Sitting of 11 April 1934

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Cardiff Corporation Bill,
Stockport Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL,
  "to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State under the Marriages Validity (Provisional Orders) Acts, 1905 and 1924," presented by Mr. Hacking; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 99.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  STATELESS REFUGEES.
  Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many countries have ratified the convention on the international status of stateless refugees?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): According to information received from the League Secretariat on the 30th March, no country has ratified the convention on the international status of stateless refugees.
  Mr. WHITE: Have His Majesty's Government come to any decision on this matter?
  Sir J. SIMON: I must ask for notice of that question.

  JAPAN (BRITISH SUBJECT'S ARREST).
  Mr. JOHN WILMOTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Mr. William
  296
  Maxwell Bickerton, an English master resident in Tokio and a British subject, was arrested and imprisoned in Tokio on 13th March, was refused permission to communicate with the British Consul until 23rd March, and that, although no charge has been made against him, he still remains in gaol; if he has any information as to the reason for which Mr. Bickerton has been imprisoned; what steps are being taken to see that he is either released or brought to trial and, in the latter event, what arrangements are being made for his defence; and will he state what rights, by treaty or otherwise, as to communication with the British Consul are enjoyed by British subjects in Japan in the event of arrest by the Japanese authorities?
  Sir J. SIMON: Yes, Sir; I am aware of the circumstances relating to Mr. Bickerton's arrest. According to the statement of the Japanese authorities, he is suspected of an offence in connection with alleged Communist activities. On receiving information of Mr. Bickerton's arrest, His Majesty's Consul immediately took steps to visit him in prison. Representations were also made on the 26th March by His Majesty's Embassy to the Japanese authorities, and a request was preferred that the case should be expedited and that Mr. Bickerton should either be released or brought to trial before a public court without delay. The Japanese reply was to the effect that the case was under investigation in accordance with Japanese law, and that it was not yet possible to make a definite statement on this point. His Majesty's Embassy understand, however, that the police examination has now been concluded, and the case is due to be handed over to the examining judge. His Majesty's Ambassador has been informed that adequate funds for Mr. Bickerton's defence will be available if necessary. His Majesty's Consul has secured permission for Mr. Bickerton to be supplied with supplementary food and clean clothing. Both Sir Francis Lindley and His Majesty's Consul are closely following the case, and will continue to do all that they properly can to protect Mr. Bickerton's interests. As regards the last part of the question, the practice of permitting prompt communication with the British Consul in the event of the arrest of a British subject does not rest

  297
  upon treaty, but it is normally permitted in most countries as a matter of international courtesy.
  Mr. WILMOT: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him if he is aware that this gentleman, who has resided in Japan for some years, and is a highly respected English master at the University, has been informed unofficially that his offence is that of harbouring dangerous thoughts; and whether, in the circumstances, the position of British nationals in Japan is not one to which His Majesty's Government should give serious consideration?

  IRAQ (ASSYRIAN REFUGEES).
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any report from the League of Nations, or from any other source, on the possibility of settling Assyrian refugees from Iraq in Brazil?
  Sir J. SIMON: I understand that the committee set up by the Council of the League of Nations to deal with this question has now received a preliminary report from the mission, headed by Brigadier Browne, which was entrusted with an investigation into the prospects of settling the Assyrians in Southern Brazil. The mission has now left Brazil, and the committee will consider the matter further in the light of the final report which it will present on its return.

  AVIATION.

    AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY.
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Air, whether, in view of the relatively small number of firms engaged in the aircraft industry, he will state what action is taken by the Ministry to keep them all reasonably supplied with work in order to maintain their efficiency and to provide rapid production and expansion in case of emergency?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I do not think I can usefully add to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend during the Debate on the Report stage of the Air Estimates, and to my reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the
    298
    Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) on 14th March last.
    Mr. CHORLTON: May I ask my right hon. Friend categorically: Are all the firms concerned fully supplied with orders, so that they may be kept going in the most efficient way?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The Air Ministry are fully seized of the importance of all the points raised.

    SOLO FLIGHTS (JUVENILES).
    Mr. LYONSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to a solo flight made at Abridge, Essex, aerodrome by a boy aged 14; whether any aerodrome licensing regulations exist for the prohibition of such solo flights by children; and whether he will consider fixing an age limit by which such flights can be prohibited at all aerodromes?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, Sir; I have seen Press reports of this incident. The Air Navigation Directions provide that no licence shall be granted to persons under 17 years of age. There is no regulation which explicitly prevents a person under that age from making flights within gliding distance of an aerodrome, when flying for the purpose of becoming eligible for a licence. I should add that authority to give instruction in flying is vested only in specially authorised pilots who themselves would normally be the first to realise that solo flights by very young persons are obviously undesirable.
    Mr. LYONS: In view of the public interest which is being aroused by the fact of children using aeroplanes alone, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps, in the public interest, to require some age limit at all aerodromes before allowing children of tender years to go into a source of great danger to themselves and the surrounding localities?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I have indicated in my answer that no one is allowed to fly solo except within gliding distance of the aerodrome without a licence, and a licence is only issued at the age of 17.
    Mr. LYONS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the limit is three miles from the aerodrome, and that within that area not only can disaster overtake the infant, but grave damage to other people may ensue?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I think we can trust the discretion of these authorised instructors not to allow any passenger, of whatever age, to fly solo unless they are fully aware that he can fly with safety.
    Mr. T. SMITH: Who would be responsible for any damage that might occur as a result of these young fellows flying?
    Mr. LYONS: Does my right hon. Friend think it right in the public interest that a child of 14 should have unfettered control over an aeroplane in flight?
    Sir P. SASSOON: He would not be allowed to fly solo unless the instructor considered that he was capable of doing so.
    Mr. LYONS: Can he be capable at 14?

    ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, SUTTON AND WALLINGTON.
    Sir RICHARD MELLERasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that, as a result of the electricity supply in the Sutton and Wallington districts, previously supplied by the South Metropolitan Electric Light Company, being taken over by the London and Home Counties electricity authority, the price charged to consumers has been raised by 20 per cent. to 34 per cent. according to circumstances; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): My information is that the new tariffs introduced by the authority have led to a substantial saving to the consumers within the area previously supplied by the company. If, however, my hon. Friend will supply me with particulars of any cases in which the charge to individual consumers has been compulsorily raised to the extent he mentions, I will look further into the matter.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    COTTON INDUSTRY (ANGLO-JAPANESE NEGOTIATIONS).
    Mr. LYONSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has now received any reply from the Government of Japan upon his representations subsequent to the breakdown of the recent negotiations?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer given yesterday by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Members for Platting (Mr. Chorlton) and Ardwick (Captain Fuller).
    Mr. LYONS: In view of the uncertainty which is being caused to British industry, will my hon. and gallant Friend put a time limit upon these and all other negotiations with this country?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I cannot add anything to what my right hon. Friend said yesterday.
    Captain FULLER: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that no answer was given yesterday?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Oh, yes, an answer was given:
    "The Japanese Government's reply has now been received and is under consideration."

    WEABING APPAREL (FRENCH BERETS).
    Captain DOWERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the wearing of French berets by girls at Brownhills High School, Tunstall; and whether he will take steps to see that in all schools enjoying support from national funds wearing apparel manufactured in this country only is supplied?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): My Noble Friend's attention had not previously been called to this matter, but he understands, from inquiries which have been made, that the wearing of a beret by the older girls at this particular school originated from a suggestion made by the girls themselves. The wearing of a beret is entirely optional, and the pupils are quite free to purchase them where they wish, provided only that, if worn, the colour matches the colour of the school uniform. In the circumstances, the question whether an article of British or foreign manufacture should be purchased is entirely one for the judgment of the parents concerned. No question of payment from national funds arises.
    Mr. LYONS: Will my hon. Friend see, when any contribution is made from national funds, that only British-made articles are obtained?

    SILK DUTIES.
    Mr. LYONSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now make a statement upon the position of the silk duties and the suspension of their consideration by the Import Duties Advisory Committee?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): My right hon Friend is not at present in a position to make a statement on this matter, but he expects to be able to do so shortly.

    RUBBER INDUSTRY.
    Mr. BOOTH BY (for Mr. BRACKEN)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a full statement as to the present position of the negotiations in regard to the restriction of rubber, to counteract the speculation resulting from the contradictory statements which are being made from official and semi-official sources on the Continent?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): As the House is aware, negotiations are proceeding; but I cannot make any statement at the present time. When I am in a position to make a definite statement, I will do so.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Can my right hon. Friend give any idea when he expects to be in that position?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir, I do not think that I can.

    SHIPPING INDUSTRY (SUBSIDIES).
    Captain ARTHUR EVANSasked the President of the Board of Trade what action is intended, in response to the invitations from the Danish, Netherlands, Norwegian and Swedish Ministers, to cooperate in remedying the evils from which the shipping industry is suffering, having regard particularly to the shrinking of world trade and the uneconomic competition of subsidised vessels; and whether the Government will convene a meeting with a view to discussing the abolition of subsidies in the industry and adjusting
    302
    the supply of tonnage to actual world requirements?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): The communications referred to are receiving consideration.
    Captain EVANS: May I ask my hon. Friend if, when considering the matter, he will bear in mind the excellent speech of Sir Archibald Hurd on this very point?
    Dr. BURGIN: Of course my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that these four countries who made the representations to which this question relates are the four countries who, at the World Economic Conference, supported the British Government in regard to their policy. The matter will be much more important when any country that is a subsidy-granting country is willing to make similar representations.
    Captain EVANS: May I ask my hon. Friend if, in his opinion, any circumstances have arisen between the termination of the World Economic Conference and the present time which justify the present invitation from the countries concerned?
    Dr. BURGIN: I think that that question hardly calls for a reply from me.

    EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS).
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what arrangements are made under the regulations of administration of Sections 82 to 84 of the Education Act, 1921, for recording the effect of the meals on the physical and mental condition of the children?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The effect of school meals on the physical and mental condition of the children is observed by the school medical officers, but the nature and scope of the arrangements for recording the effect vary considerably from area to area.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what arrangements, other than routine medical inspection, are made by each local education authority administering Sections 82 to 84 of the Education Act, 1921, for ascertaining which children are in need of school meals?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Sufficiently complete information to enable separate particulars for each local education authority to be given is not available. Apart from cases discovered at routine medical inspections, children are selected for school meals by special medical examination, by nutrition surveys conducted by school medical officers, by recommendations of teachers and care committees, and on applications made by parents. All or any of these methods may be in operation in a single area.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Board of Education invites the medical officers to send in reports periodically with regard to the supply of meals?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I am not sure whether that is the case.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SCOTLAND (ADVISORY COUNCIL).
    Mr. BOOTH BYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to fill the vacancy in the secretary-ship to the Department of Agriculture for Scotland caused by the retirement of Sir Robert Greig on 31st March; and whether he has further plans in view to facilitate the closest possible contact between the Department and representatives of all branches of the agricultural industry of Scotland?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): As regards the first part of the question, after the fullest consideration I have appointed, as Secretary to the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, Mr. P. R. Laird, who since 1921 has been an Assistant Secretary in the Scottish Office.
    As regards the second part, I have thought for some time that means should be provided for maintaining closer contact between the Department and representative men actually engaged in and possessing local knowledge and experience of Scottish agriculture in its various branches. With this purpose in view I have appointed an Advisory Council, whose function it will be to confer with and advise the Department on matters affecting the agricultural in-
    304
    terest of Scotland. The council will be composed as follows:
    Chairman:

    The Secretary to the Department.

    Vice-Chairman:

    Mr. J. Milne Home.

    Members:

    Mr. William Allison,

    Colonel Houldsworth,

    Mr. James Keith,

    Dr. Middleton,

    Mr. William J. Reid,

    Mr. Ross Taylor,

    Major Stirling,

    Mr. W. D. Tait,

    Mr. William Wright.

    Sir IAN MACPHERSON: Will there be a representative of smallholders on this body?
    Sir G. COLLINS: Yes, Sir. One of the members has been chosen specially because of his knowledge and experience and success in the matter of smallholdings.
    Mr. BOOTH BY: Will it include a representative of the farm servants?
    Sir G. COLLINS: If any question arises respecting the interests of farm servants, two or three farm servants will be asked to come to the meeting, but I have been unable to obtain the name of a farm servant who would be able to give expression to the view of farm servants generally on matters affecting their interests. I can assure my hon. Friend that, when any question arises affecting their interests, two or more representative farm servants will be invited.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Has the right hon. Gentleman approached Mr. Duncan?
    Sir G. COLLINS: Yes, I have approached him.
    Sir I. MACPHERSON: If I can supply the right hon. Gentleman with the name of a farm servant, will he appoint him?
    Sir G. COLLINS: No individual has been appointed to the council to represent any interest.

    FEE STAMP OFFICE, EDINBURGH.
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the fee stamp office, which has been in existence in

    305
    the Register House, Edinburgh, for many years, has been closed since January last, and that stamps are now procurable only from the Inland Revenue office in Waterloo Place, Edinburgh; that great inconvenience is thus being caused to law agents; and whether he will take the necessary steps to have the fee stamp office in the Register House reopened forthwith?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Steps are being taken to appoint a successor to the former Distributor of Stamps at the Register House and the office will shortly be reopened.

    DUST.
    Mr. LUNN (for Mr. BANFIELD)asked the First Commissioner of Works whether his Department supplies any dust-allaying compound to Government Departments requiring this for the treatment of the floors of offices from which dust arises to an extent likely to endanger the health of the staffs employed there; and what answer has been given to the request for the treatment with such a compound of the floors of the Grimsby Employment Exchange?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am making inquiries with regard to the second part.

    ROYAL NAVY (CANTEEN CONTRACTS, MALTA).
    Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. T. WILLIAMS)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether any documents were signed by Maltese canteen contractors at the request of Admiralty officials when the former were to be superseded during the War; and, if so, is such document available for any hon. Member to read;
    (2) what compensation or remuneration was granted to English firms serving as canteen tenants in Malta when their eon-tracts were terminated during or after the War; and whether Maltese contractors were similarly treated;
    (3) the terms and conditions promised or granted By the Admiralty officials to Maltese canteen contractors when they were superseded by the Navy, Army and Air Force canteens during the Great
    306
    War; and if such terms and conditions have been fulfilled?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): The canteens in His Majesty's Ships generally were taken over by the Navy and Army Canteen Board on 1st June, 1917, but an exception was made in favour of Maltese tenants on the Mediterranean station who were allowed to remain until the following year. As all the tenancy contracts were terminable at short notice, no question of compensation arose, but, for their convenience, Maltese tenants were given three months' notice of the termination of their contracts. The Admiralty have no knowledge of any documents signed by the tenants in this connection.

    SCOTLAND (WILLS).
    Sir R. HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of a recent decision of the court of session, who held that a will, not containing in gremio a declaration that it was holograph, could not form a link in the title to heritable property, although confirmation had been granted by the commissary court proceeding on the affidavits of two witnesses deponing that the will was in the handwriting of the testator; that great trouble and expense is being caused in consequence of this decision owing to executors having to bring proceedings in the court of session and lead evidence that the will was holograph; and whether he will introduce legislation as soon as possible to provide that the affidavits in the commissary court of two witnesses deponing to the will being in the handwriting of the testator shall be sufficient to make the will a valid link in the title to heritable property?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I am aware of the decision referred to in the first part of the question. No representations have been made to me in the sense of the second and third parts of the question, and as at present advised I am not satisfied that such legislation is necessary.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to look into the matter again if further representations are made to him?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I shall be happy to do so.

    HERRING FISHING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. LOFTUSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether any decision has been arrived at regarding a loan to herring-fishing-boat owners for the replacement of nets and gear?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I have been asked to reply. This does not appear to be a matter which can be considered independently of other questions relating to the herring fishing industry which fall within the reference to the Sea Fish Commission who are at present prosecuting their investigations of the herring fishing industry. In the circumstances, I think that consideration of this question must await the report of the commission.
    Mr. LOFTUS: Is not the matter one of extreme urgency, as the summer fishing commences in six weeks' time and the majority of the owners will not be able to partake in the fishing unless they have financial assistance? Could the right hon. Gentleman expedite the report on that one point?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I recognise that the matter is one of urgency. The Sea Fishing Commission are working very hard to prepare their report at the earliest date. I have already asked them to issue an interim report on this question at a very early stage.

    COAL INDUSTRY (ROYALTIES).
    Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the Secretary for Mines if he will state the number of cases where royalties paid on coal produced in South Wales exceed 1s. per ton; and will he give the highest amount paid in royalties per ton of coal?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): The only information available is that which was specially collected for the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry (1925). Royalties paid in 1925 on coal produced in South Wales exceeded 1s. per ton disposable commercially in nine cases, and the highest rate was 1s. 9d. per ton.
    Mr. HALL: Has the hon. Gentleman any information that indicates that there has been a reduction in the royalties?
    Mr. BROWN: These facts were obtained by a very elaborate inquiry, and there has been no similar one since.
    Mr. T. SMITH: Do the Government intend to implement the recommendations of the Coal Reorganisation Committee with regard to mining royalties?
    Mr. BROWN: That is another issue.

    MENTAL TREATMENT.
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALDasked the Minister of Health if he will state the total number of patients in mental hospitals in Great Britain in 1931, 1932, 1933, and the latest date on which figures are available, giving separate figures for Lancashire?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a tabular statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT giving the figures for England and Wales. As regards Scotland, a question should be addressed to the Secretary of State.
    Following is the statement:

    Patients in Public Mental Hospitals.

    On 1st January.

    England and Wales.

    Lancashire.

    1931

    119,659

    13,304

    1932

    121,503

    13,404

    1933

    122,855

    13,603

    1934

    124,207

    13,706

    BRITISH ARMY (RECRUITS UNDER AGE).
    Mr. TINKERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will give the figures for 1930, 1931, 1932, and 1933 of those who have joined the Army who later on have been found to be under the age of 18; and will he state how many have been discharged from the Army because of this?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I regret that I am not in a position to give the information asked for in the first part of the question. With regard to the second part, during the recruiting years ending on 30th September, 1930 to 1933, the number of recruits under 18 years of age who were discharged for having made a mis-statement as to age on attestation were 575, 637, 416 and 294 respectively.

  TRANSPORT.

    ROAD ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state how many people were killed by road accidents in the period from midnight on Thursday, 29th March, to midnight on Monday, 2nd April?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): Arrangements have been made between my Department and the Ministry of Transport for the police to furnish the Ministry of Transport, for the time being, with weekly figures of accidents, but I regret that no information is available for the particular period referred to in the question.

    RAILWAY PASSENGER FARES.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Minister of Transport whether he will introduce legislation to standardise railway fares and to abolish the anomalies which arise owing to the practice of railway companies in providing cheap fares for certain minimum distances; whether he is aware, for instance, that on the Metropolitan Railway the fare from Baker Street to North Harrow is 2s. 4d., whereas the fare to one station beyond is only 1s. 3d.; and that the company refuse to permit a person holding a 1s. 3d. ticket to alight at North Harrow except on payment of extra fare?
    Mr. STANLEY: The practice of issuing cheap return tickets between specified stations on certain days of the week is one which has been generally adopted by the railway companies in the exercise of their commercial discretion and as a means of attracting additional traffic. The Railway Rates Tribunal has jurisdiction over railway fares in the London Passenger Transport area, and I see no need for further legislation on the subject.
    Mr. McENTEE: If it pays the railway company to run a passenger to one station beyond North Harrow for 1s. 3d., why should they charge 2s. 4d. to North Harrow? Is it not an excessive profit?
    Mr. STANLEY: There is a provision in the Act by which matters of this kind can be brought to the notice of the Railway Rates Tribunal and dealt with.

    CANADA (MONTREAL FINANCES).
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ascertain what steps the city of Montreal has recently taken to obtain a loan in London; and will he, for the protection of the public in the event of a loan being obtained privately, take steps to secure that the relative securities shall not be issued in negotiable form for resale here to investors until the Canadian Dominion authorities have reported that the city of Montreal has balanced its budget?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: So far as I can ascertain, no steps have been taken recently by the city of Montreal to borrow in London; and the second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

    GERMANY (BRITISH INVESTORS).
    Mr. BURNETTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order that the German authorities may be under no misapprehension prior to their forthcoming declaration, he will make it clear beyond doubt that the British Government will meet a policy of unilateral German default by applying the Anglo-German trade credit balance towards the full service of British-held German public debt?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the (hon. and gallant Member for West Birkenhead (Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen) on 21st March.
    Mr. BURNETT: Will not the hon. Gentleman be enforcing in a practical way the good faith of international obligations?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The answer says the Government have always been ready to take any action which may appear to them necessary to safeguard national interests.

    UNITED STATES (ITALIAN DEBT).
    Sir ASSHETON POWNALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion the token sum paid by Italy to the United States of America, on account of war debts, bears to her total annual indebtedness?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The payments made by Italy to the United States of America during 1933 represent 12.8 per cent. of the amount due during that period under the Italo-American Funding Agreement.
    Sir A. POWNALL: Could not the Government represent to the Italian Government that they might also make us a token payment in similar proportion to that which they make to the Government of the United States?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is well aware of the general position with regard to debt.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    MONETARY SYSTEM.
    Captain FULLERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the Macmillan Committee examined monetary policy only on the basis of the gold standard and that no alternative was examined or discussed, he will consider the desirability of appointing a committee to examine and report on alternatives to the present monetary system?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: These questions are under constant consideration by His Majesty's Government both from their national and international aspects, but my right hon. Friend does not feel that any useful purpose would be served by setting up another committee on the matter.

    INCOME TAX.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE (for Major HILLS)asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what would be the gross loss to the Exchequer of reducing the standard rate of Income Tax by 1s. in the £, assuming that incomes assessable to tax remained at the same figure as in the past year?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I must ask my right hon. and gallant Friend to await the Budget Statement on Tuesday next, in advance of which I am not prepared to furnish any estimate relating in any way to the yield of taxation in the current year.

    ECONOMY CUTS.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE (for Major HILLS)asked the Financial Sec-
    312
    retary to the Treasury what would be the total present cost to the Exchequer of restoring the cuts made in 1931 (excluding cuts in unemployment benefit) in the emoluments of persons paid either out of voted money or out of the Consolidated Fund?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer my right hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Hutchison) on the 29th November last.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    UNEMPLOYMENT FUND.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Labour the estimated annual balance of the Unemployment Fund on the basis of the present unemployment figures?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): At the present time and under existing conditions for the payment of benefit, the surplus of income over expenditure of the Unemployment Fund is at the rate of about £16,000,000 a year. The hon. Member will realise, of course, that this figure would be substantially reduced under the provisions for additional benefits contained in the Unemployment Bill.

    BENEFIT AND TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Labour if he will state the total amount saved on unemployment benefit since the reduced rates came into operation in 1931 and the total amount saved since the operation of transitional payments?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Between October, 1931, when the new rates of benefit were introduced, and the end of March, 1934, the consequent reduction in the amount of insurance benefit paid to persons who continued in receipt of benefit averaged about £5,500,000 per annum. In approximately the same period, the amount paid under the transitional payments scheme averaged about £21,000,000 a year less than the sum that would have been paid if it had been possible to continue the payment of benefit to all claimants and to do so at the old rates.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Labour if he will state the cost of restoring unemployment benefits to their 1931 standard on the basis of the present unemployment figures; and if he will state the cost of abolishing the means test on the same basis?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: On the basis of the present Live Register, about 2,200,000, and with the existing conditions for the receipt of benefit, the cost to the Unemployment Fund of restoring the rates of unemployment benefit to the October, 1931, figures would be about £4,000,000 a year. If the needs test were abolished and the October, 1931, benefit rates were applied to transitional payments, the cost to the Exchequer would be about £20,000,000, per annum.

    KENYA (HUT AND POLL TAX).
    Mr. LUNN (for Mr. BANFIELD)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, in connection with the collection of last year's tax from the Kavirondo tribe in Kenya Colony, an elderly native named Odera, son of Wandeda, while interned in a detention camp for non-payment of tax, also had his hut burnt to the ground by order, as a tax defaulter; and whether he will now issue instructions to the Kenya Government that the burning of huts of indigent African men and women for non-payment of tax is to cease absolutely?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have no knowledge of the incident alleged in the first part of the question, but I am asking the Governor for a report. As regards the latter part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to his question on this subject on the 31st of January.
    Mr. LUNN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is the custom in Kenya to burn down the huts of natives in respect of which tax has not been paid?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, it certainly is not the custom at all. In the first place, the most careful care is taken of any necessitous cases to see if they ought to be relieved. In the second place, even if the tax is properly payable and ought to be received, there is a suspension of 21 days, and in the third place, it is not the practice to burn huts.
    Mr. LUNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries into the case which is specified here?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is exactly what I said I would do in the first part of the answer to the question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the Houses)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 33.

Division No. 189.]

AYES.

[3.16 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Cattlereagh, Viscount

Dower, Captain A. V. G.

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

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Drewe, Cedric

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

Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

Duckworth, George A. V.

Aske, Sir Robert William

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Balniel, Lord

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Duggan, Hubert John

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leotric

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

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

Christie, James Archibald

Dunglass, Lord

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Clayton, Sir Christopher

Eales, John Frederick

Bernays, Robert

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Eillston, Captain George Sampson

Blinded, James

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Bossom, A. C.

Colman, N. C. D.

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

Conant, R. J. E.

Fleming, Edward Lascelies

Brass, Captain Sir William

Cooper, A. Duff

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Broadbent, Colonel John

Copeland, Ida

Fox, Sir Gifford

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

Fraser, Captain Ian

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Cranborne, Viscount

Fremantle, Sir Francis

Browne, Captain A. C.

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Fuller, Captain A. G.

Buchan, John

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Bullock, Captain Malcolm

Crossley, A. C.

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

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

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

Gledhill, Gilbert

Burnett, John George

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Glossop, C. W. H.

Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

Dickie, John P.

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Doran, Edward

Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

Goff, Sir Park

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Loftus, Pierce C.

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Granville, Edgar

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Salmon, Sir Isldore

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Graves, Marjorie

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

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

Grimston, R. V.

Mabane, William

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Gritten, W. G. Howard

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

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

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

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Savery, Samuel Servington

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

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

Scone, Lord

Gunston, Captain D. W.

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Guy, J. C. Morrison

McKle, John Hamilton

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Hales, Harold K.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

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

Magnay, Thomas

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Hanley, Dennis A.

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Harbord, Arthur

Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Harris, Sir Percy

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

Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

Hartington, Marquess of

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Smith, Sir J. Walker, (Barrow-In-F.)

Hartland, George A.

Meller, Sir Richard James

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

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

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

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

Haslam, Henry Horncastle)

Milne, Charles

Somervell, Sir Donald

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Soper, Richard

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

Moreing, Adrian C.

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Holdsworth, Herbert

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

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Hore-Bellisha, Leslie

Morrison, William Shephard

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

Hornby, Frank

Moss, Captain H. J.

Stevenson, James

Howard, Tom Forrest

Munro, Patrick

Stones, James

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

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

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Summersby, Charles H.

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

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

Satcliffe, Harold

Hurd, Sir Percy

Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

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

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

North, Edward T.

Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Nunn, William

Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

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

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

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Janner, Barnett

Pearson, William G.

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

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Peat, Charles U.

Tree, Ronald

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

Petherick, M.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'ptn, Bilston)

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Potter, John

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Knight, Holford

Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

White, Henry Graham

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

Ramsden, Sir Eugene

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Law, Sir Alfred

Rathbone, Eleanor

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

Rea, Walter Russell

Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

Leckle, J. A.

