Scotland was very much smaller than it is to-day and the demands on judicial time were certainly very much less than now.
Other hon. Members have taken the point that more should appear in the Schedules to the Bill and that less should be left to Acts of Sederunt. I think there is a strong objection to that. It means stereotyping a particular form, and the very thing that we have suffered from is just that stereotyping which took place in 1868, which we have not been able to alter until this present Bill passes into law. It is said, however, that there is a general objection to Parliament leaving to another body what is substantially legislation, and the objection that is so often taken to the legislative powers of the Government Departments was instanced by an hon. Member as analogous to what we have here. I would appeal to the hon. Member to consider whether this is not really something radically different from that. In the first place, the judges are not a Government Department and are not susceptible to any influence from the Government or from any executive quarter. The kind of regulations that are complained of are regulations by which people obtain certain rights,
1798
it may be to a pension or to some other benefit which the State confers. But what is left here to Acts of Sederunt is merely the means of enforcing rights in a court of law. There is nothing more common in any system of jurisprudence than that the Supreme Court of any country should have itself the power of regulating its own procedure. That power has existed in many countries long before this question of Departmental legislation ever arose, and I am not aware that it has even given rise to the kind of criticism which Departmental legislation has recently given rise to in this country. I suggest, without closing the door to my hon. Friend, that he should consider these aspects of the matter and that he will not he disposed to insist on the procedure of our courts being again subjected to that rigidity which comes of embodying its forms in an Act of Parliament.
The only other matter with which I would deal is the question of summary procedure. The criticism has been made that it is somehow lowering to the dignity of one of His Majesty's Judges to be selected by the parties to a dispute to adjudicate upon it. I am perfectly unable to understand that argument. What I know is that this particular Clause, although the drafting of it has been subjected to criticism, has been welcomed by every legal body and by every public body that has yet considered it. The whole object is to enable the parties, when both parties to the dispute agree, to get a rapid, informal and final decision. What is it which hinders the man with moderate means too often from asserting his rights at court? It is the slow formality of the procedure before the judge of first instance. There is the risk of appeal to the Court of Appeal, and the final risk of an appeal lying still further ahead to the House of Lords. What is the position? Are His Majesty's subjects to be entitled to go to the judge of first instance and say: "Here is a dispute; I am willing to take your judgment as final if you will settle it for me"? Surely, there can be but one answer to those who believe that the quick and cheap settling of real disputes between honest people is one of the essentials of a proper system of justice.
8.57 p.m.
Mr. BUCHANAN: One cannot gainsay the force of the argument of the Solicitor-

1799
General for Scotland that there is need for rapid and cheap justice. One must always bear in mind, however, that great questions are often settled by arbitration of the kind suggested. One has to remember that it is not always merely a question of settling a dispute between two litigants. When you settle a dispute between two litigants you are making case law for the future. Therefore, it is not a question for two people alone. If it were so, I should be at one with the point of view of the hon. and learned Member. When dealing with case law and with things which may affect the future of other citizens, we have no right to hand the position over to arbitrators. A particular case may well be founded upon a decision given by a learned judge. While I am not against arbitration in this matter, I believe that a great amount of the law has been built up without any real foundation of fact, or of being properly worked out. I find it so in the case of unemployment insurance. I fear that with this arbitration very often decisions may become binding upon other people, whereas if the case were properly argued there might not be such a finding at all. This proposal, as far as I can see, will cover matters relating to workmen's compensation.
The LORD ADVOCATE: I would remind the hon. Member that, as far as workmen's compensation is concerned, the procedure is statutory. We are not dealing with that matter.
Mr. BUCHANAN: I am glad to be corrected, because I believe the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) stated that the only things outside the question of arbitration were those affecting the status, and I concluded that workmen's compensation was not in the category of status and was therefore included among the cases which can go to arbitration. The Bill ought to have dealt with the whole question of the judiciary of Scotland in a much more thorough fashion. The time has come when we ought to fix an age limit for the judges. Service in the Court of Session is limited to the age of 65 and the Secretary of State has power to extend the time limit to 70 years of age in exceptional cases, but I cannot understand why judges should be immune from such a provision. We ought to have an age limit applied
1800
to judges in the same way as it applies to other servants of the Crown. There are servants of the Crown whose duties may be as important as those of judges, and I cannot understand why an age limit should not now be imposed upon judges.
The question of the period of the shutting down of the Court of Session ought to be reviewed in the light of new circumstances. Even if it can be established that the time off is necessary and that the judges when not actually sitting have other judicial duties to perform, yet to have the whole Court of Session shut down is not good business in the light of modern developments. Judges ought to have time off in rotation, and the Court of Session, as far as civil actions and appeal cases are concerned, should not be shut down for such a long period. The Bill ought to deal with the question of the time during which the Court of Session is shut down. I do not intend to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but I regret that it falls short of reviewing the general position of the magistracy of Scotland. I submit to the Lord Advocate, and to the Solicitor-General for Scotland that the time has arrived in Scotland when the whole lay magistracy should be reviewed. These lay magistrates have tremendous powers. They can sentence people to fairly lengthy periods of imprisonment. In certain cases they can inflict sentences of six months imprisonment. Generally, their powers are limited to the infliction of 60 days or two months' imprisonment. The time has arrived when a reform should be instituted in regard to the magistracy. In Glasgow we have the lay magistrates and one legally trained man, known as the stipendiary, who may be looked upon as a subordinate form of the sheriff. The other day this legally trained man, whom one regards as being removed from prejudice, tried a certain case, and found the person not guilty, after a, proper trial. The week before, the lay magistrates tried less prominent men for an offence perhaps not approaching in seriousness the other offence, and yet these smaller men were fined. Why was that?
The whole system of the lay magistracy is wrong. It means that very often men are being tried by their political opponents. A position has now been reached, particularly in the city of Glasgow, which is crying out for reform. What is the position in the Glasgow

1801
police courts? The Procurator Fiscal is the superintendent of police. I say sincerely and seriously to the Secretary of State for Scotland that in regard to the magistracy a terrible and shocking thing is crying out for reform. The poorer a person is the more need has he for a proper trial; the more defenceless he is, the worse he is, the more necessary is it that prejudice should not be created. We often find poor people charged with crime. I do not blame the police, the nature of their duties bring them into these cases, but when we have the superintendent of police acting as the Procurator Fiscal and his own people are the chief witnesses, the position is very unsatisfactory.
I would sooner go to the Court of Session or to the High Court than I would go to the lay magistrates' court, which is tantamount to a military tribunal. You go there and you find the Procurator dressed with his Sam Browne belt, with the buttons polished on his uniform, while the court is packed full of policemen. The whole atmosphere is military. Go to any other court, and the atmosphere is quite different. The prosecutions are carried on by civil officials, dressed as civilians, and the atmosphere is civilian. I do not indict any single individual, but there has grown up a system which is higgledy-piggledy in the lower courts, and ought to be remedied. Go to the Court of Session and see what happens. I have been there frequently, and may I say that the judges have never limited me in any way? They give their decisions co-related to other decisions which have been given in the House of Lords and elsewhere. In the Glasgow courts you may argue before the lay magistrates, you may produce your evidence, you may have learned counsel, you may quote the decision's of learned judges, but the Procurator is the prosecutor, and only too often the thing is unsatisfactory.
The whole proceedings in these lower courts is calling out for improvement. I do not reject the little reform that is proposed in this Bill. I do not forget that civil justice is important, but to me criminal justice is just as important. No lawyer would allow civil cases to be tried by these lower courts if he could help it. No man of standing would prefer to
1802
put his clients in these courts. He would prefer to insist on the other courts. The indictment that I bring against the Bill is the fact that it has not tackled the whole question of the legal system and the judiciary in Scotland from top to bottom. The Bill deals with a few minor reforms. The Royal Commission investigated many problems, but it did not touch the problem of the lay courts. If the Secretary of State cannot bring in a Bill the time is at any rate overdue for some form of inquiry into these courts and into the system of the local judiciary. It is a horrible position, when you find a trained mart letting one man off as being not guilty, whereas other men are fined £1 by the lay magistrates for another offence in which the verdict ought to have been not guilty. Surely that is a thing that cannot be defended. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will go into the whole question of the lay magistracy in Scotland, because with my knowledge of the city of Glasgow, I know that it is rapidly becoming a disgrace, and is bringing the whole legal system into contempt. The Secretary of State for Scotland must know that there could be nothing worse than to hold the courts in contempt. I hope that for the sake of all concerned in the courts and for the sake of the legal profession he will take steps to rectify the position.
9.14 p.m.
Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: I had not intended to take any part in the discussion, but the charge that has been made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) necessitates the other side being put, and I should like to put it before the Solicitor-General replies. I hold no brief for the side of the lawyers or for the ordinary baillies or justices of the peace in the Scottish courts, but I do say that there is a great deal to be said for the other side.
Mr. BUCHANAN: There may be.
Mr. GRAHAM: There is. There can be no doubt about that. Those who occupy the position in the ordinary courts in Scotland as justices of the peace or baillies, are generally men or women who have had a long period of municipal service, and although they may not bring legal or technical knowledge to the sub-

1803
ject they bring to it ordinary common sense. I should be very sorry if anything was done in this or any other Bill which would set up a class system of legal treatment for poor people who are brought before the courts. Our courts on the whole work admirably. I know the case which the hon. Member for Gorbals has in mind. There is another side to that matter. Perhaps the legal gentleman was more in the wrong than the judges of the case who were not legal gentlemen. It is a, question of opinion. In my opinion he was wrong—
Mr. BUCHANAN: He was right.
Mr. GRAHAM: I may be wrong. I never take up the position of being absolutely correct on anything, and I do not think anyone else can be absolutely correct. There is a great deal to be said on both sides. I agree with what has been said with regard to the purity of our sheriffs and those who dispense justice in Scotland, but I want my hon. Friend to bear in mind that these other people who exercise this function are men and women—
Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the hon. Member kindly face this point. The indictment I have made is that in these courts the procurator fiscal is the police superintendent. The police are, generally speaking, involved in the charge. I say that the prosecution in such cases should be undertaken by laymen who are not concerned with the criminal charge at all.
Mr. GRAHAM: It may be true that in the main the evidence submitted in the sheriff court in criminal cases is by the police. It may be true that the procurator-fiscal is the chief constable of the borough, but after all he is not the judge, and the judge has always the right, even if he is a justice of the peace, to refuse to accept his argument. On the whole I think the hon. Member has little reason to complain, and I hope the Government will not be in any way influenced by the arguments he has advanced.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) [MONEY].
Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 71A.
[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]
Resolved,
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law of Scotland relating to the Court of Session and procedure therein to the appointment of officers in the said Court and the High Court of Justiciary to criminal jury trials and to the sheriffs and procedure in the Sheriff Court and with regard to law agents fees, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the sums which may becomes payable in respect of the remuneration of—

(a) the principal clerk of Justiciary, and any depute, assistant, or other clerk in the Justiciary Office;

(b) a principal clerk of session, and other clerks and officers of the Court of Session (including any clerk to a judge);

(c) macers in the High Court of Justiciary and in the Court of Session;

(d) the accountant of Court, the auditor of the Court of Session, and the principal extractor of the acts and decrees of the Court of Session;

(e) any person appointed to act as interim sheriff during a vacancy in the office of sheriff of any sheriffdom, or during the absence on sick leave of a sheriff who is restricted from engaging in private practice.—(King's Recommendation signified).—[Sir G. Collins.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT, 1931.
9.20 p.m.
Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to move,
"That the Scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, for the regulation of the marketing of milk in Scotland, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 1st day of May, 1933, be approved."
The House has had a varied bill of fare before it this afternoon. After discussing Private Bill legislation in Scotland and then the administration of justice in Scotland, I am now, at this hour, going to turn their attention to the question of milk. In asking the House to adopt a resolution in favour of the Scottish Milk Marketing Scheme, which is now in the hands of hon. Members, I can assure them that the need for such a scheme is keenly felt and realised by dairy farmers in

1805
Scotland. They have realised by experience that schemes based on voluntary co-operation cannot be made effective and that the powers given by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931 should be used. A large and representative meeting of Scottish milk producers met soon after that Act was passed to formulate proposals dealing with the marketing of milk, and last November, when the public inquiry was held in Glasgow, objections were lodged against the scheme. The principal farmers' association in Scotland at that time were divided in their opinion, but since then the position in the milk market has worsened, and to-day the National Farmers' Union of Scotland and the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture are in favour of this scheme.
The scheme itself comprises all the effective milk producing districts of Scotland with the exception of Aberdeen, Elgin, and Inverness, and the area comprises a population of over 4,000,000 people and covers some 15,000 to 20,000 producers of milk. I ask the House to excuse me if I go into a little detail on this question in view of the wide ramifications of the present scheme. I am aware of the anxiety which is to-day experienced by milk producers regarding the present position of their industry. I am satisfied myself that the scheme, if wisely carried out, will enable them to re-establish their industry on a sound footing, and that, in the terms of the Act, it will conduce to a more effective production and marketing of milk. The main object of the scheme is to deal with the gap between the price of milk sold for liquid consumption and the price of milk not wanted for that purpose which is sold or used for manufacturing purposes. One set of prices in practice pulls down the other price. Last autumn the agreed price for producers supplying the Glasgow area was is. 2d. per gallon for liquid milk, while the price for surplus milk was only 6d. per gallon, but even at that rate it is believed that only one-third of the milk producers were getting the higher price. Since then the agreed price of 1s. 2d. in the South-West of Scotland has fallen to 10d. per gallon, and less, while surplus milk for manufacturing purposes has fallen to 4d.
1806
The problem before the new board, therefore, will be to dispose of the growing surplus of milk as well as possible and maintain prices for liquid milk. An essential part of their scheme will be to try to increase the public consumption of milk. May I interpose here a word or two as to the public demand for milk in Scotland? It has been calculated that the consumption per head in England and Wales compares very unfavourably with that in other countries. No doubt the discrepancy is due to different habits. For instance, the consumption of milk would be expected to be higher in countries where coffee is as popular a beverage as tea is in England and, further, extremes of heat and cold are said to stimulate the demand for milk. But, when due allowance is made for all these factors, consumption could be increased considerably with benefit both to the health of the nation and to the milk industry. I have one or two figures if the. House will allow me to give them. The consumption of fluid milk per day in the United States before that country went dry was one pint per head. In Denmark it was one and a-quarter pints, in Norway one and one-eighth pints, and in. Sweden nearly one and a-half pints. In Glasgow, on the other hand, the consumption of milk is only about two-fifths of a pint per day. The problem of trying to increase the public demand may well be studied by producers and distributors.
Passing from the consumption of milk and the means whereby it may be increased, let me turn to the scheme itself. The provisions of the scheme are designed to enable the administrative board, by the exercise of trading and regulatory powers, to regulate the sale and price of milk to be consumed as liquid milk, to arrange for the disposal or otherwise of the surplus supplies, and to pay producers for the total quantity of milk supplied by them, irrespective of its destination, on the basis of an average price, with exceptions for officially graded or other milk which is sold at special prices, and subject to reductions for distant carriage. The cost of operating the scheme is to be met by deduction from the payments to the registered producers calculated at so much a gallon, and the cost of the scheme will not fall, therefore, on the State. Producer-retailers, producer-wholesalers arid the producers of certified milk are to,

1807
be exempt from the provision requiring the sale of milk to or through the agency of the board. That is an exception, but they will be required to observe the scale of prices fixed by the board and to contribute to the cost of operating the scheme. Generally speaking, the scheme itself will be one for the pooling of the milk produced in that wide area. Thus registered producers are in general not to sell the regulated product except to or through the agency of the board. To a large extent, producers will be allowed to continue to consign milk, as heretofore, to the same distributors and manufacturers, but it is assumed that the board will be a party to any contracts made between producers and buyers of milk, and the latter will make their payments to the board.
During recent months the scheme has been criticised on one or two grounds. One criticism has been that the uniform flat rate of payment will work unfairly as between groups of producers now regularly supplying definite markets all the year round and other producers who may be using most of their milk to turn into cheese or more rarely butter. In this connection it may be pointed out that the deduction for haulage rate will operate against producers distant from the main area of consumption. The objection has further been met by a modification to the effect that the producer who undertakes a regular supply all the year round shall get any excess payment agreed to on that account. Another objection was raised on behalf of the distributors, and I understand, we are going to hear more about it this evening They complain that the scheme places a producers' board in an unfairly favourable position for bargaining with the distributors, but let me remind hon. Members that the scheme does no more in this direction than the Act of 1931. The Act of Parliament of that year does not alter the fundamental facts of the situation. The board will not be in a position to arrange for distribution, and milk will still be a perishable commodity which the producers must get rid of very quickly. I think, therefore the distributors will thus still be in strong position. After all the price must be settled after negotiations with them.
The only persons on whom the board can impose prices are the producers, and
1808
this power is needed primarily to save any producer from being tempted to part with his milk at a lower price than the agreed price, because that practice has been followed by certain individuals which caused the voluntary scheme which was in operation a, few years ago to break down. Clause 23 specially directs the board to invite representatives of distributors, manufacturers and others to join together in appointing a joint committee to consider questions of this kind. I think, therefore, the House will see that the interests of consumers and distributors are widely safeguarded. As hon. Members will know, a public inquiry was held in Glasgow in November on this question and lasted for six clays. Full expression was then given to the objections lodged with respect to the scheme. Objections were also raised to the scheme on the ground that it does not apply to the whole of Scotland, but I am advised that the scheme is not likely to fail in its object through the preparation of other schemes for the North and North-east of Scotland. In other words, this scheme can go through by itself and be a success, although there may be other schemes which will shortly be put into operation. Let me turn for a moment to the relationship between this scheme and the proposed milk marketing scheme for England and Wales.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he tell the House how they are to deal with circumstances like these, which may arise under this arrangement? A great amount of milk that at the moment is being used for making cheese and butter, may be rushed into the Glasgow market in quantities greater than Glasgow is able to take at dm moment. It is all very well to talk about a "drink more milk" campaign but as things are I should like to know how a situation such as I have described is to be handled.
Sir G. COLLINS: That is the very problem which the board must face. I said in my earlier remarks that the functions of the board would be to study that problem and see how they would deal with it. It is a matter which I must leave to them. It is a matter to be considered by the producers themselves. They are the best judges of how to conserve their own interests. It is undoubtedly true that to rush large