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

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

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Rickards, George William

Windsar-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Leigh, Sir John

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Womersley, Walter James

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Lewis, Oswald

Ross, Ronald D.

Liddall, Walter S.

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

Sir George Penny and Lieut.-

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe.

Runge, Norah Cecil

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

Llewellin, Major John J.

Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

NOES.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Grundy, Thomas W.

Maxton, James

Batey, Joseph

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Parkinson, John Allen

Buchanan, George

Jenkins, Sir William

Smith, Tom (Normanton)

Cape, Thomas

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Tinker, John Joseph

Daggar, George

Kirkwood, David

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Lawson, John James

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Leonard, William

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Dobble, William

Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Edwards, Charles

Logan, David Gilbert

Wilmot, John

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Lunn, William

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

McEntee, Valentine L.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Groves, Thomas E.

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.

PUBLIC HOUSE IMPROVEMENT.
Lieut-Colonel APPLIN: I beg to move
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the sale by retail of excisable liquors."
The Bill is a short one and contains seven Clauses only. The first Clause
316
empowers licensing justices to grant special facilities to licensed houses which have provided special accommodation apart from the bar and are particularly suitable and well conducted. The Clause defines the type of house suitable and entitled to be used for general public refreshment and which provides food and

317
non-alcoholic beverages in airy and comfortable rooms, with adequate seats and sanitary accommodation. It also authorises the justices, if satisfied, to grant a special licence. Clause 2 gives the right of appeal to quarter sessions in the event of refusal to grant a special licence. Clause 3 permits music and similar entertainments but not stage plays. It also permits dancing except where the justices, make a special order against it on the grounds of good order. Clause 4 permits children to enter those rooms where there is not a bar serving alcoholic drinks. Clause 5, which is the important one, grants half licence fees when the receipts for the past year on excisable liquors are less than half the total receipts, or if more than half and less than two-thirds it reduces the fees by two-thirds. Clause 6 gives remission of compensation duty payable under Section 21 of the Licensing Act, 1910, Clause 7 is the short title and construction.
My hon. Friends in this House who opposed the Hotels and Restaurants Bill did so very largely on the ground that it was a Measure intended to benefit the big hotels and restaurants and the rich man as against the poor man. The question was asked: Why not grant the same thing to the public-house? This Bill does that. It gives those facilities to the public-house in the way of the sale of food and the sale of tea, coffee, ginger beer, etc. It gives them a decent room where they can enjoy those facilities under comfortable surroundings; in fact, it improves the public-house and brings it up to something on the same lines of the estaminet on the Continent. There are certain other benefits that will come from the Bill. I should like to abolish the bar in the public-house, but that I am afraid is impossible. I should also like to see the public-house windows not darkened but open to the public so that everybody could see what goes on there.
Our public houses are the ancient Victorian idea of the rapid sale of drink across the counter. I want to try and get a public house where a man can go and sit down in a comfortable room with his wife and family and partake of alcoholic or non-alcoholic drinks, together with food. This Bill has the advantage that it would enable us to improve the public house. This is a temperance
318
Measure because a reduction in the licence depends on a reduction in the sale of drink. The less drink sold and the more food sold the lower the licence. It really is a temperance Measure although it is called an Improved Public House Bill. This is an anniversary for me, it happens to be my birthday, and I ask the House also to make it the birthday of the Improved Public House Bill.
Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I did not know when I decided to oppose the Bill that it was the birthday of the hon. and gallant Member, but I join with the rest of the House in wishing him many happy returns of the day, and I hope he will accept that expression of good will instead of the passage of his Bill. It is quite unnecessary. Some of us express a minority opinion on this matter, but this House exists not only to register the opinions of the majority but to hear the views of the minority. It was open to the hon. and gallant Member, if he wished to have his Bill discussed, to have introduced it in the ordinary way, but by moving it in this way he is inviting the opinion of the House, and that is why I am opposing it. I do not ask the House to consider this Bill on its merits or its demerits. It is somewhat difficult to consider a Bill of six or seven Clauses described to us now for the first time. My suggestion is that the licensing laws of this country are so intricate and complicated that such questions as those should be dealt with in a considered fashion and not by a private Member's Bill. Since 1904 150 Measures dealing with the sale of excisable liquors have been introduced into this House, and this is the 151st Bill. Recently two Bills have been given a Second Reading, one in December last and the other in February. One is upstairs now in Committee, where we have spent 12 days considering its proposals, and it has been altered from top to bottom as a result of the Amendments which have been made. Another Bill is also awaiting consideration in Committee, and I suggest that this is not the time to submit a third Bill.
There is urgent need for reform in the way of standardisation and a clamant need for reform in dealing with the menace to health. There is no bench of magistrates which are not urgently exercised by the problem of the clubs, and they have impressed on the Government

319
the need for reform in that direction. But whatever action is taken it should be taken by the Government. They have the advantage of the Report of the Royal Commission, issued 18 months ago, which went into all the evidence available, they are able to ascertain public opinion and have sources of information which are not available to private Members. If a private Member's Bill is introduced and does not pass, it clutters up the Order Paper and occupies the time of the Committee when other Bills are pressing for consideration. If it passes, it means a dislocation of the existing law. My suggestion is that this question is so vital and important that it demands the considered and deliberate attention of the Government and should not be dealt with in this sporadic and promiscuous fashion. It should not be a matter of discussion between myself and those who are opposed to me, and the Government who are in the position of arbitrator should now consider whether their responsibility for introducing legislation should not be discharged. That obligation on the part of the Government will be lessened if this Bill is passed. That is why I oppose the Motion. Let me, in conclusion, quote from an article in the "Times." when dealing with the introduction of the Licensing (Standardisation of Hours) Bill:
"Whatever the effects of the change which is to be advocated they hardly qualify for discussion at the moment, and least of all on the strength of a private Member's Bill. The whole of the licensing law has but lately been subjected to thorough and systematic investigation by a Royal Commission. Its Report and recommendations have been presented. When the moment comes for Parliament to turn its attention to licensing reform, it should be moved to legislation by the Government themselves on their own responsibility, and asked to examine a policy that has at least taken account of the considered advice of the Commission. Nothing could be less satisfactory, whatever the point of view, than piecemeal anticipations; nor is the state of the law likely to be improved by an unofficial amendment or by a disconnected and unbalanced succession of unofficial amendments, restrictive or otherwise, directed to this or that detail of need and convenience. The House of Commons will be taking a practical and reasonable line if it declines to countenance this or any attempt at partial revision."
I ask the House to take a practical and reasonable line by declining to
320
countenance this attempt at partial revision.
Question put, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the sale by retail of excisable liquors."
The House proceeded to a Division.
There being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the "Ayes," Mr. SPEAKER declared that the "Noes" had it.

POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Select Committee.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
Bill, as amended, re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 100.]

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: Miss Graves; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Stones.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 76 of Army Act.)
    The following proviso shall be added at the end of section seventy-six of the Army Act (which relates to the limit of original enlistment):—
    Provided also that where a boy is enlisted before attaining the age of eighteen he shall be discharged upon a request to this effect being made by a parent or guardian if such request is made before the boy attains the age of eighteen and it is shown that the boy enlisted without the consent of the parent or guardian.—[Mr. Lawson.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    3.45 p.m.
    Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    As the Committee know, we have moved this Clause for several years in succession. The intention of the Clause is quite clear. It is that no boy, unless he has his parents' consent, shall be kept in the Forces, if he has enlisted when under the age of 18. Of course, all depends on the question of age. The Section of the Army Act which we wish to amend has a proviso that the Army Council in special cases or classes of cases may by order direct that when a boy has enlisted before the age of 18 the period of 12 years of his service shall be reckoned only from the day on which he attains the age of 18. The Army Council recognises that no service before a boy is 18 years of age counts effectively, and that a boy's real service counts from the day, not when he inlisted, but when he attained the age of 18. The subject raised by the new Clause involves moral considerations, and in some respects legal considerations. A boy is a minor until he is 18. I believe that as a matter of fact parents are under an obligation by law to maintain a boy until he is of full age, and that age, I believe, is 18.
    Let us suppose that a boy enlists in the Forces and does not bring his birth certificate with him. He may be of the
    326
    right size and appearance for enlistment. Sometimes he is enthusiastic and wants to stay in the Army. Sometimes he wants to get out again, but as to that there is a difficulty. Some of those who enlist at 18 years of age or over are very happy for a week or two and feel as though they would stay in the Army all their lives, but when they get into the hands of the right gentleman in the right place as a rule most of them want to go home again. But here we are dealing with the case of the boy under 18 years of age. Once he enlists the Army keeps him, as I think illegally. In effect, the parents are told, "All right; you may have a right to claim your son, who is not 18 years of age, but you will have to go before the court in order to claim him." I do not think there is any doubt—I speak as a layman and am not certain as to the law—that if parents had the necessary money to go before the court and claim their son from the Army they would have a strong case if the son had enlisted when under 18 years of age. I shall be much obliged if the Financial Secretary to the War Office will address himself to that point. All along the line the War Office has relied on the fact that parents are not likely to go before the court and claim the boy because they have not the necessary means.
    Then there is the case of the boy who when he enlists gives a wrong age. That would be a matter for the court to consider too. When the Financial Secretary or the learned Solicitor-General replies, I wish he would state whether the Army has a legal right to keep a boy who has enlisted when under 18 years of age. In any case there is the strong moral consideration in the matter. In some cases before enlistment a boy has been working and has begun to earn money. His working-class parents have brought up the boy, who is beginning to be useful by giving a little return to them for their care and outlay on his upbringing. He may have been a cause of anxiety to them because of his physical condition, and in many other ways. Suddenly the boy makes up his mind to enlist. I know something of the virtues of the physical training and discipline which he will receive, and I sometimes wish that the opportunities for physical exercise and discipline which are afforded to those joining the Army could be dissociated from the Forces and made avai-

    327
    lable on a wider scale. But the fact is that in such a case as I have in mind the boy enlists just when he is becoming of use to his parents. Thus a real burden is laid upon his parents and that is a consideration which ought to carry considerable weight with the War Office authorities. I hope they will take it into account in replying to the case we are making on behalf of this proposed new Clause.
    Then there is the question of whether youths under 18 should or should not be in the Army. For many years the Army authorities have considered that 18 is the earliest age at which lads should be allowed to join the Forces. There may be those who say that a full-grown boy is a man at that age. I thought I was a man before I was 13, because I was working in the pit the day after I passed the age of 12—like a good many other hon. Members on this side. But we all know very well that under 18 is too early an age for a boy or a youth to launch out into the kind of life which is involved and to undertake the responsibilities which he has to undertake, when he joins the Forces. It may be said that there are those who have joined at the age of 16 or 17. All we ask in this Clause is that if parents or guardians request the release of a boy who has enlisted before attaining his 18th year and if it is shown that he has enlisted without their consent, then he shall be released. It is time the War Office gave serious consideration to this view, because there is a strong public opinion behind it. I hope that either the Financial Secretary to the War Office or the Solicitor-General will reply particularly on the legal point as to the right of the Army authorities to hold these boys if they have enlisted under the age of 18 without the consent of parents or guardians.
    3.54 p.m.
    Mr. TINKER: I hope this afternoon we shall not merely have a repetition of what has happened in previous years, namely, a number of speeches from this side in favour of this proposal and the reply from the War Office, "We are sorry, but we cannot accept the proposed new Clause." I would have preferred a Clause in more definite terms than that which is on the Paper. I think we should have insisted upon an age certificate before a person is accepted for
    328
    the Army. This Clause, however, does not deal with that point. In industry a boy has to produce an age certificate, and in the case of the mining industry, if it is found that a boy has got in by any means under the proper age, there is trouble. I do not see why a certificate should not also be necessary in the case of joining the Army. However, all that we are asking at present is that, if a boy does join the Army under the age of 18 without the consent of his parent or guardian, the War Office shall release him on the application of the parent or guardian.
    I think it would be to the advantage of the War Office to adopt our suggestion. To-day I put a question to the Financial Secretary as to how many recruits did get into the Army under the age of 18. He was not able to tell me definitely, but he was able to give the numbers discharged. Before referring further to those, I would like to tell the House one or two things regarding the attestation form. When a lad first enlists, he has to swear to recognise the attestation, and, if he is discovered giving wrong replies to any of the eight questions which are put to him, he is liable to two years' imprisonment for making a false declaration. It may be well known to the recruiting officer that a lad whom he is accepting is under 18. We cannot get away from the fact that boys are taken into the Army because of their physique, and, if a boy is well set-up, he is not questioned very closely about his age. But later on if it is found that the lad is not suitable for the Army or his physique has not withstood the rigours of Army life, any doubt which a recruiting officer or a company commander may have about his age is immediately investigated, and it is left to the authorities to decide whether they shall dismiss him or not.
    That is why we get figures such as the following of discharges over a period of years. The number for 1930 was 575; for 1931, 637; for 1932, 416; and last year 294. The figures, it is true, are going down. I do not know whether fewer lads under 18 are going into the Army or whether it is the case that we are short of recruits and are holding on more tenaciously to them and making it more difficult to get boys released. However, there are the facts of the case, and I put it to the House that, if we want to build up an efficient Army, we ought to lay down

    329
    definitely the conditions under which recruits enter the service and enforce them. If the age is fixed at 18, let it be 18. Let these boys know what they are taking on and what they have to face. Then those who do want to go in for an Army life know exactly what they are doing. To me the present system savours rather of the press-gang. It seems to be based on the idea that we must get them, any way we can.
    A lad of 16 or 17 may feel dissatisfied with his home. Perhaps he is out of work and wants to get away from home. He joins the Army. There is always the doubt whether he will be allowed to remain in it or not. Clear away that doubt. Let it be definite that a boy must be 18 and physically fit before he joins the Army. It does not seem to me that anyone could reasonably oppose the proposed New Clause, and it is surprising that every year when this matter is raised we meet with the rigid and stern opposition which is typical of the War Office on this point. Probably the same thing will happen this afternoon as has happened in previous years. I suppose we ought to be discouraged when the other side always tell us that if people join the Army they ought to take the risk. But I hope we may see a change of attitude to-day, if not on the part of the Financial Secretary at least on the part of some of his supporters and that some of them will go into the Division Lobby with us and encourage us to bring this matter up on another occasion with better hope of success.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. McENTEE: I would like to make the appeal which I have made on previous occasions to the representative of the War Office with regard to boys. I have had quite a number in my own experience, some of them under 18, and a considerable number over 18 years of age who, having joined the Army or one of the other Forces, have desired to get out of it. My experience, no doubt, has been the experience of other Members in similar circumstances. The War Office tell you that they are prepared to allow them out if compassionate grounds can be shown. My personal experience has been that, where those grounds can be shown, whether a boy is under or over 18, both the War Office and the other Services have been perfectly reasonable
    330
    in the matter, but when there are no special compassionate reasons which one can put forward, the only alternative, apparently, is that the boy shall be bought out. I am not sure, but I believe that the amount which the parents are asked to pay is £35, but whatever the amount may be does not matter very much.
    I want to put this point of view to the responsible Member of the Government. I have no doubt that in the case of boys from various classes in society—because, after all, young persons of that age are very much alike—something happens at home, a row with father, or perhaps someone else in the family, and, in a fit of temper, they join the Army; or, perhaps, in the case of working-class people at any rate, they have been out of work a long time and been reprimanded at home for not finding work like some other boy in the street, or something like that, and the father, perhaps, in a heated moment, says, "It would be better for you to join the Army." I have had a case of that sort in the last few weeks. Sometimes when a boy has joined the Army the mother and father wish that the hasty word had not been spoken, and want their boy home again. They have been to me in circumstances like that within the last three or four weeks.
    Assume two cases, one a young fellow under 18 in what we call the upper class of life, well supplied with money, and another lad, the son of a mechanic or labourer, not well supplied with money. In neither case can compassionate grounds be proved, but, in the case of the well-off family, it is comparatively easy for them to pay the £35, or whatever the sum is, and get the boy out. It does not hit them in the smallest degree; but in the case of the poor family, it is an utter impossibility for them to raise the necessary amount of money to buy the boy out. Therefore, it operates very unfairly as between two classes in society. It may be that there is an intermediate class where the parents deny themselves some things which they ought to have, and are able to get their boy out by such personal sacrifice of themselves; but in the case of very poor parents, where the need of the boy's assistance in the home is great, the possibility of getting him out of the Army is nil.
    I submit, on these grounds alone, that the Army authorities ought to be able

    331
    to say definitely, "Eighteen years is the age at which we take you in the Army, and if you get in, in any circumstances, by lying, we will not recognise lying and glossing over, and pretending that we do not know that lying has taken place, and we will definitely say you are not a fit member of the Army, because your age is not what you stated it to be, and you have got in under false pretences." After all, false pretence in many regards is a crime in law, but false pretence in joining the Army, apparently, is not. False pretence, if you join the Army, is considered to be a virtue. [An HON. MEMBER: "Would you prosecute?"] If prosecution meant getting them out of the Army, I think it would be very much better, but it does not follow that because they were prosecuted they would go to gaol. Let me remind the hon. Member who interjected the question that we have recently passed in this House a Children and Young Persons Bill, under which anybody up to 18 years of age is recognised as a young person, and when he goes to court he is treated differently from those over 18. There is a special court to treat such cases, and if a prosecution did take place in the circumstances that my hon. Friend thinks it might, I suggest that if the boy went to that special court he would receive more consideration as a young person than, apparently, the War Office is prepared to give him to-day.
    Then, on moral grounds, it is encouraging these young people to lie. They are taken into the Army, and the only reply I have ever heard in this House, and the only reply we shall probably get to-day, is that when they join the Army the War Office is put to certain costs for training, and, therefore, it would not be fair to the War Office, after giving them a certain number of weeks or months of training, and supplying them with food, clothing and so on, that they should be let out. But is that any reasonable balance for permitting and encouraging this lying? Can anyone justify it on moral grounds? I venture to say that there will be no attempt to justify it on moral grounds from the Front Bench to-day, but I do hope that on moral grounds, and on grounds of equity and fairness between different classes in society, any boy who joins the Army under 18 years of age, provided that his parents make the application suggested
    332
    in this Clause, the parents shall get the opportunity, which they ought to have, of bringing the lad home, and allowing him to grow up and be of some service to his parents at a time when they certainly need him most.
    4.8 p.m.
    Sir GERALD HURST: I hope that the War Office will resist this Clause. I spoke against a similar Clause on one of the previous occasions, and I would like to do so again to-day. In my submission, the hon. Members who spoke in support of the Clause have looked at the whole question from the wrong angle. They have looked at it entirely from the point of view of the parents who want contributions from the wages of their sons, and not from the point of view of the sons. It is really a question for the boys themselves and not so much for the parents, and this Clause enables any parent or guardian, possibly against the will of the young man who has enlisted, and in the absence of any; compassionate grounds, to obtain, as of right, his discharge from the Army. It is, as I say, against the interests of the son himself to substitute, as I suggest, in many cases an inferior life for a better. In 99 cases out of 100 a boy who wants to join the Army at 17 and take risks in doing so, is far more likely to get enjoyment out of Army life than from the scanty means of livelihood open in many parts of England to young men of the working classes. In 99 cases out of 100 there is no better life than Army life. In a very large percentage of cases the alternative in a poverty-stricken family at home offers utterly inferior amenities and pleasures. Instead of travel, adventure, health, happiness, open-air life and exercise, it means, in many cases, a life spent in and out of employment, a life where a man only casually and precariously makes any contribution to the home, and a life in many cases devoid of brightness.
    Anybody who is acquainted with industrial conditions in the world to-day knows how difficult it is for a boy to look forward to a useful and well-employed adult life. As an alternative to that you have a life which offers any number of advantages which appeal to young men—health, happiness and exercise combined with doing their duty, undergoing a very useful discipline and also equipping themselves for useful work in after life. In

    333
    many cases Army life is the better, and, in my submission, to force against his will a young man who prefers the better life, and in the absence of compassionate grounds, to give up the life he prefers for the life he rejects, seems to be unconscionable, and not in his best interest. The hon. Members who spoke in favour of the Clause have emphasised that if these boys were compulsorily released from the Army they would be very useful to their parents. That does not at all follow. In many cases they might be a burden on their parents, particularly if they do not find employment. The chances of difficulty and trouble arising in the home in having unemployed young men there is very much greater than if they were in the Army, and even from a money point of view the position of the parents is less advantageous. And the dangers of home life are perhaps very much greater than in the Army. From the point of view of life itself, the dangers of death from shot and shell are less than from motors and motor cyclists, and the moral dangers are much less in the Army than in town life infested by Reds and Fascists.
    I cannot think that in many cases parents will be better off or happier in having sons at home than if they are well employed, well clothed and well looked after in the Army. A boy or girl of 18 is a better judge than the parents of what should be his or her career, and the boy who is willing to take the risk of two years' imprisonment in order to have a life of adventure is just the stuff of which our country has always been proud. I think that in many cases parents or guardians have very little knowledge of what is really best for the child. That is why they often take the advice of the schoolmaster as to what they shall do with their child, tout the boy himself, in most cases, is the best judge, and if he likes a life of adventure he can have it, and it is a wrong thing, in the absence of special, compassionate grounds, to take him from that life against his will.
    The hon. Member who last spoke referred to cases in his constituency where questions of this type have arisen. They come to most Members of Parliament. I myself have often been spoken to by parents of sons who have enlisted below the age of 18. I have always told them
    334
    that it was the best thing that could happen to the boy, and I have always discouraged them from taking any action to get them out of the Army or any other branch of His Majesty's Service, and in the sequel they have always been glad that they have taken my advice. They realise what everybody realises who compares the life of the Army to-day with life in industrial towns, that the young man of 17 who takes the risk, by making a false statement, of joining the Army, is often doing a far, far better thing than he has done before, and entering a far, far better life than he has ever known.
    4.14 p.m.
    Mr. LYONS: I join in the hope just expressed by my hon. and learned Friend that the Government will not accept this Clause. There were one or two observations made toy the hon. Members who supported the Clause to which I would like to refer. It was said that if a boy under 18 joins the Army because he has had a row with his parent, who says, "You had better join the Army," he should be entitled to go to the War Office, and that the parent should get his immediate release. My hon. Friend then went on to say that this Clause would enable the parent or guardian at once, without, any question of compassionate grounds, to get the boy out of the Army. I notice-that one of the proposals in the Clause is that it must be shown that the boy enlisted without the consent of the parent or guardian, and that means that somebody would have to arbitrate as to whether the consent given in that little domestic quarrel to which reference was made was real.
    Mr. TINKER: I did not say anything about a quarrel.
    Mr. LYONS: I think it was the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) who mentioned that matter. The principle behind this Clause is very important. I had a case a little time ago in my division in which I was be-seeched by the parents of a boy who had enlisted in the Army to help to get him out. The evidence was that he was a first-class recruit, behaving himself well, and that he had won the admiration of his superiors and his fellows. It is common knowledge that the Financial Secre-

    335
    tary to the War Office to-day gives immediate and kind consideration to every application of this nature that comes before him, and I am glad to think that I can join in the acknowledgments made by the other side in this respect. In the case to which I am referring, I saw the parents time and again about the matter, and the boy sent me a letter, in which he said:
    "I want to tell you that I am now in first-class surroundings, properly fed, properly housed, and properly trained. I have a doctor to look after me when I am sick, I am earning a reasonable amount of money, I am being equipped to take my place in the world when I am released from the Army, and I want my parents to take no steps in the matter. I want to stay where I am."
    If this Clause were accepted, it would mean that willy-nilly, without any regard for the desires of the boy who was serving in the Army, his parents could obtain his immediate discharge from the Service. Nowadays the Army, without dispute, is a first-class life for any boy, and the conditions of service are infinitely better than those that existed years ago, when many of us first became acquainted with the Service. When a boy goes into the Army to-day the State Spends a good deal of money in training, equipping, housing, feeding, and making a man of him. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst) has suggested, very much better money is being earned in the Army to-day than in many blind alley occupations in ordinary civil life. To accept this Clause would be to allow a parent or guardian at any moment to say, "Never mind what you have done in the way of training my boy, I want him out at once." That will put an unknown burden of expense upon the national Exchequer.
    We know very well that when the Army Estimates come out hon. Members opposite criticise the spending of so much money on the Army and say that we are squandering money in a race for armaments, but they would never turn round, if this Clause were carried, and say, "This extra amount is being expended because of the Clause which gives the right to every parent or guardian to take back, out of the Army, a son or a ward who has joined before 18, and thus waste all the money that has been spent on him." It is common knowledge that the
    336
    cost of the Army to-day is much greater per man than it was years ago, and this Clause would mean an extra burden on the State which would be entirely without justification. Finally, if a parent were able to obtain the discharge of a boy in these circumstances, the boy would find himself sent into some industry, if work existed for him, which would be not nearly so good for him and which would offer not nearly the same opportunities that he had in the Service. For these reasons, among others, I hope the Government will not accept the proposed new Clause.
    4.21 p.m.
    Mr. T. SMITH: I think the propaganda department of the Government, after the last two speeches to which we have listened, will be able to put out a new poster: "Join the Army and solve the unemployment problem." I support the proposed new Clause. I think a good deal of nonsense has been talked from the other side of the Committee against it, The hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst) said that at 17 a lad was better able than his parents to choose what he ought to do, but the hon. and learned Member knows very well that that is not so. He knows as well as I do that a boy of 17, who is inexperienced, when left entirely to himself, would often choose the wrong career for himself. We are told to-day that the lad of 17 is a man when he joins the Army and that he gets all the advantages of an Army career, but in industry at 17 years of age he is a boy. If you go inside a colliery office and ask for an advance in wages for a boy of 17, you are told that he is only a lad, that he has not the experience of an adult, and that he must be content with a low wage. If he falls out of work, he gets less than a man from his unemployment insurance. He is still regarded as a young person, and in general legislation we do not regard a person of 17 as a man.
    If we must have an Army, and I suppose we must, and we want an efficient Army, for Heaven's sake let us have it made up of men and not of lads. Our proposed new Clause says that if a boy joins under the age of 18, and his parents or guardians make a request for his discharge before he becomes 18, he can have it. If he leaves home and joins the Army under 18 years of age, and his

    337
    parents or guardians are willing for him to have an Army career, then, so far as we are concerned, we have no quarrel, but we think it is wrong to allow a lad of 18 to have an absolute right of discretion to join the Service or not. I think that many hon. Members opposite, after their speeches this afternoon, would not, if they had sons, put them to the law or advise them to join the Civil Service, but would tell them of all the wonderful benefits that they would get from an Army career.
    While I agree that, comparatively, an Army life is much better than being out of work in an industrial district, that is the rotten side of the industrial system, and there are thousands of lads who have been driven into the Army from sheer poverty. They do not, however, always make the best type of soldier. The Financial Secretary to the War Office, who believes in an efficient fighting Service and who has the courage of his convictions, both in this House and in the country, and states what he wants, will, I hope, see reason and accept this Clause on the ground that a lad of 17 has not reached an age when he is able to decide for himself that an Army career is good or bad; and I sincerely hope that we shall get this new Clause inserted.
    4.25 p.m.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): This Clause has been so often discussed in this House that in listening to the discussion once again I feel rather as though I were listening to an old play, but very often when we see an old play we notice some new point in it, especially if it is a good play. I do not say that this is a particularly good play that we are attending now, but one new aspect of the case has struck me very strongly this afternoon, while listening to the speeches of hon. Members opposite. It is very extraordinary that the Labour party, the Socialist party above all, should be supporting a Clause of this kind. This is not a question as between the boy and his parents, as has been suggested. It is not a question between even the individual and the Army. The question is which is the wiser to decide, the parents or the State?
    Hon. Members opposite are supposed to believe in State interference, and that in matters of this kind the State is a good
    338
    judge; and they have been generous enough—the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) has been generous enough—to agree that the State does look very carefully into every case of this kind, judging on its merits and, when there is a strong case, releasing the boy. But when the State, represented by the commanding officer of the regiment, looks into the details and judges whether or not a boy would be better off at home, and reports to the War Office, and we look into it again—I have often discussed these questions with hon. Members opposite—and we decide according to our lights that it is better that the boy should be released or retained in the Army, we say, on these benches that that kind of decision is wiser than the decision of the parents as to what the fate of their son should be, but in this particular matter the Socialist party opposite are the reactionary party. They are not even asking for the rights of the individual. They are asking for the most old-fashioned of all things—a revival of the patria potestas, known to students of Roman law, which gave to the parents powers over their children, which no modern State would tolerate. That is the kind of thing that they are trying to revive in this country. Some poor boy may have escaped from a bad home, and he may have a good career opening before him in the Army, but they say that because he is 17 years and 11 months old, his father may drag him back into the bad home and may have the right, against the wishes of the boy and of his commanding officer, against the wishes of the State, as represented by the War Office, to claim his discharge from the Army.
    This is a most reactionary Clause, and I think the hon. Member for West Walthamstow had not thought out the matter very clearly when he said that the War Office, by retaining these boys, were encouraging them to tell lies and were putting a premium on false pretences. Exactly the opposite is the case. These boys have committed a very serious crime by making these false statements as to their age, but the hon. Member says that, although they have committed this crime, we should take no notice of it but should let them go back home. A boy of 17 years and 11 months commits the crime of making a false attestation, and on the same day a boy of 18 years and one month makes a true declaration. A month after-

    339
    wards they both get sick of the Army and want to return home. The hon. Member says, "Keep the boy who told the truth, but overlook the lie that the other boy told, and let him do exactly what he likes." This is putting a premium upon false pretences and giving a benefit to the perjurer. Nobody can dispute that. You are encouraging a boy to tell a falsehood because you are putting no penalty on him for doing it. We say that if a boy commits this crime of making a false attestation, we should have the right to decide what should be done with him. He knows that he lays himself open to a penalty of two years' hard labour by making a false attestation. We would not dream of exacting that, but we would retain the right—that is all that we claim—to be the best judges as to whether he should remain in the Army or return home.
    The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), who asked for the figures as to how many of these boys are released, expressed surprise at the very great falling off this year and said he could not account for it. I can. For two years there has been prominently on every attestation form a warning, printed in large characters, to the effect that a boy who makes a false attestation lays himself open to this very heavy penalty of two years' imprisonment with hard labour, and that has only been in force for two years. The first year the numbers went down by about 100, and this year they went down from over 400 to under 300. That is very remarkable, and I think it shows that we are surely doing our best from the point of view of morality to make the position plain to the boy. The hon. Member for Leigh asked why we should not make the position plain to the boy so that he would know where he was. What more can we do, for we tell him he must not join before he is 18, and he has to fill up a form on which he swears he is 18.
    I think the only new point which has been raised this afternoon was raised by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), who put forward a most alarming suggestion that the War Office were acting beyond their powers and that if parents cared to go to law they would be supported in the courts against the War Office and that the Courts would find that the War Office was retaining
    340
    the boys illegally. I have had the advantage of the Solicitor-General's advice and I have also read the Act, and I think the hon. Member can set his mind at rest. There is no question as to the legal position. I am sure that if there had been any case to be brought against the State, it would have been brought many years ago.
    The most important aspect of the question is the economic aspect. The hon. Member for West Walthamstow said the rich man's son was always in a position to afford his release. I agree. I do not deny—it would be humbug to pretend otherwise—that the rich are better off in every way than the poor. When a man is subjected to a fine or imprisonment, the rich man can pay while the poor man goes to prison. That may be just or unjust, but it is not the issue that arises on this proposed Clause.
    On the question of compassionate grounds, I have before said in the House, and I would repeat, that in the vast majority of cases not only is the boy better off, but the parents are better off for his being in the Army. From the first week he joins he gets 14s. a week, and within a few months that may go up. In addition, the boy gets complete sustenance, lodging, good food and plenty of it, and medical care. He can if he wishes—I do not suggest that any boy should do it—allot the whole of that 14s. to his parents, but naturally he must keep a certain amount for his own private expenditure. There are very few boys who are in a better position than that when they start in industrial life at the age of 17.
    The position broadly is that we say 18 is the age at which a boy should join the Army. We do not want boys younger than that. In the Act of Parliament 18 is the figure laid down. If we changed it to 19 to-morrow, we should be discussing this proposed Clause again next year with the figure 19 instead of 18. Nine months here or 12 months there in certain cases makes all the difference in the development of boys. There is many a boy of 16 or 17 who is as fit to take on an Army life as other boys of 18 and 19. Our recruiting agents have instructions not to recruit boys under 18. When the boys come along they are asked to sign a form. If they take the risk of making a false attestation, we say that

    341
    we will look into the case, and if we see no particular reason why they should be released, we keep them. If it is not to their own or their parents' benefit that they should be released, we keep them. I do not see how any reasonable man can say that we are wrong in doing that.
    4.35 p.m.
    Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: I listened to the Financial Secretary to the War Office with care because I expected him to put up a reply to the arguments which have been advanced from this side of the Committee, but, although I always admire his courage and ingenuity in debate, I must confess that this afternoon he appears to me to have overstated the whole position. He started by saying that he was amazed that this party, which in its philosophy sets the authority of the State above the authority of the private citizen, now seeks to put the authority of the parent above that of the State. His amazement is nothing compared with our amazement that he should advance such an authoritarian dogma as that, because he represents a Government that believes that all the important functions of society which should be discharged upon the initiative of the individual and that the State should have no direct responsibility at all in the matter. I can understand some people, for instance a Fascist, or a man who believes in an aristocratic state or a dictatorship or a plutocracy, putting up that position, but for a man who believes in private enterprise to assert the authority of the State above that of the parent is astonishing.
    As a matter of fact, what the hon. Gentleman has said is that the State shall be the best judge of a liar but not the best judge of a truthful person. If what the hon. Gentleman said is correct, if indeed the State should be the best judge of whether an Army career is better for the boy than an industrial career or than to be unemployed, then the hon. Gentleman should bring forward a Measure for conscription, because all those arguments merely justify conscription. He tells us, however, that the War Office emphasises the fact that they will not take lads until they are 18 years of age, and, if a boy sneaks into the Army under 18, he gets there because he tells an untruth. The State, says the hon. Gentleman, shall
    342
    exercise the perfectly desirable prerogative of deciding what is best for the boy who tells a lie, although it relinquishes that power in the case of the boy who tells the truth. That is an astonishing position.
    Mr. COOPER: If a boy commits any crime, he puts himself under the State.
    Mr. BEVAN: We will see in a moment to what extent he does that. The hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst) told us that these are criminal types by means of which this Empire has been built up; those whose sense of adventure leads them to break the law, he says, are the very stuff of which this country is made. That is a point of view which I am sure will be hailed with hilarity in the criminal classes of society. The Financial Secretary says that if a boy tells a fib, then, by the act of telling that fib, the State assumes in respect of him a relationship which it does not claim in respect of the truthful person. He has not justified that. All that the State has established is the right to punish a person for telling a fib if it is an unlawful fib. I understand now that immediately a citizen between 16 and 18 tells a fib to get into the Army, he relinquishes all right to citizenship and all rights over his own body, his parents relinquish all rights over him, and he becomes a serf of the State. That seems to be rather a heavy punishment for having told a fib.
    Mr. COOPER: The alternative is two years' hard labour.
    Mr. BEVAN: The alternative is obviously not that, because no court in Great Britain would give two years' hard labour to a child for telling a fib. What the hon. Gentleman has suggested is that by the act of telling a fib the boy becomes a serf of the State from 16 to 18. There can be no more heinous punishment than that, because it is a complete abandonment of all individual rights. We would be perfectly prepared to discuss the proposition that the State is the supreme authority in this matter if there were a proposition for conscription before the Committee. What is before us is a very simple proposition. It is that if a boy joins the Army by making a false statement the parent should have the right to take him out of the Army. That is all we ask. In that we assert the authority of the parent

    343
    as the responsible person for the boy under 18. Why does not the hon. Gentleman admit the right of the parent in this case in the same way that obligations are imposed by the property laws? A citizen in Great Britain is a minor until 21 years of age. The parent is responsible for the contracts made under 21 years of age, and, in the case of property, the parent is also made responsible. In the case of human rights the parent is deprived of that responsibility and that right. If the hon. Gentleman is consistent he should go forward with the proposition that parents should be exempted from all obligations to their children after the age of 16. The British law makes the parent responsible for the boy up to 21, and our claim is that if the parent is to be made responsible for the conduct of the child in respect of property, he should have the guardianship of the child with respect to its plans, intentions and acts.
    It has been alleged by some hon. Members, like the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side that one of the reasons why we resist the Amendment is that the Army career is obviously so much more desirable for lads than a career in our industrial system. My hon. Friends here have said that that is an indictment of our industrial system and not praise for the Army. I would like to point out to him that boys between 16 and 18 are the least fitted persons to judge. In the first place, the attractiveness of the Army is falsified, and deliberate and calculated lies are told about the Army, which is held out to the lad as a marvellous opportunity for adventure, for individual enterprise, and for a colourful life. It is the first time I have ever heard the Army described as a place for the exercise of individual initiative or the regimentation of the Army held out as an opportunity for a colourful life or for adventure. One would think we were listening to a novel by Henty or Ballantyne and not to a discussion of the modern Army. Whenever hon. Members speak of the modern Army they go back to the middle ages and talk in romantic terms about the Army. There is no colourfulness, no adventure, no opportunity for initiative—
    Mr. RONALD ROSS: There is lots of adventure.
    Mr. BEVAN: Adventure! It is a misuse of the term, with the regimentation of the modern army, the living in a modern compound, to speak of barrack life as a life of adventure. Civilian life gives infinitely more adventure. If all that the hon. Member refers to is an opportunity of marching down the street with a cane under one arm, ogling the girls, or going to the canteen, I say all those opportunities exist in civilian life, and such adventure is no prerogative of the Army. It is hyperbole to talk of the colourful life of the modern army; it is a dull, drab, miserable, regimented life, calculated to suck every piece of individuality and vitality out of a man, who becomes a good soldier only to the extent that he loses his individuality. Therefore, to claim that the lad between 16 and 18 years of age is being drafted into a life of adventure is a flagrant and downright misrepresentation of the facts. It may be less true of the Air Force, because the Air Force is a new arm, and there is some pioneering to be done in that branch of the Services, but the Army is a highly standardised organism, and it is only to the extent that the individual becomes subordinated to that organism that he is a successful unit.
    Whenever the Army and Navy are discussed we get these stories, which remind one of the romances of Sir Walter Scott, of Conan Doyle, Ballantyne, of Seton Merriman and all the other stories that boys read. That is why a boy of 16 to 18 is least fitted to make a decision. His whole psychology at that age is romantic. He is reading literature full of adventure, all this falsifying literature. He is on the threshold of life, his adolescent life appears to be full of adventure, and when people come to him with suggestions for joining the Army he, with his mind excited by literature such as I have referred to, is least fitted to make a decision.
    That is the claim which we make on this side of the House. The State has a special interest in the matter, and therefore the State is no authority, and there is only one other authority, and that is the parent. I should be the last person to argue in favour of parental tyranny. I am not suggesting that parents are divinely inspired, and that their decisions with respect to their sons are always correct, but in the absence of any other authority, in the absence of any other

    345
    guardian, the parent is the only person whom we can fall back upon. I suggest to hon. Members that in the matter of education they would not allow their sons of 16, 17 or 18 to decide what sort of career they should have. The wise parent does not come down on his son like a ton of bricks and say "You must do this or that," but he does try by wise guidance, by suggestion and by example to get the child to take up the kind of education which he ought to have. But here, with respect to the Army, we say that the parent has no wisdom, has no responsibility, and that the boy of between 16 and 18 must himself decide and stand by all the consequences of his decision for a period of 10 years—indeed, for 12 years if he enlists at 16. He is bound for all that time by an impulsive
    action. It may be that he was only 14 years at the time, but as a general rule these boys are between 16 and 18. I suggest to hon. Members opposite they have not done justice to their case this afternoon. They are relying, as they have always relied in this matter, on an overwhelming majority in the Chamber. I would ask them, if they are going to justify their attitude, to present us with rather less frivolous arguments than we have had. They should put the real position before the boys and not falsify it by the romantic glamour of a century which is quite dead.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 36; Noes, 264.

    Division No. 190.]

    AYES.

    [4.51 p.m.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Batey, Joseph

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Maxton, James

    Buchanan, George

    Hall, George H. (Marthyr Tydvll)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Cape, Thomas

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Daggar, George

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Thorne, William James

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Kirkwood, David

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Dobble, William

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Edwards, Charles

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Wilmot, John

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Lunn, William

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Fermoy, Lord

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

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Albery, Irving James

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

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

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Balniel, Lord

    Cooper, A. Duff

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

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Copeland, Ida

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Beauchamp, Sir Brogravs Campbell

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Goff, Sir Park

    Bernays, Robert

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Blindell, James

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Crossley, A. C.

    Granville, Edgar

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

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

    Grimston, R. V.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Denman, Hen. R. D.

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Denville, Alfred

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

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

    Dickie, John P.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Doran, Edward

    Gay, J. C. Morrison

    Bullock, Captain Malcolm

    Dower, Captain A. V. G.

    Hacking, Rt. Han. Doaglas H.

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Hales, Harold K.

    Burnett, John George

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

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

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

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

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Dunglass, Lord

    Harbord, Arthur

    Carver, Major William H.

    Eady, George H.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Eales, John Frederick

    Hartland, George A.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Eillston, Captain George Sampson

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

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Hellgen, Captain F. F. A.

    Christie, James Archibald

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Savory, Samuel Servington

    Hornby, Frank

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Scone, Lord

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Selley, Harry R.

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

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

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Hurd, Sir Percy

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Muirhead, Lieut-Colonel A. J.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

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

    Munro, Patrick

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Jetton, Major Thomas E.

    Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Klne'dine, C.)

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

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

    Soper, Richard

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    North, Edward T.

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Nunn, William

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

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

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Patrick, Colin M.

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

    Law Sir Alfred

    Pearson, William G.

    Stevenson, James

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Penny, Sir George

    Stones, James

    Leckie, J. A.

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Petherick, M.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Lewis, Oswald

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

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Potter, John

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

    Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Litter, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Lleweiln, Major John J.

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

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Train, John

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Tree, Ronald

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Rickards, George William

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Roberts, Aled (Wraxham)

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Mabane, William

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

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

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

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

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

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Host Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    McKeag, William

    Ruggles-Brlse, Colonel E. A.

    White, Henry Graham

    McKle, John Hamilton

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Wilson. Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)

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

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddlsbury)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Llverp'l)

    Womersley, Walter James

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Milne, Charles

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

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

    Sir Victor Warrender and Captain

    Austin Hudson.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Troops not to be compelled to take duty in trade disputes.)
    At the end of Sub-section (1) of Section eighty of the Army Act (which relates to the mode of enlistment and attestation) the following Sub-section shall be added:—
    The general conditions of the Contract to be entered into shall include a stipulation that the recruit shall not be liable, nor shall it be lawful in pursuance of this Act to call upon such recruit, to take duty in aid of the civil power in connection with a trade dispute or to perform in consequence of a trade dispute any civil or industrial duty customarily performed by a civilian in the course of his employment.—[Mr. Buchanan.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    348
    The proposed new Clause more or less states our case and does not require a great deal of argument. In brief, our case is that soldiers ought not to be used, as they sometimes are, in a trade dispute. I have no doubt that the Financial Secretary to the War Office will reply in much the same strain as he did upon the previous Amendment by telling us that this is an old claim in which there is little that is new. That may well be so, but in politics as he knows, and as every hon. Member knows, a group of people keep hammering away year after year in order to realise an object. We have put down this new Clause as a perfectly reasonable proposal, because we think that members of His Majesty's Army should be kept away from any trade dispute which takes place in this country.

    349
    There are two reasons for our Amendment. I would first remind the Financial Secretary to the War Office that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) put a number of questions to him some time ago as to the right of a member of His Majesty's Forces to join a trade union. The hon. Member for Bridgeton received assurances from the Financial Secretary that any member of the British Army was entitled to join a trade union. If that be the case, and if the union which is joined by such a member of the Army decides to conduct a strike, it would be entirely wrong to ask that soldier to become possibly an active participator in the dispute. The Financial Secretary may argue that the soldier is bound by an oath of loyalty to the Army and consequently that the oath must be complied with, but I reply that the soldier has also taken—possibly not an oath but—an allegiance to his trade union. The oath to the Army may be considered a matter of deep conviction, but surely his allegiance to the trade union ought not to be any more lightly set aside than the oath which is taken in regard to the Army. I know that the Financial Secretary will argue against this and will possibly sweep aside the point which I am about to make, but I look upon this almost as an article of faith. When a man takes an oath to the Army and also an allegiance to his trade union, the latter is, in my view, the more important. The union represents him as a member of the working class fighting to improve conditions on behalf of the workers. The allegiance is allegiance to his class. In the case of the Army, the oath is not entered into as an act of allegiance to his class and as a result of it he may possibly be used against his class.
    I listened to the intelligent speech which was made by the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst), which contained a number of truths against which it is very difficult to argue. The hon. and learned Member does not intervene in Debate as frequently as he once did. I do not know whether the Parliamentary machine has got him now as it gets most of us sooner or later. He said a number of interesting things. He referred to the man who is living in an industrial district—I am not now speaking about the ages of 17 and 18 in relation to the Army but
    350
    in regard-to the general background of the Army—in a dark industrial area where unemployment is rife and who knows nothing about happiness of human life, and said that if he joins the Army the Army gives him comparatively good food, a regular income, good clothes, fairly decent housing conditions and fresh air. The hon. and learned Member says that it is much better for the man to be in the Army than in the shocking, dark conditions to which he may have been accustomed in the industrial district. To that kind of argument it is difficult to find an answer, but I think it makes the case for our Amendment stronger. I will tell the hon. and learned Member why.
    We are apt to argue that we have no conscription in this country and, in theory, that is correct, but in actual practice it is not the case. The great majority of men join the Army, not because of their liking for it, but because it is the only way in which they can get the things of which the hon. and learned Member spoke and which they desire. If they could get those things without the Army, the Army would not see them, in most cases. Consequently, we have what is, in my view, a worse form of conscription, namely, the compelling of the poorest sections of the community to join because of their economic surroundings. I live in a part of Glasgow which is just outside the Division which I represent. It is not the poorest part, but is a comfortable working-class or even a middle-class district. I represent about the poorest part of Scotland. There are certain times in the year, such as Christmas, New Year, Easter and in the Summer, but particularly Christmas and the New Year, when, in my Division, young chaps by the score are home on leave, but where I live you never see one. Where I live hardly an individual joins, but in my Division they join in large numbers.
    Great credit has been given to the Financial Secretary for his readiness to meet an hon. Member who writes to him about an individual case. Whatever differences we may have had, I have always found the Financial Secretaries to the War Office of all parties ready to meet me upon an individual case. In districts that are wealthy you find hardly one young man joining the Army, for the simple reason, as the hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, that young men

    351
    join the Army because it is the only way of getting the desirable things of life. Men living under bad economic conditions are forced to join. If that is so, surely it is not right that they should be forced to take part in industrial disputes. If they are compelled economically to join the Army, they should at least not be compelled economically to range themselves upon any one side in a trade dispute. I look upon this Amendment as one of the essential things from the point of view of those who sit on these benches, and in these days of great Army recruiting campaigns. I trust that the Government will recognise that the great bulk who join the Army come from districts where industrial conditions are not at the present moment happy or pleasant, and that they should not ask those men, against the consciences of a great many of them, to take part in a trade dispute in any way.
    The Financial Secretary may repeat what has been argued by all his predecessors and say, "We never take sides. We only intervene in the case of a threatened riot with which the civil forces are not able to cope, and where there is a threat to the supplies of food or for some other reason of that kind." I do not take that view. That may be the reason given in this House, but those who know trade disputes are aware that, although the reason for the use of the Army may be said to be the breakdown of the civil police or the danger of interruption of supplies, the moment the Army come into a district in which there is a trade dispute the men who are on strike see them and see their guns or their tanks. During a dock dispute in the city of Glasgow I have seen tanks come through the centre of the city. The next day the strike was nearly finished, because every man had the feeling that if he remained out the weapons might be used and death might be the result. The strike was finished. We know that the moment the Army arrives it effectively takes sides against the workers. For those reasons, I put forward this new Clause.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Before the Debate goes any further I ought to remind the Committee that this new Clause in its present form was put down, by agreement some years ago with the Chair, in order to avoid a
    352
    Ruling given in 1914 that the proper place to raise the question of using troops in trade disputes was on the Army Estimates and not on this Bill. The discussion upon the Clause is strictly limited to what duty the recruit should or should not be asked to undertake.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. COOPER: I was not aware of the Ruling which you, Captain Bourne, have just quoted. I can see that it might perhaps somewhat hamper the remarks that I was proposing to make in reply to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), but, as I shall only deal with the issues that he raised, and answer them to the best of my ability, I hope I shall not get out of order. The hon. Member, with his usual eloquence, has made out as strong a case as he can for a Clause which has been frequently debated in the House. He prefaced his remarks by saying that the loyalty of a man to his trade union, if there should be a conflict of loyalties, would be far greater than his loyalty to the Army. I do not wish to be led away into a discussion on ethics with the hon. Member, but I must say at the outset that I profoundly disagree with that view. It seems to me that in all cases the larger loyalty must come before the smaller. However great may be a man's loyalty to his native town or county, that loyalty must be entirely swallowed up when the greater loyalty of his attachment to his country is affected. As the trade union, in the hon. Member's own words, is out to protect a particular class in the country, surely loyalty to that class must give way as against loyalty to the British Army, which is out to protect the country and all classes.
    The hon. Member himself, in the concluding words of his speech, went far towards answering his own contention, and also towards informing the Committee on what I was intending to say. The issue raised is that of the use of troops in civil disputes. We do not pretend that we have any right to make use of troops in order to interfere with an industrial dispute; we do not believe that we have any legal right to attempt to break a strike by using troops to carry out duties which, in normal times, would be carried out by civilians; and, whatever the experience of the hon. Member may be, I can assure him that, so far as I have been able to find out, troops

    353
    have never been used in this country in order to interfere in a purely industrial dispute, or to carry out duties which would otherwise be performed by civilians and thereby to act as blacklegs and undermine the power of the strike. There are, however, two exceptions to this rule, as the hon. Member is as well aware as I am. The first is when there is a danger of real breaches of the peace, or, more usually, when breaches of the peace have actually taken place. In such cases it is the duty, not only of the troops but of every citizen in the country, to support to the best of their ability the forces of law and order. It is not any more the duty of the soldier than it is of the civilian to support the forces of law and order, and to support the police in maintaining law and order.
    The other exception to this rule is when a strike is of such a nature that it endangers the very life of the community. In the General Strike, for example, when the community's supplies were endangered, and there was a real danger, which no one has ever denied, of people suffering from starvation, then, in order to make sure that supplies were brought safely into the heart of the community, whence they could be distributed to the people whose lives depended upon them, troops were used. They were used for that purpose only. The use of them was entirely successful, and I do not think that any thought passed through the mind of any man who was employed on that work that he was doing anything against his class. He knew as well as we know that, if supplies began to run short and there was really a serious danger of hunger to the community, it would be his class that would be the first to suffer. On that occasion the service rendered to the country, and, above all, to the working-classes, by the Army, was inestimable. I do not believe that any ill will was aroused in the mind of anyone by the use that was made of the troops in the General Strike. There was no disorder; not a single rifle was discharged or a single blow struck. It really would be the height of folly and madness to suggest that, if such a calamity were again to face the people of this island, we should paralyse our hands beforehand and refuse to make use of such an invaluable weapon for the benefit of the whole people.
    354
    To suggest that when men join the Army they should take a choice as to the duties they were to perform, and that some of them should be serving under different terms from others, is in itself quite impracticable, and it was on this ground, if on no other, that the Labour Government, when they were in power, refused to accept this Clause. That is only one of the grounds. I have already attempted to give the main grounds, and to my mind they are so powerful that I do not think the most optimistic Member of the Opposition, when he read this Clause, can really have hoped that the Government could possibly accept it.
    5.23 p.m.
    Mr. LEONARD: I should not have ventured to enter into the discussion on this proposed new Clause, with which, I may say, I am in complete agreement, but for the fact that I have had some slight experience in this matter, and am fully conscious of the feeling which is engendered when a man in the position of a recruit is called upon to participate in action that is repugnant to him. There are several reasons which prompt men to join the Forces to-day. Some may desire to escape from anxieties attaching to their ordinary everyday life; others may be attracted by the possibility of travel; and they are prepared to countenance the possibility of acting in international strife if it arose; but I have yet to meet any young man who would willingly assert that he was agreeable to be used, should the occasion arise, in a dispute of an industrial character. The majority join with the hope, not only that international strife will never call them into action, but with a still greater hope that they will never be used against their brothers and fathers who may be making efforts to better the conditions in their everyday calling.
    We have been told, and I am not prepared to contest it, that the Army in the last War fought well because they were of the opinion that they had a just cause; but it is not our duty to ask men to take part in strife against their fellows if they think they have a bad cause, and I cannot visualise the possibility of the great mass of our young men thinking for one moment that the cause of their brothers and fathers in endeavouring to better their conditions is other than a good cause. There are two aspects of this matter. There is the possibility of