1809
quantities of liquid milk on to the market may smash the price and the scheme has been instituted for the very purpose of avoiding the contingency of the market being smashed and the producers heavily hit. I think we must therefore leave the solution of that problem to the board. It is a business problem which these men will face, I hope with success, directly the scheme goes through.
As regards the relationship between the scheme and the projected milk scheme for England and Wales there can be no doubt that the two boards, acting for the two countries, will recognise that they must arrive at some satisfactory arrangements regarding supplies passing from the area of one scheme to another. The Scottish Scheme prohibits the sale of milk by producers either within the area of the scheme or elsewhere, except to or through the agency of the board. The board therefore has complete power over the sale of milk by producers. The Scottish Board I think are not likely of their own motion to stop sales of milk in England and English sellers of milk from Scotland cannot be debarred directly, under any scheme, from obtaining supplies from Scotland. The utmost that could be done to stop them would be for the English Board, if and when it is set up, to refuse permission to producers in England to supply such persons. It is improbable, I think, that any such action would be taken without consulting the Scottish Board, and, therefore, I think enough has been said to show that the English and Scottish Boards between them will be able to deal with the situation. I may remind the House that the final decision on the question of whether the scheme shall come into full operation rests with the producers themselves. A poll of the producers must be taken and it is interesting to observe that the scheme will lapse until the poll shows that not less than two-thirds in terms of numbers and of producing capacity of those voting are in favour of it remaining in force. I am sorry if I have wearied the House with some detail on this matter, but I was anxious to submit the details not only to this House, but to the large audience outside which is awaiting them. I submit those details with confidence, believing as I do, that voluntary efforts to secure a reasonable price for the producers of this vital commodity in Scot-
1810
land having failed, and as the Agricultural Marketing Act is now in operation, this scheme is necessary. The scheme comes before the House, having been threshed out in detail by those conversant with the subject, and I hope the House will now allow it to go forward to the poll of the producers.
Mr. DAVID REID: A certain amount of milk comes to the South of Scotland from the North of Ireland. When I cross from Lame to Stranraer, I see a certain amount of milk in churns and of cream in pails, going from the North of Ireland to Scotland. Is the import of that milk into Scotland to be prohibited?
Sir G. COLLINS: I think the answer is in the negative. The imports will not be stopped.
9.40 p.m.
Mr. LEONARD: In the Committee which is dealing with the Agricultural Marketing Bill, apprehensions have been expressed on various points, in regard to which it has appeared to those associated with me that effective control would not be exercised. We have generally been referred, when we have raised these points, to the fact that any scheme would have to run the gauntlet of being placed before the House. I respectfully draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the situation which presents itself on the first scheme of this character presented to the House. I refer to the number of Members who are in attendance to safeguard the people of this country in regard to any points which may arise on this scheme and which are to the detriment of the community. It should not be accepted as satisfactory that at this time of the night, the first stage of this scheme is being taken under such conditions, especially when we know that every speaker in this discussion has to be mindful of a request made to us that we should all be brief in order that some other matter may be brought before the House later.
I was surprised at the statement of the Secretary of State which suggested that voluntary co-operation was not capable of being applied in this country. I regret to accept that fact—if it be a fact, because the history of co-operation in Denmark seems to contradict that expression of Opinion by the right hon. Gentleman I agree with him whole-

1811
heartedly with regard to the national interest in an increased consumption of milk but I assert that in securing that end you are entitled to give a proper status to the value of the work of the distributing elements in this country. I oppose this scheme on the ground that I do not think it would be of advantage to the community. Moreover, I am of opinion that it will not be to the best interest of the milk industry. Reference has been made to the public inquiry which followed the completion of the scheme. At that inquiry, detailed reasons were advanced in support of the assertion that it would not work satisfactorily. Details were given with regard to the interlocking of the various interests in order to make for smooth working, and it was pressed upon those conducting the inquiry that joint machinery was essential.
I assert that not only our trade interests, but the communal interests of the people are entitled to have smoothness in this important item of dietary, and anything that will militate against that smoothness should make us very careful before we allow it to interfere. This its a thing in which good will is absolutely essential. We must have the good will of all the people affected, and I am prone to believe that the scheme as it is at the present time will not be conducive to that good will. Without it all the formal regulations that may be made will come to nothing. I would ask the House to bear in mind that the elements which are now asking for co-operation are those which have brought efficiency to this industry. It is not the most inefficient sections which are asking for co-operation. The methods used in the preparation of the scheme were, to say the least, curious. They were secretive, and a policy of hush-hush seemed to animate those who entered into the initial discussions. The complexity of the industry did not appear to them to be such as to call for all the aspects being properly considered and allowed a voice, and the important factor of interdependence in this industry was given scant attention. Had it been given its proper place other interests to which I have referred would have been brought in.
Therefore, I regret that in the initial investigations regard should not have been made to that and a review of all
1812
the aspects of the problem made and all the viewpoints covered in a proper way. The Minister of Agriculture appears to be of the same opinion, because, so far as the milk industry for England and Wales is concerned, he proceeded in a way which can be accepted as a more sensible way. He sought all opinions and he selected for the purpose Sir Edward Grigg and gave that gentleman a commission. Presumably he instructed them to pass under review the experience of the past and the facts of the present and from these two things to bring forward whatever modifications they deemed it desirable to make in order to make an efficient milk industry in this country. They occupied many months at their job and they brought into being a very detailed report. It included suggestions such as I have been supporting, namely, a joint milk council covering producers and distributors with, as a preventive against the possibility of deadlock between these two elements, three independent persons. That method must be accepted by hon. Members as at least reasonable and sane. Why a different procedure was adopted for Scotland I do not know, and I would like to ask the Minister what procedure would have been adopted had it been a national scheme and not a Scottish scheme. If it had been a national scheme would he have adopted the Scottish method or the English method? I am prone to believe that the interests in England and the wisdom of the Minister of Agriculture would have decided that the conditions that appertained in England would have been those adopted.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The hon. Member is not suggesting that in the draft English scheme there is a joint milk council?
Mr. LEONARD: I am suggesting that in the report of the Organisation Commission acting under Sir Edward Grigg part of the recommendations is analagous to what I have put forward as desirable in this scheme. With regard to Scotland no consultation of that character took place. The Minister may say that the public inquiry into the scheme gave the opportunity for all the other interests to bring forward their points of view. That is quite right, and many of the interests, and particularly the interest with which

1813
I am intimately connected—the Co-operative movement—took advantage of that public inquiry. When they went there, however, the chairman ruled out any reference to joint machinery, holding, as I have been told, that it is a producers' scheme and that, therefore, he could not permit a discussion of joint machinery—discussion that must have taken place in England because it is a part of the Commission's Report. I believe that the Minister of Agriculture is endeavouring to remedy this matter in the Marketing Bill which is in Committee upstairs. That is one of the defects about which the Grigg Commission reported in order to get the machinery running smoothly.
I want to revert to the method of conducting this matter in Scotland. Surely it cannot he said that there are no interests in Scotland that have a status sufficient to give them some recognition. In front of the public inquiry there appeared interests, to one of which I will refer. I am going to refer to the evidence of Mr. Downie, the leading witness on behalf of the Scottish Co-operative movement. He stated that the Co-operative witnesses present represented 170 retail societies handling 23,000,000 gallons of milk per annum, including the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society, with three creameries taking 2,500,000 gallons per annum; 817 milk producers supplying 16,500,000 gallons a year to the societies; and Co-operative societies themselves, which were farming 10,000 acres in the area covered by the scheme. That was an interest that endeavoured to receive some consideration, and it was not right to pay no regard to interests of that character. I find in the Orange Book, which is a. Government publication, the following statement on page 50:
"It is obvious, for example, that a national milk scheme will require the cooperation of wholesale and retail distributors, including the consumers cooperative movement, of creamery proprietors and of manufacturers. Divergent interests may stand in the way of effective co-operation, and it would be the duty of the commission as a constructive body standing outside the ring to investigate such difficulties as exist and to make suggestions for their removal."
Therefore I suggest that the Governmental opinion in the Orange Book should have had some regard paid to it in the initial stages of this matter. But I want to be a little more emphatic.
1814
Not only did they ignore that expression on behalf of the Government, but they deliberately refrained from allowing the competent section of the co-operative machine any knowledge of the matter at all. They deliberately endeavoured to keep the initial negotiations from the knowledge of the co-operative societies. I base that statement upon the assertion that there is correspondence now in the possession of the Scottish Department of Agriculture which supports the contention. I ask the Minister to look into it, and to give due regard to it. If an opportunity bad been given to us at an earlier stage it is possible that the report and the statement might have contained modifications in line with those to which I have referred as contained in the report of the Grigg Commission.
Then there is the public inquiry. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has referred to it, and to the results. What were the results? He may tell us that. The report of the inquiry has not been published. Efforts have been made to ascertain what the report was. It was a public inquiry. Counsel were briefed to be in attendance, and trouble was taken to prepare the evidence and to see that it was placed in proper hands. There has been the expense of the inquiry. I presume that the Commission reported. What is the report None of the interested parties knows. They are refused any information as to what effect their evidence has had on the report. The Minister may know, but he does not tell us. I think there is precedent for this claim. The Trade Board inquiries are analogous to this inquiry. They have placed before them much detail of a rather intimate kind. Their reports have been published in the past. There is no reason why the report should not be published in this case. The Raeburn Committee, which made an investigation into co-operative societies, conducted its inquiry in private, but published a report. I know that the Government feel very reluctant to publish the evidence given before that inquiry, but the report was published. I ask a specific question. Is the Minister acting on the report or is he acting against the report? Perhaps it is the case that joint control was recommended. We do not know.
Commander COCHRANE: Does the hon. Member suggest that joint control

1815
would be possible under the Marketing Act of 1931?
Mr. LEONARD: Yes, I am asserting that, and I am supported by the Report to which I have referred. It is the same Act, the same machinery, and the same problem which comes under review. With regard to the Commission to which I have referred, if it is good enough for the problem as it applies to England it is good enough for the problem in so far as it applies to Scotland. I want to refer to the scheme itself. The Minister referred to paragraph 23. It says:
"For the purpose of facilitating the determination of the matters referred to in Sections 20 and 21 hereof, and in order to promote harmony in the relations between the board, distributors of milk, manufacturers of milk products and haulage contractors, the board shall invite such associations representing these interests as may be known to the board to appoint representatives to joint committees to which the board will also appoint representatives."
In its initial form it was permissive, and it is now mandatory, and that is good. But there is the possibility of dispute. That is one of the troubles that we are endeavouring to visualise. Power is ultimately to reside in the hands of the producers. That is one of the things to which we object. There is nothing in the paragraph as to the size and the relative proportion of the representation of the various interests. I want to turn to paragraph 20, which is much more important. In sub-paragraph 4 we find:
"(4) The board shall, as soon as practicable after the termination of the statutory suspensory period intimate in writing to every registered producer whether or not the continuance of the disposal of the regulated product produced by him to the person or persons to whom it was sold immediately prior to the termination of the statutory suspensory period has been approved by the board. In the event of such continuance not being approved, the board shall instruct the registered producer concerned in writing as to the manner in which his supply is to be disposed of, and on receipt of the written instruction of the board, the registered producer shall dispose of the regulated product produced by him in manner provided therein."
That is far too wide unless there is joint control. This matter is extremely important. It is not a question of the co-operative societies at all, but for years the co-operative societies and the distributors have entered into direct relationship with the farming interests of
1816
the country. They have told the farming interests the requirements with regard to supply and quality, and they have directed a considerable amount of financial help to the farmers. They have paid bonuses on the quality of milk. They have been responsible in the main for the creation of laboratories in order to guide farmers with regard to quality. That has been responsible for a steady rise in the quality. Now we find it possible for the people who have been interested in this way and have spent money, guaranteeing to themselves a supply and quality of milk, to have the supplies diverted at the source and into the possession of people who have not spent a penny piece in that direction. Therefore we look with great concern to the possibilities under that paragraph. Such powers are only to be exercised by agreement. Failing agreement there should be provision for arbitration, and not only for producers, but for distributors as well.
I want to refer to paragraph 21. Here also a producers' board is given wide powers with regard to the control of transport. We find that the board will be able to restrict the haulage of this commodity. I do not disagree with that, for nothing can be too careful with regard to milk. But the board are given powers to deal with this question of haulage. They will only issue permits for transit of milk to approved contractors. There are people and interests in the country who have performed that haulage for themselves. I mean on the distributive side. We suggest that if the machinery brought into being for that purpose has been efficient and all that could be desired, at least these people should be allowed to stay outside the provisions of this paragraph. Distributors with their own system should be exempt or arbitration machinery should be established for the purpose. The whole system, in our opinion, calls for joint machinery, and those two Clauses in particular support my contention.
Of more general interest, however, is paragraph 39 which deals with accounts. It provides for profit and loss accounts to be furnished to the Minister and for a copy of the balance-sheets to be furnished to any person requiring it. We suggest that, in view of the protection given to the producers, the general public are entitled, if they so desire, to know a little

1817
more than the balance-sheet might display to them, and if they so desire other persons interested should be allowed to purchase a copy of the profit and loss account as well as of the balance-sheet.
I will now deal with a remark of the right hon. Gentleman in reply to the hon. and gallant. Member for Dumbartonshire (Commander Cochrane) dealing with other schemes that can be brought into being. I am of the opinion, and there is a strong body of opinion, that a comprehensive scheme covering the country would be more desirable than the proposals contained in this Measure, and I want to refer to the Grigg Commission again, because they make reference to Scotland, and in respect of the assertion that the national scheme would be preferable, quote the Grigg Commission as follows:
"We think there would have been substantial advantages to be gained had it been possible to arrange for the preparation of one scheme for the whole of Great Britain."
They conclude by saying:
"We think the scheme we have recommended could, if the need arose, be adapted without difficulty to cover the wider area."
We suggest that on that latter point, instead of splitting up, there should be a consolidation of interests, looking at it from the point of view of the national well-being. We consider, therefore, that this scheme should be withdrawn and that the marketing of milk in Scotland should be incorporated under a national scheme.
Paragraph 11 of the scheme provides:
"The board shall appoint the first auditor, who shall hold office until the first annual general meeting. Thereafter the auditor shall be appointed each year by the annual general meeting. The auditor, who shall be one of the public auditors appointed by the Treasury, shall not hold any other office in connection with the scheme."
That point, that he shall be one of the public auditors appointed by the Treasury, is a simple formula which excludes other competent auditors in this country, and I have been informed that the London Association of Certified Accountants are equally capable and have been recognised by both Houses of Parliament as competent to undertake work of this character. There has been given to me a copy of a rather formidable list of corporations recognised by Parliament in the Sessions 1930, 1931 and 1932, including the English Institute, the Incorporated Society, the
1818
London Association and the Corporation of Accountants. I therefore put forward the suggestion that in any future review of this matter this point shall be kept in mind. I understand there are 250 members of the London Association in Scotland who are competent to do the work.
10.11 p.m.
Lord SCONE: The last. time I spoke in this House I believe it was for the purpose of opposing the previous scheme introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but on this occasion I am in general agreement with the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, as I believe are the great majority of milk producers in Scotland. As he said, those who are concerned in the production of milk have had a very poor time of it of late, and here, as elsewhere in agriculture, the whole problem has been one of prices, not one of production. They have been able to produce milk, but they have not been able to get a remunerative market, which must have caused loss to the farmer and loss of employment and wages to the farm worker. Under this scheme we agree undoubtedly that better times are at hand, but I would like the right hon. Gentleman to pay some attention to the question of the control of imports. We hope that, as a result of our proceedings upstairs in the Standing Committee on the Agricultural Marketing Bill, we shall be able to get some effective control of imports, because otherwise no scheme of this character can be really effective.
There are certain points of detail upon which I should like to touch. There is a provision whereby a levy has to be paid by all producers who have more than some four cows. Many producers, including some in my own constituency, over a fairly considerable area in the East of Scotland have no surplus milk at any season of the year, and they feel some apprehension that they will be called upon year after year to pay a levy and will never receive anything in return. I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider this suggestion, which I admit occurred to me on the spur of the moment, and which I have not considered very carefully, as to whether the board might not introduce, in some amending Order, some provision whereby, if a producer had paid a levy for a

1819
number of years without getting any benefit, or only a very infinitesimal benefit, in return he should be entitled to claim a reduction or possibly the complete remission of the levy, say, every fifth year. I feel that if there is a whole district which has to pay year after year without getting any return it is bound to become dissatisfied, and at all costs we want to avoid having any one section of the milk-producing trade dissatisfied, because dissatisfaction means lack of co-operation and that means lack of complete success.
There is one other Section to which I would specifically refer, the rather remarkable Section 30. Under this Section, which is headed "Power to board to grant exemptions," it says:
"The board shall have power to exempt from any or all of the provisions of the scheme producers and sales of such classes or descriptions as they may determine."
If that were interpreted in the way the board might interpret it, it would mean that a coach-and-horses could be driven through this scheme, or any similar scheme, and I would like my right hon. Friend to explain what the promoters of the scheme had in mind when they inserted this rather curious Section. It is true that this scheme is probably not perfect in all its details in its present form. We could hardly expect that any marketing scheme would not have to be amended sooner or later and in a greater or a lesser degree, but I believe the whole of the producers in Scotland, with very few exceptions, think that the scheme is going to be of great benefit as a whole, and provided that the board will be willing to introduce an amended scheme if necessary, which I have no doubt this House would pass with as little demur as it is likely to pass the present one, feel confident that we have before us to-night a scheme which will lay the foundation for the reconstruction on a more satisfactory basis of milk production in Scotland, which at present is in such a parlous state.
10.17 p.m.
Mr. McKIE: Scotland has been having an innings to-day. The lawyers have been in twice, and now it is the turn of the land. The Motion before the House illustrates the diversified character of the agricultural industry, not merely in
1820
that there are many branches but that each branch in different parts of the country requires special attention to meet its requirements. The needs of the stewartry of Kirkcudbright and the county of Wigtown differ materially from those of Perthshire, which have just been presented by my Noble Friend. There you have very little surplus milk, whereas in the large dairying area which I have the honour to represent we have ever-increasing quantities of surplus milk. Last night, in a Debate which very materially concerned the dairying branch of agriculture, it was forcibly argued that it was necessary for us in taking into consideration the revival of our basic industries to take the long view. This point was made by no speaker more forcibly than by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart), but I would suggest to him that sometimes that catholicity of ambition, which is always necessary, and very necessary at the present time, sometimes betokens a lack of sympathy and even of interest. To-night, when we are discussing a somewhat narrower Motion dealing with one particular branch of agriculture, namely, dairying, it is very right that sectional interests should be resented, and that, their case having been made, those in authority, the powers that be, should determine just how much of this case should be accepted or rejected.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland alluded to some of the objections that had been raised by producers with regard to the scheme which Parliament is being asked to approve. He alluded to the fact that some critics thought—and, with all due respect to what he said about the recent conversion of the National Farmers' Union some critics still think—it would have been better to have proceeded upon the lines of an equitable rather than an equal distribution of the price to the producers who send in their supplies to the Board. To illustrate my point, I will draw attention to the different conditions of production which prevail in different parts of the country. In some parts it is still possible to produce with comparative cheapness, while in other districts, which are a long way from the centre of distribution, production is carried on at much greater expense. Some critics have feared that the attraction of an equal price may cause a spate of milk to be