    355
    the Army being used in the streets, and it is not necessary for me to picture what that means; history affords numerous examples of it. But I am also particularly in favour of so delimiting the action that may be taken as to preclude any possibility of soldiers entering into the ordinary everyday work which strikers or people engaged in a dispute have left, because, if the case is so bad that nobody will take it up except armed forces acting under the instructions of the military power, then it is certainly a very bad case. Moreover, every hon. Member will realise what takes place when these men go back into civil life and go back to work with the men whose conditions they have been, on the streets and in the warehouses, endeavouring to repress. The hon. Gentleman has stated that in this country the troops have never been used for that purpose. I wish he were able to say that in the Empire the troops had never been used for that purpose, but, unfortunately, he cannot say that, because in the Dominion of Canada—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think we can deal with the Dominion of Canada on this Amendment.
    Mr. LEONARD: My own experience in the matter, as a sergeant in one of the militia organisations of the Crown, was to find myself faced with an instruction from my captain to hold myself in readiness to call out my squad to participate in an intimidatory process against the organisation of which I myself was the secretary. We were strongly of the opinion that the conditions under which we worked were intolerable and should be resisted, and we were prepared to fight against them; and I am sure that you, Captain Bourne, will appreciate my consternation at being instructed, as a sergeant of the organisation which had to act as an intimidatory force, to take part in that intimidatory process. The only thing I have to be thankful about in connection with that matter is that from that moment my opinions gradually changed, until they became what they are to-day. That is the only beneficial effect that accrued from it. In the British Empire the Army has been used for intimidatory purposes; it has been used in strikes; and there is no reason to think that what has taken place there could not take place in this country.
    356
    Therefore, I think we should provide ourselves with ways and means of preventing the bad feeling which exists after such events from displaying itself in this country. For that reason I support the proposed new Clause.
    5.28 p.m.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: The hon. Gentleman has said that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) answered himself—that, if there is a conflict between two loyalties, the larger and wider loyalty must have precedence over the smaller and narrower, and that, since loyalty to the State is to be regarded as a wider loyalty than loyalty to a trade union, the trade union must be abandoned and loyalty to the State must be regarded as being in the ascendant. I do not think, however, that that is quite the position which arises. Men join the Army on the assumption, usually, that their services are going to be used against another Power, not against their own people. Soldiers never contemplate civil war when they join the Army. When an industrial dispute is so serious that the use of the Army has to be invoked, what happens is that the wider loyalty, the loyalty to the State, has been dissipated by the conflict, and is replaced by the loyalties of one class as against another. That is a situation of civil war. It is not a situation in which the State stands above both classes, but a situation in which the State has divided itself up. Consequently, the poles of the argument are not as the hon. Gentleman sets them. He would make them so appear that the general interest of the state stands above the interests of the classes in the State. That may be true in respect of certain interests, it may be true in respect of earthquakes, fires or epidemics, but it is certainly not true with regard to industrial disputes, because industrial disputes are in fact fought within the State itself, and, if they become sufficiently serious, involve the whole ethics and practice of civil war. Therefore, the wider loyalty has disappeared.
    We contend, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman has not established his position at all, except that it is customary for the ruling class always to identify itself with that wider loyalty, and to assume that, in fighting for the ruling class, they are fighting for the State, the State becoming merely the apparatus of

    357
    the ruling class. It has always been the contention of those who uphold representative government that there are ways available for the settlement of disputes within the State which make it unnecessary to invoke the military power. Representative government would never have arisen if that were not so, and, indeed, before representative government had been set up civilians were very jealous of the right of the State to have a standing army at all. There have been many conflicts fought in the House and there have been many discussions curtailing the right of the Crown to have a standing army, because in the absence of representative government that standing army was used by the Crown against the interests of the subject, so that the hon. Gentleman again overstates his case.
    It is wrong to suppose that the modern Army was built up with this end in view. The modern Army has been built up with one object in view, and that was to use it against what were considered to be the enemies of all the members of the State. What is suggested here is that, in the event of an industrial dispute arising of a protracted and widespread nature in which the stability of the State is endangered, the use of the military forces can be lawfully invoked. They must be invoked on one side or the other. They cannot be invoked with neutrality. Indeed, merely marching into an industrial township is in itself an intimidatory act. The fact of the Army, with tanks and aeroplanes, entering any centre where there is a fierce and bitter industrial conflict taking place is itself a use of the armed forces on behalf of the employers to intimidate the working-class people into subordination.
    You do not, therefore, exercise the armed powers of the State in order to maintain the stability of the State. You exercise them in order to secure a victory for the ruling class—for the employers. The hon. Gentleman said there have never been occasions in the history of the country where armed forces have been used in that way. I cannot recall it from my own memory, but I seem to have heard that on one or two occasions the Royal Marines have manned pit pumps. I also remember Mr. Asquith threatening to use the Army in the case of the railway disputes in 1911 and again in 1921.
    358
    So it is not true to say that this is a power the exercise of which is never contemplated. It is always in the background as the last resource in the case of industrial disputes.
    We support the new Clause because we do not desire to see people who have been recruited for one purpose used for purposes to which they are alien and which are repugnant to them. The hon. Member for Gorbals pointed out that many men were driven into the Army by sad industrial circumstances. The very reason that drives them into the Army is the reason why industrial disputes take place, and they are likely to be used to maintain just those circumstances that cause them to enlist. It seems to me to be a monstrous proposition. If we did not have representative government, if we had no means of settling disputes the hon. Gentleman's logic would be supreme. But, if there is a dispute so serious as to endanger the safety of citizens and the stability of the State, there are endless ways of allowing the citizens to decide which side is to secure a victory. You may have an election, if you want, at any time. That is the way to do it.
    The thing that frightens, me about the modern Army and Air Force is its impersonal character. There was much less danger with the old mercenaries than there is with the modern Army. If you brought the old Army into conflict with the civilian population, you necessarily-had in most cases almost a hand-to-hand conflict in which one living person was-confronted with another. That warm intimacy of human conflict might give rise to temporary high feeling, but at the same time it had the effect of mitigating the rancour of the contending parties. It is difficult, as most military authorities know, for a man to engage in a bayonet charge. People do not like bayonet charges. They have to be worked up to it. Soldiers in the old days were always very reluctant to charge a civilian population. But now you can fire a rifle from a long distance and kill a man in the most impersonal manner, or you can drop-a bomb from the air and the aeroplane flies on and does not see what havoc it has created. It is the impersonal nature of the modern Army and Navy that frightens me. People destroy and murder in such a remote and objective way that the warm intimacy of human relationship

    359
    does not enter into the mitigation of the conflict.
    I would urge, therefore, that the proposed new Clause should be incorporated in order that modern lethal weapons should not be used in civilian conflicts. One of the outstanding characteristics of the late conflicts in Vienna was that the standing Army remained loyal to its paymasters. It was loyal not to any overriding authority—because Dollfuss was an enemy against his own State—but to those who paid their salaries and to their officers, because the modern Army is a machine. It slays from a distance. It kills not men but a target. For all these reasons, we ought to lay it down that the Army and Navy should not be invoked in any circumstances in a dispute between members of the civilian population.
    5.39 p.m.
    Mr. MAXTON: The Financial Secretary misunderstood the purpose of our Clause when he suggested that it was impossible to have in one Army two different standards of discipline—one body of men who could be called out in a trade dispute and one that could not. The purpose of the Clause is to make it impossible for any recruit joining the Army to have this duty recognised as one of the things that he would have to perform—that every recruit joining the Army, in giving the oath of loyalty and accepting the conditions of service, would recognise that it was not one of his duties to take part in any trade dispute, and that would apply to all members of the Army and Air Force. There would not be one set that stood aside from trade union duty while another crowd marched out. It would simply be impossible for the Government to call upon any of the armed forces to take part in such a dispute.
    Mr. COOPER: The Clause, as worded, would not apply to those already in the Army.
    Mr. MAXTON: I see that it would be necessary to make it retrospective, but obviously the intention is that there should not be this double standard, but that recruits for the Army should not have this regarded as one of their duties. I have seen the military used in trade disputes. I saw them engaged in a trade dispute that we had in Glasgow, where
    360
    the workers of all trades were struggling in 1920 for the establishment of a 40-hour working week. Without any justification whatever recruits were drafted into the city, and that had an intimidating effect upon the whole population, particularly the womenfolk and children. The morale of the strike was broken. It collapsed within a few days. It was not a strike against the State. It was not a strike for any illegal purpose. It was a strike for the establishment of certain conditions and the recognition of those conditions by employers of labour in the district. It was a demand for something which, I believe, if it had been granted at that time, would have had a wholesome effect upon the whole national life in the years that have intervened between 1930 and now. It was a legitimate demand that the workers were entitled to make. Particularly in the aftermath of the War were they entitled to make it.
    A large proportion of the men engaged in the strike had just come out of the Army. They had been through the War, and here were young recruits fetched into the city and placed at all important points, with fixed bayonets, against men who had come home from active service and who were expecting that some of the many promises that had been made to them were going to be realised. They may say what they like. The safety of the State and so on may be used as an argument, but these troops were used to drive the men back to their work under their old employers under the old conditions. Similarly in the General Strike the intimidatory use of the troops was very well recognised by all those of us who were in sympathy with that great movement. We know how that power used to drive the people back again into their employments and to prevent the workers of Great Britain demonstrating their sympathy with the demand of the miners for a living wage. That is all that was being asked. The whole power of the State, the Army and the Air Force, which had been recruited for entirely different purposes, was used by the Government of the day to compel the miners to remain on their starvation level of wages, because that is all that was being asked in connection with the General Strike. It is the easiest thing in the world for a Government, if they see a body of strikers marching through the streets demonstrating with bands and banners, to say,

    361
    "This is a threat against civil order."
    But, as those of us know who had any part in that movement at all, there were no revolutionary intentions in the minds either of the people who took part in the 40-hour strike that I have referred to or in the General Strike in support of the miners' demand for a decent wage.
    The excuse of the fabric of the State being imperilled is very easily used, but in hard fact what was done was to place the power of the State behind the mine-owners in driving the miners back to work under intolerable conditions. On that occasion the miners and the working-class generally had a higher wisdom than those who were in control of the State. It would have been a wise and intelligent thing, and would have made for a healthier and more useful life if at that time, instead of driving the men back to work by a display of armed force, the Government of the day had said, "Look here we recognise that this is a serious problem and that the men engaged in this fundamental industry must have decent conditions of life. You go back to your work, and we will set ourselves to see that you get decent conditions of life." That would have been government. The other thing was merely a display of brutality. It is absolutely wrong that the sons of working-class parents should be marched out armed with cartridges and bayonets to drive their fathers back to work under conditions which are intolerable.
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office gave an interesting disquisition upon the ethics of loyalty. He did not pursue it very far, and consequently I do not want to pursue it any further, but he says that the loyalty to the town must give way before loyalty to the county, and that the loyalty to the county must give way before loyalty to the country as a whole—that loyalty is a matter of geographical demarcations. I do not know whether loyalty is a thing of that nature or not. I do not understand it in that way. I understand loyalty to causes and to principles, and I do not understand loyalty to geographical areas. I understand prejudices in favour of a particular geographical area. I understand my own prejudices for my own little town in Scotland and the prejudices of the people who live in that town, though anyone coming into it may see no justification for them. But to call it
    362
    loyalty and to make loyalty something which depends upon geographical determination is to my mind a misuse of the word altogether.
    The hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that the average workman in the working-class movement has something more than a loyalty to his trade union when he goes into one of these strikes. He has something more than a loyalty to the working-class. He has a loyalty to perhaps one of the biggest conceptions which men in these days can have in their minds. He has a loyalty to the idea of a world completely free from poverty and internecine strikes. He has a loyalty to an ordered community throughout the world, to the lessening of poverty, and to recognising the right of one another to live decently and free. That is a big loyalty, and it is wrong that a young soldier coming from a working-class home should be asked to take on, as one of his conditions, the undertaking that he will go out to fight against his own loyalty and the loyalty of the people from whom he comes, and against that big idea and ideal.
    I have heard the hon. Member himself talk in terms of bigger loyalties than merely national loyalties. Loyalty to nations has a tremendously big effect among European nations to-day. As we see it operating in Europe, there is a danger of it being carried to extremes in the shape of economic nationalism and the aggrandisement of one particular nation against the interests of all the other nations, and we see it as a menace. Suppose I give the hon. Member a present of the national loyalty as being a sane and decent one, it is entirely another thing, even when a young man joins the Army from the most patriotic and loyal motives, to make use of such a man, who has ideals in serving his country, in the interests of the employing classes of the country against the interests of the working-classes of the country.
    I ask the hon. Gentleman if he thinks it is fair simply to say that previous Governments, including a Labour Government, rejected the proposed Clause? This continuity of policy business can be carried too far. It is certainly true that when the right hon. Gentleman Mr. T. Shaw was Secretary of State for War and this Clause was moved, he at least

    363
    had the grace to say that he accepted it in principle, and I think that he promised also that in practice he would see that it was operated. Fortunately for him no circumstances arose which would have put him into any difficulties with reference to that promise.
    I want to point out this further fact to the Financial Secretary to the War Office. Since that time his Government have come to this House and obtained power to strengthen and to develop the police force as a disciplined force. When that was done it took away from the Army the duty of intervening in this particular type of dispute. There is no need to have two disciplined forces for this purpose. If the police are recruited,

    Division No. 191.]

    AYES.

    [5.54 p.m.

    Batey, Joseph

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Cape, Thomas

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Maxton, James.

    Daggar, George

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    John, William

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Davice, Rhyt John (Westhoughton)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Thorne, William James

    Dobble, William

    Kirkwood, David

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Edwards, Charles

    Leonard, William

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Lunn, William

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Aneurin

    Bevan.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Fox, Sir Gilford

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

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Albery, Irving James

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

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

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

    Bainlel, Lord

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Goff, Sir Park

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Copeland, Ida

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Boauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Blinded, James

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Boothby, Robert John Graham

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Grimston, R. V.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Cross, R. H.

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

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

    Crossley, A. C.

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Bracken, Brendan

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

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

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Hales, Harold K.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

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

    Denville, Alfred

    Hanley, Dennis A.

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

    Dickie, John P.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Doran, Edward

    Harbord, Arthur

    Bullock, Captain Malcolm

    Drewe, Cedric

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Burnett, John George

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Hartland, George A.

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

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

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

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

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Eady, George H.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Carver, Major William H.

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

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

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Elmley, Viscount

    Hornby, Frank

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Christie, James Archibald

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Hurd, Sir Percy

    organised and officered to deal with this particular job, there is no reason why the Army should have to deal with it in addition. The only possible reason is that in that case you can make a display of weapons and can use the method of tyranny. There was not a disciplined, specially recruited, officered and educated police force when the late Labour Government were in office. It is there now, and therefore I ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise that there are changed conditions which are sufficient to justify him in accepting the Clause which has been moved by my hon. Friend.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, S3; Noes, 274.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

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

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Morrison, William Shephard

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

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

    Munro, Patrick

    Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Klnc'dlne, C.)

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Soper, Richard

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    North, Edward T.

    Spent, William Patrick

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Nunn, William

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

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

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

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

    Stevenson, James

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Pearson, William G.

    Stones, James

    Law Sir Alfred

    Penny, Sir George

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Law Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Petherick, M.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Leckle, J. A.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

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

    Sugden, sir Wilfrid Hart

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Potter, John

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Lewis, Oswald

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Templeton, William P.

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Pybus, Sir Percy John

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

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe.

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Llewellin, Major John J.

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

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Ramsden, Sir Eugen

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Rea, Walter Russell

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

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Train, John

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Tree, Ronald

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Rickards, George William

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Mabane, William

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

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

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Ross, Ronald D.

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

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

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

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    McKeag, William

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    McKle, John Hamilton

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Wins, Wilfrid D.

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Magnay, Thomas

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

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

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Wise, Alfred R.

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

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Withers, Sir John James

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Womersley, Walter James

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

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

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Milne, Charles

    Scone, Lord

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

    Selley, Harry R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Captain Sir George Bowyer and

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Captain Austin Hudson.

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Schedules and Preamble agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  ILLEGAL TRAWLING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  ILLEGAL TRAWLING (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Penalties for illegal trawling.)
    6.2 p.m.
    Mr. BURNETT: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out "one hundred," and to insert "fifty."
    This is one of a group of Amendments which are not intended to reduce the existing penalties in any way. The same
    366
    maximum of £100 is retained, but it is intended to differentiate between the first offender and the persistent poacher. A good deal has been said about the recommendation which was made by the Mackenzie Departmental Committee in 1923. That Committee recommended an increase in the penalties for illegal trawling, but there are two points that we have to remember in that connection. In the first place, when the Mackenzie Departmental Committee sat there was a great deal more illegal trawling going on than there is now. In the second place, the Government at that time were very strongly pressed to increase the penalties, but on a number of occasions they refused to do so because they considered that the alternative policy which they had adopted was dealing successfully with illegal trawling.

    367
    I should like to read an extract from a statement made by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland at that time, the present Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. Speaking on the Scottish Estimates, on 4th August, 1925, he said:
    "The prevention of illegal trawling has made very considerable progress, and we have succeeded in materially reducing not merely the cases which have been prosecuted, but even the number of complaints made, which leads us to believe that we are actually succeeding in cutting down the practice of illegal trawling around our coasts. We have carried out the construction of two new auxiliary fast motor cruisers. One of these is a skimming boat capable of doing 33 knots an hour."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th August, 1925; col. 1284, Vol. 187.]
    The claim which the Under-Secretary made at that time is fully justified if we look at the figures of convictions, and compare them with convictions in the three years preceding the addition of the cruisers. In 1921, 1922 and 1923 the convictions were 73, 40 and 44 respectively, and in the three following years they were 16, 12 and 9. In the first three years there was an average of 52 convictions and in the second three years an average of 12 convictions. That shows, I think, that the claim that efficient policing reduces illegal trawling to a very considerable extent is fully justified. The same point was raised by the present Under-Secretary when he was speaking on the Second Reading of the present Bill. He said:
    "Already this winter in districts where our drifters have been on patrol there has been a very marked disappearance of the trawlers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1934; col. 1120, Vol. 287.]
    That disappearance is not connected with any increased penalties, because the Bill has not yet come into force, but is due to the fact that a large number of drifters which have been bought by the Government are patrolling the West coast, the poachers know about it and the result has been a considerable diminution in the amount of poaching which has been going on.
    The Government were pressed to increase the penalties, as I have said, when the Mackenzie Report was issued, but the Under-Secretary at that time justified the fact that the penalties were not increased. He was asked whether he would agree to the imposition of severer penalties,
    368
    especially in the case of second or third offences, and he replied:
    "My Noble Friend's attention has been called to complaints of the kind referred to in the question. He is not satisfied that the existing statutory powers as to penalties axe inadequate, and on the information before him it does not appear that they are fully exercised."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1923; col. 794, Vol. 160.]
    We may say the same thing at the present time in connection with the convictions, that the powers which the court has to impose large fines is very rarely exercised. In the majority of cases the fines are very much below the maximum. I have a list of the local convictions that have taken place, and I find that, reading backwards from the present time, the fines have been £40, £40, £50, £25, £40, £30, £50 and £100. In only one case has the maximum fine been imposed. The question is, what fine constitutes a deterrent fine? I have tried to get at that as far as possible by tracing the local convictions during the past three years, and I find that of the fines that have been imposed of over £40, only in two cases have they been paid. In all the other cases the man has gone to prison. We may take it that, as a general rule, £40 is the maximum that a skipper can pay.
    According to the Report of the Commission a skipper in Aberdeen earned from £7 0s. 8d. to £8 3s. 8d. a week, but the Commission's report was issued some time ago, and since then fishing has become more depressed. I am told that a number of skippers at the present time do not earn more than £2 odd per week. Certainly there are some of them who are in exceedingly bad circumstances, and they are having to sell part of their household furniture in order to keep things going in these difficult times. A fine such as £200 is something altogether outside the power of any skipper to pay. It is suggested that the owner would pay the fine, and that therefore it does not matter how much the fine is. I have tried to verify every case, and I find that so far as Aberdeen is concerned the owner does not pay the fine. I have investigated all the last cases of convictions, 15 in number, and I find that in each of them either the skipper himself or the relations of the skipper paid the fine, or else the man has gone to prison. There was only one of the 15 cases that I was unable to trace. Therefore, as a general rule, the skipper either pays the fine or he goes to prison.

    369
    I know that the owners warn the skippers as far as possible when they are going out not to indulge in illegal trawling. They have done their best to stop this practice, and it is only where the skipper is coming back with a very small catch, and he is anxious for the future and afraid of dismissal, that occasionally this illegal trawling takes place. I am satisfied that it does not take place with the consent or with the approval of the owners. Therefore, in fixing the fine we should fix an amount which it is within the limits of the skipper to pay. I am strongly against increasing the maximum penalty of £100, but where there is persistent illegal trawling I suggest that we should keep the maximum where it stands at £100. If we increase the fine to £200, we are fixing a fantastic figure which can never be realised, and it will mean that the man automatically goes to prison.
    6.14 p.m.
    Mr. RICHARD LAW: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I have sometimes heard it said that the National Government are a Government of reaction. I believe that that is a charge which is disproved by the record of the National Government, and that within the past two years they have shown an openness of mind which has not been surpassed by any Government of modern times. They have shown a desire to adapt themselves to new conditions, and to adopt new expedients to meet those new conditions. It is, therefore, the more regrettable that in this case Homer has nodded and my right hon. Friend has introduced a Bill which is, in my opinion, thoroughly reactionary. This Clause is one of the most reactionary Clauses in a reactionary Bill. On such a Measure it is not surprising to me to find the two sections of the Opposition rallying to the support of the National Government. Whenever the Government have done anything which shows that they are a little in advance of the times, the two parties of the Opposition have attacked them tooth and nail, but now, when they are introducing a Clause and a Bill which are definitely reactionary, it is perhaps only natural that these two parties to the Opposition, one which persists in following the phantom of Sir Robert Peel and the other which still dallies with Karl Marx in the regions of the British Museum, should
    370
    join in supporting the Government in a most enthusiastic way.
    This Clause is extremely reactionary. We have heard of people trying to get back to the vanished world of 1914, but this is trying to put us back to an horizon far more distant than that. It is trying to put us back to the conditions which existed in 1800, when the state of English law was peculiar. At that time all kinds of savage penalties were inflicted. There were hundreds of offences for which the penalty was death. But even at that time this Clause would have been considered rather excessive. In the Poaching Act, which was passed in 1800, the penalties inflicted are nothing like as severe as those inflicted by this Clause. The maximum penalty imposed for a first offence of poaching was one month's detention in a house of correction, but the maximum penalty inflicted by this Clause for a first offence is three months' imprisonment. That is to say, the present Bill is three times as severe as the Act of 1800, and that Act is regarded as a sort of museum case of class privilege and vindictiveness. The Amendment we propose is extremely moderate. We are not asking the Government to go to the degree of leniency shown by the Act of 1800. If the Government accept the Amendment, the penalty will still be twice as severe as the penalties imposed in that Act. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept the Amendment, and that the Committee will give it an easy passage.
    6.19 p.m.
    Sir IAN MACPHERSON: I hope that the Government will resist this Amendment, as well as the other Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett.) and the hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law). We have listened to a speech from the hon. Member for South-West Hull general in its tone, describing the Bill as reactionary, as going back to the middle ages, but if the hon. Member had been a student of the Press he would see, if he had looked at the news from Iceland, that only 10 days ago a Grimsby trawler was fined £1,200, and it is not an uncommon thing for fines in Norway and Sweden to be £1,200 or £1,000. When you are creating a penalty you must look at the offence. Those who know the conditions in Scotland regard illegal trawling as one of the worst offences, a most

    371
    serious form of crime, because it filches away the livelihood of a lot of honest men. If you look at it from that point of view, you will not say that £100 is too large a fine. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen has given us instances where fines varying from £40 to £100 have been imposed. But it is quite a common thing for fines of £100 to be imposed for illegal trawling, with confiscation of some parts of the gear. Only a fortnight ago a fine of £100 was imposed in Stornoway, and in the West of Scotland such a fine is regularly imposed. Instead of this being a reactionary fine, I think it is up-to-date, and not a bit too much. I think that £200 for a second conviction is not too much. There is a clear line of demarcation, and every sea-going skipper knows the line, he knows the three-mile limit well. He has up-to-date methods of navigation, and I say that when he gets inside the three-mile limit he is doing it not unwillingly, but willingly. Accordingly, I look with the greatest severity upon a criminal offence of this kind. I hope that the Government will stick to the Bill. I do not know what their intentions are, but I know that I am speaking the views of people in Scotland and in England, apart from towns like Grimsby and Fleetwood, and of all those who take an active interest in the livelihood and welfare of a decent body of men, when I say that these fines are not too much, and that the country expects the Government to stick to their Bill.
    6.22 p.m.
    Mr. JAMES REID: I have some difficulty in following the line of thought which underlies the Amendment. From some of the remarks of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett), it would almost seem as if he wanted the penalty reduced to such a level that it was worth a skipper's while to consider whether it would not be better for him to break the law and risk the penalty, or keep the law and come back with an inadequate catch. If you are to have penalties, you should make certain that it will not be worth while for anyone to break the law, and I do not regard £100 for a really glaring case as being at all out of the question. I rather thought that the hon. Member gave away his case when he pointed out that in the vast majority of instances the fine does not reach anything like £100, and that most
    372
    of the skippers were fined about £40. Probably the fine will be £30 or £40 in the future, but what you want to do is to provide a maximum penalty for the man who is obviously a deliberate breaker of the law. If there is anything to be said in mitigation, then a fine of £100 will not be imposed. The Bill does not make £100 the minimum; it is the maximum for the worst cases, and, therefore, I hope that the Government will not give way. I do not want to be vindictive. I think there is something to be said for the reduction of three months as an alternative. A first offender skipper can hardly ever be so guilty as to deserve three months' imprisonment, and I have a great deal of sympathy with the Amendment to reduce the three months to 60 days, and also with some of his later Amendments. But, as far as the financial penalty is concerned, I hope that the Government will not reduce the figure of £100.
    6.25 p.m.
    Lord SCONE: The case against the Amendment has been so well stated that I do not wish to take up much time in supporting the proposal of the Government. For the hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law) to describe the Clause as reactionary and vindictive is rather to strain the credulity of the Committee. Who are the people who are going to suffer by the imposition of this fine? They are those who are in command of big ocean-going trawlers, who have a considerable portion of the seven seas over which they may carry on their occupation. Those who have to suffer from their depredations are the inshore fishermen, who have only a limited area in which to fish, and if that area is ruined by illegal trawling their livelihood is entirely gone. A big trawler can kiss and sail away, but a local fisherman is bound to stay where his livelihood exists. The right hon. and learned Member for Ross and Cromarty (Sir I. Macpherson) quoted a case of a fortnight ago in the Icelandic courts. I believe there has been a more recent case. I read on Saturday that another poaching trawler has been fined £1,000 by the court in Reykjavik. Hon. Members who are supporting this Amendment would be better employed in trying to get the administration of Iceland to reduce their fines, rather than in trying to induce His Majesty's Government to lower these

    373
    very reasonable penalties. This is one of the best minor Measures which the Government have introduced, and I hope that they will not give way to the two hon. Members who are running this series of Amendments.
    6.28 p.m.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The hon. Member for South West Hull (Mr. Law), who seconded the Amendment, has described the Clause as reactionary. Its object is to safeguard the legitimate rights of inshore fishermen, and, in view of what has been said by several hon. Members, I do not think it can really be described as reactionary. All we are anxious to do is to secure the legitimate rights of these men. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment made two points. In the first place he said that the convictions prior to 1924 were, on an average, 52 per year, but that in the three years 1924–26 land 1926, according to his statement, which I have no doubt is accurate, the average was 12 per year. Naturally, when the number of convictions is reduced from 52 to 12, the assumption is that illegal trawling is declining, and no doubt the Minister had that in mind when he decided that he would take no further action. The figures, however, have shown an increase since 1924, and for the three years ending 1933 the numbers are 11, 17 and 16.
    Mr. BURNETT: May I suggest that since 1925 the fishery cruisers are 11 years older, and a number have been laid up? That would account for the small increase in the last three years.
    Sir G. COLLINS: I think it rather tends to show that if the cruisers had been more efficient the number of convictions might have been considerably increased. But he also stated that the fines imposed were on an average about £40. The official information I have is that the average fine for Scotland in the year 1932 was £77, and that in 1933 it was £74. And, as other hon. Members have pointed out, the fines are maximum fines. It is in the discretion of the sheriff, if there are extenuating circumstances, not to impose the maximum fine. The hon. Member also said that during recent months, thanks mainly to the drifters and the Q boats, the number of convictions has dropped. That may be a passing phase or a permanent phase. I
    374
    hope it is a permanent phase. But the Government have set out with the one deliberate object of suppressing this illegal trawling for all time. If our Bill does not secure that, future Governments, no doubt, will bring in stronger measures. But side by side with the penalties imposed under Clause I we are to have modern fishery cruisers as well as new Q boats.
    Since the Bill received its Second Reading we have been pressed by the Convention of Royal Burghs to increase the penalties very severely, and it is true that there are much heavier penalties in other countries. But before the Government came to the decision to impose the penalties contained in this Clause, they took all the facts into consideration, and although we are to be pressed to-day in various Amendments both to increase and to reduce the penalties and sentences, I appeal to the Committee to support the Government by resisting those Amendments. We have endeavoured to steer a middle course between excessive and inadequate punishment of these offenders, and we think that the penalties will be sufficient to end permanently the process of illegal trawling that has gone on around our shores for many years. I argued the case for these penalties at length on the Second Reading, and I hope, therefore, that the Committee will excuse me if I do not go into the reasons as fully now.
    6.34 p.m.
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: The only point I wish to make is that I think it is correct to say that the fine under the existing law is £100 for the first offence. Therefore, so far from the Government having increased the penalty for the first offence, they are allowing it to remain as it was before. I do not know whether that is realised by the Committee.
    Amendment negatived.
    6.35 p.m.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, at the end, to insert:
    "and, where the person convicted is the skipper of the vessel, to the cancellation of his certificate."
    We have heard arguments put forward for and against the Clause as it stands, and for minimising the penalties that are to be imposed on individuals who trawl illegally. The question of illegal trawling has been before the House of Commons