1821
poured on top of the heads of the distributors, and it is said that the distributors might not be able, with the machinery at their disposal, to cope with those supplies, and that the last state of the producers, in consequence, regarding prices, might be worse than the first.
It is for the producers, when the moment for them to record their votes arises, to decide whether they will accept or reject the scheme, and they must weigh it on their merits. Those who say that an equitable distribution of prices will be more desirable, suggest that the flow of milk into the pool would not be so great and that you might see an increased manufacture of cheese. That is all very well, but the stocks of cheese in the country are accumulating at the present moment, and unless we institute a drastic control of the imports of cheese into the United Kingdom we shall not be able to dispose satisfactorily of even the existing supplies. If you had this equitable distribution of prices, and a consequent increase in the already far too large manufacture of cheese, a very serious condition would arise, unless you had regulated the supplies coming into this country in large quantities—coming, of course, also from inside the British Commonwealth of Nations.
My Noble Friend the Member for Perth (Lord Scone) has alluded to the necessity of controlling agricultural products which compete with the dairy industry. I heartily associate myself with all that he has said, and I believe that at the present time the general public are not in the least interested in particular fiscal points. In the Debate last night, which, as I have already said, centred so largely round agriculture, we had the same familiar points of view, presented with varying degrees of emphasis by each speaker in turn, from his particular fiscal predilections. At the last General Election, the country, no matter what may be said in this House by those who try to score debating points, emphatically gave to this National Government a doctor's mandate to put into operation any system which it seemed good to them to employ for reviving our basic industries, and most of all, I say without fear of contradiction, the industry of agriculture.
It is the dairying branch, which we are now discussing, that finds itself in the most dire need. We were all delighted
1822
last night to hear the Minister of Agriculture say, in the course of his brilliant speech, that, if we tacitly or implicitly accepted the Danish and Argentine Agreements, the first thing that he and the Ministry of Agriculture would do this morning would be to set about bringing into operation a system of control of those products which are competing with this industry. It is essential that each branch of agriculture should be given its fair Chance, thereby assisting the revival of the industry as a whole. Last night the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) poured scorn, if I understood him rightly, upon the idea of making British agriculture a really paying and profitable proposition. He said that, if we had proceeded in the past upon such lines, to-day we should have a population of merely 12,000,000 or 15,000,000—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's speech sounds as if it ought to have been made last night.
Mr. MoKIE: I accept your Ruling. I was endeavouring to relate a certain point which had been made to the question which is now before us, namely, the very serious position of the dairying industry, and to the Motion which we are considering, the object of which is to bring about a more efficient marketing of dairy produce, and thereby to assist that industry. It is essential that some scheme of marketing for dairy produce should be brought into existence as speedily as possible, and it is for the House to-night merely to approve of this scheme, leaving it to the producers as a whole to accept or reject it.
10.28 p.m.
Mr. MACLAY: There has only been one speech from the Opposition Bench on this Motion, and I take it from that speech that the Opposition are against the scheme. I have no doubt that other Members also are against the scheme, and I regret very much that that should be so, because I welcome the scheme as the commencement of an attempt to bring about among producers a certain amount of order and regulation out of chaos. To my mind it is essential that Capitalism should do this throughout industry, in order to meet the challenge of Socialism and produce a certain amount of organisation and planning in production. The

1823
industry of farming has the choice between going on in the old laissez faire manner—for which, indeed, there is something to be said, though I think the disadvantages outweigh the advantages—or of accepting some such scheme as this as an experimental preliminary to what is to follow, because at the moment we can but feel our way. The only other alternative is the acceptance of something similar to what exists in Russia to-day. There individual liberty is completely stifled, and I do not think we wish to see anything similar to that in this country. Such a scheme as this seems to me to be a typically British compromise, inasmuch as it represents co-operation with a maximum of individual liberty; and I think it is along such lines that we shall find our way out of the troubles in which we are to-day.
It will require a very large extent of good will among those who are working the scheme. Such schemes are conceived in a time of depression, when everyone is anxious to co-operate, but the time will come shortly when prosperity will return and the individual will see an opportunity of doing better for himself, and it is in those days that difficulties will arise. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this scheme to take the greatest care as to the two nominees who are to be appointed. It seems to me that that is the most important part of the whole scheme. The consumer will have a great deal of his anxiety removed if he feels that there are two outside persons nominated by the Government having a say in the scheme to begin with. I do not know whether it is the intention after the first year to abandon the two Government nominees, but it is essential that they should command confidence to begin with. In a board with two Government nominees lies the whole success of the scheme.
The Secretary of State said that there was room for a great development in the use of milk for drinking and other purposes. That is so. In America they had a great advertising campaign for consuming milk, and I should like to ask whether the provisions for advertising contained on page 8 would allow the Board to use extensive sums of money for advertising if they chose to do it in
1824
the near future. Sub-section (6) on page 4 provides for the filling of casual vacancies by the board. What about the Selection Committee? It seems to me wrong that the board should have power to do this when the whole point of the Selection Committee was to ensure wide representation. It seems to me that this will give cause for dissatisfaction. You might have the position arising where a member might be appointed by the board and might remain for five years without the Selection Committee having any say whatever.
I should also like to back up what was said by the Noble Lord the Member for Perth (Lord Scone) regarding Section 30. I cannot see the point of that Section at all. I should like to know whether the Minister is satisfied that under the scheme young go-ahead farmers will not be unduly penalised. One does not want to see too static a state of affairs as the result of such a scheme. One criticism is that it tends to limit production. You may have young, go-ahead farmers anxious o develop but finding difficulties put forward because of the tendency to disturb the whole process of regulation. I would like to know from whoever is to reply whether he is satisfied that no undue difficulties are to be put in the way of such enterprises. The scheme will be welcomed by most people as a way out of their difficulties and will also be watched with interest as an experiment and forerunner of other such schemes.
10.36 p.m.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am sorry that this very serious question should be rushed through the House at this late hour, but there are only one or two matters to which I wish to draw attention. We on these benches consider that the attempt being made for the regulation and marketing of the milk supply in Scotland will miserably fail because it is to be handled in the same way as the Government have tried to handle the coal question. Just as we require to nationalise the mines, so we shall require to nationalise the whole of the milk supply both in Scotland and in England in order to get over the trouble. The Secretary of State for Scotland gave instances of the consumption of milk in different places. He showed that the consumption of milk in Glasgow was very low, and evidently

1825
deplored the fact. He said that Glasgow consumed per head of the population only two-fifths of a pint per day.
There is one important point which the milk scheme has failed to recognise, namely, the character of the milk. Three weeks ago the veterinary inspector of Glasgow, in a report to the Markets Committee, stated that no less than 14.5 per cent. of the milk samples tested by him contained virulent tubercle bacilli, that many infected cows were sent to the city of Glasgow for sale, and that nearly 9,000 bovine consumptives remained undetected in Scotland. Such a state of affairs exists with the cognizance of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I put those facts in the form of a question to the Minister of Agriculture on Tuesday of this week, and I received this reply:
"I have seen the report to which the hon. Member refers, and understand that the Department of Health for Scotland hope to publish shortly the results of a recent investigation on this subject carried' out in the four large cities of Scotland.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1933; col. 1355, Vol. 277.]
That means that the Secretary of State for Scotland knows of the scandalous state of affairs in the milk supply of Scotland, and yet he is trying to popularise the campaign, "Drink more milk." If the milk supply of Scotland was pure, he could depend upon us using our influence on behalf of the campaign to drink more milk, but in face of the state of affairs to which I have referred, when we know that milk is the staple food of tens of thousands of little children and that that food is poisoned, the situation is very serious. Hon. Members talk about Russia. Russia has bought the very finest herds from Scotland and whenever any animal showed any signs of tuberculosis it was rejected. Russia will not let in tuberculosis, yet we, with all our hypocrisy, with all our Christianity, because it will cost money to alter it, continue to allow this contaminated supply of milk, poisoning our children and filling our hospitals.
We have to pay three guineas a week to maintain a child who contracts tuberculosis as the result of the milk supply, for which the Government are responsible for, according to the reply of the Minister of Agriculture, the Secretary of
1826
State for Scotland is acquainted with the facts. I do not want to take up the time of the House, because we have a very important matter to bring forward. No doubt our opponents would like me to take up the time of the House with this question rather than the question that we are to debate later. I honestly believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Under-Secretary and the Lord Advocate are anxious to do what they can for the welfare of Scotland. Believing that, I hope that they will exercise such powers as they possess to deal with the bovine tuberculosis which is raging in, the Lowlands of Scotland at the moment.
10.44 p.m.
Mr. BURNETT: I listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard). It was a speech from inside knowledge of the Co-operative Movement. I agreed with a certain amount of its criticism, I differed from other parts of it and I also differed from its conclusions. He stressed some of the non-essentials of the scheme. We have to consider whether the scheme, taken in conjunction with the policy of quantitative regulation of imports announced by the Minister of Agriculture last night, makes a policy which will deal with the very difficult situation which has arisen in the milk industry. Production and consumption have lost relation with one another. There is the liquid milk market bringing in remunerative prices. We would willingly increase the consumption of milk, if we could. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has put a tax on beer and whisky, which has doubtless reduced the consumption of these Leverages, but I do not think it has done very much to make us a more milk drinking nation. Germany has veered towards milk drinking more than we have in recent years.
Then there is the question of the surplus milk and what is to be done with it. It is manufactured into cheese and butter, condensed milk and other manufactured products. The price of this surplus milk has been going down steadily during the last 10 years; the gap between the price of milk for liquid supply and the price of milk for manufacturing purposes has been increasing. If you look at the Orange Report you will see that in 10 years the average price of milk for

1827
manufacturing purposes has gone down from 9d. per gallon to 4¾d.; it has gone down 50 per cent. a very serious matter. There is also the struggle that is made to get on to the liquid market in order to get the higher prices which that market affords, and the farmer who is selling his milk over the wall at prices which undercut the standard price. These are some of the problems we are up against, and which we shall have to solve. We have to devise some scheme by which the farmer will get a just return for his outlay and labour and under which the consumer will be safeguarded in a pure milk supply at a not expensive price.
This scheme, in the main, is statesmanlike and constructive, but I agree with the hon. Member for St. Rollox that there is a certain neglect of the distributive side. In the report of the commission it was urged that we should carry all interests with us in order to get harmony. It stresses the importance of a co-ordination of the efforts of all concerned, producers, distributors and manufacturers, and it also points out that no reorganisation can serve the real interests, either of the milk producers or of the public, which does not give due weight to the needs and interests of the distributive side of the industry. In the case of England it is suggested that there should be three boards; a producers board, a board of distributors and manufacturers; and a Joint Milk Council to unite the two. This may not come strictly under the Agricultural Marketing Bill, but I think it leaves a loophole for distributors to be added. It says in Clause 12:
"All or any of the members thereof shall be persons chosen by a body or bodies elected by registered producers."
It does not say that all have to be elected by producers, but some of them; and that seems to give a loophole which may allow us to add distributors. That is an important point. It is to be regretted that they should only be allowed to assist in a consultative capacity for, after all, they have a very big interest in the matter of capital, and they also look after the interests of the consumer. Anyone who has gone through a large dairy in one of our cities will have seen how much has to be done. There is the question of pasteurising—raising milk to a certain heat and bringing it down to a certain heat. Then there is the purify-
1828
ing. Purifying is not a work of supererogation, as anyone who goes into a large dairy realises from the amount of dirt and manure taken out of the milk. Then there is the testing to see that the milk has a strength of at least 3 or 3½ per cent., as the case may be, of butter fat. There is also the inspection of cows. All these are matters of considerable importance in which the distributor is trustee, to a certain extent, for the consuming public. In that way I think they should be taken into account in connection with the contracts for prices.
There is one other point. It was suggested by the hon. Member for St. Rollox that we should have one scheme for the whole country. The view of the Orange Report is rather that there should be a number of regional schemes. It bas been pointed out that to have a flat rate price all over the country favours the remoter farmers and producers at the expense of those in the towns having special expenses. They supply liquid milk very largely, while the remoter producers of milk are concerned with manufacture. If we were to even the price all over the country, the result would be hardship to the suburban areas where rents are high, high prices have to be paid for farms, and there are other expenses. I have said enough on the main point I wanted to mention, but let me again emphasise that I think reorganisation is really necessary, and I believe that this is a scheme which we should put into operation as a constructive scheme. It should do a great deal towards placing on a sound and stable basis the milk industry, which certainly is in need of reorganisation.
10.54 p.m.
Commander COCHRANE: I rise as a supporter of this scheme, but before I deal with the general subject I should like to refer to one point raised by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) with regard to the cleanliness and character of a part of our milk supply—which is a very important point. It must be plain that, whatever else this scheme will do, it cannot worsen things in that regard or make the supply of clean milk more difficult. Therefore, I will not say any more on that point, though I agree with the hon. Member that it is one of very great importance. The point I wish to deal with

1829
has been dealt with first by the hon. Member for St. Bollox (Mr. Leonard) and the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett) just now, and that is the question of the composition of the board which is to carry out this scheme. While the hon. Gentleman opposite was speaking, I ventured to put a question to him. I asked if he thought what he was proposing came within what was permitted under the 1931 Act? He said that was his intention and, clearly, I had misunderstood him, because I think the proposal he made was of such a character that it could not be brought within that Act. That being so, I feel there is really not a very great deal of difference between our views.
I am encouraged in that view, because the hon. Member for St. Rollox, after some criticism of the scheme, ended his speech on the note of wishing to see it extended to the rest of Scotland. He also said that good will was an absolute necessity if the scheme was to be a success. The point at issue is how we are to gain the necessary measure of good will. He suggested what may be described as a sectional board, including so many producers, so many consumers, and so many representatives of the retail or distributive trades. I do not think that would be a success. The only way in which a scheme of this sort can be worked is by having a board in whom everybody will have confidence. It does not matter what label they have. By the Act of 1931 they must be, technically, workers. They must certainly be elected or appointed by producers. That is essential because it is a producers' scheme, but, as regards the personnel of the board, there is a technical qualification that they must be producers. To be a producer of milk, however, is merely a matter of owning two or three cows, and is not a difficult qualification to fulfil.
If we have a board composed of people in whose judgment and fairness everybody has confidence a scheme of this sort can be successfully operated. I do not think it could be done, however, under the proposal of the hon. Member, who clearly envisages three separate parties meeting round a table and, of necessity, manoeuvring and bargaining to put forward their own special interests. I do not believe that is the way to get agreement and success. In launch-
1830
ing this scheme it is most unlikely that it will remain for the whole of its life without amendment. That would be impossible, even if the present draft were perfect. It is unlikely that conditions will remain so stable that amendment would not be necessary. As a matter of fact we are unable to judge to-night whether the scheme is the most perfect one or not and, for that reason, our procedure, by which we either approve or reject but do not amend a scheme of this sort, is satisfactory at this time. The scheme has been drawn up with the greatest of care. It is now up to the producers in Scotland, in conjunction with all others interested in the production and distribution of milk, to bring it into force and make it a success.
The interests of all parties are that the scheme should be a success, and for that reason if for no other we may rely on a great measure of good will and co-operation. I am certain that is the general desire. We in Scotland are starting the first important scheme of this character. I do not forget that which has been referred to by my Noble Friend the Member for Perth (Lord Scone) but this is of a different nature. I believe from the way in which the scheme has been received in Scotland and in this House that it will go forward to the producers and all others in the industry, with the strong recommendation that they should take it up and make it the success which we all wish to see.
11.0 p.m.
Mr. R. W. SMITH: It seems to me that when we have a draft agreement, the title should define what the scheme contains. The title of this scheme is:
"Scheme for the regulation of the marketing of milk in Scotland under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931."
Paragraph 1 says:
"This scheme may be cited as the Scottish Milk Marketing Scheme, 1933."
It is not a Scottish Milk Marketing Scheme, for it applies only to parts of Scotland. Paragraph 3 lays down the area to which the scheme applies. When we have a scheme of this kind the title should be correct and should say to what part of Scotland it applies. I want to refer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Maclay) because it is an important one. I have always held that the failure of co-operative

1831
schemes has been lack of confidence of the small producers, and that if our co-operative schemes are to be a success under the Marketing Act we have to see that the small producer has confidence in the board which is to manage it. The hon. and gallant Member for Dumbartonshire (Commander Cochrane) said that the board in this scheme would be composed of producers, but I see nothing in the scheme to suggest that. In fact, as I read it, it will not be entirely composed of producers. It will be a great mistake if in such a scheme the board is limited to milk producers, because probably a man who has nothing to do with the production of milk might be the best person to be the chairman of the board.
Commander COCHRANE.: I thought that I made it plain that if there were such a qualification it was only technical, because anyone owning a couple of cows would become a producer of milk.
Mr. SMITH: I think it is necessary that the board should have on it those who are not producers so that we may have the best brains for dealing with the selling of milk. That, of course, makes a difficulty, for the scheme covers a large area and the board is to have only eight members. At the bottom of page 3 of this scheme it says:
"The Selection Committee shall make such provision as they deem adequate for the representation on the board of the registered producers in the various parts of the area of the scheme."
The various parts of the area of the scheme are defined in paragraph 3, and it is a very large area, and how it is going to be properly represented, I fail to see. There is to be a selection committee consisting of not more than 50 registered producers, and it seems to me quite pointless if you are only to allow them to appoint the board at the beginning. They will have no power to appoint in the case of a vacancy if a person dies or resigns. At the bottom of page 4 it says that vacancies
"shall be filled up ad interim by the board."
If this occurs the person appointed will hold office only as long as the original holder would have held it. But a person may refuse to accept the position, and the vacant place may not be filled. You are taking away from the registered pro-
1832
ducers the selection, and therefore the management, which I think is very serious. You create the feeling that they are not allowed to choose their board of management. There are some people in my part of the world who are worried about the selection committee. I think the selection committee should be the body to make these ad interim appointments and that appointments should not be left to the board. Then it is not laid down in the Bill what is to be a quorum of the selection committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] This matter is of vital interest to Scotland. I think that more care is required in drawing up the details of the scheme. It is provided that the board may appoint a secretary, but it is not stated that the secretary must not be a member of the board. At the start he should not be appointed from the members of the board. I am sorry to have to take up time with these details, but unless we get the details right now the scheme will be a failure.
11.9 p.m.
Mr. SKELTON: There are one or two matters to which I must make a short reply. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] They are matters that were raised when some hon. Members were not present. I understand that the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) and his friends propose to divide against this Resolution. I regret very much that the first large marketing scheme brought forward under the Act of 1931, for which the Labour party were responsible, should be opposed by that party. We are putting into operation a scheme which, judged by the provisions of the Act, is absolutely beyond criticism. There is, so far as I know, no provision in the Scottish Milk Marketing Scheme which in any degree contravenes the provisions of the 1931 Act, nor indeed could there be, because by this time it would have been exercised. Therefore, I cannot but think it lamentable that the first example of a large scheme under their own Act should not be supported by the party which passed it. I am aware, as is the House, of the cause. That cause is the anxiety as to whether the interests and importance of the co-operative movement as a distributive organisation are sufficiently considered under this scheme.
My hon. Friend tried to draw, to the detriment of this scheme, a contrast