    375
    time and time again. That is because it is of such a serious nature and because it affects the well-being of Britain. That is what is at stake here. It is not the case that we who wish the Bill to be strengthened have any animus against the trawler as such, but it is because we are doing our best to safeguard the interests of our country. We are putting our country first, before individual interests. Nothing but individual interests could have emanated from the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett) in defending the trawlers which are destroying at the moment, as they have done for 10 years, the finest race of men on earth. They are not simply taking away the fish; they are taking away the livelihood of the fishermen, particularly around the Hebrides.
    The Amendment suggests not a fine, not imprisonment, but that we take away the certificate from the skipper. Every one who has taken any interest in this question knows perfectly well that even the fines that are to be imposed by the Bill are of such a character that skippers will risk them. It is such a rich harvest that they can reap as a result of their illegal trawling. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen told the Committee that the skipper would not do this were it not that he might have a bad catch, and he did not want to go home with a bad catch because he might lose his job. Previously the hon. Member told us that the owners of the trawlers instruct their skippers that upon no consideration must they trawl illegally, and that the skippers have no encouragement to do anything of the kind. Yet he said, on the other hand, that if the men did not come back with a good catch they got the sack. If that is not an inducement to illegal trawling, I do not know what is.
    Mr. BURNETT: I did not say that they would get the sack, but that they feared, if they came back continually with poor catches, that they might get the sack. But that has nothing to do with the owners.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I leave the Committee to judge as to that. The fact remains that this illegal trawling is a menace to the Western Isles and to the whole of the west of Scotland, which is the richest fishing ground in the world. Those trawlers are destroying this rich fishing ground; they are absolutely tear-
    376
    ing away everything. The fishermen around the western shores of Scotland at one time could have shown you that at certain seasons of the year the waters were literally alive with fish. Not only were the folks resident on the coast able to secure a good staple food that would produce a hardy and intelligent race, but they were able to catch enough to enable them to sell some of their catch and obtain some of the luxuries of life. To-day they are being denied that. It is not simply the Labour party, the Socialists, who are up in arms against this illegal trawling. It is every individual who has given any thought to the subject, and who has come in contact with the terrible crime that is being committed. It is depleting that section of the communiy which was second to none in serving the country during the War. If war broke out to-morrow we have not one-fourth of the men to man the drifters that we had 12 years ago. That is an alarming statement to make and the worst of it is that it is true.
    The Secretary of State told us that the Convention of Royal Burghs has appealed to him to strengthen the Bill. They are supporting him all the way, just as we on the Labour benches are doing. We recognise that we are really getting something from the Secretary of State, that this Bill is going to help us somewhat. The Convention of Royal Burghs by no stretch of the imagination can be termed Labour or Socialist. It is Tory to the backbone, the greatest lot of old Die-hards that any country ever had. I have told them that when they have come down here. They are the team who are responsible for the present Tory Government, as far as Scotland is concerned. They would not give us Labour men a kind look, never mind a vote. But they are anxious to do what they can here to safeguard the Highlands of Scotland, and they are supporting me in this idea of suspending the certificate of the skipper.
    No less a person than Lord Mackenzie in the report of his committee suggested the very same thing. Why the Secretary of State has not accepted Lord Mackenzie's suggestion is beyond me, because Lord Mackenzie is not a revolutionary by any stretch of imagination. Lord Mackenzie had before him all the evidence. He went carefully into this matter, and he suggested that the certifi-

    377
    cate of the trawler master, on his being convicted the third time of fishing within prohibited waters, should be suspended. That is what I am asking. It is a scandal that the benches here this afternoon should be almost empty as per usual when Scottish affairs are being discussed. Every time we discuss Scottish affairs we find the same thing, and this fact is thrown at us in Scotland as a ground for demanding Scottish Home Rule. Here we are discussing a question which means life or death to this hardy and intelligent race; and the benches are empty. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Practically speaking they are. Only a few Members are here. The Press can judge, and I leave it to be judged by everybody who is here whether the benches are full or not.
    "Facts are chiels that winna ding,
    An' daurna be disputed."
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Quote it correctly. It should be "downa" not "daurna."
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: The suggestion which I make in this Amendment is a modified one, because I hold that offending trawlers ought to be taken into port and kept in port. If the skipper and the men concerned were kept on board the trawler for a month, without wages, they would not break the law again. That would put a stop to this practice, but, of course, that method would not give the lawyers any jobs. We always seem to find a way of dealing with these matters which means that lawyers must be employed to prosecute and to defend, and so on and so forth. I would like to take hon. Members to the West Isles and show them these men, as I have seen them for myself, going about with nothing to do. They are losing all ambition. They cannot go out to fish because the trawlers have taken away all the fish. Parliament and the country have a serious decision to make between scientific fishing, which is trawlingx2014;
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Question?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Yes, the most up-to-date method of fishing is trawling, and if I were to carry out what the hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law) said about Karl Marx I should support trawling if it were only a matter of pounds, shillings and pence. As I say, it is the scientific method, and it eliminates the dangers attaching to the occupation of the
    378
    men who fish in their little yawls. Theirs is one of the most dangerous occupations in Britain. As a Socialist, I would be in favour of it, but the price which I am asked to pay here is too great. That price is to let down one of the finest bodies of men and women in the British Isles. It is for those people that I am fighting here. I know that a case in favour of trawling can be put up from a monetary, a scientific and a modern point of view. It is the same as the employer of labour introducing more up-to-date machinery and doing away with manual labour. I am all for that as a Socialist, but I draw the line when I find that society to-day has made no provision to safeguard the welfare of those men and women whose only means of livelihood is fishing.
    The present Government and previous Governments have allowed this matter to drift, and these Highlanders are deteriorating even worse than the people in the slums of our big industrial centres. The Government have to choose between allowing these fishermen the means to live and allowing the unrestricted use of the more up-to-date method of scooping the fish out of the sea by means of steam drifters and trawlers, leaving the poor fishermen high and dry. In order that this Committee and the country may know the type of men for whom I am standing up, and the contribution which they have made to the greatness of this country and this Empire—which did not begin with the last War—I am going to quote from a speech made by a famous Englishman, the Earl of Chatham, on 14th January, 1765. He said:
    "I have no local attachments; it is indifferent to me whether a man was rocked in his cradle on this side or that side of the Tweed. I sought for merit wherever it was to be found. It is my boast that I was the first Minister who looked for it and I found it in the mountains of the North. I called it forth, and drew it into your service, a hardy and intrepid race of men, men who, when left by your jealousy, became a prey to the artifices of your enemies and had gone nigh to have overturned the State in the war before the last. These men in the last war were brought to combat on your side; they served with fidelity as they fought with valour and conquered for you in every part of the world." It is the descendants of the men to whom the Earl of Chatham paid that tribute whose livelihood is at stake to-day, and that is why we are asking the Secretary of State to stiffen these penalties and

    379
    make the punishment of these offending skippers harsher than it is. A fine of £100 or £200 is no use. They can get away in a night with £3,000 worth of fish where, without trawling illegally, they would not have £200 worth. Therefore, they will take the risk, and by doing so they destroy the livelihood of those fishermen who have stood by their country through thick and thin at all times. I have no compunction or conscience in standing up here in the British House of Commons and saying to this Committee that where any concession is possible it should be made to the fishermen round our shores.
    6.68 p.m.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I have great pleasure in supporting this Amendment. It is on the lines of the recommendation in the report of Lord Mackenzie's Committee which, as the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) has said, has been allowed to slide by Government after Government for, I think, nearly 20 years. I think that the report was made in 1911.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: No, it was 1923.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: At any rate, it is over 11 years ago, and it is a shocking thing that the matter should have been neglected so long, because during all that time large numbers of fishermen have suffered serious loss by illegal trawling. What the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs has said is true. They can scoop up in a single night hundreds of pounds' worth of fish, and a fine of £100 is no deterrent to these dishonest skippers. If a man is convicted repeatedly of motoring offences, we often find that his certificate is suspended for life. If a solicitor is discovered in even one act of dishonesty, he is disbarred. Is there anything sacrosanct about trawler skippers? Is there any reason why they should get repeated chances when they have acted illegally and why we should let off not only the skipper but also the owner who may have benefited materially from the skipper's illegalities if he is a rascally owner?
    I do not say there are many such owners. I want to say here that there are very few cases from Grimsby or Hull. But when you get Fleetwood trawlers coming in and breaking the law surely something should be done to deal
    380
    with persistent offenders. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Boss and Cromarty (Sir I. Macpherson) will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe there is actually a case of a man who was convicted nine times. Surely that is persistent wrong-doing. Why should a fellow like that get off with a fine when he has made a profit which is far more than the amount of the fine imposed? Until it is made definitely unprofitable, you will not put an end to this kind of law-breaking by certain individuals of a certain class. What the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs said on the last occasion was most sound. They lay up the ship, and the men lose their jobs. It may be said that that is very hard lines on the men, but it is nothing more than Army justice. If one member of a platoon overstays his leave, the authorities do not punish him but they stop the leave of the platoon, and the men give him what he deserves for landing them in that state. If the men and the boat were laid up for a period, the trouble would very soon be cured.
    I agree that the certificate should be taken away from a man who commits this offence three times. He should not put to sea again; he ought to go back to the land. He is damaging the fish and ruining the livelihood of hundreds of individuals. The punishment would be for the sake not only of the injured individuals, but also of the country. Through the legislation that was passed after Culloden, we lost the most magnificent body of men we had. The feeling was that with the infliction of the distilling laws they lost a little industry of their own—which was very possible. We perpetrated every injustice on them, and Canada and Australia have benefited by getting that population. A large number of them, however, still remain. Look what splendid fellows they make in the Mercantile Marine. I have never been in a ship without finding men from the Isles and men from Argyllshire. I have talked to little boys at school, and when I have asked them what they were going to be, they have all said that they were going to sea to get their training. You may talk about education, but you could not get a finer education for a boy than going out with his father in a fishing boat. You are making a man and a seaman of him at once. They go out

    381
    to catch fish, but they cannot catch fish now, because the trawlers destroy the fish. There are plenty of fish out in the further water, and the illegal trawling is done by knaves who do not care a button for anyone but themselves. After a man has been convicted three times he should never be allowed to go to sea again except as a deck hand. He is totally unfit to be a skipper, because he is a dishonest man, and a dishonest man should not be allowed the opportunity of taking away the livelihood of thousands of honest men. I, therefore, have much pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
    7.3 p.m.
    Sir I. MACPHERSON: I rise to support the Amendment, and I came to the conclusion to do so after very careful thought. I watched with great interest the evidence given before the Mackenzie Committee. I know something about Lord Mackenzie, and I am quite satisfied that as long ago as 1923 he would never have recommended punishment of this kind if he had not thought that it was bound to be effective. He is a very humane man, and his fellow members of the committee were humane and just. I am satisfied that this is a fair penalty for the third conviction. The withdrawal of a certificate is not a mystery. It is done every day. The scallywag in every profession has to submit to the withdrawal of his certificate. Take, for example, the sea. A captain who is guilty of faulty navigation loses his certificate. That is not a crime; it may be negligence or slackness on his part, but the Board of Trade have decided that these certificates shall be respected and kept clean, and they do not hesitate to withdraw the certificate of a man who is guilty of faulty navigation. Illegal trawling is a crime, and that is the main distinction between the two. Here, for the first time, the Government have the courage to introduce an illegal trawling Bill, but where a man has been convicted of committing a crime three times he will be more leniently dealt with than a man who, for the first time, has been guilty of no crime at all, but of faulty navigation. The situation is preposterous.
    I am reminded of a boat which was caught in the Minch last summer, the captain of which had nine convictions. What mercy should the House show to a
    382
    man of that kind? If he has done it once, he knows what the penalty is. If he does it twice, he should know all the more. But if he does it three times, knowingly and with malice aforethought, why should this House show him any mercy? Decent, law-abiding skippers of trawling fleets abhor a man of that kind, and will be the first to condemn one of their own class who persistently indulges in this atrocious act. No class of men would more willingly see this penalty included in the Bill than the trawling skippers themselves. They are a respectable and gallant lot of men, and I have always taken the view that it is the scallywag of that class who commits this offence. If we can get at him satisfactorily, we should do so now.
    The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), with his customary eloquence, had a certain amount to say about the Convention of Royal Burghs. I do not entirely agree with him, but when feeling is running high in Scotland, the Convention represent that feeling adequately and fairly. At their last meeting they unanimously agreed to support this Amendment. When they have public opinion behind them, as I venture to think they have in Scotland now, and indeed in England and in Wales, the Government should not hesitate to accept an Amendment of this kind.
    7.8 p.m.
    Mr. PETHERICK: I am, in the Committee stage, the only English Member who has spoken who does not represent a trawling constituency, but I represent a fishing constituency. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) made a very eloquent speech urging us to support this Amendment, but I sincerely hope that the Government will not accept it. He found it necessary to go back to the time of Lord Chatham, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) went back even 20 years further, in order to prove his case. I wonder why they did not go back to the Flood, because there was so much more water then that illegal trawling should have been much more prevalent. This is a technical point. There are two obvious reasons why the Government should not accept the Amendment. The first is that it would be extremely unfair to apply such a

    383
    vindictive penalty only to British masters of trawling vessels. We can have no jurisdiction over foreign vessels. I agree that it is quite possible to fine foreign vessels which come to our shores and engage in illicit trawling, but I do not think that any court can remove the master's certificate from the captain of a foreign vessel. The second point is that under this Bill, if a man is convicted three times of illicit trawling, he will certainly lose his job, anyhow.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the hon. Member aware that there are practically no convictions for illicit trawling, and can he suggest why the man who had nine convictions continued in his job?
    Mr. PETHERICK: I am not professing to argue that the Bill should not be very drastic. I should be prepared to oppose many of the other Amendments which are on the Order Paper, because I feel that the Bill should, be made stronger. It is, however, obviously unfair to apply only to a British trawler-master a penalty which you cannot possibly enforce against foreign masters. Secondly, it is obvious that even after one conviction the master runs very grave risk of losing his job, and after two or three he is absolutely certain to lose his job, and then the question of his certificate carries no importance at all. It is for those reasons that I very much hope that the Government will, with no uncertain voice, refuse to accept such a harsh Amendment.
    7.11 p.m.
    Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: I have now been in this House in five Parliaments, and in every Session of every Parliament I have heard this question discussed. Now at last we are getting down to business. I, for one, am not going to half-do the job while we have the opportunity. It is not often that I have the pleasure of supporting my hon. Friend, but I am not going to let it be said today that it is only those hon. Members representing the Highland constituencies who will support him in the action which he suggests taking. I believe that the whole of Scotland is in favour of this drastic measure. As the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) has said, they laugh at fines. What can we do? We must do something to keep that hardy race in
    384
    the Highlands in existence, and the whole of Scotland desires to do so. I, for one, shall go into the Lobby and support the Highlanders on this occasion.
    7.13 p.m.
    Mr. LAW: My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), when he made his very comprehensive speech in moving this Amendment, referred to Scottish Home Rule. I do not know whether the hon. Member has any ambition to sit in a Parliament at Edinburgh, but I can assure him that if he ever does so he will not be able to pass Measures of this kind, or to do to English fishermen the kind of thing that he wishes to do in this Bill. He would do much better to stay at Westminster, and I hope that he will do so. Both he and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) seemed, with respect, to be the victims of a certain confusion of thought. On the one hand they said that, entirely as a result of the depredations of the trawler, all the fish is taken out of Scottish waters and the unfortunate Scottish fishermen have nothing to live on. On the other hand, they both went on to argue that any trawler could come into these same Scottish waters and get a catch worth £3,000 in one night's work. If a British trawler can do that, I cannot see why the Scottish fishermen are in such a bad way. The fact is that the British trawler cannot do it.
    At the same time, the hon. Members who have quoted from the Mackenzie Report in this connection concerning the damage which is done by trawlers to these inshore fishermen are far more positive than the authors of the report themselves. The report submits its conclusions with a very considerable degree of diffidence and without any very great certainty. It says, in effect, that scientific knowledge has not developed to such an extent that we can say with certainty what the effects of trawling are. It seems to me that the tenour of the report is far more qualified and far less strong than the tenour of the speeches which we have had on the Second Reading and this afternoon in respect to this Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) pointed out, justly, that the Amendment was in effect unnecessary, because no skipper would stay in command of a ship under

    385
    this Bill until he had committed a third offence. The hon. Member also asked why it was that the Government did not implement the full recommendations of the Mackenzie Committee in this respect, and why they had not themselves provided for the cancellation of a skipper's certificate in the Bill. The reason for that was given very clearly by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in the Second Reading Debate. I am sorry that he is not here now, because I want to make some reference to what he said, but he explained that, much as the Government would like to take away a master's certificate, they dared not do it. His exact words were these:
    "We departed from the recommendation of the Mackenzie Committee in this respect, because there were difficulties in suspension or the taking away of a master's certificate for this class of reason, and we felt that exactly the same or sufficiently similar results could be obtained by the method which we have adopted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1934; col. 1121, Vol. 287.]
    I think that what my hon. Friend (meant by that—I am subject to correction, and I am sorry he is not here to correct me, if necessary—was that the Board of Trade granted a certificate of navigation to a master of a ship for certain definite qualifications and with certain definite regulations, and the only way in which he could lose that certificate would be if he began, for some reason or other, to lack those qualifications or to break those regulations of the Board of Trade. It is obvious that if that is the case, the Scottish Office could not take away a Board of Trade certificate, or, if it did, there would be such an enormous outcry that it would not be wise to do it. Therefore, my hon. Friend has gone a long way round in order to get the same result, and it seems to me that that attitude on the part of the Government is very much as if Scottish Members should come to them and say, "There is an awful lot of sheep-stealing going on in Scotland. Do you not think you had better hang people who steel sheep, as they did 100 years ago or so?" And as if the Government should answer, "We would like to do it very much, but we are afraid that, in the face of the enlightened public opinion of to-day, we cannot. However, what we will do is to make their lives so unbearable that they will commit
    386
    suicide." That is really the effect of the Bill so far as this Clause is concerned.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Sir I. Macpherson) said that there was no feeling on the part of decent skippers in English trawling ports against this Amendment, but I should like to disabuse his mind on that point, because there is a very strong feeling indeed among the skippers in the port that I have the honour to represent in this House. They feel very strongly that it is an insult to their calling that their certificate of navigation or their master's certificate should be taken away from them by anybody but the Board of Trade for anything but the offences which are specified by the Board of Trade, and they have very strong feelings indeed on that score. I hope very much that the Government will turn the Amendment down with no less firmness than they turned down the Amendment which we were discussing a few minutes ago.
    7.20 p.m.
    Mr. BURNETT: The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) mentioned that the trawlers were destroying the finest race of men, and speaker after speaker has spoken about the depredations of the trawlers being responsible for driving the inshore fishermen out of existence. While I admit that there are fewer inshore fishermen now than there were formerly, I do not admit that it is the depredations of the trawlers that has caused it. We have our experience locally on the north-east coast. We in Aberdeen had a large fleet of line boats, and we had a large population of inshore fishermen. Then the first trawler came to Aberdeen, in 1874. It was unpopular, and trawl fishermen were stoned there. At the beginning of the 1880's the trawl fleet in Aberdeen began, and the population began to see that the trawlers were getting fish in quantities quite different from those got by the line fishermen. The result is that now we have something like nine larger line boats and a certain number of smaller motor and other boats round the coast, which berth at the fish market alongside the trawlers, and we have no hand-line fishermen left.
    The reason is not the depredations by trawlers. Hand-line fishing meant a great

    387
    deal of hard work at home. It meant not only the work of the fishermen, but it meant the wife, the family, and all concerned working as well, baiting the line, getting the line ready for shooting, and so on; and when the trawlers came they found that the work could be done much more easily. What is the result? We have, I am told, 50 per cent. of our trawling population in Aberdeen who have come from round the Moray Firth and the coasts of Aberdeenshire and Kincardineshire, and they have come because they have found that they could only make a precarious living by line fishing. At the examinations for engineers and for fishermen which are held in Aberdeen large numbers come from Peter-head and the Moray Firth. This tendency is going on all over the country, and I agree with what the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs said on this point, that trawling, as the more progressive industry, is attracting the line fishermen, and the inshore fishing population is consequently dwindling. I think it is a mistake on the part of the Government to try to attract men to line fishing, and they would surely be better employed in trying to favour seine-net fishing and trawling, so that those industries could be started on the west coast. Fisheries could then be much better used than they are just now. The difficulty at present relates to the problem of marketing by line fishermen. The converted drifters come round, the buyers follow them to Oban and other towns, and while they remain there, the fish can be marketed. Then the converted drifters go and the marketing facilities cease.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not only getting away from the Amendment, but he is getting away from trawling altogether.
    Mr. BURNETT: I should like, in connection with the Amendment, to say that I think the cancellation of a master's certificate is practically achieved in the Bill already. There is no doubt that an owner will not employ a skipper who has already been convicted, because the penalties are too heavy, and it means that a skipper will be idle for a period of three years or five years. The object of the Amendment is fully achieved in the Bill, and I cannot see why the principle should carry it further.
    7.24 p.m.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: The question which is raised by the Amendment is one to which I have had to give a considerable amount of attention on previous Bills dealing with this subject. The cancellation of a master's certificate for illegal trawling at one time rather appealed to me, because I thought it would be the most appropriate punishment to inflict, but I afterwards came to the conclusion that that method of dealing with a master's certificate could not be carried out very satisfactorily, mainly for the reason that was advanced by a previous speaker.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the hon. Member aware that any licence-holder convicted three times has his licence forfeited automatically?
    Sir R. HAMILTON: There are great difficulties in dealing with skippers' certificates for offences of this nature. You can deal with them for offences under the Merchant Shipping Act, which is a different matter altogether. Therefore, we are faced with having to find some method of dealing with the skipper Who commits these offences, and I am inclined to think that the method which is devised in the Bill will be found to be the most effective, because it is obvious that a skipper who has a black mark against his name, whose employment may entail a very heavy pecuniary loss on an employer, will not get very easy employment as a skipper of a trawler, but at the same time it does not destroy his possibility of obtaining his livelihood in some other line. He still has his skipper's certificate, and he can still get employment as a skipper, although he may have very great difficulty in getting employment as a skipper of a trawler. Therefore, the Amendment would really be ineffective, because we shall never have a case in future, I think, of a skipper having three convictions against him for illegal trawling, because it is obvious that if he is employed again after one offence and he lets his owner in for a fine of £500, he will not be employed again.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: He may have caught £5,000 worth of fish.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: I think the scheme in the Bill is worth supporting, although I am no friend of the skipper who commits these offences any more than are

    389
    any of my hon. Friends here. I think that if the rest of the Bill goes through as it stands, the Amendment is unnecessary.
    7.28 p.m.
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Wilfrid Normand): I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment. Its purpose is to empower the sheriff to inflict, in addition to the other penalties provided for in the Bill, the penalty of cancellation of a master's certificate. It is important, therefore, that the Committee should realise what the penalties at present provided by the Bill are. For a first offence, they include a fine on a skipper of £100 plus imprisonment up to three months, and for a second offence a fine of £200, or imprisonment up to six months, and these two punishments may be cumulative on a third or subsequent conviction. Further, there is the very important consequence that the names of persons convicted of illegal trawling are to appear on a list provided for in a subsequent Sub-section of this Clause, and one effect of a name appearing on that list would be that if he again commits an offence, the owner becomes subject to a fine also. The result of the penalties, therefore, which the Bill provides is undoubtedly that it will be difficult for any skipper, once convicted, let alone three times convicted, to find employment as a skipper of a trawler again. I think these penalties are severe—not, I believe, more severe than the offence requires—but it is important that we should not impose penalties that are needlessly severe, as I believe the cancellation of a certificate would be.
    As has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), the owner himself may, as well as the skipper, be subjected to penalties in consequence of the conviction of the skipper for the third time. If that skipper has been in the employment of the same owner, the owner may be liable to a penalty up to £500. There accordingly may be involved a penalty of £200 on the skipper or six months imprisonment, and £500 on the owner of the vessel. In addition the name of the skipper may be listed thus greatly increasing the difficulty of his obtaining employment, so much so, that I think it would have the same effect on his prospects of employment as the actual cancellation of his certificate. There is also the other point
    390
    which has been mentioned, that the certificate which the skipper holds is not a certificate that he is a law-abiding man, but that he is a qualified navigator. The fact that he carries on systematic illegal trawling does not mean that he is an unqualified navigator, and it is not a proper ground for the withdrawal of his certificate. On these grounds, it would be improper to accept the Amendment.
    The broad grounds on which I invite the Committee to act is that we have provided large penalties in the Bill which are, I think, sufficient, and we should not go beyond what is required in order to debar people from breaking the law. Lord Mackenzie's Committee did suggest that there might be upon the third conviction a withdrawal of the certificate, but the committee did not suggest many of the other penalties which we have included, and it would not be right to take all the penalties that the Government have suggested plus the penalties which the committee suggested and accumulate them upon the head of the offending skipper. I think the committee will be satisfied that the penalties we have put in the Bill will be sufficient to meet the purpose we have in view.
    7.33 p.m.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I am disappointed that the Lord Advocate has intimated the refusal of the Government to accept this Amendment. He speaks about difficulties that stand in the way, but I cannot see why such difficulties cannot be overcome if the Government are really in favour of some such deterrent as is proposed in the Amendment. We drafted this Amendment knowing what it meant, because we believe that where the skipper of a trawler is persistently breaking the law he is no longer qualified for being a skipper of a trawler. The very fact that the Government propose cumulative penalties for recurring offences by the same skipper is an indication that they themselves believe there is a type of skipper in command of trawlers who is prepared, because of the monetary advantage to be reaped in illegal trawling, to continue the practice. Consequently, the Bill contains heavier penalties for each succeeding offence on the part of the skipper.
    Mention was made of the difficulty that stands in the way, because the certificate is granted by the Board of Trade,

    391
    not because the man is a skipper of a trawler, but because he has certain qualifications with regard to navigation that makes it possible for him to be entrusted by the Board of Trade with the power of navigating a vessel. A similar class of certificate is given to a medical practitioner to show that he is qualified to act as a doctor, and he receives it on taking his degrees. The same thing applies to a solicitor who receives his qualifications through some degree from another body. If a medical practitioner commits any offence against the law or any offence that is considered to be a breach of his professional conduct, the Medical Council—not a court of law or a sheriff as in the case of a skipper of a trawler—will, in spite of the fact that he has all the qualifications for continuing practising surgery or medicine, take his certificate from him. The legal committee concerned will also deprive a solicitor or barrister of his living for some practice it considers to be outside the professional code of morals.
    The difficulty which the Lord Advocate said stands in the way of accepting the Amendment has been met in other professions, and it can easily be met here. If the Government were favourable to accepting the Amendment, we on this side would not object to a redrafting of the wording in such a way as to bring the Board of Trade into it. It might provide that where the offence was the third offence the sheriff would have power to bring to the notice of the Board of Trade the conduct of the offending skipper, so that the hoard could consider whether in the circumstances he was worthy to hold his certificate for a further period of time or whether it should be taken from him for a time.
    Mr. JOHN WALLACE: That is not the Amendment.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I know it is not. I am pointing out to the Lord Advocate that there is a way to overcome the difficulty. A difficulty has been put forward which the Lord Advocate said stands in the way of the Amendment, and I am pointing out a way in which it could be overcome. The whole of Scottish thought and the opinion of the Press and of public bodies are in favour of this form of punishment, and I suggest that since the Government are taking powers to act
    392
    against those who are guilty of illegal trawling, it is as well to go the whole hog so that there will be an absolute deterrent to these skippers carrying on this practice.
    7.41 p.m.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I regret I cannot support the Amendment. I cannot agree with the practice with regard to doctors and solicitors, for I have always thought that the taking away of the certificates of these people was far too severe, and I am not inclined to extend it in the case of skippers. As the Amendment stands, there is no time limit for the suspension of the certificate. In the vast majority of these cases the man is an employé. If you take away his certificate you take away his livelihood, not merely on a trawler, but at any other job in a similar capacity. I cannot agree that that should be done. It seems to me terrible that if a man is sent out by the employer to do something the alternative to which might be dismissal and a lack of work, you should say to him, "You have done this at the request of your employer, but we are going to punish you practically for life by seeing that you can never take on a similar job in any other sea-going ship." That is a punishment with which I cannot agree.
    On the question of penalties, I am not going to oppose the Bill because it is in the nature of an experiment. I have a feeling that it is going too far, but I have stood aside in the Debates on it because I do not know sufficient of the problem to take sides. I look upon it as an experiment to which I am prepared to give a reasonable chance. I cannot agree, however, with so severe a punishment as taking away a skipper's certificate. I have always felt that doctors may have their careers stopped for far too trivial causes, and I cannot agree to it in the case of these skippers.
    7.44 p.m.
    Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: I am surprised at the line of argument taken by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). This matter has passed the stage of experiment. It has been a crying evil to the line fishermen for a considerable number of years, and it is only at a very late stage that the Government come along and take some steps. I do not think it is a very severe penalty when a man is guilty three times of a

    393
    breach of the law and of continuing a practice which everyone is agreed materially affects the ability of a big proportion of his fellow subjects of earning a livelihood. This is somewhat more than an ordinary conviction, and I would remind my hon. Friend that a man who is convicted once of a crime of this kind has had a sufficient indication given to him of the feeling of the country on the matter, and if he persists he is entitled to the punishment even of the cancelling of his right to act as skipper of one of these vesels. It has been pointed out that the man is an employé, but there is no law to prevent even a skipper of a vessel who is an employé from becoming a member of a trade union, and if his fellow skippers also joined the union they would be able to deal with any employers who sought to intimidate them into doing things which would bring them into conflict with the law. I sincerely hope the Lord Advocate will reconsider this matter along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan. We are not tied to the wording of this Amendment, but we are particularly anxious that this evil should be prevented, and in our belief one of the main means of preventing it is by imposing a penalty such as we have suggested.
    7.47 p.m.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I hope the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will not do what is suggested by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham). There are many of us who are not very fond of this Bill and who think the penalties are very hard indeed. We wish such penalties could be inflicted on the skippers of some of the foreign trawlers which come round our coasts at other places. The case of a medical man deprived of his right to follow his profession has been mentioned, but we do not take away a doctor's right to practice because he happens to have been convicted for exceeding the speed limit. Neither do we take away the degree of a Master of Arts because he happens to have been caught poaching. I do not wish in any way to belittle the offences committed by some of these trawling skippers, but I do not think we shall improve things by these very severe punishments, which must leave a grave sense of injustice in the minds of the men concerned. On this occasion I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member
    394
    for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). It seems almost inconceivable that people who say that they represent the interests of labour Ian wish to take away the very hardly-earned certificates of these working-men. I think it is a monstrous suggestion. The Government have been obliged to pursue the course which they are now taking because it would be unjust if they did anything else, but as one who does not like the Bill it was with much relief that I heard the Government announce their decision on this particular Amendment, and I hope they will resist those who wish to go on adding penalty to penalty. The way to deal with this matter is by being strictly fair and impartial, by getting people to realise that the whole fishing industry must stand together, and that we cannot allow this poaching; but we shall not stop the evil by these absurd penalties.
    7.51 p.m.
    Mr. J. WALLACE: The attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) on this particular subject has given me a feeling of disappointment. I do not yield one inch to him in my interest in the inshore fishermen and all that concerns their calling, but I cannot follow his argument when he attempts to set up a parallel between doctors and lawyers and the captains of these trawlers. To my mind my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate gave a complete answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Govan. A certificate is given to a man for the mastery of his work, it is a captain's certificate.
    Mr. D. GRAHAM: Pirates had captains' certificates.
    Mr. WALLACE: Well, pirates were not condemned to everlasting piracy, but have been given a second chance, and at times in our rough island story there have been admirals of the Fleet who had been pirates. My hon. Friend's Amendment would make it absolutely impossible for one of these trawler captains to follow his career in future. I always thought that my hon. Friends in the Labour party had a somewhat kindly feeling for those who work on the sea, whether as sailors or captains, and I was not prepared for the vindictive action of my hon. Friend towards a man who has made a mistake three times. Let him turn to the Scriptures, in which he was so carefully nur-

    395
    tured, and he will find a direction given there about forgiving a moan not three times and not seven times but seventy times seven. Why my hon. Friend, who has the interests of the working classes so much at heart, should, suddenly become so cruel and autocratic in his attitude towards the man who has sinned three times I am quite at a loss to understand. As I say, I consider the Lord Advocate has given my hon. Friend a complete answer, and I hope that this Amendment will be resisted. The penalties in the Bill are sufficient to deal with all the offences.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Are you not prepared to apply that Scriptural injunction about seventy times seven, to the Lord Advocate in regard to these penalties?
    Mr. WALLACE: For a Scotsman, my hon. Friend's mind works rather slowly. It is a long time since I made that reference.
    Mr. MACLEAN rose—
    Mr. WALLACE: I will give way.
    Mr. MACLEAN: No, I can speak again after you.
    Mr. WALLACE: I am sure that my hon. Friend will permit me to disclaim any intention of saying anything to offend his susceptibilities, and if I have said anything of that kind I would like him to deal with it now; but I forgive him his interruption, and if he interrupts three times I shall still forgive him. I feel very strongly that full provision has been made in the Bill to deal with all possible offences, and I hope the Government will resist this, to me, extremely vindictive Amendment.
    Mr. MACLEAN: May I point out to my hon. Friend that we on this side are by no means vindictive? What we are doing is to punish vindictive trawlers who persist in illegal trawling and so take away the livelihood of the very men whom my hon. Friend ought to be defending.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided; Ayes, 42; Noes, 236.

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Magnay, Thomas

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Scone, Lord

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Goff, Sir Park

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

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rPd. N.)

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Granville, Edgar

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

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

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kind'line, C.)

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

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

    Soper, Richard

    Hales, Harold K.

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

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

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Munro, Patrick

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Harbord, Arthur

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Head lam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

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

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Stevenson, James

    Honeage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    North, Edward T.

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

    Hornby, Frank

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Stones, James

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

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

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

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Pearson, William G.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Inskip, Rt. Hon Sir Thomas W. H.

    Peat, Charles U.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

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

    Penny, Sir George

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Janner, Barnett

    Petherick, M

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Jennings, Roland

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Templeton, William P.

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

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

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Potter, John

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pybus, Sir Percy John

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

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

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Rankin, Robert

    Tree, Ronald

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Law Sir Alfred

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Leckie. J. A.

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Rickards, George William

    White, Henry Graham

    Lewis, Oswald

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Liddall, Waiter S.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Little, Graham, Sir Ernest

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Lieweilln, Major John J.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Wilton, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

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

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Withers, Sir John James

    Mabane, William

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Womersley, Walter James

    MacAndrew. Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    McCorquodale. M. S.

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Llverp'l)

    Sir Frederick Thomson and

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Salt, Edward W.

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

    McKeag, William

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:
    In page 1, line 15, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that in any case where a person guilty of illegal trawling offers resistance to any superintendent of the herring fishery or other officer employed in the execution of the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Acts, 1771 to 1890, the court may impose a penalty in excess of that provided in this Sub-section."—[Mr. Maclean.]
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Cadogan): If the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) desires to move his Amendment, he should move it as an Amendment to Clause 3.
    8.8 p.m.
    Mr. BURNETT: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided always that a person shall not be deemed guilty of illegal trawling nor shall any vessel be deemed to be used for the purpose of illegal trawling under this Act, if, in the opinion of the appropriate court of summary jurisdiction, any such vessel shall be found trawling inadvertently and without deliberation in any restricted or proscribed area in consequence of fog, bad visibility, stress of weather, force of wind or tide or (without the privity of the skipper or any certificated hand in charge) careless navigation of any of the crew, or in consequence of any similar extenuating cause."
    The object of the Amendment is to make a distinction between the case of

    399
    a man who has inadvertently transgressed the law and that of a pirate. We have already made a distinction between the first offender and the man who persistently offends, and it is only right that we should make the distinction between the man who offends innocently and the man who puts out his lights, blacks away his number, hides his identification mark and has masked men on board. There is considerable room for error and the existing law has not allowed for it. A fog may arise and no land may be visible. I gave a recent instance of that during the Debate on the Second Reading. A trawler travelled south from northern fishing grounds and was passing the Moray Firth. No land was in sight because there was a thick fog. It was only when the skipper saw a line boat that he realised that he had gone too far westward. He turned promptly and went to sea, but he was summoned and a modified penalty was imposed.
    A skipper may go four miles out from land and drop a Dhan buoy. He does not go round and round the buoy covering the same ground over and over again, but he takes a beat on the far side of the Dhan buoy parallel to the land, which may be five or seven miles in length. Suppose that the skipper goes down below to have a sleep and leaves the mate in charge on the bridge, or leaves the second fisherman there instructing him to keep the buoy in sight; a fog may come up, and the mate may inadvertently pass inside the buoy, or there may be unskilful navigation. The fishery cruiser cornea and the skipper is then accused of illegal trawling, although clearly there is no guilty intention. I think that kind of case ought to be allowed for. There may be stormy weather. A gale may be blowing landwards, or there may be a strong current towards the land or a strong tide. Especially if that happens at a time when the skipper is hauling up the gear—if there is a strong landward wind at the time, it is very easy for the boat to drift a considerable distance before the skipper is aware that he has come inside. Those are cases of error that may arise, and it is very important to allow for them in the Bill.
    It is not always easy to make certain of bearings. The skipper of the trawler has not the same navigation instruments and cannot get bearings in the same accu-
    400
    rate way as can the officer of a fishery cruiser. The officer has a sextant, but the skipper of a trawler has to rely upon compass bearings. Very often lights are spaced far apart. The distance between Girdle Ness Lighthouse and the lighthouse at Tod Head is about 20 miles. It can easily be understood that it is difficult, especially if there is fog, to see more than one light, and if only one light can be seen it is difficult to reckon how far away it is. It may be two and a-half or it may be five miles. The angle has to be got by compass, and it is very easy to go slightly out, and to arrive a mile inside the position. Errors like that may easily arise, and for that reason it is very important that the skipper should have opportunity, in cases of doubt, of checking bearings with the officer of the fishery cruiser.
    I heard of a case which arose not very long ago off the Isle of Skye. A trawler was there and the skipper was challenged for illegal trawling by the fishery cruiser. The skipper maintained that he was not within the limit and asked to be allowed to check bearings with the cruiser officer. He went on board the cruiser, and it was found that one of the lights had been taken, in mistake, to be Dunvegan light. The mistake was explained. But suppose that the skipper had not gone on board the cruiser; he might easily have been brought up on a charge of illegal trawling and have been convicted. It is also very important, for the avoidance of error, that convictions should not take place solely on the evidence of inshore fishermen. Inshore fishermen have as a rule no experience of navigation instruments. They have rough and ready methods of getting bearings, by sinking stakes into the ground it may be. Convictions have been secured upon that. They may take bearings from heaps of stones, or in various other ways. A certain number of small line boats have compasses, but there is not the means of checking deviations from the bearings, and in even a slight swell it is absolutely impossible to get accurate bearings with the card of the compass continually rocking. The only way of fixing a position accurately is either by horizontal angles with sextant and station pointer, or by a compass with an Azimuth mirror.
    There is thus great likelihood of error, and it is important that convictions should not take place only upon the evi-

    401
    dence of inshore fishermen, but that there should be evidence from the fishery cruiser in support. At present there is no differentiation between honest error and piracy, and something should be done to remedy that situation. Very heavy punishments should not be inflicted upon a skipper who may inadvertently have committed an offence.
    8.13 p.m.
    Commander COCHRANE: I hope that the Minister does not intend to accept this Amendment, because I think that it would then be impossible to obtain a conviction. The Amendment deals with the case of a man who has made an error "inadvertently," to use the word of the Amendment. It will be impossible to ask the court to decide to what extent a trawler may have gone inadvertently beyond the limit or to what extent the skipper may have got her into that position deliberately. There is even a simpler and more complete answer to the Amendment than that. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett) spoke as though there was some necessity for a trawler to be just outside the three-mile limit and in danger of just coming over the imaginary line; as though there were difficulty for them to know whether they were outside or inside. The distance between Girdle Ness light and the other light which he mentioned is obviously a case where it might be difficult for a trawler to determine whether she was 2.8 miles north or 3.2. Why should she be either at one or the other distance? There is no compulsion for a trawler to be always dodging about just outside the three-mile limit.
    Mr. BURNETT: During the winter months fish are usually within five miles of the shore, and naturally a trawler which is six miles from the shore is very likely to catch nothing. That is my information.
    Commander COCHRANE: I would not like to dispute with my hon. Friend as to what fisherman gave him that information, but, clearly, no information of that sort can be of general application. It may be, and no doubt is, true as regards the particular place to which my hon. Friend's informant was referring, but one cannot make any general observation of that sort with regard to the whole coast of Scotland, and in any case the intention of the Bill is to prevent
    402
    trawling within the three-mile limit, for the very purpose of protecting the fish. The answer to the Amendment of my hon. Friend is, I suggest, that there is no reason for trawlers to dodge about just outside the three-mile limit. I agree that, if they persist in doing so, there are bound to be charges in cases where they may claim, and possibly correctly, that they were just outside the three-mile limit, but all those cases of difficulty and hardship can be avoided if the skippers of trawlers will treat the three-mile limit with respect, as being a place where they ought not to be. The solution of the difficulty is really in their own hands. I am sure that the insertion of this Amendment would make any and every enforcement of the law impossible, and, therefore, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not accept it.
    8.17 p.m.
    Mr. LAW: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Commander Cochrane) speaks with considerable authority on these matters of navigation and so on, but at the same time I think he has been a little too definite in his remarks on this Amendment. His argument, as I understand it, falls into two parts. In the first place, he says that there is no reason at all why a trawler should be fishing 3.2 miles from the shore. But, surely, if this is a Bill to impose a three-mile limit, and to impose penalties for transgression of the three-mile limit, there is every reason why a trawler should be fishing 3.2 miles from the shore if the fish happen to be there. The limit is not one of 3.2 miles but of three miles.
    Commander COCHRANE: I should agree with my hon. Friend provided that the trawler could accurately fix her position. My point is that admittedly there are difficulties in fixing the position, and it is far better that the trawler should keep farther out, where there can be no doubt as to her being outside the three-mile limit.
    Mr. LAW: I admit that there is some force in that contention, but, at the same time, it seems to put a great responsibility on the trawler to suggest that she should keep four or even five miles out on a certain coast when the limit is put at only three miles. I remember that my

    403
    hon. and gallant Friend raised the same point on the Second Reading, but it seems to me, on thinking the matter over since, that he was rather forgetting that the question of the limit does not always arise along a plain and simple coastline. There are some cases where to determine the three-mile limit is a matter of extreme difficulty and doubtfulness. For example, if you take the mouth of a firth in Scotland, the three-mile limit is then a line drawn between two points three miles from each of the two headlands of the firth, and to keep outside the three-mile limit in a case like that is to be to all intents and purposes in mid-ocean. If there is any thickness in the weather at all, the skipper might Just as well be in the middle of the Atlantic, and he has to rely entirely upon such instruments as he has and upon his judgment. It may very well happen that his judgment may be wrong, and it seems to me that there ought to be some distinction in the Bill between the skipper who makes an error of judgment of that kind and the skipper who embarks on what has been described as an act of piracy.
    It is all very well to say, as my hon. and gallant Friend did say in an earlier Debate, that the skipper ought to avoid the three-mile limit as he would avoid a rocky coast in a fog, but even a skipper trying to avoid a rocky coast in a fog sometimes makes a mistake and goes ashore. Sometimes he gets his boat off. But in this case, even though his error of judgment may be an honest one, there will be no question of getting his boat off; the whole gamut of the penalties of the Act will fall upon him if he makes the slightest error of judgment. My hon. and gallant Friend also said just now that the great weakness of the Amendment was that if the Government accepted it no court would ever convict, and I was very sorry to see the Lord Advocate make signs of approval. No doubt we shall have an explanation from him on that point, but it seems to me that a Scottish court will be quite capable of looking after the interests of Scottish inshore fishermen as against English, or even Scottish, trawlers. I should not have thought that there would be any reason for anxiety, but that, if there were any benefit of the doubt in a doubtful case, it would certainly go to
    404
    the local inshore fishermen rather than to the foreign trawler. But, even if we admit the argument that this Amendment would in some way prejudice the course of justice, the whole teaching of history seems to point exactly the opposite moral to that which my hon. and gallant Friend pointed. All experience seems to show that it is when the penalty is vicious and drastic that courts are unwilling to convict, but that when there is a lenient and moderate penalty the courts are not afraid of convicting, and you do not get any perversion of justice.
    I cannot see how the Government can adopt the attitude which they seem to adopt throughout this Bill, namely, the attitude that any straying at all over the three-mile limit is a crime which must be stamped out like the plague. They seem to make no kind of distinction between one kind of poaching and another. The Bill makes no kind of distinction between active piracy and honest error. As far as I can understand the Bill, everything in it is either black or white. There is no modification; there is never any black shading into gray, shading into white; there are never going to be any doubtful cases. Experience seems to me to show that such an attitude is most unreasonable, and any Bill based upon it must, in my opinion, be to that extent a bad Bill. I very much hope that the Government may find it possible, if not to accept this Amendment, at any rate to consider whether they themselves could not insert some form of words in the Bill which would bring it more into accord with the facts of life as we know them to-day—of a life in which men are human, and sometimes make mistakes.
    8.24 p.m.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I should like to echo the concluding words of the hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law), in which he asked whether the Government would not consider at any rate some Amendment on these lines. I confess that I do not very much like the actual wording of this Amendment, but could not an Amendment be put forward to provide something like this, that, if the court were satisfied that the skipper in question had an honest and bona fide belief that he was outside the three-mile limit, and it was simply an honest mistake on his part if he was inside the limit, the court should be entitled to

    405
    acquit him? If there were an Amendment framed something in that way, would the Government be prepared to consider it? We are greatly increasing the penalties to be imposed on trawler skippers, and we are imposing new penalties altogether on owners, and surely there ought to be some proviso of this sort in order to ensure that, if a man is to be convicted and to suffer these very heavy punishments, there should be the element of knowledge in the offence that he has committed.
    8.26 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I should like to stress what has been said by the last two speakers. These penalties are much too rigid. I can suppose a case where the first conviction is purely on technical grounds. The subsequent penalties are very severe, and I see no modification in the Bill whereby the court may take a lenient view as to stress of weather, for example. The only parallel that I can see is a motoring case, and I know, as a magistrate, the difficulty of convicting when the penalties are severe. For that reason, I suggest that it is to the interest of those who wish to preserve the three-mile limit that something on the lines of this Amendment should be adopted.
    8.27 p.m.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I think the Committee ought to realise that what the Amendment purports to do is to alter the existing law and make it more lax than it is at present. The Bill deals with the enforcement of the existing law. The Amendment provides a defence to a charge under the existing law which is not open to-day, and, therefore, it will make the substantive law of illegal

    Division No. 193.]

    AYES.

    [8.32 p.m.

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Janner, Barnett

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Fool, Dingle (Dundee)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Mr. Burnett and Mr. R. Law.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

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

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Albery, Irving James

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'thId., Hexham)

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

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

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

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Copeland, Ida

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Burnley)

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Banfield, John William

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Cape, Thomas

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Crossley, A. C.

    Batey, Joseph

    Carver, Major William H.

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Daggar, George

    Braithwaite, Mai. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

    Christie, James Archibald

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

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Denman. Hon. R. D.

    trawling laxer than it is to-day if it goes through. I do not think this is an appropriate occasion for relaxing the law of illegal trawling. If the Amendment were passed, it would be almost useless to prosecute in any case. A fishery cruiser finds a trawler in a forbidden area. The only evidence that the prosecutor can give is the geographical fact that the trawler was there trawling. If you admit a defence such as that it was there without deliberation, that it was there through the careless navigation of a member of the crew, or that the skipper had the honest and bona fide belief that he was outside the three-mile limit, you need never commence a prosecution at all. The defence will succeed in every case. There is no counter evidence that you can bring against it.
    Mr. LAW: Is it not the case that under Admiralty law a defence of that kind is good, but, in spite of that fact, prosecutions are sometimes successful?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I think not. If you are in breach of one of the articles for the prevention of collision at sea, it is no ground of defence to say you thought the light that was actually on your starboard bow was on your port bow. Bona fide error is no defence for failure to take proper observations. You have to take the consequences both of your errors and of your deliberate actions. Accordingly, this, or any similar Amendment will drive a coach and four not only through the Bill but through all the existing enactments, and it is impossible to accept it.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 5; Noes, 223.

    Dobble, William

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Rickards, George William

    Doran, Edward

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Drewe, Cedrie

    Lawson, John James

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Leckie, J. A.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

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

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Dunglass, Lord

    Leonard, William

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Eady, George H.

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Edwards, Charles

    Liewellin, Major John J.

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Salt, Edward W.

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Lunn, William

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

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

    Sanderson, sir Frank Barnard

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Scone, Lord

    Flint, Abraham John

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Fox, Sir Gilford

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    McEntee. Valentine L.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Glyn, Major sir Ralph G. C.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Smith, Sir J. Walker. (Barrow-in-F.)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

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

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Soper, Richard

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Greene, William P. C.

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

    Stevenson, James

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

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

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Mayhew, Lieut-Colonel John

    Stones, James

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

    Milne, Charles

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Milner, Major James

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

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

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Templeton, William P.

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Thorne, William James

    Hales, Harold K.

    Munro, Patrick

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Tinker, John Joseph

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

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

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

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Tufnell, Lieut. Commander R. L.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

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

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Pearson, William G.

    White, Henry Graham

    Hornby, Frank

    Peat, Charles U.

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

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

    Penny, Sir George

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Petherick, M.

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

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

    Potter, John

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

    Wills. Wilfrid D.

    Jennings. Roland

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Wilmot, John

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Withers, Sir John James

    John, William

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

    Rankin, Robert

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rea, Walter Russell

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Captain Sir George Bowyer and

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Remer, John R.

    Commander Southby.