1833
between it and the proposals of Sir Edward Grigg's Reorganisation Commission. I want to make it quite plain to the House that the Minister of Agriculture has made it clear that he cannot support the special proposals of this Reorganisation Commission in so far as they involve the erection of a Joint Milk Council, and nobody knows better than does my hon. Friend, who has attended in the Committee upstairs many discussions on this matter, the considerations which have made it necessary, for the present at any rate, not to give effect to that part of the Reorganisation Commission's report. They are that, whereas under the marketing scheme you will have the producers organised and as it were under control—the House will understand what I mean—so that the orders and the decisions of a board can be carried into effect, there is no similar situation under the Marketing Act with regard to the distributors, because there is no distributors' Marketing Act; there is only a producers' Marketing Act.
Therefore, you cannot, as my sigh, hon. Friend said in Committee this morning, build up a structure on two pillars when one of the pillars is not really in existence at all. That is the real reason why it is impossible to put into operation the concrete proposals for a Joint Milk Council put forward by Sir Edward Grigg's Commission. There is put in its place this scheme, the very nearest provision that I think you could have. You have a provision that the board shall erect negotiating committees and consult representatives of the distributing organisations, putting it broadly. That is not merely permissive, but mandatory, and I do not think the House would have any doubt that, once you erect a committee of that sort, you will have the best possible means of producers and distributors coming to practical arrangements among themselves.
We have had in Scotland a voluntary milk organisation, which, as all Scottish Members know, came to an end because, under a voluntary system, it was impossible to maintain its cohesion, but its relation, broadly speaking, with the distributors was not one of the causes which brought it to an end. Anyone who has attempted to make himself
1834
familiar with the position as between producers and distributors in Scotland will, I am sure, be satisfied that with a scheme containing u, provision for a mandatory committee which will include distributors there can be no question that the problems which will arise for producers and distributors will be amicably settled in the spirit to which the hon. Member for St. Rollox referred at the end of his speech.
The hon. Member asked me one or two other questions. He asked why there was not a reorganisation commission instead of a marketing scheme. The answer is that the Act of 1931 presupposed that marketing schemes would be organised without the interposition of a commission. Milk farmers in Southern Scotland, aware of the advantages of a scheme, but their own voluntary scheme obviously suffering from its voluntary nature, took the earliest advantage of Dr. Addison's Act and initiated a movement for a scheme almost immediately after that Act was passed. For my own part, had there been delay on the part of the farmers of the South of Scotland. I should not have regarded a reorganisation commission as necessary, for two reasons. It was quite obvious, that if we were going to have a milk scheme for England, with its very much greater area, and its wider diversity of climate and conditions than the South of Scotland, and with the complete inexperience of previous schemes—which was the position South of the Tweed—there was indeed, good reason, apart from the rapidity with which these Scottish farmers got into action, for a commission in England. I do not think there is any ground for either surprise or complaint that the farmers in the South of Scotland made the earliest possible use of Dr. Addison's Marketing Act.
One other criticism was made by the hon. Member. He complained, first, of the secrecy in originating the scheme, but even more strongly did he complain of the secrecy with regard to the public inquiry. Let me be quite plain about the matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture feel confident that it is essential that the reports of the Commissioners should be kept confidential. The House will recollect that the scheme does not proceed upon that report, but,

1835
rather, the decisions of the Ministers concerned, and unless from the outset the Commissioner knows that he has the advantage of confidentiality I venture to say that the report would be not nearly so valuable from the point of its advice as it is when it is known from the outset that it is confidential. I am confident that if my hon. Friend were faced with the problem of whether or not the Commissioner's reports should be confidential he would answer the question precisely in the same way as my two right hon. Friends did.
There is one further point. He complained a little, though I do not complain of his complaining, that there was not one scheme for Scotland, but only one for the south of Scotland. I do not think there is any cause for complaint there. I understand that it is in contemplation that there should be a similar scheme for the north of Scotland. I have inquired as to whether those who are experts in the matter of marketing organisation expect that any difficulty will arise, on account of there not being only one scheme, but, so far as I have been able to probe the matter, there is no reason why any difficulties should arise. In the same way, as my right hon. Friend developed in his speech, I do not think that there is any reason for anxiety as to the situation which will arise if and when a milk-marketing scheme is in operation. In all these schemes you must have sensible men on the board, and if you have, they will deal with the other boards in a sensible and practical way. The men who run these schemes, and on whom so much depends, will realise what immensely important and practical questions they have to deal with, and I do not think that you will find them dealing with their affairs, or with the affairs of other boards, with their heads in the air. I think that you will find that they will deal with all those matters in a practical and business-like way.
My hon. Friend referred to the fact that the accounts, under one paragraph of the scheme, have to be audited by accountants appointed from those made use of by the Treasury. That is merely a way of saying that the accountants who will be employed will be the best available. That is not so much a matter of detail as it might appear. We are all aware that registered producers might be
1836
jealous and anxious as to the accuracy with which the accounts are kept. We know, in another region of industry, the tendency towards suspicion with which certain coal accounts are looked at by certain of the miners—accounts upon which their percentage depends. I am not suggesting that this suspicion is justified. But I say that such suspicions are not unnatural, and that the best way of avoiding any such suspicions is to lay down that the accountants are the best accountants you can get in this country. My hon. Friend will agree, I hope, that I have answered, not at unreasonable length, the questions raised by him. Let me turn to the questions raised by the other speeches in this Debate.
I am not going into the smaller details, for the reason that our function to-night is either to approve or reject the scheme. We are not in Committee on details of the scheme; we are giving it either our complete approval or disapproval. The House will exonerate me from going into the method by which an interim vacancy on the board might be filled. So far as I have any knowledge of the constitution of companies or associations, those practical points do not seem to have been badly set forth in the scheme. Those are committee points. The House's function to-night is one of Second Reading Debate.
The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Maclay) asked me one question which I think might be well worth mentioning. He asked whether the sums which the Board could use would be spent in advertising to any considerable extent. As I understand it, advertisement is one of the things which the Board can do, and the extent to which they advertise will no doubt be limited by the same considerations which limit the power of everyone else to advertise, namely, the amount of money that they have to spend and the amount which they think it right to spend. What that amount will be I do not propose to suggest. I am not unaware that the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett) referred also to the Joint Milk Council, but perhaps be will take the observations I have made in reply to the hon. Member for St. Rollox as covering the points in that context which he made.
Without going into Committee points, which I think, if I may say so, it would

1837
be out of place for me to deal with now, I venture to commend the scheme to the House, in the first place because it is essential to the producers of milk in the great milk-producing parts of Scotland that a reasonable price should be got for their product, and that reasonable order should be brought into the industry. I commend it to the distributors of Scotland because I am confident that the provision with regard to mandatory committees gives them a definite locus in the scheme, and I am sure that in the negotiations which will naturally proceed on the subject of prices and so on the distributors of milk are very well fitted to hold their own with the producers. I think that, if there has to be a discussion, it will be a discussion between two well matched sides, because, if the distributor depends on the producer, how much more does the producer depend on the distributor, for without his action what is to happen to the milk which with such rapidity goes sour? I do not think, therefore, that there is any ground for alarm on that point. The only fear that I have, and that I think the House need have, on the whole matter, is lest any rash words of ours may make it less likely that the producers should vote in favour of the scheme, and I am bound to say that I do not think that, although there have been valuable criticisms and interesting speeches have been made this evening, any word has fallen from any Member which should deter the Scottish producers from giving the scheme the necessary majority. In the first place,
however, the House must give the scheme a majority, and that I now ask it to do.
11.28 p.m.
Mr. MORGAN JONES: I hope I may be allowed to make one observation upon something which fell from the hon. Gentleman in the early part of his speech. He expressed some surprise that we on this side proposed to carry this matter to a Division. Of course it is true that this party is fundamentally a supporter of the principle of marketing schemes. We have argued about that for a long time, and it is too late for us now to go back; but I want to make one thing clear. We must make a protest in relation to one aspect of this matter, and the only way in which we can do so is by voting against this Motion to-night. I understand that there is a very serious complaint concerning the way in which the Co-operative Society of Scotland has been treated in this matter. I gather that at no point have the very substantial co-operative interests been consulted. They are distributors to the extent of something like 23,000,000 gallons of milk per year, and farmers to the extent of 10,000 acres, but at no point were they consulted until the stage of the public inquiry was reached; and I am invited to say that, in view of that very serious disregard of this very great interest in Scotland, we have no other course open to us than to express our formal protest against that treatment here and now.
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 30.

Division No. 165.]

AYES.

[11.30 p.m.

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Carver, Major William H.

Grimston, R. V.

Agnew, Llaut.-Com. P. G.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

Hanley, Dennis A.

Aske, Sir Robert William

Cook, Thomas A.

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Atholl, Duchess of

Copeland, Ida

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Ballour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Craven-Ellis, William

Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Crooke, J, Smedley

Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

Bateman, A. L.

Cross, R. H.

Horsbrugn, Florence

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Dalkeith, Earl of

Howard, Tom Forrest

Bossom, A. C.

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

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

Boulton, W. W.

Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

Bracken, Brendan

Ersklne, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Janner, Barnett

Bralthwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)

Everard. W. Lindsay

Jennings, Roland

Brass, Captain Sir William

Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Broadbent, Colonel John

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Ker, J. Campbell

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Ford, Sir Patrick J.

Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Fraser, Captain Ian

Leckle, J. A.

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

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

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Browne, Captain A. C.

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Goff, Sir Park

Llewellin, Major John J.

Burnett, John George

Gower, Sir Robert

Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

Graves, Marjorie

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

O'Donovan, Dr. William James

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)

Ormiston, Thomas

Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Palmer, Francis Noel

Spent, William Patrick

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Patrick, Colin M.

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilst'n)

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

McKeag, William

Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

Stevenson, James

McKle, John Hamilton

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

Stones, James

McLean, Major Sir Alan

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Strauss, Edward A.

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Rankin, Robert

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Rea, Walter Russell

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

Magnay, Thomas

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Maklns, Brigadier-General Ernest

Held, William Allan (Derby)

Sugden, Sir Wllfrid Hart

Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot

Remer, John R.

Summersby, Charles H.

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R

Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

Templeton, William P.

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Robinson, John Roland

Thorp, Linton Theodora

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Rosbotham, Sir Samuel

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

Mllne, Charles

Ross, Ronald D.

Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Mltcheson, G. G.

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyree

Runge, Norah Cecil

Wedderburn Henry James Scrymgeour-

Morgan, Robert H.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Whyte, Jardine Bell

Mulrhead, Major A. J.

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Murray-Phillpson, Hylton Ralph

Scone, Lord

Womersley, Walter James

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Skelton, Archibald Noel

North, Captain Edward T.

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Nunn, William

Somervell, Donald Bradley

Mr. Blindell and Commander

O'Connor, Terence James

Soper, Richard

Southby.

NOES.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Malnwaring, William Henry

Banfield, John William

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Maxton, James

Batey, Joseph

Jenkins, Sir William

Milner, Major James

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

John, William

Price, Gabriel

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Dagger, George

Kirkwood, David

Tinker, John Joseph

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lawson, John James

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Dobble, William

Leonard, William

Edwards, Charles

McEntee, Valentine L.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Groves.

Resolved,
"That the Scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, for the regulation of the marketing of milk in Scotland, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 1st day of May, 1933, be approved."
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.

  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  RUSSIA (TIMBER).
  RUSSIA (TIMBER).
  FILM CAMERAS AND CAMERA EQUIPMENT.
  FILM CAMERAS AND CAMERA EQUIPMENT.
  IMPORT DUTIES.
  IMPORT DUTIES.
  ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT.
  ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT.
  AUSTRALIAN EGGS (IMPORT).
  AUSTRALIAN EGGS (IMPORT).
  GREECE (BRITISH CREDITORS).
  GREECE (BRITISH CREDITORS).
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  SPIRIT DUTY.
  SPIRIT DUTY.
  INCOME TAX (COMPANIES' RESERVES).
  INCOME TAX (COMPANIES' RESERVES).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  MIDDLESEX.
  MIDDLESEX.
  BOYS AND GIRLS (INSTRUCTION).
  BOYS AND GIRLS (INSTRUCTION).
  WAGES.
  WAGES.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.
  TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.
  ZANZIBAR
  ZANZIBAR
  ADEN PROTECTORATE.
  ADEN PROTECTORATE.
  MILITARY TATTOO, ALDERSHOT (SCHOOL CHILDREN).
  MILITARY TATTOO, ALDERSHOT (SCHOOL CHILDREN).
  CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT.
  CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the woolsack.
JESUS HOSPITAL IN CHIPPING BARNET CHARITY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, referred to the Examiners.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
DURHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BOROUGH OF MARGATE ORDER)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to extend Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Margate be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act for extending Section 1 of that Act to the Borough of Margate, and laid before this House on the 7th of April last, be approved.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (URBAN DISTRICT OF GRAYS THURROCK ORDER).
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move a similar Motion with reference to the urban district of Grays Thurrock.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
854
ment under the Act for extending Section 1 of that Act to the urban district of Grays Thurrock, and laid before this House on the 7th of April last, be approved.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BOROUGH OF TWICKENHAM ORDER).
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I also move a similar Motion with reference to the Borough of Twickenham.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act for extending Section 1 of that Act to the Borough of Twickenham, and laid before this House on the 11th of April last, be approved. —(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TORQUAY) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS) AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to Order).
PROTECTION OF ANIMALS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

IRISH FREE STATE CONSTITUTION (OATH).
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT had the following Notice on the Paper—To ask His Majesty's Government:
(1) Whether their attention has been called to the provisions of the Free State Constitution (Removal of Oath) Act, 1933, which was passed in Southern Ireland on 3rd May, 1933.
(2) Whether they are aware that Section 1 of that Act purports to repeal Article 17 of the Constitution of the Irish Free State, which Article prescribes the form of Oath to be taken by the

855
members of the Legislature of the Irish Free State in accordance with Article 4 of the Treaty, and that Section 2 of that Act purports to repeal Section 2 of the Constitution of the Irish Free State Act, 1922, which gives the force of law to the Treaty, and renders void any provision of the Constitution or any amendment thereof or any law made thereunder which is repugnant to the Treaty.
(3) Whether His Majesty's Government will state what is the effect of this Act of 1933 (1) on the Treaty which was the basis of the Constitution of the Irish Free State and on the Constitution which was founded thereon; (2) on Article 4 of the Treaty which prescribes the form of Oath; (3) on the rights and status of British citizens born and resident in the Irish Free State; and (4) on Article 7 of the Treaty, which provides that the Government of the Irish Free State shall afford to the Imperial Forces, in time of peace, such harbour and other facilities as are indicated in the Annex to the Treaty, and in time of war or strained relations with a Foreign Power, such harbour or other facilities as the British Government may require; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Questions standing in my name. The Notice is rather lengthy, but it raises points on which I shall be glad, and I think the House would desire, to receive information. The questions raised by the Act of 1933, which was recently passed in the Irish Dail, are of the utmost constitutional importance, not merely to the inhabitants of Southern Ireland but to the inhabitants of this country, and indeed, I think, I may go further and say to the Empire at large. May I shortly refer to the relevant facts? The Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland were signed by the representatives of the two countries on December 6, 1921, and, in order that that Treaty might become binding, two conditions had to be fulfilled. That was provided by Article 18 of the Treaty. The two conditions were these: (1) that the Treaty should be approved by the British Parliament and by the House of Commons in Southern Ireland; and (2)—and this is of serious importance, having regard to what has happened—if the Treaty were so approved it should be ratified by the necessary
856
legislation. Both those conditions were fulfilled. The necessary approval was given, and the Treaty was ratified in 1922 by legislation, both in this Parliament and in the Parliament of Southern Ireland—identical legislation in both Parliaments.
It was this legislation which set up the Constitution for Southern Ireland and gave the force of law to the Treaty. What was the result of that legislation? It was this, that the Irish Free State was brought into existence as a Dominion, with Parliament and written Constitution, and had it not been for the ratification of the Treaty by the two Parliaments the Irish Free State would never have come into existence at all and would never have received a Constitution. In order to apprehend what has recently taken place, may I draw attention to some of the Articles of the Treaty and of the Constitution? Article 4 prescribes the form of Oath to be taken by all members of the Legislature of Southern Ireland. It says:
"The Oath to be taken by Members of the Parliament of the Irish Free State shall be in the following form:—
'I … do solemnly swear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the the Irish Free State as by law esablished, and that I will be faithful to His Majesty King George V, his heirs and successors by law, in virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain and her adherence to the membership of the group of nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations.' "
The only other Article of the Treaty which I need read is Article 7, and this is of grave importance to this country. It says this:
"The Government of the Irish Free State shall afford to His Majesty's Imperial Forces:—

(a) In time of peace such harbour and other facilities as are indicated in the Annex hereto, or such other facilities as may from time to time be agreed between the British Parliament and the Government of the Irish Free State; and

'(b) In time of war or of strained relations with a Foreign Power such harbour and other facilities as the British Government may require for the purposes of such defence as aforesaid.' "

If anyone had seen, as I have seen, a map prepared in Germany showing the number of our ships which were sunk by German submarines during the War off the South and West and North coasts of Ireland, numbering some thousands, and