    Kirkwood, David

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    8.40 p.m.
    Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out "1771 to 1890."
    This is a purely drafting Amendment. The Bill repeals the Act of 1890, and therefore it is necessary to delete these dates. In view of this brief explanation, I hope that the Committee will agree to the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    8.41 p.m.
    Mr. LEONARD: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, to leave out "(exclusive of warps)."
    408
    The Sub-section to which this Amendment is directed permits the officers of the Fishery Board to seize
    "any net and gear (exclusive of warps) used or attempted to be used for the purpose of illegal trawling."
    Hon. Members whose names are associated with mine in this matter are of the opinion that it is permissible at the present time to seize the warps as well. We are also guided in that opinion by the fact that these warps are essential factors in the equipment of trawling, and as such we are at a loss to understand why they should be excluded from the action of the Fishery Board. We

    409
    therefore desire the Secretary of State for Scotland to give an explanation as to why, as it appears to us, the powers of seizure are being lessened instead of strengthened under the Bill as it is at present.
    8.42 p.m.
    Sir G. COLLINS: I can understand the uncertainty arising in the mind of the hon. Member about this very email point. We propose to leave out the warps for the reason that they are useful at sea and may be used at times for towing purposes, and we think that if warps were seized trawlers might not be quite so safe. It is purely on the question of safety at sea that we have made the provision on the lines I have indicated, and I hope that after that simple explanation the Amendment will be withdrawn. There is no other reason or purpose behind the provision except that of safety.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Have the warps been confiscated on any previous occasion, and is there any known occasion when there was any danger to a vessel from which the warps were seized?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I cannot charge my memory with a specific answer to that question. In preparing the Bill we considered whether a trawler might not be exposed to danger if the warps were confiscated, and it is purely on this account that the exception has been made. At the moment I am not fully seized of the cases which have occurred in the past, but it was pointed out to me that life at sea might be endangered.
    Mr. LEONARD: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    8.44 p.m.
    Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, after "owner," to insert:
    "of the vessel in or from which such net or gear was used or attempted to be used as aforesaid."
    The Amendment is in order to make it clear that the boat referred to is the one in which such gear or net was used or attempted to be used. It is a purely drafting Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. BURNETT: I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, to leave out Subsection (3).
    410
    This Amendment relates to the penalties which are imposed upon owners. The Sub-section creates an offence. If the skipper is guilty of illegal trawling and thereby commits a criminal offence, the owner is to be vicariously responsible. Under Scottish law, if the servant of a master commits damage the master is liable for that damage, but if the servant commits a criminal act in the course of his employment and the master has no felonious knowledge of what he is doing, the master is not guilty. If, for instance, a chauffeur gets drunk and, in driving his master's car runs down a man, the master is not guilty of culpable manslaughter, I do not see why in the present case the trawler owner should be guilty.
    The Sub-section goes entirely on the supposition that the owner is aware of what the skipper has done, whereas my experience is, and I have made inquiries as fully as possible, that the owners have done nothing, certainly not the Aberdeen trawler owner, to encourage illegal trawling in any way. They have done their best to put it down and have dismissed skippers who have been guilty of illegal trawling. The Sub-section falls most heavily upon the skipper, because an owner, naturally, will not employ a skipper who has already been convicted; the punishments are too heavy. If it is a case of inadvertence, such as I have mentioned before, if the skipper has inadvertently committed an offence, then under the Bill his career is ruined. He may have had an absolutely blameless record before, but because he has gone over the line he is convicted, and, in consequence, an owner will not employ him for another three or five years, as the case may be. I think that is putting too heavy a, penalty upon the skipper. The Sub-section is objected to by the owners because it places a stigma upon them. It suggests that the owner is responsible for illegal trawling when, as a matter of fact, the owner is doing nothing to encourage it but is doing his best to discourage it. For these reasons, I propose the Amendment.
    8.49 p.m.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I want, briefly, to support the Amendment simply on the ground expressed by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett), that I think we ought to regard with great suspicion any extension of this particular principle into our law, whether it be the

    411
    law of Scotland or the law of England. It is only on very rare occasions that the House has agreed to incorporate in legislation the vicious principle of vicarious liability. I know that it has been done on one or two very rare occasions. It was done in the Licensing Consolidation Act, 1910, and it is possible to find one or two other examples where it has been put into a Statute because there has not been any other effective way of enforcing the law; but it is only in such cases that we have admitted the principle of vicarious liability. As a general rule, the House will be well advised to stick to the sound general principal that mens rea is an indispensable factor, and that there should be no crime without a guilty mind. In this case there may be no element of knowledge whatsoever. The owner may have given the most expressed orders to the skipper that he is not to indulge in illegal trawling, and he may be many miles away at the time when the offence is committed.
    The result of this Sub-section can only be further to penalise a man who has already got a conviction against him. Already the owner may have suffered some loss because it is possible, on conviction, to have confiscation of the gear in addition to the imposition of a fine upon the skipper. Therefore, in effect, there may be a heavy penalty imposed upon the owner. We are going very much further in this Sub-section when we expressly say that a man may be responsible for an offence of which he has no knowledge and which he may have done his best to avoid. There are two ways of deterring the spread of a particular offence. One is to increase the penalties for the offence and the other is to increase the efficiency of the method of policing. Before we impose heavy penalties of this kind and try to extend the principle of vicarious liability in our law we ought to see what can be done by improving our policing methods, whereby the offence of illegal trawling can in future be detected. We heard from the Secretary of State on the Second Reading of the Bill that the Government had ordered new boats, of greater speed than any former cruisers have been able to command for this purpose, and I suggest that we ought to wait and see what effect they have before
    412
    we impose these very heavy penalties and extend a principle which the House should regard with the very greatest suspicion.
    8.53 p.m.
    Mr. LAW: I support the Amendment. Earlier in the evening the Lord Advocate pointed out to hon. Members who complained that the Bill does not implement the whole of the recommendations of the Mackenzie Report, that if they would study the Bill they would find that in some important respects it went even further than the recommendations of that report. Sub-section (3) is a case in point. I doubt very much if the Committee realise that not only does this Sub-section go further than the Mackenzie Committee's recommendation but that actually in this Sub-section the Bill goes directly against one of the recommendations of the Mackenzie Committee. In discussion of penalties, on page 60 of their report, the Mackenzie Committee recommend that in cases of certain offences more drastic penalties should be imposed. It proceeds to define the kind of offences as offences in which the skipper falsifies letters and numbers of identity, or offences in which a ship is engaged in trawling without the prescribed lights in prohibited areas. For that kind of offence the Mackenzie Committee recommend that power should be given to the Sheriff in the case of a first offence to cancel or suspend the master's certificate. It then goes on to say that in cases of first offences which are not made worse by falsification of identity or by absence of lights at night no additional penalty should be imposed, and the master's certificate should not be suspended or taken away. In fact, under this Sub-section the master's certificate is suspended no matter how innocent he may be of the offence, and no matter whether it is a purely technical offence or not. That is not only going beyond the recommendations of the Mackenzie Committee but against their recommendations. Reading the Sub-section it would seem at first sight that the skipper is not penalised for the first but for the second offence. The Sub-section reads:
    "A person who has, within the immediately preceding three years been guilty of illegal trawling…and has been more than once so convicted, the owner of the vessel shall be guilty of an offence…."
    It looks as though it is only the second offence to which the Sub-section applies,

    413
    but in practice it must prove that if a skipper commits an offence he loses his employment; no employer will employ him for three years because of the penalties to which the employer would be subject. In its result this is equivalent to suspending the master's ticket for a first offence for three years, and I submit that that is harsh treatment indeed. It would not be so bad but for the argument used by the Lord Advocate in resisting the last Amendment, when he pointed out that it was impossible for Scottish law to take cognisance of any factors such as carelessness, negligence or misfortune, or any extenuating circumstances whatever.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): Shipping law.
    Mr. LAW: It does not alter the force of my argument, that owing to the exigencies of the law it is impossible for the court to make any recommendation of mercy, it has to record a conviction although it does not levy a fine. In the War there were numbers of cases in which British trawlers, acting on instructions from the Admiralty, fished within prohibited areas, and they were arrested for breaking the law. When the skippers pleaded that they were told to do so by the Admiralty the court said that although they sympathised with them and admitted that it was not their fault, they had to record a conviction and a fine of £5, which shows that the court thought they were purely nominal offences. If the Sub-section stands as it is now a skipper who comes before the court for what the court itself admits to be a purely nominal offence will have a conviction recorded against him, even if no fine is imposed, his name will be put on the black list of the Board of Trade and he will be effectively prohibited from employment as a skipper of a trawler for three years. It is a poor argument to say that if he loses his employment as skipper he can always go as deck hand. It is a most unjust and monstrous penalty to impose on a man who makes one mistake of a trifling character, and I hope the Government will find some way out of the difficulty. A skipper is being most unjustly and unfairly treated by a penalty which takes away his livelihood for a first offence.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. J. REID: I think the Committee will insist on some such Sub-section as we have in the Bill. Most of those who voted for the Government on the Amendment regarding the suspension of a skipper's certificate did so on the understanding that an alternative procedure was provided under Sub-section (3). Therefore, it seems to me that something on the lines of this Sub-section must necessarily be included in the Bill. Whether the Sub-section is susceptible of some Amendment is another matter. I see there is a proposal to reduce the three years to two, and no doubt there is a good deal to be said for it, but could not some alternative Amendment be proposed whereby the sheriff might have a discretion not to report the skipper to the Board of Trade for inclusion in the black list in a case where he thinks there are extenuating circumstances. In that way, the case put so strongly and so justly by the hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law) would be met, and, whatever be the exigencies of the law in the direction of it being necessary to record a conviction, although it may be only a technical offence, we have sufficient confidence in the discretion of Scottish sheriffs who administer the law to leave in their hands the question whether it was a deliberate offence, in which case no one will object to the man's name being put on the black list, or only a technical offence, in which case there is much to be said for the man not being penalised for three years in respect of a first offence. I suggest that an Amendment on these lines might be considered before the Report stage.
    As far as the point put by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) is concerned, anyone engaged in the practice of the law deplores an extension of vicarious responsibility in cases where there is no knowledge in the person who is found guilty. But the hon. Member has omitted to realise that there is a knowledge in the man at present. He has knowledge in the black list that the man he is employing is an untrustworthy person and has been proved such by a previous conviction. That is a notice to the employer that he employs such a man at his peril and, if he chooses to employ a man knowing that he has broken the law in the past then—and if the Government accept an Amendment such as I

    415
    have indicated his name would not be on the black list for a trivial offence—then a fortiori an owner who employs such a man is justly convicted because he is employing a man who has not only committed a technical offence but a real offence. Subject to the suggestion that the sheriff might be given this discretion I entirely favour the retention of the Subsection.
    9.4 p.m.
    Sir G. COLLINS: The point raised by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. J. Reid) is a little previous. He is anxious to leave a discretionary power in the hands of the sheriff, but if the Amendment is carried the Sub-section disappears. The Amendment, indeed, cuts at the root of the Bill, and it is impossible for the Government to accept it. There seems to be some misunderstanding still as to the present practice. Under the law as it stands the owner of a trawler for a first offence may lose gear of the value of about £120. Under the Bill, if the captain of the ship has not committed an offence before, the owner is not penalised. The owner is penalised only if the captain of his vessel has been convicted before within the specified period. Therefore there seems to be ample precaution against the owner being unfairly treated. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. D. Foot) stated that we should not penalise the owner who had done his best to avoid being penalised. The hon. Member must have forgotten that if the owner employs a skipper who has been once convicted he does it with his eyes open and knows that he is taking a sporting, chance of being convicted.
    The Mover of the Amendment stated that there were not many convictions from Aberdeen. I am glad to say that from certain East Coast ports which I shall not mention there have been very few convictions. It is only from certain ports that there has been this illegal practice, which led the Government to bring in the Bill. The hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law) argued with force about the conditions which existed and the penalties which were imposed upon trawlers during the War. He pointed out that so far as he could gather there were some convictions which appeared to be unfair to those who were concerned. But to argue from the
    416
    strange conditions of those days to the impartial justice which I think our sheriffs in Scotland will mete out to those who are brought before them under this Bill, is hardly consistent. We have been urged, as I stated earlier, to increase the penalties far more, but we feel that the penalties are sufficient for the purpose, and if they are not sufficient amending legislation may be forthcoming. I appeal to the Committee to resist the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    9.8 p.m.
    Mr. BURNETT: I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, to leave out "three," and to insert "two."
    This raises the question of the length of time for which a skipper would be black-listed. If the period is three years the skipper will lose practically all his skill by the end of the time. I hope that the Government will consider a mitigation of this penalty. It may be a first offence, where the skipper had no guilty intention at all but has just got into difficulties owing to foggy weather or the fault of someone else. If he has to be black-listed I hope the Secretary of State will see his way to make the period as short as possible, seeing that it is for a first offence.
    9.9 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I am glad to support my hon. Friend on this Amendment. Although I would rather see one year instead of two, if we can get this concession from the Government it will do something to help the man who may be thrown out of employment. I fear very much that as soon as it is found that a conviction has been recorded against a skipper, especially when there are so many skippers available, a man who is a first-rate fisherman may be thrown out of work.
    9.10 p.m.
    Sir G. COLLINS: The Committee having agreed to keep in Sub-section (3) of the Clause the question of the three years is a matter of detail. We have been impressed not only by the Debate here but by many conversations with those who have an interest in this matter that the period of three years is rather long. If I thought that two years would prejudice in any sense the full purpose of the Bill, which is to suppress illegal trawling, I would be no party to accept-

    417
    ing it, but because I feel that the reduction of the three years to two years will tend to mitigate the hardship which may arise in the case of those skippers who have been convicted of illegal trawling and that at the same time the Bill will not suffer in its purpose, I have very much pleasure in accepting the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    9.12 p.m.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, at the end, to insert:
    "and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months."
    Since the Secretary of State has for the first time accepted an Amendment, I trust that he will be equally generous in accepting this proposal. It is an Amendment which seeks to have heavier penalties imposed on the owner. The last few lines of Sub-section (3), if the Amendment were incorporated, would read:
    "The owner of the vessel shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding, on a first conviction one hundred and fifty pounds, on a second conviction two hundred and fifty pounds, and on a third or subsequent conviction five hundred pounds, and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months."
    The purpose is perfectly clear. We have in the Bill penalties upon the skipper who has had a number of convictions. The Amendment will make it possible for the sheriff or whoever tries the case to impose upon the owner not merely a fine, but a period of imprisonment as well. Some may think that this is another case of vindictiveness against the owner of the trawler, but I think the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate have pointed out on several occasions to-day that the owner of a trawler will have only himself to blame if he employs a skipper who has had several convictions recorded against him.
    The Bill lays down that a record is to be kept by the Board of Trade or some responsible authority of every skipper convicted of-illegal trawling and the number of convictions. If the owner of a vessel employs a skipper who has been fined on several occasions and whose convictions are recorded, he is taking a risk. If he is prepared to take the risk of employing a skipper who has been convicted on several occasions, he should be prepared to suffer the penalties which
    418
    accompany that risk if he is discovered. In this case, not merely is the skipper to have a penalty imposed upon him, but the owner who employs a skipper with previous convictions incurs the risk of being fined. We suggest that if the owner himself is convicted upon several occasions in that way it should be within the power of the sheriff to impose a sentence of imprisonment.
    A great deal has been said about the rectitude of the trawler owners. I am not going to dispute that. I accept at once every staement made with regard to the great majority, indeed almost all of the trawler owners. But there have been, in the past, individuals, it may be individuals each of whom owns only one vessel, who have been prepared to take the risks I have indicated. We are now, for the first time, seeking to deal in a drastic manner with the illegal trawling which has gone on round the coast of Scotland for so many years. This has been a burning question in Scotland. It has raised much conflict between various sections and caused much strife and has been an issue at elections both national and local. I submit that in a Bill of this kind we ought to take effective steps to end a practice which has caused so much trouble.
    If you are going to make it possible for a skipper, who may have been acting under the instructions of an unscrupulous owner, to be sent to prison, then a similar punishment ought to be the lot of the owner who has been found guilty on three or more occasions of the offence specified in this Sub-section, and has already suffered several fines. As the Government accepted the previous Amendment which was in the nature of a concession to those who are upholding the interests of the trawler owners, I hope they will also accept this Amendment which seeks to tighten up the law and to secure that owners and skippers will be placed in the same category in relation to these offences.
    9.20 p.m.
    Mr. D. GRAHAM: This is quite a good Bill and to a large extent we are prepared to support the Government in carrying it into law, but we take serious objection to any discrimination in favour of the trawler owner as against the skipper. As my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) has said, we

    419
    do not seek to act in any vindictive manner against trawler owners, but we are anxious that those responsible for continued breaches of the law in this respect should not be looked upon as good citizens at all. They should be treated as bad citizens and particularly is that so in the case of the trawler owners. This Sub-section provides for pretty severe penalties on the skippers and if the skippers alone were responsible for the breaches of the law we should not take strong exception to its provisions. But I think it is agreed that past experience has shown that the trawler owner is as guilty as the skipper in these cases. We wish to ensure that the law will be carried out in regard to this matter and that the longstanding grievance from which the inshore fishermen have suffered will be ended as speedily as possible. We wish to have it made plain that breaches of the law will be followed by severe penalties and that those penalties will be applicable to all who are in any way concerned with endeavours to defeat the object of this Measure. We desire that equally severe treatment shall be imposed upon all offenders. Hon. Members are aware of the motives of the Government and the object which they have in view in this Bill, and I think practically all the Committee are in sympathy with the Government's effort to relieve a very decent body of men from a very serious grievance, but I hope that consideration will be given to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan.
    9.24 p.m.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) suggested that we might accept this Amendment because we accepted the previous Amendment. But the previous Amendment was a concession made to the skipper, and the fact that we have agreed to a concession to the skipper is no reason why we should proceed to balance that concession by imposing a heavier penalty on the owner. I do not think it is sufficiently realised how far the Government are going in this Bill in penalising the owner. If it could be proved that an owner had incited the captain of a trawler to fish unlawfully within the three-mile limit, we should be able to
    420
    prosecute the owner for inciting to a wrongful act in contravention of the Statute. It is just because that proof can never be available that the Bill has become necessary.
    We have imputed to the owner a share in the criminality when he has been employing a skipper who has already infringed the Act although not necessarily under that owner's employment. The result of that provision is, however, inevitably that we may be imputing some share in criminality to a few owners who may have been doing what they could to prevent actual infringement. We do that in order to secure a very important public interest. I quite agree that the penalties which my hon. Friend has suggested are not to apply except after three convictions. Nevertheless, one or even more of these convictions may have proceeded upon an actual case of infringement for which the owner was only legally, and may not have been morally responsible. We have imposed the penalty of a very heavy fine, amounting to £500, upon a third conviction. Our view is that that will be a sufficient deterrent and that actual imprisonment, that is to say, imprisonment without the option of a fine, would not be quite a fair penalty to impose for this imputed crime, because that is the true nature of the crime of which the owner is guilty. I hope that the hon. Member, having heard what I have to say, will feel himself in a position to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: No; I cannot withdraw it.
    9.27 p.m.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: I am sorry, but we consider the discrimination between the captain and the owner of the trawler to be unfair, and we cannot withdraw the Amendment. With regard to the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that the owner might have had some offences against him for which he was not definitely responsible, that point is left to the court which tries the offence, as is the discrimination between the two guilty parties.
    9.28 p.m.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I shall go into the Lobby on this Amendment along with my colleagues Every time the Lord Advocate has spoken to-night, it has been to defend those who could defend themselves. To

    421
    hear him, one would think that this Bill was not necessary at all, and that all the agitation with which we have continued for years had been a matter of exaggeration. The reason why this Bill has been introduced is to protect those who are not able to protect themselves. The trawling interest is a big moneyed interest compared with the poor fishermen, and the Government have come along, after a good deal of pressure has been put upon them and upon every other Government which have been in power since I came here 12 years ago—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I find a little difficulty in reconciling the hon. Member's speech with this Amendment. It might have been most suitable on the Second Reading.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg your pardon; I do not wish to dispute your Ruling, but I am replying directly to what the Lord Advocate said. I have, surely, a right to reply and to follow him along the lines that he took. The trawlers have good support in this House, and particularly outside Scotland. The Lord Advocate, in the last speech he made on this Bill to-night, drew attention to what was said—although he did not mention myself—about the Mackenzie Committee's Report, and complained because we were asking that that report should be embodied in the Bill. He said that we wanted it both ways: what the Committee stated in their report, and also the fulfilment of what we desire. He said that the Government had tried to come in between those two points of view; that they did not give us all that Lord Mackenzie's Committee had suggested, and that they would not yield to our suggestion. Before two hours had passed, when it suited the policy and outlook of the Lord Advocate, he entirely changed his position and accepted an Amendment from the trawler division, justifying the Secretary of State for Scotland in accepting the Amendment of those who are standing up for the trawlers as against the poor fishermen of Scotland. He has shifted his ground, and has accepted Amendments from the trawler department of the House of Commons. It may be that he will stretch his imagination a little further and allow those who are on the other side of the House, those who are defending the
    422
    fishermen and who do not represent fishermen, who are not cadging for fishermen's votes, who have not a single fisherman in their division—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to keep to the Amendment. He is quite entitled to answer the Lord Advocate, but he has not so far begun to do so.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I did not quite catch your Ruling on that question, Captain Bourne.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I remarked to the hon. Member that he is quite entitled to answer the Lord Advocate's argument, but that with the arguments brought forward by the latter on this Amendment he has not yet begun to deal.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: That may be; I will abide by your Ruling. Our Amendment provides that the owners of the trawler should be implicated in the same way as the skipper. That is our Amendment; I hope that I am in order now. If I am, I shall probably be able to proceed along those lines. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett) stated on a previous Amendment, that when he was on that side of the House, before he shifted over to this side of the House—why he shifted, I do not know, but he has now shifted his ground altogether, for he has left the precincts of the House—that the owners put pressure on the skippers. He got up to correct me and said that it might be that on occasions owners would compel the skippers who had not had a good catch to fish illegally, in order that they might get a good catch, and the skippers would do so for fear that they might lose their job. That is the statement of one who is supposed to be the greatest authority on this subject, a far greater authority on the actual working of it than the Lord Advocate.
    If we had wanted proof that our Amendment was sound and just, we could have got no better proof than this statement from our opponents, which makes our Amendment more than necessary in order to see that owners will not use their power over skippers to make the skippers act illegally. It is true that the skipper, like the ordinary trawler man, will do almost anything at the moment to retain his job. It has been stated by

    423
    another hon. Member that it is a terrible thing that we are denying to the skippers and operatives of the trawlers the right to work. Our Amendment is with a view to safeguarding the skippers against certain types of trawler owners, who, as we have had evidence from those who have been briefed by the owners to state their case, are capable of holding the terrors of unemployment over the skippers and making them do what, under normal conditions, they would have no desire to do, namely, trawl illegally. We shall therefore go into the Lobby for this Amendment unless the Government accept it.
    9.38 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I hope the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) knows exactly what he is doing. He proposes that people who are perfectly innocent should go to prison for three months. They have made it quite clear that these owners might be ignorant of where their trawlers were fishing, yet under this Amendment they would be liable to imprisonment, innocent men who have not the slightest opportunity of voicing their case being sent to prison by an Amendment moved by two Socialist Members of this House. That is Socialism pure and simple, and I hope the hon. Members are satisfied, but does the hon. Member realise that some of these owners are men in not quite as high a social position as himself?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: They are in a higher social position than I am.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Not in private life. Some of them are men who have saved all their money, perhaps, to buy a ship—
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Money does not give you a high social position.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: The hon. Member proposes to put them in prison for three months. There are also people who are part shareholders in some of these ships, and who have practically no control over them. I hope the Committee fully realise exactly what Socialism means—sending to prison innocent men who have not the faintest opportunity of defending themselves and who do not even know that an offence has been committed.
    9.41 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I feel in some confusion about this Amendment, because the moving appeal of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) with regard to the protection of skippers touched my heart.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Have you got such a thing?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: At any rate, I think there is something which ought to be answered by the Government on this point. I accept, of course, everything that the Lord Advocate said, and I should be inclined to vote for him, but I have had this further appeal, which has rather reversed my point of view. My trouble is that if you imprison the owner and keep him locked up for three months, it seems to me that not only his vessel, but quite conceivably other vessels also, may be short of the guiding hand of the owner in telling them where to go. The Lord Advocate knows the whole of the legal side of this question, but we have been accustomed from time to time in this House, when we get these very difficult technical questions before us, to have the best expert advice. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) on the Treasury Bench, and he understands the position of the trawler owner. I cannot understand why on this occasion he, being the Government expert on this subject, should not give us his opinion. He would be able to give his opinion to a person like myself, who is doubtful, not knowing which Lobby to go into, very desirous of doing what is right, not at all liking some of the very grave punishments which are to be inflicted, a little suspicious of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs, yet having been appealed to by him so brilliantly.
    The opinion of the hon. Member for Grimsby might be turned down on the ground that he was merely an English Member and of a higher race, but I do not see why we should not have other opinions as to whether, if the Amendment were carried, you could work the vessel. This question of the imprisonment of the owner all hangs on whether you could work the vessel with the owner in prison. There is the hon. Member for ode of the Aberdeen divisions, who could perhaps give us some explanation,

    425
    because he knows where he stands in this matter. I want to get to the bottom of this matter, and why should the House on this important occasion be deprived of the excellent advice which I see that two hon. Members are anxious to give.

    Division No. 194.]

    AYES.

    [9.46 p.m.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Banfield, John William

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Maxton, James

    Batey, Joseph

    John, William

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Buchanan, George

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cape, Thomas

    Kirkwood, David

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Daggar, George

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Dobbie, William

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Edwards, Charles

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Lunn, William

    Wilmot, John

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

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

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Glucksteln, Louis Halle

    Milne, Charles

    Albery, Irving James

    Goff, Sir Park

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

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Greene, William P. C.

    Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Grimston, R. V.

    Munro, Patrick

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Hales, Harold K.

    Nunn, William

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

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

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

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

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Burnett, John George

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Pearson, William G.

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Peat, Charles U.

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Heligers, Captain F. F. A.

    Penny, Sir George

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Petherick, M.

    Carver, Major William H.

    Howard, Tom Forrest

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

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Potter, John

    Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric

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

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

    Christie, James Archibald

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Clarry, Reginald George

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

    Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Janner, Barnett

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Jennings, Roland

    Rankin, Robert

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Craddock. Sir Reqinald Henry

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Remer, John R.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Crookshank. Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Lees-Jones, John

    Rickards, George William

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Cross, R. H.

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Ropner, Colonel L.

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

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Denman, Hon. R. D

    Liewellin, Major John J.

    Ross Taylor. Walter (Woodbridge)

    Drewe, Cedric

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Runge, Norah Cecil

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

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Dunglass, Lord

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'td, B'tside)

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

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

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Salt, Edward W.

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Macdonald. Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ)

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    McKle. John Hamilton

    Scone, Lord

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Flint, Abraham John

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Shaw. Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col, Sir M.

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

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

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

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Why should they not enlighten the House on this difficult question?
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 33; Noes, 198.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    White, Henry Graham

    Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

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

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Templeton, William P.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Stevenson, James

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Stewart, J. H. (Fife.)

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Stones, James

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Storey, Samuel

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Sir Frederick Thomson and Mr.

    Womersley.