857
if anyone were to remember that the petrol supplied for those submarines was largely obtained from harbours and creeks in Southern and Western Ireland he would appreciate what the importance of Article 7 may be if ever such an unfortunate disaster as war should again occur. Therefore it was considered absolutely necessary and vital that in time of peace we should have the facilities mentioned and in time of war we should be able to control the ports of Southern Ireland.
Now, as to the Irish Constituent Act, 1922, which gave the force of law to the Treaty and established the Constitution. Section 1 of that Act set up the Constitution. Section 2—and this is of great importance, having regard to what has happened—says the Constitution shall be construed with reference to the Articles of Agreement for the Treaty "which are hereby given the force of law"; in other words, that was the Act which ratified the Treaty and made it effective. Then it goes on:
"and if any provision of the said Constitution or of any amendment thereof or of any law made thereunder is in any respect repugnant to any of the provisions of the Scheduled Treaty, it shall, to the extent only of such repugnancy, be absolutely void and inoperative.…"
There is one provision in the Constituent Act, which is scheduled to this Act, which I ought to refer to, and that is Article 17 of the Constitution, which repeats and enacts the form of oath that I have read out from Article 4 of the Treaty.
So up to that point we have got this. There was a Treaty. It was approved of by the Legislatures of both countries, and it was given the force of law by legislation in both countries. By that means the Irish Free State was brought into existence, and, had it not been for those Acts of Parliament, there would have been no Constitution such as they now have. So matters went on for some time. There were certain modifications made in the Treaty from time to time. I do not refer to them for the moment as being irrelevant. But in 1932 Mr. de Valera came into power and shortly after his advent to power this present trouble arose. What happened was this. In April, 1932, Mr. de Valera's Government introduced into the Dail a Bill known as the Free State Constitution
858
(Removal of Oath) Bill. As your Lordships will notice, it was, according to the title, only going to remove the Oath. That is bad enough, but as a matter of fact your Lordships will see it did far more—it practically abrogated the Treaty. The Bill passed its Second Reading in the Dail by the narrow majority of six—77 to 71—and subsesequently passed through all its stages in the Dail. It then went up to the Senate. The Senate amended it somewhat materially. It sent the Bill back to the Dail, and the Dail would not accept the Amendments. That held up the Bill. A General Election was held in the Free State in the early part of the present year, and Mr. de Valera was then returned to power. The Bill in its original form was again sent up to the Senate, the Senate again adopted its previous course, and the Bill was held up again; but, by the effect of a clause in the Constitution, under these circumstances, after a certain period the Bill automatically became law. That event occurred on May 3, 1933; that is, on Wednesday of last week. That is the Act referred to in my Question.
The Act is a, very short one, I have it here. Section 1 repeals Article 17 of the Constitution which, as I have mentioned, was the Article that repeats and confirms Article 4 of the Treaty as to the form of Oath. Section 2, having regard to the title of the Bill, is one of extraordinary character. Section 2 repeals Section 2 of the Constituent Act of 1922, which Section 2 gives the force of law to the Treaty, so that the effect of this Section 2, if it is valid, is that the Treaty no longer has the force of law. It would seem to me, at any rate, that that Act has very far-reaching consequences. May I just add this? I have read a good many of the debates which took place in the Irish Dail when this Bill was being discussed, and many members of the Cosgrave Party expressed the gravest alarm as to the effect which the Bill, if it were passed, would have upon them in Ireland, upon their position as citizens of the Free State, upon the Constitution itself, and upon the existence of the Free State as a Dominion. These apprehended dangers and these expressions of alarm were brushed on one side by Mr. de Valera, who gave no explanation, so far as my researches went, except that he wished it.
Let me say a word about this abolition of the Oath of Allegiance. Undoubtedly it is a breach of the Treaty. What do they want? What is the object of bringing it in in Southern Ireland? On the 3rd of May this year, when the Bill became law, there was a debate in the Dail before the Bill was passed, and Mr. de Valera gave this reason for abolishing the Oath contained in the Treaty. He said:
"We know that the majority of the Irish people do not want any confession of allegiance to a foreign King on the part of their representatives."
I shall ask His Majesty's Government, and I hope we shall have a clear statement—does this clause which purports to abolish the Oath mean that the members of the Free State Parliament are relieved of their allegiance to the King, and, if not, what is the meaning of it?
But, my Lords, the second point is a far more serious one—the abolition of the whole Treaty. The Treaty was the fundamental basis of the Irish Free State, and I should like to know from His Majesty's Government whether the legislation which purports to annul the ratification of the Treaty is valid or whether it is void. If it is void, well and good; that relieves us here and the inhabitants of Southern Ireland of great anxiety. But if it is valid, what becomes of the Free State? Its place has been taken away. Does the Free State exist no longer as a Dominion, and what has become of the Constitution? Having regard to Article 7 of the Treaty, what effect has the new legislation on that article, or on our rights under that Article, giving us facilities in the harbours of Southern Ireland both in time of peace and war? Are these rights still in existence—I should be glad to know they are—or are they cancelled? If that be so, it is a very grave position for this country, and I think it would be well for us to know where we stand.
Mr. de Valera appears to have had no doubts at all from his speeches as to what he was doing, and what the result would be, because I find in the Official Report of the Irish Parliament on the Second Reading of this Bill, on the 27th April last year, that he said this:
"The moment the people are ready for an independent Republic we will be quite ready to lead them."
And then I find from the Irish Press of the 4th of May last that in the speeches
860
in the Dail Mr. de Valera made it clear that the removal of the Oath is only the first step, the first act, in his work of destruction or revolution, whatever you like to call it. He went on to say that he hoped very soon, now that the Act of 1933 had become law, to remove other Articles of the Treaty such as the appeal to the Privy Council, which to my mind is of vital importance, and then he wound up by saying in his own words:
"And then we shall end up by declaring a Republic."
He was good enough to say that the Republic would not be declared until the Irish people had been consulted.
Such is the position. The Loyalists, and indeed many others in Southern Ireland, are deeply anxious about it. I think it is a very vital matter that we in this country should know what is the position. What is to be done eventually may be left open to the future, but it appears to me vital that at the earliest possible moment, both in this country an] in Southern Ireland, it should be made quite clear by authoritative statement what the constitutional position is and where we stand. Is there no authorised Irish Free State at all? Have we no rights under the Treaty at all? What has become of the Treaty? I put down this Question to His Majesty's Government in the hope that upon these matters referred to in it, and set out at length, we shall get a complete answer. I think it quite unnecessary to read the Question itself because it is on the Paper and also I have indicated, I think fairly clearly, the information which I desire. I beg to move for Papers.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords,I think we all have sympathy with the noble Lord in the question he has raised to-day. I suppose there is no one in this country who to-day is not greatly concerned with what has happened in Ireland during the past week. My noble friend Lord Danesfort has put the case so clearly with regard to that that it is hardly necessary for me to go over the points again, but he has put the case particularly from the point of view of the rights and status of the British citizen born and resident in the Irish Free State. I should like to know from the noble Viscount (Viscount Hailsham), when he replies, what is the position with regard to Irish citizens born in

861
Ireland and resident in Great Britain. I understand that by the abolition of the Oath the Irish Treaty has practically been abolished.
We have been told by Mr. de Valera that the time is coming when the South of Ireland will be created a Republic and that already His Majesty the King is regarded as a foreign King. If that is the case, then all these citizens of Ireland who were born in Ireland and who are living in this country must therefore be regarded as foreign subjects. What is the position of the very large number of Irish citizens who are living in this country in their relationship to Great Britain? I think of the very large numbers who are to-day resident in the West of Scotland. Many of them have come over from Ireland within the past two, three or four years and are to-day living in the West of Scotland, drawing the "dole," some of them receiving poor relief, and enjoying the benefits of the Housing Acts. Are these people to be allowed to continue to live in the West of Scotland, drawing all these benefits and yet being subjects, as we are told, of what has become to all intents and purposes a foreign country? I hope that in the reply which will be given by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, he will be able to inform your Lordships what is the position with regard to them.
There is another question which is of wider application and just as important a; the one that have just raised—perhaps in a sense more important—that is, what is the position, now that the Oath is abolished, of Ireland vis-à-vis the British Empire, or the British Commonwealth of Nations as so many people prefer to call it? We know that the South of Ireland was represented at the Ottawa Conference, and although she did not take a very active part in that Conference nevertheless the South of Ireland did participate in certain Agreements as a Dominion, and is still, so far as we know, enjoying the benefits of those Agreements. It is true that those Agreements were not made with the Mother Country but with other Dominions. How can a Dominion be a Dominion and yet not be a Dominion? That is what the South of Ireland is striving to be to-day, and to some extent has succeeded in being, by entering into these Agreements with the other Dominions. We, in this country, have
862
always been very sympathetic and have not pressed home the delinquencies of other parts of the Empire where they may have taken place, but I think an entirely different set of circumstances has arisen in the case of the South of Ireland. She is behaving in a way which makes it very difficult for at least some of us in this country to submit to with any patience. I do not suppose there is any country which has behaved to its near associate in the way that the South of Ireland has behaved to us in the last two or three years, that would not have got into very serious trouble indeed. But we have been, if I may put it so, kindhearted. However, the time has come when I think we ought definitely to say to the South of Ireland what we believe, what we think about her attitude and where she is heading. I am very glad, therefore, that my noble friend Lord Danesfort has raised this question today, and I hope that we may hear from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House some definite replies to the points which have been put by the noble Lord and by myself.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, before the noble Viscount the Leader of the House replies I should like to say only a word or two upon the Questions which have been brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort. The history of this matter began in the very carefully prepared Report of the late Lord Balfour who was appointed to make a Report on all these questions relating to our Dominions, and the words he used were in effect that the status of each Dominion was that it was to be regarded as an independent sovereign State. It fell to my lot in your Lordships' House to point out that it was difficult to give them the full status as our law stood at that time, but it was intended as from that date, as was often stated in your Lordships' House, that the law should be altered so far as was necessary in order that the status of every Dominion, amongst others of Southern Ireland, should be that of the independent sovereign State, to which Lord Balfour had referred.
After long discussion—I will not go into all the matters which were discussed at length in your Lordships' House—the Statute of Westminster was accepted and passed. That was in 1931. The effect of

863
that Statute was to do away with the limitations, such as those pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, in existing Acts or in existing practice as between two countries and to give a true independent sovereign status to Southern Ireland and to the other Dominions. For all purposes the power was given to any Dominion as regards internal affairs to legislate with the full right of an independent State irrespective of any legislation which had been passed—I ask your Lordships to note those words—or might be passed by the Imperial Government. So far I think we shall all be agreed.
Now may I come to the two matters really in discussion at the present moment. Both of them, I think, can be satisfactorily settled by the desire of both sides to have these matters determined. As regards the Oath, the form of an Oath in Parliament is entirely an internal matter for the Parliament itself to determine. As an instance of that I may mention the declaration which was substituted in the case of Charles Bradlaugh for the oath required from Members of Parliament. I think myself it is purely a matter which is within the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State. I did not know until the question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort—I am sure we are all indebted to him for his speech—that it was doubted that the Irish Free State had this authority. What was doubted was whether it was wise for them to exercise it or not. That is a matter left to their discretion. I merely want to say in passing that I do not think loyalty is increased by taking an Oath in a case of this kind. I do not think the allegiance of any man in this country depends on forms of that sort. It depends on loyalty and love of the Constitution and admiration for the excellent work done by the Sovereign of this country. Therefore, it seems to me only a theoretical matter, and so far as it may possibly create friction it is certainly undesirable to carry the matter further. The only other point raised between the two parties is that of the annuities. The only question there is a form of procedure.
LORD DANESFORT: May I interrupt the noble and learned Lord for a moment? I never raised the question of annuities by my Motion. It has nothing to do with it.
LORD PARMOOR: I was only going to say that I agree with what the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said, that with a little good humour and temper that could easily be settled. I will not go into that matter now. I do not know how far the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, would care to go into this question. I think myself that hypothetical questions of this kind raised before they come forward for settlement are mistaken. There is hardly any hypothetical question for which we cannot make out a certain a priori case which nearly always disappears when the facts come to be considered. The only point of practical importance is the Oath.
LORD DANESFORT: And the abrogation of the Treaty.
LORD PARMOOR: There is no question of the abrogation of the Treaty for the moment. To suggest that they have abrogated the Treaty is to my mind an unthinkable proposition. What we want is good temper all round. We want the Dominion spirit to be encouraged. The spirit of conciliation should be encouraged and not discouraged by trying to find possible points of difference.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, there is no doubt at all of the importance of the Question involved in the Motion which my noble friend Lord Danesfort has put upon the Paper or of the importance of the Questions which he has addressed to me. For the very reason that they are important I am proposing to limit myself as carefully as I can to the actual points which he raises and which are involved, in his view, in the Bill which has recently passed the Irish Parliament. I was asked both by him and by my noble friend Viscount Elibank to give a clear statement of the position of the Government. Some of your Lordships may be aware that that question has already been addressed to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions in another place, and although I am very glad to have the opportunity of stating it to this House, which has a right to the information, it would probably not make for clarity if I were to state my view of the position in language different from that employed by

865
my right honourable friend in another place. I propose, therefore, before I deal with the specific Questions addressed to me, to read the answer which was given in another place last week.
My right honourable friend said:
"The position of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is as follows: They have throughout made clear their view that the attempt to abolish the Parliamentary Oath in the Irish Free State is in direct conflict with the obligations undertakers by the Irish Free State under the Treaty of 1921. This is confirmed by the form of the Irish Free State legislation. The Treaty is the fundamental basis of the position of the Irish Free State, and in order to achieve their object the Irish Free State Government have been compelled to include in their legislation clauses purporting not only to abolish the requirement of the Parliamentary Oath but also to repeal those provisions of the Constituent Act and the Constitution of the Irish Free State which set out that the Treaty has the force of law and over-riding authority in relation to the Constitution. As regards the position which arises on the passage of the legislation, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom consider that the passing of the Bill will not affect the duty of allegiance to the King or amount to an act of secession. They are advised that the allegiance of the members of the Irish Free State Parliament does not depend upon the swearing of the Oath which by the Treaty and the Constitution they are required to take, and therefore that a failure to take the Oath is not in itself a repudiation of allegiance. This does not alter the fact that in the view of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom the removal of the Oath is a breach of the Treaty."
I think that is a clear statement which I hope will satisfy my noble friend.
Now I pass to the specific Questions which have been addressed to me by my noble friend. He asks first whether we are aware of the provisons of the Irish Free State Act, and the answer is, of course, in the affirmative. I have a copy of the Act here. Secondly, he asks whether His Majesty's Government will state what is the effect of this Act of 1933 on the Treaty which was the basis of the Constitution of the Irish Free State and on the Constitution which was founded thereon. That involves two questions. If I may, I will answer the first and for the moment leave the second. The answer to the question of what is the effect of this Act of 1933 on the Treaty which was the basis of the Constitution of the Irish Free State, is that it has no effect at all on the Treaty.
866
Then he asks what is the effect on Article 4 of the Treaty which prescribes the form of Oath. It has no effect on any Article of the Treaty, including Article 4. What is the effect on the rights and status of British citizens born and resident in the Irish Free State? It has no effect at all on the rights or status of British citizens born and resident in the Irish Free State. What is the effect on Article 7 of the Treaty, which provides for facilities in the Irish Free State for certain military establishments of His Majesty? It has no effect at all on Article 7 of the Treaty.
The reason for that, of course, is—as I think was explained in an earlier debate, but it is as well to have it clearly stated—that the Treaty is a bargain between this country and the Irish Free State. Neither party to the bargain can by unilateral action alter the terms of the bargain and it therefore follows that even if one party or the other purports to alter the bargain, that attempt has no legal, no international effect at all. For instance, every citizen of the Irish Free State is born within the King's allegiance and nobody born within the King's allegiance can of his own volition and without the consent of His Majesty get rid of the obligations which that allegiance involves. As to the Oath, I hardly need remind your Lordships that although every one of us in this House took the Oath of Allegiance before we could take our seats here, by reason of the rule of the Constitution which so provides, we did not begin to owe a duty of allegiance to His Majesty when we took that Oath. Long before we sat here, from the moment we were born into the world we were citizens of the United Kingdom, and as such were subjects of His Majesty, and owed our allegiance to His Majesty. The taking of the Oath is a formal recognition of the duty that lies upon us, a solemn affirmation of our recognition of that duty and of our acceptance of its obligation; but whether we recognise or refuse to recognise the obligation there is no doubt that the obligation remains.
Similarly I think those answers dispose of the specific points raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, as to the position of Irish citizens horn in the Irish Free State and now resident in the United Kingdom. The answer is that their posi-

867
tion is entirely unaltered by this Irish Free State Statute. They were born British subjects, they were British subjects before the Irish Free State Act was passed, and they remain British subjects to-day. No doubt it is true that if circumstances arose in which by any means the Irish Free State ceased to be part of the British Empire, serious questions would arise as to the position and status of the classes of persons to whom the noble Lord referred and as to the attitude the Government of the day would have to adopt with regard to them; but I emphatically think it would be very undesirable in present circumstances to reach a decision, and still less to announce a decision, upon such a hypothetical question.
There is one Question which I passed over. My noble friend not only asked the effect of the Act on the Treaty, but what was the effect on the Constitution which was founded thereon. I confess that is a Question Which I find it difficult to answer with the same assurance as the other Questions which were addressed to me. I find a difficulty because it is a matter upon which there may easily be two differing legal opinions. Obviously, as I think was pointed out in another place when the Statute of Westminster was being debated, there is at any rate a doubt—I will not put it higher, but there may easily be a doubt as to the effect of a Statute passed in Ireland purporting to repeal provisions of the Constitution and provisions of the Treaty when the Treaty and the Constitution were established by the Act of Dail Eireann, sitting as a Constituent Assembly, which Act provides that any Act passed thereafter should be void and inoperative in so far as it was in conflict with the provisions of the Treaty. I do not wish to discuss that question because I think it raises difficult points of law which may possibly be the subject of litigation, perhaps in the Municipal Courts of the Irish Free State or even elsewhere. I do not feel competent to pronounce a final opinion upon that question. Certainly it is a question upon which, if I were asked as a lawyer, I should like the advantage of the fullest discussion and consideration before I committed myself to one view or the other.
But the matter which immediately concerns us in this country, as it seems to
868
me, is not what is the effect in Ireland on the Constitution of the Irish Free State, but what is the effect in International Law on the Treaty which is the arrangement, the bargain, made between the Irish Free State and this country; and so far as that is concerned I have no hesitation in saying that a Treaty between two nations—I do not care what exact description you give them, whether dominions, foreign nations, subordinate states or whatever it may be—an agreement between two different entities of that character cannot be altered without the consent of both, and any attempt by one to make an alteration is inoperative until agreed to by the other. I think that answers explicitly the Questions which have been put to me, and I hope the answer, although it does not deal and is not intended to deal with all the hypothetical problems which may arise in future, will at any rate make clear the position of His Majesty's Government in the circumstances that at present exist.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure we have listened with great care and considerable satisfaction to the statement which my noble friend the Leader of the House has just given as to the position in respect of the Treaty which exists even after the passage of this Irish Act. But my noble friend did riot disguise the gravity of the step which the Irish Government and the Irish Parliament have taken in definitely breaking the Treaty. This is another proof of how all the hopes which were held out so glibly to us when resisting the Treaty have been blown to the air—all the glib prophesies of the friendly feeling of the Irish people and the Irish Government; after the passage of the Treaty and after the surrender which that involved, all those hopes have proved to be wholly illusory. I hope your Lordships mark it. I hope the country marks it. Nevertheless we have the statement of the Leader of the House. There was the last passage of his statement in which he dealt with the effect, not on the Treaty but upon the Constitution, and the bearing in his answer of the Statute of Westminster made me reflect how well-advised some of us were to point out, at the time of the passage of the Statute of Westminster, how dangerous it would be in respect of this very Irish difficulty which is now the subject of our discussion. We tried to

869
persuade the Government that it would be judicious to put an Amendment into the Statute of Westminster which would control to that extent the Irish Free State, just as the other Dominions of the Crown had been willing to be controlled themselves in respect of their fundamental Statutes and Oaths of Allegiance. We were not successful, but it is some sort of melancholy satisfaction to think that, although we were unsuccessful, we were nevertheless right.
The Treaty is binding, and I confess I was astonished to hear the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, apparently apologising for the action of the Irish Free State, and minimising it. He said that all we required were a little patience and a little good temper, and then everything would be right. The optimism of some people perfectly astonishes me.
LORD PARMOOR: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: How can the noble Lord, after witnessing for so many years the action of the Irish Free State, and of that portion of the Irish people—it is only a portion, of course—who are profoundly antagonistic to this country, really think that a little patience and a little good feeling are likely to put all these things right? It is quite clear that they will not. We must realise that notwithstanding that great body of Irish loyalist opinion which still exists, those who control the Government, of the Irish Free State are the enemies of this country. That is what is in fact the truth. They are persuaded, for some reason or other, that they have an indelible grievance against this country, and they are determined to make that the foundation of their attitude towards this country on every occasion, and so this Act, which has been described so vividly by the noble Lord who initiated this debate, is full of those examples of attacks upon the relations between the Free State and this country. Not only is the Oath pretended to be repealed—alleged to be repealed—but the very fundamental clauses upon which the Treaty itself rests.
What a poor thing a Treaty is without airy sanction, because it has neither the sanction of force nor the sanction of good will. Either of those are all powerful, but without either what is left? I entirely approve, so far as my humble opinion is of any value, the attitude which
870
His Majesty's Government have taken up. They are resolved doggedly to assert the sanctity of the Treaty, and to repudiate any attempt to infringe it. That, I believe, is the right attitude to adopt. The attitude of the Free State is really an offence, not only against this country, not only against the United Kingdom, but against the Empire as a whole. They are out of sympathy, out of harmony, with all the Dominions of the Crown, and I think that the definite attention of the Dominions should be called to the attitude of this member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. As my noble friend behind me, Lord Elibank, has said, the Irish Free State enjoys all the privileges of a Dominion. Its representatives are members of the Imperial Conference. They take their share in the discussions of the Conference. They hear many secrets in the Conference. Why should we tell the Irish people all the secrets of the Conference unless they are going to act as friendly members of the Empire?
I think that the attention of the other members of the Conference should be called to the attitude of the Irish Free State. I believe that if anything is likely to convince the Irish Free State of the error of the line which they are adopting it would be the public opinion of the Empire as a whole. Let them know that what they do in repudiating the Oath of Allegiance to His Majesty, and in breaking a solemn Treaty which they have made with this country, has the profound and solemn disapproval of every other Dominion of the Crown. I cannot help hoping that that may convince them that it is not merely the feeling of this country and of the people in this country, but the feeling of all the other members of the Empire throughout the world, which they are outraging, and that it is that public opinion to which they are responsible.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, may I thank the noble and learned Viscount for the very clear and decisive statement which he has made in answer to my Question. I have no doubt whatever that it will help to allay the grave anxiety which now exists, not only in the Free State itself but among many people in this country, and will, as Lord Salisbury has said, go far to form a wise and effective opinion throughout the

871
Dominions and other parts of the Empire. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

MILITARY MANŒUVRES.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL STANHOPE)THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL STANHOPE) moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying His Majesty to make an Order-in-Council under the Military Manœuvres Acts, 1897 and 1911, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 14th February last. The noble Earl said: My Lords, a draft Order-in-Council has lain on the Table of both Houses of Parliament for more than thirty sitting days, but it cannot be submitted to His Majesty in Council until it has received an affirmative Resolution in both Houses of Parliament. For that reason this Motion in my name appears on the Paper, to ask for an affirmative Resolution of this House. It is merely a formal Resolution, and I do not know if your Lordships would desire any further information about it. I may say that it is proposed that manœuvres should be held in the area south of the Salisbury Plain area during the month of September. Leave is taken to use this area from the 1st of August for three months, but in point of fact I think it will probably only be used during the month of September. The area in question is about twelve miles east and west and twelve miles north and south, about half of it being already military land. I think there is nothing further that I need say to your Lordships on the subject, hilt I shall be ready to answer any questions if your Lordships desire to ask them. I therefore move the Resolution which stands in my name.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying His Majesty to make an Order in Council under the Military Manœuvres Acts, 1897 and 1911, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 14th February last. —(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

THE FAR EAST AND DISARMAMENT.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD rose to call attention to the present position in the Far East and at the Disarmament Conference, and to ask whether His Majesty's Government can make any statement as to their policy on those two questions; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, you will observe that I have joined in this Question two topics, the Far East and Disarmament, and I have done so deliberately because in my judgment the two are very closely connected with one another. I will say a few words to start with on the question of the Far East. I do not think that any good purpose is served by ignoring the fact that there has been a partial failure of the peace machinery which we so laboriously set up at the Paris Conference. I am not one of those who think that the intervention of the League of Nations has been wholly futile and fruitless. On the contrary, I feel still, looking back on it as impartially as I can, that the position would have been even worse, much worse, if the League had not existed, because if you had not had the League you would almost certainly have had a scramble among the other Powers in the world in order to obtain some part of the Chinese Empire. At any rate, that is the kind of thing that has happened in time past, and there is every reason to suppose that it would have happened in this case also.
But still, allowing for all that, it must be admitted that since the vital purpose of the peace machinery is to avoid fighting, that purpose has not been accomplished. There is no doubt that for the last eighteen months or more there has been continual fighting going on in that part of the world. Large numbers of human beings have been slaughtered with all the horrible accompaniments of modern war, towns have been blown to pieces by bombing, peaceful citizens have been killed, everything, in fact, which we have learnt to know is the condition of modern warfare has occurred—not on an enormous scale but on a very serious scale—in these provinces. And the result has not only been the suffering that has been inflicted, which is common to all operations of that kind, but undoubtedly the fact that the machinery has been unable to restore peace has encouraged in other parts of the world those individuals, and perhaps even, if there be

873
any, those nations, who are inclined to fish in troubled waters and to believe that in a condition of turbulence they will be able to seize some advantages for themselves and their countries. I do not think it can be disputed, and I should be very much surprised to hear my noble and learned friend who leads this House suggest that that has not occurred.
Secondly, as a consequence of that, these events have undoubtedly contributed to what, after all, is the principal disease which the world is suffering from at this moment, the loss of confidence and the increase of uneasiness in the world. That is a very serious situation, and it has other consequences which perhaps will be obvious as I speak. I am not going into the history of the matter. That is all set out now elaborately in the Lytton Report and in the Reports of the Assembly and elsewhere. It is pretty well familiar, and there really is not any substantial or serious doubt about it. I will confine myself to a reference to the last official international document—namely, the Report of the Assembly of February 24, 1933. If I were to summarise the broad conclusions of that document I should be disposed to adopt the language which was used a few days afterwards in the House of Commons by the present Foreign Secretary. I do not need to trouble your Lordships with the words, because they are pretty well known. In point of fact, what the Foreign Secretary said was that undoubtedly Japan had not acted in accordance with her obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations. He might have added that she had equally not acted in accordance with her obligations under the Pacific Treaty made at Washington, nor in accordance with her promises made on more than one occasion to the Council of the League of Nations. I do not think any of those facts are capable of dispute.
In particular this document says this:
"It should he pointed out in connection with these events that, under Article 10 of the Covenant, the Members of the League undertake to respect the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League."
And:
"under Article 12 of the Covenant the Members of the League agree that, if there should arise between them any dispute likely to lead to a rupture, they will submit the
874
matter either to arbitration or judicial settlement or to inquiry by the Council.
"While at the origin of the state of tension which existed before September 18, 1931—"
which was the date on which hostilities broke out—
"certain responsibilities would appear to lie on one side and the other, no question of Chinese responsibility can arise for the development of events since September 18, 1931."
In other words, this Report finds that the whole responsibility for the events that have taken place since September 18, 1931, must be borne by Japan.
Then it goes on to say a little later on:
"Whereas the sovereignty over Manchuria belongs to China…Considering that the presence of Japanese troops outside the zone of the South Manchuria Railway—"
where the Japanese, as your Lordships are well aware, have a right to be—
"and their operations outside this zone are incompatible with the legal principles which should govern the settlement of a dispute, and that it is necessary to establish as soon as possible a situation consistent with these principles:
"The Assembly recommends the evacuation of these troops. In view of the special circumstances of the case, the first object of the negotiations recommended hereinafter should be to organise this evacuation and to determine the methods, stages, and time limits thereof."
That was the Resolution proposed to the Assembly by one of its Committees, and it was adopted unanimously by the Assembly. The British Government was represented both on the Committee which drew up the Report, and by the Foreign Secretary, if my memory is right, at the sitting at which that Report was adopted, and the British Government voted for the adoption of that Report.
In point of fact, as your Lordships are very well aware, the Japanese Government entirely refused to accept the Report. They gave notice of their withdrawal from the League, which of course will not he operative for another two years, and they have since that time almost insolently defied and ignored the recommendation by still further military operations carried on not only through Jehol, which is really not part of Manchuria at all, but into North China itself. Without going into any details, that seems to me a perfectly clear case of a deliberate defiance of the whole process and machinery by which we hoped to

875
have erected a barrier against hostilities in the past. I cannot help feeling that this is a situation of extreme seriousness. We all know—I am not going to dwell on that this evening—that the circumstances in Europe, and perhaps elsewhere, are such as to give us grave uneasiness and anxiety. We all know there are elements in Europe which appear to be indifferent, to put it very mildly, as to whether the peace of Europe is disturbed or not; and to find at this moment that in its very essential provisions the instrument for preserving peace has been defied, and defied successfully, must add very gravely to our anxieties in the matter. I do not wish in any way to make this a recriminatory speech, but I cannot refrain from saying that in the presence of this very grave series of events which has been gradually progressing ever since September, 1931—getting on for two years now; at any rate, more than eighteen months—the attitude of the Government appears to me to have been lacking in firmness and consistency.
I read in a newspaper quite recently an utterance by one of the officials of the Government. I do not seek to make the Government responsible for it, but it shows the kind of spirit which, at any rate in some parts of the Government machine, exists, and I think it right to draw your Lordships' attention to it. When I say it shows this, of course I cannot pretend that this is necessarily an accurate statement. It is a statement in a Canadian newspaper, and it was reported in more thn one of the English newspapers. It may be that it is entirely inaccurate and— I shall not say unauthorised, because I think that is a stupid word, but even false. This is the statement. It is an interview which Sir Francis Lindley, the British Ambassador at Tokyo, is alleged to have given on his passage through Canada. I think it is fair to read the whole thing:
" The Japanese had much provocation for their actions in Manchukuo. They had driven the Russians out and thereby gained rights themselves, and the way in which the Chinese were undermining these rights exhausted their patience and led to their military occupation, first of Manchuria and later of Jehol. His opinion is that they will not advance further in China proper. The Chinese were extremely anti-foreign and have caused Britain much trouble, necessitating the despatch of many British
876
troops to Shanghai ten years ago. At the present time they are seeking the friendship of other nations, but that is only because they desire allies against Japan."
And then he was asked a further question as to the relative value of the trade between Japan and China, which is not very material to my observations and on which he expressed an opinion, which, as I think, is quite wrong.
That utterance is, of course, the familiar doctrine of those who think that the Japanese are right. It seems to me absolutely inconsistent with the public statements made by the British Government, and if this statement really was made by Sir Francis Lindley, I must say it seems to me to be in conflict with the best traditions of the diplomatic service in this country. But the importance of it is not so much with reference to Sir Francis Lindley himself, but because it gives the impression, which unfortunately is very widespread, I am told, that in Tokyo it is believed that the British Government have never been in earnest in supporting the attitude of the League of Nations or the attitude even of the Lytton Report. Of course if that attitude prevails, if the Japanese Ministers believe that the British Government. feel compelled to say this, that, and the other out of respect for their position in the League, but do not really think so, and that they do not really care a bit what the Japanese do, it is quite evident, granted our position in the Far East, that that will nullify altogether any attempt the League may make to restore peace in that country.
I said before I quoted these phrases that of course they may be untrue. All I can say is they have appeared in these newspapers, and as far as I know they have not yet been contradicted. If they can be contradicted no one would be better pleased than myself. But it is that kind of thing, the kind of impression conveyed by these observations, which has done so much harm. I am forced—indeed this is the main purpose of this part of my question —to try to ascertain from the Government what is their policy now with reference to this question. Here are the Japanese. After repeated assurances that they were not going to do more than this or that, and that their only object was to withdraw as rapidly as possible into the Manchurian zone and

877
all that kind of thing, they have gradually overspread and occupied militarily an enormous district which is commonly compared, and rightly compared, to the area of France and Germany combined, and indeed it is more, because that is without Jehol, and Jehol is a large province as well. They have advanced a considerable distance beyond Jehol, how far I am not sure, because the telegrams in the newspapers, which is all I have to go upon, are a little vague; but they have advanced some distance into China proper. I saw indeed in one paper that they have either occupied or are on the point of occupying a post within 40 miles of Peking.
What I want to know is what is the policy of the Government with regard to this matter. They have assented to a solemn condemnation of Japan; they have agreed to the proposition that she has broken the Covenant; the Chinese have asked, formally asked, for the assistance of the League of Nations in this matter, and consequently for the assistance of every Member of the League of Nations; and I trust the Government have some plan, some policy, by which they hope that the situation, which they must deplore as much as I do, will be put an end to. I am sure they will agree with me that to pass resolutions condemning the action of a Power, or, in the case of a private individual to say strong things about him, and then, when he goes on, or the country goes on, with its policy and indeed makes it still more bitter, still more extreme, to do nothing, is not very favourable to the reputation which you enjoy with other nations or other individuals. I may be asked: What do you say can be done? What is the practical policy that may be pursued? Naturally, that is a matter which is much more easily answered by the Government than by an individual outside the Government, but it does appear to me, I confess, that if the Government are in earnest in desiring to put a stop to this state of things and to induce the Japanese to withdraw into their Treaty rights pending the creation of all proper guarantees to prevent any further infringement of their rights, if that is their grievance, which I suppose it is—if that is their policy, if they really think that is what ought to be done, and I cannot believe that they do not think that is
878
what ought to be done—then surely there are many steps which they could take which would be effective to carry out a policy of that kind.
I do not, of course, ask them to take unilateral action. This is an international matter. They must act with the other nations. I entirely agree with that. And if they can say that other nations are not prepared to take any action that would indeed make a very considerable difference in the situation. It would be very deplorable perhaps—in some senses more deplorable even than now—but it would be a different situation so far as this country is concerned and so far as this Government is concerned. But can they show us, is there any declaration which can be quoted by other Powers that they are unwilling to take action? Our position in the League and in the Far East is such that it is natural for other countries to expect an indication of our policy before they declare theirs. That is, I think, what you would expect. Our interests in the Far East are far greater than those of any country except, perhaps, America itself, and it is very natural that other countries should say: "Well, it is not for us to move; it is for the country that is most able to take effective action, and, what is more important, has most to lose by a violent disturbance of the situation in the Far East." At any rate, any one who knows what has taken place will agree that they do look to us for a lead in these matters.
What can be done, what practical measure can be taken? I think there are several, but one has been brought to our notice in the recent events regarding Russia. There, as I think very properly —I supported them in this House—the Government took a very strong line with reference to a grievance they had, and a very serious grievance, with the existing Russian Government, and they decided to forbid the entry into this country of all Russian exports. They believed, and I think rightly believed, that that was a very powerful means of pressure on the Russian Government. But if you could have had similar action taken by a large number of countries the pressure would have been far greater. Now it seems to me if that was right in the case of Russia it is right in the ease of Japan. The issue with Russia was a very important one—I do not deny it—but the issue with Japan is far more important. People continu-

879
ally talk about Japan's grievances. That is not the point at all. I do not wish to go into that, because the real point is, are you going to stand for the peaceful settlement of international disputes or are you not? Are you going to allow the machinery erected for that purpose to be undermined or are you not? That is the whole question, and the effective answer to that question may well be—I beg your Lordships to believe that I am not exaggerating—the difference between peace and war.
Obviously, if I am right in these views, this question has an immense importance in reference to the other question about which I shall say a few words in a moment—namely, the Disarmament question. But is has an additional importance, which is almost comic, which has been brought about by a recent message from the Japanese Official Telegraphic Agency—that is an agency which, I understand, is under control of the Government —which says in so many words: "All our obligations are naval obligations to keep our fleet within a certain size, and any further obligations we enter into must now be reconsidered because this new State of Manchukuo will require a fleet of its own; and that, of course, will have to be added to the fleet we have at present." I have the paper here if anyone desires to see it, but it is not worth while reading to your Lordships a long extract. I have given, I believe quite fairly, the substance of it. I do not know how much they claim for Manchukuo. It may be a small or a big fleet. Evidently it means the entire reconsideration of the whole arrangements that were arrived at in Washington and London if that demand is pursued. Moreover, it means an additional difficulty and an additional obstacle in the way of the Disarmament settlement. It is for that reason that I very respectfully ask the Government to tell the House what is their policy in this matter, how they propose to deal with it, and what hope they can hold out to the House that they will be able to put a stop to this very serious state of things.
I pass to Disarmament. I desire to begin any observations I have to make on this by offering very respectfully my congratulations, and, if I might put it so without impertinence, my warm approval of the action that has been taken by our representative, Captain Eden, in
880
Geneva. I think he is showing the utmost vigour that he can show. He is subject, naturally, to the control of the Cabinet; sometimes I wish he was not; but he is doing his very best, and he is, among other things, in concert with other Powers, particularly France and America, making great efforts—I quite admit it—to bring that Conference to a successful conclusion. I must add my profound regret, shared by everybody I believe in this country, at the attitude which the German Government has recently adopted in that Conference. I quite admit that it has added very greatly to the difficulties of the situation, has imperilled the results of the Conference, and has been in all respects deplorable. It only exemplifies once again, as I think, that Shakespeare was right when he pointed out that there is "a tide in the affairs of men," and that if we had acted with more vigour and courage last summer we would have produced a result which may be very difficult to attain at the present time.
I want very respectfully to ask the Government what in this matter also is their policy. I have seen in some of the newspapers published here leading articles and other intimations which may be indicative—I do not know whether they are—of an intention on the part of the Government, if the Germans remain obdurate about this question of the standardisation of armies in Europe, to say that in those circumstances they do not think it is worth while going on with the Conference at all. I earnestly hope that the Government will be able to tell us that that is not part of their policy. I cannot help feeling that that would be a most deplorable event. It would give great opportunity to those in Germany who no doubt are anxious for the failure of the Conference, because they think that that would open the door to rearmament by Germany, of saying:
"We were ready on go on," whether they were ready to go on or not in point of fact. It would give those who would be only too glad to seize an opportunity of withdrawing from the Conference a great opportunity of saying that they were not responsible for the failure of this Conference. I think that would be very unfortunate.
Now, I want to say a word about what should be our own attitude in this matter. I quite understand those—and, indeed, I agree with them—who think that this in

881
not the time to suggest that there should be any rearrangement of the frontiers of Germany. I fully agree with what was said so admirably by my right honourable friend Sir Austen Chamberlain the other day in the House of Commons, that this is not the time when it would be desirable to alter frontiers. Nobody would suggest that in the present circumstances it is desirable to alter frontiers so as, for instance, to increase the Polish population subject to Germany. At the same time, I think it is equally important that we should carry out the pledges we have made to Germany. I do not believe in the doctrine that because she is behaving badly we should be slack in doing what we promised. What we promised is quite clear, in my judgment. We have promised to formulate, as far as we are able to do so—it is an obligation which rests on us and on the other countries—a disarmament scheme which should be, broadly speaking (we nave renewed this particular pledge quite recently) such as to grant to Germany not actual equality—that has never been suggested and would be, I think, quite improper at the present moment—but equality of status as it is called.
I see no reason whatever why these pledges should not be fulfilled as far as we are able to fulfil them. In my view even if Germany refuses to go on it would be the right policy for us to go on with the other Powers to draw up a treaty—a perfectly fair treaty and a reasonable treaty—in conformity with the pledge we have given, and then say to Germany if she withdraws—I do not know whether she is likely to withdraw, I rather doubt it—" You have withdrawn. We should have been most ready to discuss every Article with you, but we have done our best without you. It is for you to say whether you accept it or reject it. If you reject it, on you must fall full responsibility for the consequences of that rejection, and as far as we are concerned we shall hold you bound by the existing Treaty, the Treaty of Versailles, which limits your armaments in the way that the Treaty sets forth."
I have had several opportunities of telling some of your Lordships what, in my judgment, would be the right kind of treaty for us to proceed with. I need only remind your Lordships that in my judgment the right plan is that in its
882
first stages the Disarmament Treaty should leave the defensive powers of every State as strong as possible. The first object should be to diminish the offensive power of each State, leaving defensive powers as far as possible in the same position as they are now. I will not go into the details, but I am sorry to say that I have had a difference of opinion with my noble and learned friend who leads the House as to one aspect of it—namely, the abolition of tanks. There are really five offensive weapons but the three most important, I think, are tanks, aircraft and submarines. They seem to me perfectly clearly to be offensive weapons.
As to aircraft and submarines I do not think there is any dispute in this country, and as to tanks I have here an extract from a little book which is the official manual about tank and armoured car training. This is what is said:
"Tanks should be reserved for their true rôle, which is offensive action, and should then be employed:

(a) to co—operate with the other arms by intervening at the decisive time and place, often by means of flank or rear attacks;

(b) in conjunction with other mobile troops, or independently, to exploit success whenever possible."

That is what the English official document, says. I am informed, although I have not seen the actual document, that precisely the same language is used in the French official document. It is true that in war it is impossible to determine accurately between offence and defence, but when you are at peace and the question is how you are to prevent offence, if it can be shown that a weapon is of such a character that without it and without aeroplanes it is practically impossible to attack defensive positions, then it seems to me that if you get rid of these weapons it would be impossible, or very difficult, for one army to attack a position held by another. It seems to me that this is the line on which we ought to proceed. Indeed, it is the British proposal. Though it does not go nearly for enough in these two particulars, it does proceed broadly on the lines I have indicated. All I ask is that it should be amended, as it seems to me it ought to be amended if you are going to make a really substantial and

883
reasonably effective offer of disarmament which it would be very difficult for any country to refuse.
There is one other observation I desire to make before I pass from this. It is —and I hope I have the full assent of the Government—that in no circumstances, particularly nowadays, could we entertain any proposal made for the rearmament of Germany. I saw it stated in one of the daily newspapers this morning that Dr. Rosenberg had had an interview with the Foreign Minister and pressed for some measure of rearmament. That may be merely the speculation of an ingenious commentator, but it is a possible and indeed a very probable suggestion as to what the Germans may be saying both here and at Geneva. I hope that the Government will stand absolutely firm on that point and not admit any kind of rearmament. I believe that in the existing circumstances that would be worse almost than even the break—down of the Disarmament Conference. If you are going to create, for instance, a German Air Ministry with German pilots and German officers trained for fighting purposes, it does not matter whether they have a small Air Force at their command or a big Air Force—or it does not matter much—there would be brought into existence a regular machinery (with officers prepared to use not only the actual military machines but all the civil machines) of a strictly offensive character and the danger of air attack would be enormously increased. For that reason I hope there will be no question of the rearmament of Germany.
Further, and I hope that here I shall also have the assent of the Government, in the condition which has been reached we are bound for many reasons to give very serious consideration to the French proposals for increasing the security of the nations—granted that disarmament takes place. It seems to me that the French in this matter have for the last few months acted with extraordinary wide-mindedness, temperance and cool-headedness. In view of the very great provocation they are necessarily receiving by events on the other side of the Rhine, they have shown remarkable poise, as the Americans say, in this matter and I hope the Government will consider very care
884
fully their proposals for security. The Government have made some proposals of their own which go a certain way to meet the French, but there are other proposals—none of them, as it seems to me, extravagant—which the French have put forward and which I hope the Government will very carefully consider. In particular, the French desire very much, as part of their security, the establishment of a really efficient permanent Disarmament Commission, the purpose of which would be not only to watch over the execution of the treaty, but to prepare further measures for disarmament at the coming Conferences.
I entirely agree with the French. I think it is of the utmost importance to make this body, if it comes into existence, as efficient as possible, and I hope the Government will carefully consider what is to be the composition of the body, because at present I am filled with some consternation about the proposal. I understand the body is to consist of fifty or sixty members who are representatives of Governments, with experts and others attached—a very large body probably running up to 200 persons. I cannot bring myself to believe that a body of that kind is going to be efficient from an executive point of view. It may be quite useful for general discussion, but when it is a question of watching carefully what is happening in reference to the fulfilment of the treaty I cannot think it is the right body for the purpose. It is, I think, much too numerous for one thing; and, further, I earnestly beg the Government to consider whether it is possible to induce the other Governments to agree to a body which will not be directly representative of the Governments. I am satisfied that the moment you get a man directly representative of a Government you necessarily deprive him of all freedom of action. He is bound hand and foot, bound to consider most carefully every step, and in fact nothing is done.
We have had experience of the two kinds of commission at the League of Nations. There was established under the Covenant itself a Military Commission consisting of representatives of the Governments and I do not think it is too much to say that it has never done anything of the slightest value. At the same time there was established another Commission for dealing with Mandates which

885
consisted, I admit, of experts—persons of weight selected or advised by the different Governments, but not representing or binding the Governments, and, once appointed, free to act, as they have acted, in accordance with their consciences in the discharge of their duties. I believe the result has been that we have had one of the most successful pieces of League machinery that has ever existed. Of course from time to time it has got across some Government, but its business is to watch the administration of Mandates and make recommendations upon it. I believe that on the whole it has discharged the duties with remarkable impartiality and fairness and with great skill, and that its work has been of great value in raising the general administration—I speak now a little arrogantly—of colonial territories to the level which we believe we have reached in our own administration. I therefore hope the Government will be able to secure something of the same kind. In any case I believe that if they put forward a scheme of that kind it will be possible for them to resist the German claim to rearmament.
I desire to conclude with just these observations: It may be that in spite of everything Germans will rearm or try to rearm. I am not at this moment and in this House going to suggest what in that case ought to be the attitude of the Government, but I do earnestly hope that they are considering very carefully what that attitude will have to be; that they are making plans, satisfying themselves what is possible and what is impossible, what can be done and what cannot be done, so that if that happens they will be ready to meet the emergency, whatever it may be. I venture to say with all respect, and I hope the Government will not think me impertinent in saying it, that the urgency of these questions is enormous. We really have reached, as it seems to me, a tremendous crisis in foreign affairs. The situation in Europe is in many quarters extremely disquieting. I am not one of those who believe in an immediate war. I do not believe there is any immediate chance of it. But what may happen in the course of a few years no one can tell at this moment, and it is of the utmost importance that we should have a vigorous, courageous and consistent policy. It is of really vital importance that we should foresee as far
886
as we can what is likely to happen and know quite definitely in what way we propose to meet it, and particularly that, having made up our mind what is the proper way to meet it, we should not allow ourselves to be diverted from that way because of the difficulties or even the dangers that may attend it, because in this matter it seems to me that we are playing for enormous stakes, no less than the survival of the civilisation of the world.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the noble Viscount who has just sat down speaks with unique authority on these subjects not only in your Lordships' House, but in any assembly which he addresses. I do not propose merely to try to emphasise what he said, but I want to make it as Clear as I can, from the point of view of the Opposition, that we cordially agree with him on, I think, all the points he has mentioned. I want to say further that I hope all Parties in this House will take the same attitude. It makes an enormous difference to our influence at Geneva whether it is known that the whole country is behind a Cabinet on a matter of this kind or whether there is some suspicion of divided counsels. Upon the last points to which the noble Viscount referred I should like to make one or two suggestions. I think we shall all agree with him in his reference to Captain Eden. I do not think anyone representing this country at Geneva has made himself more generally acceptable, both by the opinions he has expressed and by the trouble he has taken, than the present Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office.
Then as regards rearmament, it would be an unthinkable evil if we in any way supported a policy of the rearmament of Germany at the present time. It is not rearmament that ought to be in our vision at all. It is to reduce other armaments to such a level that the equality of status to which the noble Viscount referred, and which was promised in distinct and direct terms at the time of the Treaty of Versailles, should be brought about. I agree, too, with what the noble Viscount has said as regards certain matters of detail. I do not intend to go into them myself, because he has a much greater knowledge, but from my experience at Geneva I can corroborate him in this respect, that if a Commission charged to see that armaments were re-

887
duced and that no rearmament was taking place, was appointed on the basis of the Mandates Committee as an independent body, there would be no fear or doubt that whatever reductions were considered right and proper would be adhered to by the various countries interested in this matter.
I might make one reference—I do not think Lord Phillimore is here this afternoon—to what took place when I was at Geneva. We had to consider the request then for a proper Commission to see that the disarmament to which various countries were subjected was properly carried out. We had no difficulty. I recollect that Count Apponyi came to talk over this matter, and he said: "We entirely support what your country is proposing, but will you endeavour to make it certain that the head of the Commission appointed with regard to Hungary shall be an Englishman? "Of course I could give no such undertaking, but I do know that from that time until the present no difficulty has been found as regards ensuring by a suitable Commission that the disarmament which was intended has, in fact, been carried through.
To the latter part of the noble Viscount's speech I do not think I wish to add anything. It would be useless for me to repeat what he has said so well, though I should like to emphasise again how entirely the Opposition agree with what he has said. There are, however, one or two points I should like to emphasise in the former part of his speech. In the first place, I wish to emphasise the real importance of what has passed in the Far East, as regards the war between Japan and China. I would like to read to your Lordships what was said upon this point by M. Herriot, whom I have known ever since I met him at Geneva in 1924, and who is a pacifist statesman who has done everything he could as Prime Minister of France to secure peace. Let me read what he says, in order that its importance may be impressed upon your Lordships' minds. He says:
"The problem, therefore—
that is, the problem of the war between Japan and China —
"arises as to whether the Member States of the League are going to lend their support to their associate, China."
China, of course, is entitled to their support against aggression, as noble
888
Lords know, under the direct terms of the Covenant. M. Herriot continues:
"In all good faith, it cannot he denied that there exists a state of war in its most definite form. It is useless to close one's eyes to the facts; the whole Covenant of the League is involved."
That is a point on which I wish to emphasise what has been said by the noble Viscount.
It is in the hands of the Government of this country at the present time—this matter which involves the whole question of the future of the Covenant of the League. It is an enormous responsibility. I believe myself that the further they go in the direction of undertaking that responsibility the greater will be the support which the Government will receive from all classes and Parties in this country. It is not that they have gone too far. Our complaint is that they have not gone far enough. They hardly seem to have realised that if a great reform in these matters is to be carried through at Geneva, our country ought to take the lead. Of course I do not mean in a unilateral manner; I believe they would then find almost universal acceptance of any proposals they might make. M. Herriot then goes on to say that to put an end to this conflict between Japan and China was to oppose to the savage revival of force, the continued action of wisdom, calm and reason. Certainly I agree with every word that the noble Viscount has said as regards the necessity of wisdom and co-operation in this matter.
There is one other point which I would emphasise. I have an extract, to which the noble Viscount has referred, of a statement attributed to Sir Francis Lindley, and it is headed "Sympathy with the Japanese." It is also stated to be a statement made by the British Ambassador in Tokyo. Everyone knows that the statement shows not only sympathy with, but a desire to support. Japan, instead of leaving this matter to the independent action of all the other States in the League, ourselves taking a part, which we undoubtedly ought to take, in enforcing any necessary reme dies. I hope the Government will not allow a statement of that kind by the British Ambassador in Tokyo to pass without notice of their disapproval if they do not approve of it. It is of importance in matters of this kind that the

889
idea that we are backing up Japan, and enabling her to defy the remedies suggested by the Assembly, should not be allowed to get abroad, without a statement by the Government if that is not their policy.
The only other matter which the noble Viscount has referred to is the question of means. I think that the influence of the League has been too long delayed. It is more difficult to deal with the question now than it would have been perhaps a year ago. But if the League is to be a reality and not a sham, if the League is to give the protection to its Members which the Covenant has decided shall be given, then something should be done, and must be done, or else. I agree with what M. Herriot says—namely, that we shall find that the League is brought to a. position in which it has no effective power to carry out the duties that have been imposed upon it. That would be the greatest of all misfortunes in our modern policy. Agreeing as I do with the noble Viscount that we are not likely to have a war in the immediate future, I would also add that in my opinion war will come, and must come, unless the principles and ideals of the League are not only kept in the minds of all nations, but kept in such a form that they can be enforced when the occasion arises. I heartily hope that everyone in this country, certainly everyone in this House, will be in agreement with the noble Viscount in this great question of immediate moment, and in reference to which there is no room for delay.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I am sure that you will be grateful to the noble Viscount for raising once more, and especially at this time, the question of our policy in the Far East. The present circumstances appear to be such as to give us very serious matter for reflection. I do not propose to follow the noble Viscount into his analysis of the quarrel between Japan and China over Manchuria, and I am a little inclined to doubt, if I may say so with great respect, whether any good purpose is served by entering into that controversy at this date. We are all acquainted, or can make ourselves acquainted, with the evidence that was presented to the League of Nations. We all know the verdict of the League of Nations. And I think I may say that we all realise that that
890
verdict was not enforced, is not being enforced, and cannot be enforced. In these circumstances it does appear a little useless to scold the Japanese and propose punishments for the Japanese. There seems to be very little object in looking back perpetually at the past. Should it not be the object of our diplomatists to look to the future and the present, to face circumstances as they are to-day, not the circumstances of an ideal world, but the circumstances of a real and very complicated world?
We have to face the fact that to-day Manchuria is a State that at any rate is entirely independent of China. It is, at least in name, an independent State, although it is under the influence of Japan, and it is not difficult, to perceive various analogies with certain aspects of the Egyptian question. No one, of course, can foresee the future of Manchuria, but I think it would be safe to proceed on the assumption that the independence of Manchuria is likely to continue at least for some little time. As to the far future, there are at least three possibilities. There is a very remote, but a very alarming, possibility that it may one day become absorbed within the Japanese Empire. That, I am sure, would be a most unsatisfactory solution, and it should certainly be the object of our diplomacy to avert such an action if it were ever threatened. There is also the possibility that one day Manchuria will again be united, though no doubt with a considerable amount of local autonomy, such as it has always possessed, to China. That is the solution recommended by the Lytton Committee, and it appears to me that the ultimate likelihood of that solution is increased by the fact that the Ruler of Manchuria is the legitimist claimant to the Dragon Throne of China. It may very well be that, in the future as in the past, Manchuria. and China may be united by a dynastic tie. I have heard in some quarters that there are not a few patriotic Chinese who are secretly toasting "the King over the Wall" and humming the old tune:
"I can foretell
That all will be well
When the King shall enjoy his own
again."
But what does appear to be an incontrovertible fact is that the Chinese Republic

891
cannot within any reasonable period recover Manchuria, either by force of arms, or by invoking sanctions, or by peaceful diplomacy.
There is a third possibility. It may be that Manchuria under Japanese tutelage may gradually become more independent, more able to stand on its own feet, and I think that if we study the history of Protectorates of this character we shall probably come to the conclusion that increasing independence is the most likely future for Manchuria. This solution would hardly be unwelcome to world Powers and might afford a very proper solution of the Far Eastern difficulty. I suggest that if we make up our minds that this is, for the present at any rate, a most desirable solution, we should reconsider the question of recognising Manchuria's independence. We need not, I think we should not, enter into de jure recognition, but I think we might very properly recognise that, de facto, Manchuria is an independent State and consequently entitled to receive diplomatic representatives. Already we are being forced very much against our will and in very sad circumstances into some sort of relations with the Manchurian Government. British subjects have been captured by bandits and the help of the Manchurian gendarmerie has been invoked to effect their liberation. It would not be such a very large step to proceed from this form of countenance to the establishment of some kind of diplomatic relations.
If the European Powers had representatives at Mukden they would surely be in a very much stronger position in Far Eastern diplomacy. I fear that at the present moment there is a very great risk of the interests of outside Powers being overlooked. We are particularly concerned with the maintenance of the Open Door. It was said, I think, in the past, that the best way to preserve an Open Door is to place a friendly hand through it. And this applies just as much to Manchuria as it ever applied to China. Of course, I am not suggesting that we should take precipitate or isolated action; it is a matter that will deserve very careful consideration. The utmost I would suggest at the present moment is that we should consider making advances to other Powers with a view to joint action in this matter. It is exceedingly
892
desirable that any action taken should be taken in conjunction with the other Powers, and that we should not act on our own initiative in what is essentially a very delicate situation.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, we have listened, I am sure, all of us, with great interest to the very full explanation which my noble and learned friend Viscount Cecil has given us of the policy which he recommends both with regard to the trend of affairs in the Far East and with regard to the Disarmament Conference. I sometimes wonder whether the main value of the Motions which my noble and learned friend from time to time puts down on these topics does not lie in the fact that they afford him an opportunity of expressing views which carry weight in foreign countries and to which, naturally, His Majesty's Government would desire to pay the very greatest attention; but I am afraid that whereas the opportunity of hearing his views is undoubtedly a valuable one, the opportunity afforded to His Majesty's Government to state their proposed action on the various matters to which he referred is more in the nature of an embarrassment than an assistance.
He took first the question of the state of affairs in the Far East, and my noble and learned friend reminded your Lordships that there had been a unanimous Report in February of this year with regard to the dispute between China and Japan, particularly in relation to Manchuria, and that that Report had made certain findings of responsibility and certain recommendations, and my noble friend proceeded to invite me to state the policy of His Majesty's Government. I think the most comprehensive and the most accurate statement of the policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter remains now, as it has been throughout, to act as a loyal Member of the League in the closest possible collaboration and consultation with the other Members of the League. We were a party to the Report to which my noble and learned friend has referred, and your Lordships will remember that that Report concluded by observing that the maintenance and recognition of the existing régime in Manchuria was incompatible with the fundamental principles of existing international obligations and with the good understanding between the two

893
countries, that is, China and Japan, on which peace in the Far East depends. The Report went on:
"It follows that in adopting the present Report the Members of the League intend to abstain, particularly as regards the existing régime in Manchuria, from any act which might prejudice or delay the carrying out of the recommendations of the said Report. They will continue not to recognise this régime either de jure or de facto. They intend to abstain from taking any isolated action with regard to the situation in Manchuria, and to continue to concert their action among themselves as well as with the interested States not members of the League."
That declaration remains the policy of His Majesty's Government, and I think, to some extent, that "answers my noble friend Lord Iddesleigh.
After the adoption of that Report the Assembly met again and passed a Resolution appointing an Advisory Committee to follow the situation and to assist the Assembly in performing its duties under paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the Covenant, with the same object—namely, to aid the Members of the League in concerting their action and their attitude among themselves and with the non-member States. The United States Government and the Soviet Government were invited to co-operate in the work of the Advisory Committee. The Soviet Government refused this invitation, the United States Government accepted. The United States representative will not have a vote, because the United States is not, a member of the League, and therefore he will not be a full member of the Committee, but he will be present and take, I hope, a fall share in its deliberations. The Advisory Committee has met. It has decided to set up sub-committees to examine the problem of the export of arms in relation to the present conditions in the Far East. At a meeting of the Committee on March 28 attention was drawn to the fact that inquiries in regard to the export of arms were already under way in connection with disputes in another part of the world—that is, in South America—in the course of which specific questions of principle and of execution have been put before the Governments. It was agreed that, the members of the Committee should consult their Governments on this question in order that the sub-committee might be in the possession of the essential facts as soon as possible. No further, meeting
894
has taken place since the 28th March, because the sub-committee does not at present see that a further meeting could be useful until the position of the United States Government has been made clear by the grant or refusal by Congress of the President's request for powers to prohibit the export of arms in certain circumstances. There was a joint resolution put before Congress by the President of the United States to give the President these powers. It has, I understand, been passed by the House of Representatives, but it still has to be considered by the Senate.
The Advisory Committee has also set up a sub-committee to make recommendations as to the manner in which effect should be given to the recommendation of the Assembly that no recognition should be extended to the de facto situation in Manchuria. The Secretariat of the League has been collecting material for consideration by this sub-committee, and a meeting is about to take place. Practical questions arise in connection with such matters as passports, currency, import licences, and so on, on which some guidance is necessary. It may be said that that is not moving very fast, but unfortunately, as my noble friend knows, it is not very easy to move rapidly in Geneva when you have to maintain unanimity in every matter and when the different countries are very jealous of being excluded from collaboration and consultation in the deliberations which are taking place. My noble friend went on to quote a passage from, I think, an extract from a Canadian newspaper purporting to report some statements by Sir Francis Lindley. Until I heard the quotation I knew nothing about the matter. The first I heard of it was from my noble friend.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am sorry, but I did give notice to an official of the Government.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: All I can tell my noble and learned friend is what I have just said.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I accept that most fully. It was not my fault, that is all I mean.
VISCOUNT HAILSFIAM: How long ago vas the notice given?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Several days ago.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Well, I have no doubt it is being enquired into, but obviously, since I know nothing about it, I can say nothing, except this, that Ministers and Ambassadors representing this country in foreign countries have very difficult, delicate, responsible functions to perform. They are by virtue of their position precluded from defending themselves in this country against any criticism or attack, and since it was suggested that what Sir Francis Lindley had done, if he were accurately reported, was contrary to the best traditions of British Ambassadors, I would just like to say, with regard to Sir Francis Lindley, that he is an Ambassador who has for many years served a succession of His Majesty's Governments in responsible positions with great discretion and great distinction, and I at any rate would be very slow to believe he had been guilty of any indiscretion or impropriety.
Then my noble and learned friend went on to say that this Government could take many steps to influence the situation in the Far East. That was a promising commencement which caused me to get out my pencil and await with great attention to hear what some of those steps were. My noble friend went on a little later to repeat that there were many steps, and then he told us he was going to explain some of them. Unless I misheard him he only made one suggestion, and that was that we should invite other nations to co-operate with us in putting an embargo on trade with Japan, and he instanced the course which we had adopted in the case of Soviet Russia. He will forgive me if I say that I think the two cases are not parallel, for this reason, that, apart altogether from any other consideration in the case of Soviet Russia your Lordships will remember that as long ago as October last we had, for reasons quite unconnected with the recent dispute, given six months notice to terminate the trade agreement existing between us and that country under which they had most-favoured-nation rights. That six months expired on the 17th April last. Accordingly, we had a perfectly free hand to legislate as from the 18th April, and your Lordships will remember our Bill was
896
framed so as to take effect from that date.
In the case of Japan the circumstances are quite different. We have a Commercial Treaty with Japan which includes a most-favoured-nation clause that cannot be denounced, I think, at less than twelve months notice, although I am speaking without checking it. Therefore, it would, as I understand International Law at any rate, render any such proposal as my noble friend suggests a clear breach of our Treaty obligation. No doubt the suggestion which my noble friend has made will be considered with the attention that any suggestion of his deserves by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, but I should not like that statement to be treated as any indication that His Majesty's Government intend to bring forward any proposal of the kind at Geneva.
My noble friend reminded us that we have the greatest interest of certainly any European Power in the Far East and that we have the most to lose by a violent disturbance. I am not quite sure, if the sort of action which my noble friend suggests were in fact put into force, whether it would any longer be true to say that we were not likely to have war in the immediate future. At any rate, I think it would be a matter which would require very grave and anxious and long consideration before we could accept a proposal of that kind. All that I can say really with regard to the situation in the Far East is that we are most carefully and anxiously collaborating with other nations at Geneva. I do not in the least dispute what my noble friend said so forcibly, that the fact that recommendations have been made by the Assembly which have not been accepted by one of the parties to a dispute does throw a very grave slur upon the efficiency of the Covenant of the League and is a matter which must be of great concern to all its Members. No doubt it is true that when once the nations of the world have agreed not to resort to force, and when they have not invented any other form of sanction to take the place of force, it is very difficult to find an effective means of translating into practical effect their objection and their disapproval of any disregard of the Covenant or of the recommendations of the Assembly which any Member of the League—and Japan is

897
till a Member for nearly two years to ome—may choose to adopt. All I can ay is, we are considering the matter anxiously with a real desire to fulfill our obligations as a Member of the League, out also with a very keen consciousness that any injudicious action might precipitate the very harm which the noble Viscount, in the latter part of his speech, was so anxious to deplore.
I come to the second part of his Motion, which relates to Disarmament. I was sorry to hear my noble friend say that if we had acted with more courage and vigour last summer, more might have been achieved. He will not expect me to agree with that. On the contrary, my belief is that the Government has acted with a courage almost amounting to foolhardiness in the way in which it has disarmed itself in the hope of persuading other people to do the same, and that it went to the extreme limit in the proposals which it has from time to time put before the Disarmament Conference. I think it is not too much to say that but for the intervention of the Prime Minister of this country on at least two occasions—once in the autumn of last year, when Germany withdrew, and once again in March of this year, when a deadlock seemed to have been reached—the Disarmament Conference must have broken down in failure on both of those occasions.
My noble friend said that we must carry out our pledges to Germany; that we have promised to formulate plans giving Germany an equality of status. It is because we recognise that promise, among other reasons, that the Prime Minister, with the authority of the Cabinet, produced some two months ago a complete Draft Convention at Geneva which, as we think, fulfilled those pledges. No doubt the Convention which was then submitted to the full Conference might have been open to criticism by one Power or another, but we believe that it did constitute a practical scheme which gave effect to the pledges which had been made to Germany, and which did undoubtedly bring about an immense stride towards disarmament among the various nations of the world. Therefore, in our judgment if, with that proposal before them, Germany were to say that she declined to take any part in the discussions, or were to walk out of the Disarmament Conference, she would, in fact,
898
be doing the very thing which my noble friend suggested, She would be rejecting offers which were made in fulfilment of that promise, and she would incur the responsibility for any failure which might ensue.
I am not going to prophesy as to what is going to happen at Geneva. I still hope—the hope may become faint, but I still hope—that it may be that Germany may take what seems to us a more reasonable attitude than that which she at present is apparently adopting, and I should be very sorry to say anything which would lessen the chance of her taking that course. Even if she were to refuse to accept the invitation which is pressed upon her, I think from all sides, to adopt a less uncompromising attitude with regard to Section (1) of Part II of the Convention, it does not necessarily follow that she would leave the Conference altogether. That, of course, we cannot control. We can only wait and see. We are most anxious to see the Conference end in success, and we hope very much that we have submitted a plan in the shape of the Convention which, if it is treated reasonably, could and should result in success. If Germany were to refuse to go on altogether and were to walk out, obviously then it would be a matter for the gravest consideration as to what course should be followed by the Powers which are left.
I think, although I am speaking here without consultation with my colleagues and therefore I am only expressing an individual view, that the juridical result would be that Germany would remain bound by the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, and that any attempt on her part to rearm in contravention of that Treaty would be a breach of the Treaty of Versailles and would bring into operation the sanctions which that Treaty provides. But also it would be, as it seems to me, very difficult to expect some of the neighbours of Germany to be so satisfied with that legal obligation on her part that they would be able to agree to any extensive measure of disarmament, when they had been told by Germany that she was rejecting our Convention and was breaking loose from the Disarmament Conference, and probably, I suppose, that she did not intend to be bound by the Treaty of Versailles.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I do not want there to be any misapprehension. I quite agree that if after a definite treaty has been agreed upon and presented to Germany she does not accept it, obviously the other Powers could not be bound.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not think there is much difference between my noble friend and myself. All I say is that I doubt very much whether the other Powers would regard it as very useful or practical or indeed fair to ask them what they were prepared to do if Germany were to say: "We will not disarm, we will not join in any Treaty you may choose to make, we are going our own way." I think that would involve such a strain upon the moderation and good temper and patience, on the part of the French people among others, to which my noble friend has paid tribute, that it would be very difficult to expect them to enter into a Convention or go on with the discussion of a Convention which involved a large measure of disarmament on their part. I may be wrong, it is only an individual view, but if Germany should unhappily take such a course no doubt it would be a matter for very serious and careful consideration, not by this country alone, but by all the Powers represented at the Conference as to what would be the most useful and the wisest course to pursue in those very difficult circumstances.
I do not think that it would be useful for me to re-engage in the long controversy between my noble friend and myself as to the indispensability of tanks. I would only say that in our view—we may be wrong, but it is the view that the Government take and which our advisers unanimously take—the tank is a necessary part of our equipment so long as we remain on our present system of a small, long-service Army. The essential function of the tank is to save life. The real offensive weapon—I see my noble friend shakes his head, I hope he will forgive my putting my point of view—
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am sorry I shook my head. I did it involuntarily.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy noble friend so violently dissents that he cannot keep his head still. The real offen-
900
sive weapon is the machine gun which mows down opposing forces and cuts right through any army which is opposed to it. The answer to the machine gun is the tank. There are two possible answers. One is to have immense numbers so that you can stand the enormous losses which resistance to machine gun attack would involve. The other, which we believe is the infinitely more humane answer, and indeed the only answer so far as this country is concerned with its small numbers, is the tank which protects those inside it from the machine gunner and enables the machine gun post and the machine gun section to be effectually dealt with by those inside the tank. It may be called offensive action because the object of the person in the tank is probably to dispose of the machine gun, but equally it is defensive action because it protects the person in the tank from the inevitable death which any attempt to resist machine gun attack would have otherwise involved. So long as the Army is constituted as it is at present, so long as it remains composed of the very small numbers to which we have been able to reduce it, in face of our increased responsibilities it seems to me an absolutely essential weapon for the British Army.
However, that is not directly the matter in issue. My noble friend referred to the French proposals with regard to security. I would only like to say with regard to that proposal that, as he knows very well, when we produced our Convention we incorporated in Part I of that Convention a series of proposals which we hoped went a long way to meet French requirements in regard to security. Those have not yet been dealt with by the Disarmament Conference because after commencing consideration of Part I, the General Commission came to the conclusion that time would be saved by passing immediately to the discussion of Part II, not because of any wide divergence of opinion on the text of Part I, but because the United States of America—whose assistance in trying to secure a successful conclusion has been so marked—were not at the moment ready to lay down the precise measure of co-operation which they could afford in these efforts to promote the preservation of peace. The United States delegate made it very clear that the help of his country to make collaboration effective would depend to a large

901
extent on the measure of disarmament which it might be possible immediately to achieve. In those circumstances it was thought more practical to go on to Part II and discuss the disarmament part of the Convention, whilst fuller instruction were obtained and whilst the United States Government could put themselves in a position to appreciate all the responsibilities which the security proposals might involve.
I do not think it would be fair to say that the Part I proposals which we put forward did not represent a very real attempt to meet the French desire for security. This country has never disguised the fact that security and disarmament are intimately connected, and that we cannot hope to achieve the one without also bringing about the other. What we have been anxious about is that we shall not give a false sense of security by undertaking obligations on the part of this country, and entanglements on the part of this country, which we could not possibly at the moment carry out. I think I have dealt with all the principal points indicated by my noble friend. I do not pretend to speak on this matter with the knowledge which he possesses, and I am only of course acting as spokesman to put forward so far as I am able the views of His Majesty's Government.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:Can you say anything about the rearmament of Germany?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: On that I think I can only say that this is a Disarmament Conference, and that we desire disarmament to be brought about. It is not our view that the right way to achieve equality of status is to let Germany come half-way up the stairs and the other countries go half-way down and meet on the landing. I do not think that would tally with public opinion in this country, and I do not think it would afford any increased feeling of security to those who are immediate neighbours of Germany, especially in existing conditions.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble and learned friend, because although we do not agree in every respect, I recognise that he has with his usual courtesy done his best to meet my views and has given a very full answer to what I said. I do not wish to con-
902
tinue the discussion about tanks, but I do wish to call attention to one point. His view is that the attacking weapon is the machine gun and the defensive weapon is the tank. This is what I find in paragraph 44:
"It may be regarded as an axiom that infantry cannot advance against even semi-organised resistance unless that resistance is kept under subjection by fire, and further that infantry must not 'be launched to the attack against unbroken wire.
The use of tanks is the most certain method of breaking down wire obstacles. If the enemy's position is protected by wire, the employment of tanks offers the only chance of achieving surprise."
Therefore, in the view of the writer of this, it is plain that the function of tanks is to break down organised or even semi-organised defensive works, and, though I conceded in my observations originally that once you get into war it is very difficult to distinguish between offence and defence, yet in the outset of war, when beginning it, the party that is moving against the other is the attacking party and cannot move against properly-organised positions unless he has tanks, big guns and aeroplanes. That is the view I still submit and I have not been convinced that it is wrong.
I am sorry if I said anything which indicated regret at or want of appreciation of the Government's action in regard to the Draft Convention. Last autumn, when I had the honour of speaking to this House, I said strongly that I was in favour of that being done and it was only a matter of the terms of the Convention that I still had doubts about. As to the point concerning what we ought to do if Germany refuses our proposals and even withdraws from the Conference, my great anxiety in this matter is to make it abundantly and overwhelmingly clear to all public opinion, including reasonable public opinion in Germany, that we have really done everything and exhausted every possible resource to get a disarmament treaty through and that it is only because we have been prevented from doing so that we have abandoned the attempt, if the attempt is to be abandoned. I do not think there is a serious difference of opinion between us on this, but for that reason I am a little nervous about the talk of 'the possibility of our withdrawing from the Conference.

903
With regard to the Chinese and Japanese position, I put forward one proposal as an illustration. I cannot help being convinced that, if it were desired to carry out that proposal, means could be found for doing so without incurring any obloquy as to any breach of International Law, and I am utterly sceptical—indeed, if I could find a stronger word I would use it—that any danger of war would be involved in the joint action of all the countries of the world in such a matter. I feel as confident as I can be of anything that that is a mere bogey which ought not to be considered for a moment. I was interested to hear my noble friend say that the Government were acting in close co-operation, though I thought they were a little like the Virgilian rustic just watching the waters go down without making any particular attempt either to cross the stream or to take any other measure to avoid the difficulty. I feel that that has been the defect of the Government's policy right through both in this matter and in regard to Disarmament. They have not, as I think, appreciated the full responsibility which this country has in these matters—a responsibility which I should have thought any one who has been to Geneva would feel in his bones—in that the world waits, and has got accustomed to wait, for our lead, and that it is no use our standing aside and saying: "Let us see what is going to happen and hope for the best."
That is not the function which this country ought to adopt, and I cannot help feeling that, making every allowance for the interventions of the Prime Minister both in Disarmament and the Sino-Japanese difficulty, the greatest opportunities were missed, not in the autumn or
904
spring of this year, but back in last summer when something might have been done
without great difficulty, because the Government took the view that its main business was to wait and see what others proposed. That is the view I ventured to express and I still think it is right. I can only thank my noble friend in conclusion for his courtesy and kindness, though I feel he has not removed the difficulties which I felt. I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SFIULBREDE: My Lords, may I bring the question of business before the Leader of the House, as I think there may be some business for next week other than that already on the Order Paper?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. There is in fact business beyond that on the Paper in the shape of the Exchange Equalisation Account Bill, which is now being discussed in another place. That is a Bill which is urgently wanted. I do not think it will involve a very long discussion in this House and I am afraid I shall have to ask your Lordships to take it in one day. I think the day will probably be Thursday because I gather the Bill is not passing through another place as quickly as we expected. We shall probably not receive it until Tuesday and in that event Thursday would be the earliest day at which we could reasonably ask the House to pass it. Apart from that I think the business for next week appears on the Order Paper.
House adjourned at eight minutes past seven o'clock.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for a Bill by the
Knutsford Light and Water Company, ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill:
And that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for a Bill by the
Knutsford Urban District Council, ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill:
Read, and agreed to.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Reported, without amendment.
CANTERBURY EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
WIGAN CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
EAST HULL GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
KNUTSFORD LIGHT AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day); read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
KNUTSFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day), and read 1a.

SUNDERLAND GAS ORDER, 1933.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Special Order; namely:

E. Cawdor,

L. Stuart of Castle Stuart (E. Moray),

L. Sandys,

L. Carnock,

L. Meston (Chairman):

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Monday, the 22nd instant, at twelve o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the. Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Special Order to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Special Order.

ILFRACOMBE GAS ORDER, 1933.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BOROUGH OF BARKING) ORDER
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the Borough of Barking:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (URBAN DISTRICT OF WILLESDEN).
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the urban district of Willesden:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table

ASCOT DISTRICT ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1933.
Special Order in respect of part of the rural district of Cookham in the County of Berks:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee

GLYNCORRWG ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1933.
Special Order in respect of the urban district of Glyncorrwg in the County of Glamorgan:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.