    9.54 p.m.
    Mr. LAW: I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, after "shall" to insert "if the court see fit."
    When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State joined in the discussion on the Sub-section, he said there seemed to be some misunderstanding as to the exact effect that the Sub-section had upon the owner of the trawler. In this Amendment I am more interested in the skipper of the trawler than the owner, and I do not think my right hon. Friend altogether answered the point which I tried to make in the discussion on Sub-section (3). The Committee ought to realise that under this Sub-section the skipper of a trawler may be deprived of his means of livelihood for three years for a first offence, and for a first offence which may be purely a technical offence. The purpose of this Amendment is to allow the sheriff, even where the skipper has been convicted, to decide whether or not the skipper's name should be put upon the black list. It seems to me a reasonable Amendment and one which the right hon. and learned Gentleman might very well accept. I must confess that if he does not accept it he is, as it seems to me, doing a very grave injustice indeed to a very deserving and hard-working section of the community.
    9.57 p.m.
    Mr. J. REID: I think it may be a little difficult for the Government to accept the Amendment as it is framed, because it looks as though putting the man's name on the black list is a kind of extra penalty, and that the sheriff would only ordain that particulars should be forwarded to the Board of Trade if he thought it was a particularly bad case. I venture to ask the Government to consider whether the Amendment could not be accepted if it were put the other way round. Supposing it were made the rule that particulars should be sent to the Board of Trade and that the Amendment were so framed as to say that this should be done "unless the court otherwise
    428
    directs." That would draw the attention of the court to the fact that only in cases where there were mitigating circumstances should the court direct the withholding of particulars from the Board of Trade. Further, the Government might well limit the Amendment to first offence cases. I do not think there is any necessity to show any particular leniency to one who offends a second time, but a first offender ought to have some chance of escaping from what is, in effect, two years suspension of his certificate, if the offence has been of a more or less technical character. We have heard from the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett) of one or two cases in which the fines were not £100 or £75 but £30. In such a case there is something to be said for giving the sheriff the power to allow the man to carry on his ordinary job, and not forcing him, when imposing a fine of only £30, to deprive the man of his livelihood for two years, because that would be the effect of every conviction if the Bill goes through as it stands.
    Mr. R. W. SMITH: I wish to support the point put forward by the hon. Member who has just spoken. If a sheriff decides that a case is one in which a £10 fine only ought to be imposed he ought to have the power to say that the name of the offender should not be put on the black list.
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: If the suggestion of the hon. Member for Stirling and Fal-kirk (Mr. J. Reid) were accepted by the Government, it would mean that the name of practically every man convicted would be sent up to London, or wherever it may be, and that we should be piling up a list of names in Government offices. The effect of the Amendment is to tell the court that unless it particularly wishes to do so it need not put a man's name on the black list. I do not think we need to have these lists filling up a Government pigeon-hole and I hope the Government will accept the Amendment, which is obviously well intentioned and in keeping

    429
    with the whole spirit which the Government have displayed in making this Bill a workable and commonsense Measure. It is not common sense to compel a sheriff to send in names to a list; it is greater common sense to leave it to the sheriff to decide whether the case is so bad that the man's name should be put on the black list. What is wanted is a list of the really bad cases, and under this Amendment that would be obtained. Under this Amendment, if there were something in the nature of an accidental offence a fine would be imposed, and the thing would be settled, and we do not want such an offender to feel that for a definite or an indefinite time his name will be written down somewhere and that there will always be that black mark against him. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment, which is full of common sense and natural sense, and not be led away by hon. Gentlemen opposite who, I am afraid, have permitted their desire for lists of names to overcome the discretion which is more usually shown in their speeches.
    10.3 p.m.
    Mr. D. GRAHAM: The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has a wonderfully kind feeling for some kinds of criminals.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: No.
    Mr. GRAHAM: If he had the misfortune to be brought before any of the Scottish courts and were convicted, that conviction would be recorded against him, and the next time he came before the court that conviction would be brought up against him and in all probability an additional month or so would be added to his sentence. Personally, I prefer the view of the Government in this matter, and hope they will not accept the Amendment. The object of the Bill is to deal with a type of criminality which has existed for a considerable period, and with a number of people who have no right to any sympathy from this House by reason of the depredations they have carried on.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: The standpoint of the Government in this matter is not that illegal trawling within the three-mile limit may take place by accident or inadvertence. The Government's position is that all that illegal trawling can be
    430
    prevented if ordinary care is taken. It is from that point of view that we judge the usefulness of the proposed Amendment. By balancing the penalties against the tendency towards infringement because of increased profits, we arrive at the means to prevent any infringement without inflicting hardship upon anybody who is reasonably careful.
    Mr. LAW: Does the Lord Advocate consider it is a suitable penalty for one act of carelessness that a man should be deprived of his living for two years?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I have already said that this kind of carelessness can easily be avoided if people realise that it may have serious consequences. Carelessness will take place just in the degree in which people suppose that it will not be visited by any serious penalty. It has to be borne in mind that the statutory consequences of conviction, namely, the appearance of the name of the man convicted in the Board of Trade List, is the very foundation of the liability of the owner. It is essential that there should be uniformity, and that it should not be a matter for anybody's discretion whether a man who has been convicted should enter the list or should escape the list. Just consider upon what the liability of the owner rests. There are a certain number—I think a minority—of trawler owners who are prepared to take into their employment a man who may be likely to increase their pocket by fishing within the prohibited limits. That is the basis of it. If they find a man who has been convicted and who has not entered the list, they will employ him until the time of his next offence. That will simply be putting a premium upon the man who has been convicted but has been excused from being put into the list as against other people, in the eyes of the supposed dishonest trawler owners. The statutory consequences should follow invariably upon conviction. I cannot suppose for a moment that illegal trawling takes place by inadvertence on the part of anybody who is really anxious to keep upon the right side of the law, and the Government intend to ensure by this Bill that anybody who is in charge of a trawler at sea shall, when he is trawling, be outside the three-mile limit. For that reason, the Amendment cannot be accepted.
    10.8 p.m.
    Mr. PETHERICK: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to explain one point which troubles me a little? Sub-section (6) says:
    "The clerk of the court by whom any person shall, after the passing of this Act, be convicted of illegal trawling shall send particulars of such conviction to the Board of Trade and to the Fishery Board for Scotland, and the Board of Trade shall take such steps as may to them seem necessary to secure that a list containing the names of the persons who have been so convicted and particulars of such convictions is available at each mercantile marine office."
    Does that mean that it is mandatory upon the Board of Trade?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that that point does not arise upon this Amendment.
    10.10 p.m.
    Mr. R. W. SMITH: I think that the Lord Advocate has missed one point. He said that the court should not have discretion in regard to the two years of being on the black list. If that is so, why should the court have discretion as to the amount of the fine? If the fine is to prevent people from trawling illegally, why should not the first fine be £100 without any discretion being left to the court? It seems rather funny to give discretion as to the amount of the fine and no discretion as to the two years. I ask the Government if they will accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Before I call the next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett) and other hon. Members, I must point out that that Amendment and the last Amendment on this Clause—in page 3, line 17, to leave out from "conviction," to "no," in line 21—are really one.
    10.13 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 16, to leave out "Sub-section (1)," and to insert "Subsections (1) and (3)."
    You have said, Captain Bourne, that the next Amendment goes with this one. As the Clause stands, under Sub-section (7) the trawler owner starts with a clean sheet, but not so the skipper. If the Government were in the Bill to rank the
    432
    previous convictions of the skipper to the detriment of the owner, that would have been grossly unfair, and I am glad that they have not done that. I suggest that the Government ought to let the skipper start with a clean sheet. Fines are being increased out of all knowledge. The Bill has ventilated the matter all over the Kingdom, and there is no doubt that skippers know exactly where they stand. As the Government have refused the Amendment which was moved some time ago dealing with stress of weather, I suggest that it would be only fair to let the skippers start afresh. Such leniency would not be misplaced. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that illegal trawling does not take place inadvertently. By that, I suppose he means that trawling is not accidental within the three-mile limit. We maintain that there is trawling within the three-mile limit which is accidental, and that there are convictions which are merely technical ones.
    In the past a man faced the weather; now fie definitely has to face loss of employment. I do not know how many skippers, with the passage of the Bill, will be involved in loss of employment without any further convictions, but quite possibly there are some. Is it the intention of the Government, because those skippers, who have had to pay a fine for taking a risk, with danger to the owners and to the crew, shall be liable to be turned off? The Government should face up to that, and should tell the Committee that they fully realise the danger which confronts some of these people. There is a case which rather comes into this question, and that is the case of the skipper-owner, which I do not think has been fully dealt with. I understand that there are more skipper-owners and skipper-part-share-owners in Scotland than there are in England. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett) will stress that point, but I venture to suggest that, before this Clause is passed in its present form, the question of the skipper-owner and the skipper who owns a part-share in a trawler should be more fully considered.
    10.15 p.m.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: As Subjection (7) of Clause 1 stands, a previous conviction would affect the skipper; that

    433
    is to say, a conviction dated before the passing of the Act would count as the first or second conviction, as the case may be, against the skipper, but it would not count against the owner. I think it is manifest that, to be consistent with ordinary fairness, it could not be made to count against the owner; but after hearing what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage), I think it would be fair and just that any convictions prior to the passing of the Act should count neither against the skipper nor against the owner. After all, it is a strong step to count, for the purpose of these penalties, something which has taken place before the penalties became law, and, therefore, I think that this is an Amendment which ought to be accepted. I cannot accept it quite in the form in which it is put down, but it is comparatively easy to suggest a form of words. I suggest that in page 3, line 18, the words:
    "there shall be taken into account any conviction of illegal trawling, whether dated before or after the passing of this Act;"
    and that, in line 21, the words "such conviction" should be left out, and there should be inserted instead the words "conviction of illegal trawling." The Sub-section would then read:
    "For the purpose of any reference in Sub-section (1) of this Section to a second, or third, or subsequent conviction, and for the purposes of Sub-section (3) of this Section, no account shall be taken of any conviction of illegal trawling dated before the passing of this Act."
    If my hon. and gallant Friend will withdraw his Amendment, I will move Amendments giving effect to my suggestion.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: My hon. Friends and I very gladly accept the Amendments suggested by the Lord Advocate.
    10.19 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I think I am expressing the desire of the whole Committee when I say that this concession, as far as it goes, will do a great deal to make for a sense of fairness in the fishing industry. It is a concession of great value, and I think the Government ought to be thanked for it, particularly when one remembers how the trawling interests have been criticised during the whole of these Debates.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: In page 3, line 17, leave out from "conviction" to "and," in line 20.
    In line 21, leave out "such conviction," and insert "conviction of illegal trawling."—[The Lord Advocate.]
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Penalty for contravention of regulations regarding registering lettering and numbering of sea fishing boats.)
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Before I call upon the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) to move his Amendment—in page 3, line 29, after "exceeding," insert "on a first conviction"—I must point out that that Amendment is merely preliminary to the one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirk wood)—in page 3, line 30, at the end, to add:
    "on a second conviction one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, and on a third or subsequent conviction two hundred pounds and imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months."
    The discussion will be taken on the first Amendment.
    10.19 p.m.
    Mr. LEONARD: I beg to move, in page 3, line 29, after "exceeding," to insert "on a first conviction."
    Clause 2 provides for the penalty for contravention of regulations regarding registering, lettering and numbering of sea fishing boats, and it is proposed, by this first Amendment, to interpose the words "on a first conviction." We look upon this Clause as one which does not permit of the arguments that have been entered into of necessity on the first Clause, because there was the element of doubt. Inadvertence has been talked about to a considerable extent, and there have been other elements of doubt which it is clear to everyone would have to be settled in court. We are dealing in this Clause with something which, to my mind, appears to point to conscious desire on the part of someone in altering the lettering or numbering of a British fishing boat, and, because of that, I think the tendency towards strict and heavy penalties to be much more potent

    435
    in this Clause than in Clause 1. For that reason we suggest that it should be strengthened as proposed in these Amendments.
    10.22 p.m.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. Member is perfectly correct in saying that we are here dealing with deliberate acts of wrong doing, and it cannot be said that we are penalising persons who have sinned through negligence or carelessness. We are only penalising those who have deliberately chosen to go wrong in order to obstruct the course of justice and to defy the law. I have considered the Amendment, and, I suggest that without going as far as the Amendment proposes, we might insert the words:
    "or, where such conviction is a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding £100 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months."
    I would ask the hon. Member to consider whether he could not accept that and withdraw his Amendment.
    10.24 p.m.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: This is the first concession that the Lord Advocate has given us. It is a serious business, because the fishermen at the Butt of Lewis have told me on several occasions that, when they went out to find the number of the trawler, it was covered up and stones were thrown at the small boat that they were in in an attempt to sink it. So you can see the length these men were pro-pared to go in order to get away. The concession which the Lord Advocate has given to us will strengthen the Bill on the lines we desire, and if my hon. Friend will accept the alteration suggested by the Lord Advocate it will suit my purpose.
    10.26 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I am not at all pleased with the Government in following at the heels of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), although they are doing it in a half-hearted way. The Government have become much more reasonable during the last hour or two, and now there is backsliding on the Government Front Bench, and they are going a third or a quarter of the way the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs desires them to go. I regret that the Government should take
    436
    this opportunity of turning away from the path they have been following by making these penalties harder. In the original provision, which it is now proposed to leave out, there is a very heavy fine indeed for the trawler people, who are poor people who, as the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett), any hon. Members representing the great trawler interests, and the Secretary for Mines know, are having a very heavy time. Yet here are the Government, having brought forward a Bill, imposing immense penalties upon these men who are suffering under such great difficulties, and who would rarely, if ever, infringe the law if they could possibly help it, going some way towards accepting the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs. I hope that if there are any Members who support moderation in this House, they will get up and express their regret, and ask the Government to stick to the original terms of the Bill as far as this matter is concerned, as the penalties seem to be severe enough. I admit that the proposed Amendment of the Government is better than that which we have before us at the present time, but it would be very much better if the Government would stick to the Bill in this case in its original form. I would entreat them even now to see if they could not reconsider their decision, as I know every one representing the great fishing industry would wish them to do, and to keep the provision in its original form.
    Mr. D. GRAHAM: I do not see any necessity for continuing the discussion, but I would like to say that we are very much indebted to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) for the able assistance that he renders on all these questions.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Nobody could defend the action of deliberately covering up the letters, but in so far as they may be obscured by accident or rubbed out, I would ask the Government whether they cannot see that the skipper is not prejudiced thereby.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Is it the wish of the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) to withdraw his Amendment?
    Mr. LEONARD: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, at the end, to add:
    "or where such conviction is a second or a subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months."
    10.29 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I wonder if my right hon. and learned Friend could reduce the period of three months to two months. I know that he has not gone as far as he has been asked to go, but I think that the alternative of three months' imprisonment is going a little too far. None of us wishes to defend an illegal practice, but there are great difficulties experienced by men working at sea, and I do not think it is fair that at the present time we should weigh the law so much against them. I would suggest that the three months should be reduced to two. Cannot the Government make some concession to us on this point?
    10.30 p.m.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I do not know whether the hon. Member realises that three months is the maximum. The sheriff is entitled to take all the circumstances into account, and he may give such a sentence as he considers fits the crime. I would remind the hon. Member that under the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act and many Acts where a fine of £100 is the appropriate penalty, and the term of imprisonment corresponds, the term is invariably three months.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Increased penalty for obstruction of sea fishery officer.)
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 32, to leave out from "1883" to "shall," in line 33, and to insert:
    "both as originally enacted and as applied by Section five of this Act."
    This is a drafting Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In line 33, leave out "in its application to," and insert "in the case of a conviction in."—[The Lord Advocate.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    10.33 p.m.
    Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. It was suggested that I should bring up on Clause. 3 the Amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper in respect of Clause 1:
    In page 1, line 15, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that in any case where a person guilty of illegal trawling offers resistance to any superintendent of the herring fishery or other officer employed in the execution of the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Acts, 1771 to 1890, the court may impose a penalty in excess of that provided in this sub-section."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It was pointed out that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member could not come up in the form in which it stands on the Order Paper, and I thought that the hon. Member would give me a manuscript Amendment to meet the point.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I did not understand the statement in that form. I did not understand that there was anything said about a manuscript Amendment.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am sorry that there has been a misunderstanding. It was ruled in regard to the hon. Member's Amendment to Clause 1, referring to the imposition of penalty, that the proper place to raise that question was on Clause 3. I thought I made it clear to the hon. Member that his Amendment in the exact form in which it is worded would not be applicable to Clause 3. but that a manuscript Amendment making it clear that the penalty would be in addition to the penalty in Clause I would be in order. I am sorry if the hon. Member did not get my point, but, if he will raise the matter on the Question, "That the Clause stand part," it can be put right on Report stage.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    The whole point is this: Do the Government propose to take the Report stage to-night?
    10.36 p.m.
    Sir G. COLLINS: Hon. Members opposite have been very helpful during the course of the Committee stage and also on the Second Reading, and we are very anxious to get the Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill to-night. I can well understand the feeling of the hon. Member in connection with his particular Amendment, because it has been on the Order Paper for some time. May I suggest that he should hand in his manuscript Amendment now so that it can be discussed on the Report stage. There is no wish to shirt discussion, and, in view of the assurance I have given, I hope he will withdraw the Motion.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his assurance, and so far as I am concerned it meets my point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    10.37 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I do not wish to hinder progress but I do object to taking the Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading of a Bill of this kind to-night. I know that an agreement between the two Front Benches makes it rather difficult for back bench Members, but I do not think that a Bill of this nature, making great changes which some hon. Members view with grave anxiety, should be passed through all its stages in one night. During the Committee stage a number of Amendments have been made, many concessions have been made, and to take the Report stage now does not give hon. Members any chance of seeing how the Bill reads after the Amendments have been made. I think it is asking far too much, and I protest against taking three stages of a Bill during one evening.
    10.38 p.m.
    Sir G. COLLINS: We are all willing to listen to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) who has a happy habit of taking part in Scottish discussions. We always welcome his intervention, but I would remind him that most of the time has been taken up by back benchers who have put forward their views; and the Government have shown a real eagerness to meet the opinions which have been put forward. I hope, therefore, that he will not take
    440
    exception to our getting the remaining stages of the Bill.
    10.39 p.m.
    Sir I. MACPHERSON: I hope the hon. Member will not press his point. I do not object to his taking part in Scottish discussions, he is a constituent of mine, but I think his objection would have been more properly raised when it was announced that it was proposed to take all the stages of the Bill this afternoon. Therefore I would like him not to press his point.
    10.40 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: In answer to the appeal of one of my representatives in this House I would say that no one at that time knew what the course of events would be, and it is not easy for a back bench Member at the end of Questions to get up and object to a thing when he does not know how it will develop. This is a Bill which affects the livelihood of many. Take Leith alone. There are many people in that town and in other great trawling ports around the country who may be affected by the Bill. We are to be asked to take to-night the Report stage of a Bill which has been greatly amended. Surely that is not a right thing to do. Then on top of that we are to be asked to take the Third Reading. We have not been allowed to have the advice of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), who knows a lot about this subject. The Government are putting a burden on Members who are trying to follow this very complicated Bill, and it is not right. We have never even heard the hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Sir F. Thomson) who is longing to make a speech. The Bill inflicts vast penalties on men who are already very hard hit.
    10.41 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: The Secretary of State for Scotland said one thing which I am sure he did not mean to be taken literally. He said that this is a Scottish Bill, and presumably he meant that it does not affect English interests. I hope he will make it clear that that is not so, because in Grimsby we are certainly vitally interested in the Bill. We are ready to meet the Government on the Bill as they have met us some way, though not as far as we wish to go. Perhaps in another place they may meet us a little further.
    Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Trawling gear to be in board while in prohibited area.)
    10.44 p.m.
    Mr. BURNETT: I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, to leave out from "board," to the end of the Sub-section.
    We have had representations from trawlers on this subject. If trawlers are coming into port during a storm the trawlers stay out until the last possible moment and then rush into port, but if they have to wait and have, to detach the shackle-pins, sometimes to cut them out, the process takes a considerable time. If the storm goes on it means that the men have to work with the waves coming over the vessel and they do their work at the danger of their lives. The alternative is that they should leave off fishing earlier, in which case, of course, they catch less fish and we do not want to reduce the supply of fish. Even though the delay may only be for half-an-hour the amount of fish lost, when calculated over a year, is considerable. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the wishes of a considerable section of the smaller portion of the trawling industry and accept this Amendment.
    10.46 p.m.
    Sir G. COLLINS: This Clause provides that in the prohibited area the boards of the trawl and the net shall be inboard and that the warps shall be detached from the boards. I place great stress upon the first point as to the boards of the trawl and the net being inboard. If one visualises the position of the inshore fishermen to-day when these trawlers come within the three-mile limit with their boards down and the trawl out board, one can understand how these men have lost confidence and hope. Therefore, I am glad that the hon. Member has not proceeded with the Amendment which he hag on the Paper to leave out the words "the boards of the trawl." As regards the Amendment which he has moved to leave out the words "the warps shall be detached from the boards," there he strikes a point which appeals to me. In my early days I happen to have been
    442
    at sea, and I can well understand the feelings of men on these trawling ships as they enter the three-mile limit, if through the misdeeds of a few they are compelled by Parliament to detach the warps from the boards. If the ban. Member will not press the other Amendment on the Paper, I will gladly accept the Amendment which he has now moved as to the detaching of the warps from the boards. I feel that by doing so I am not weakening the Bill, while going a long way to satisfy a legitimate complaint of men on the trawlers. I hope that when they learn of this concession much of their opposition to the Bill will disappear and that they will realise the ready spirit in which we are meeting their complaints.
    Mr. BURNETT: I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the concession which he has made on this point.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Interpretation.)
    10.49 p.m.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 4, line 6, at the end, to insert
    "the expression 'Herring Fishery (Scotland) Acts' means the Acts specified in the First Schedule to the Fishery Board (Scotland) Act, 1882, and the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1889."
    This is a purely drafting Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 12, at the end, insert
    "and the expression 'enactments relating to illegal trawling' means the said section six and any such byelaw, and sections one and four of this Act."—[The Lord Advocate.]
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clauses 6 (Repeal) and 7 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Application of 46 & 47, Viet., c. 22, s.s. 12 & 14.)
    For the purpose of the enforcement of the enactments relating to illegal trawling Sections twelve and fourteen of the Sea Fisheries Act, 1883 (which relate to powers

    443
    and protection of sea fishery officers) Shall apply as if they were herein re-enacted with the following modifications:

    (a) the expression "this Act" shall mean the aforesaid enactments, and any reference to an Order-in-Council shall not apply;

    (b) for any reference to a sea fishery officer there shall be substituted a reference to a superintendent of the herring fishery or other officer employed in the execution of the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Acts.—[The Lord Advocate.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    10.52 p.m.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    I will briefly explain the purpose of the new Clause. In the Act of 1883 there are two Sections which are relevant to this Clause. Section 12 confers on sea fishery officers certain powers to deal with trawlers which they find engaged in illegal operations. Section 14 gives them immunity from liability for damages for action taken by them in forcing the trawler to obey their orders. The object of the new Clause is that these provisions should apply equally to herring fishery officers. In a recent fishery case counsel for the defence has raised the objection that these Sections did not apply; the court seems to have considered that they did, but it is desirable that the matter should be put beyond doubt. The new Clause does not introduce any variation in the existing law, but it is important that all doubts should be put at rest.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Compensation for damage caused by illegal trawling.)
    Where any vessel is used for the purposes of illegal trawling and damage is thereby caused to any nets or gear belonging to persons engaged in lawful fishing, the court shall, on conviction, order the payment by the owners of the vessel of such amount of compensation for the damage caused as it may deem proper.—[Mr. Maclean.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    10.53 p.m.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    At this hour I do not propose to make any long remarks, but I will merely remind the Secretary of State and the Lord
    444
    Advocate that this has been a vexed question among fishermen for many years. I should only be doing the proper thing if I reminded hon. Members who have been in this House for the last six years that at least five years ago the Moray Firth was almost in a state of rebellion because of what the men considered the inaction of the Government towards the trawlers which were destroying the nets of the fishermen along that coast. Various suggestions were made at that time, and attempts were made to induce the Government to take action in such a manner as would at least ensure to the owners of the nets compensation for the nets that were being destroyed. During the Second Reading Debate some appeals were made to get something incorporated in the Bill that would make this a closed question once and for all, and we have placed this Clause on the Paper in the hope that the Government will accept it, because it is a matter which I am certain all Scottish Members, particularly those who represent the fishing villages in the North and West of Scotland, are anxious to have settled, because complaints are bound to be made to them every time they go into their constituencies. Where these inshore fishermen are put to such losses, compensation should be paid to them by those who are guilty of illegal trawling.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: The absurd thing about this matter is that the Revenue benefits from this illegal trawling. We are getting fines of hundreds of pounds, and the fishermen lose their nets and get nothing. Surely this is a prior claim even to a fine, and it seems to me a just Clause.
    10.56 p.m.
    Sir I. MACPHERSON: I do not know whether this is the appropriate Bill for a Clause of this kind, but I thoroughly agree with what the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) has said. It is clear that if illegal trawling takes place, and the nets of innocent fishermen are destroyed as a result, some compensation should be made, and I think that that is a general feeling throughout Scotland. My one difficulty in the matter is as to whether this is the appropriate Bill, but I am sure the Government will give sympathetic consideration to the Clause, because it is the general wish that a Clause of this kind should be passed. We had

    445
    a case in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Sir M. MacDonald) last summer, when we had a conviction of an illegal trawler. It was his ninth conviction, and not only so, but he destroyed the nets which were set by innocent fishermen earning their livelihood in that part of the world. I understand that when the case came before the authorities there was no power to give compensation. That seems to be utterly wrong, and I hope the Lord Advocate, with all his skill, will be able to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Govan and all of us who feel strongly on this point.
    10.58 p.m.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I confess that when I first read the proposed new Clause I read it with considerable sympathy, for everybody would wish to see those who are wronged by the guilty act of somebody else righted by the simplest possible process of law, but when one considers it, it very speedily appears to be open to fundamental objections. If the Clause were passed into law, it would make the owner of the trawler liable for compensation to a person whose nets had been injured when his, the owner's, vessel had been used in illegal trawling, although it might be the first occasion on which the vessel had been so used or on which the skipper of it had ever been found unlawfully within the three miles limit. The Bill has properly drawn a distinction throughout between the first conviction of a skipper of a trawler and a second or subsequent conviction. The first conviction of a skipper has no effect upon the owner of the vessel, and it is only upon a second or subsequent conviction of a skipper that the owner of the vessel can be affected.
    In Snort, the Bill in its general principle assumes that every trawler owner will be anxious to keep within the law and that no presumption arises against him until he puts in command of a trawler a man who has already been found guilty. That proceeds upon a sound principle in accordance with the Common Law. There would be no Common Law liability on the part of the owner for damage done to the nets of another man through the act of the skipper of the vessel if that skipper was acting outwith the scope of his authority and contrary to his orders; and it would not be appropriate
    446
    or right in this Bill just by a procedure Clause to fix upon the owner a liability which is unknown to the Common Law and contrary to the principles of the Common Law, and to involve the owner in a civil liability which he has done everything in his power perhaps to avoid by giving his skipper orders on no account to go within the three-mile limit.
    I am aware that there is in the Sea Fisheries Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1885, a Section which gives the person whose nets have been destroyed by illegal trawling a remedy against the skipper in a criminal action, but the Committee will at once observe that the Act only gives a simplified method of enforcing what was a right at Common Law. If the skipper in charge of a vessel unlawfully goes within the three-mile limit, and not only trawls but destroys in the course of his illegal trawling the nets of an inshore fisherman, the damage so caused gives rise to an action at Common Law against the skipper.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: And the owner, surely?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: Not if the skipper was acting beyond the scope of his authority. The Act of 1885 gave a short method of enforcing that Common Law right. In this proposed new Clause we are asked to create a new right con-contrary to the Common Law. The Act of 1885, which gave that right to the man whose nets were destroyed against the skipper, carefully prescribed the conditions under which his right should operate. There are none of these precautions included in this Clause. If you are going to allow any such right against the owner, it is manifest justice that he should be entitled to be heard, but in the proceedings contemplated under the new Clause, there is a charge against the skipper only and there will be no charge against the owner at all and no provision for him to be heard. There are great difficulties about enforcement. When the skipper is ordered to pay compensation he is before the court, but the owner may be a foreigner and not under the jurisdiction of the court. There would have to be some provision to deal with this. I rest my attitude on the fundamental point that it would create a civil liability which is contrary to the law of Scotland.
    11.5 p.m.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: With all respect, I beg to question what the Lord Advocate has laid down in regard to the liability of the owner. I have no doubt whatever that an owner is liable for damage done to nets, even within the three-miles limit, and even though he has told the trawler not to go there. Everybody is liable for what his servants do. Suppose I tell my chauffeur not to exceed the speed limit but he does so, and runs down and injures somebody. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say that I am going to escape by saying, "Oh, I told the beggar that he was not to drive fast, beyond the speed limit"? Of course I should be liable. The real difficulty is that under the Common Law one can cite an owner, who has a chance to defend himself, but under this Clause he would have no opportunity of being heard. That point, however, could surely be met. If a claim were made the owner of the trawler could be cited before the court. As to the suggestion that he might be a foreign trawler and that we had no jurisdiction over him, the authorities would have his ship and that would be the best hold they could have upon him. The ship is seized and is not allowed to sail. If a Clause could be drawn up which would give an opportunity for the owner to be cited in court to defend the claim, I think this would be an admirable proposition, and I do not think it would be enlarging the scope of present Common Law liability.
    The only difficulty at present is that the fisherman has got no funds with which to sue, and therefore the trawler owner escapes. Nets to the value of hundreds of pounds may be destroyed and if the trawler owner were cited the poor fisherman might get back something of what he has lost. The owner is undoubtedly liable, because he gets the fish, he is making money out of the illegality. I feel sure that he must be liable, unless the Lord Advocate can quote me some definite authority to the contrary.
    11.8 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I am not going to intervene in the difference of opinions between two of my hon. and learned Friends opposite, but I wish to point out that this new Clause follows a sequence of Amendments of a very vindictive character. I rejoice that on this occasion
    448
    the Government have stood firm against one of these proposals moved from the Socialist Front Bench and occasionally supported by hon. Members—I do not know how to classify them—sitting in various parts of the Committee. Many of us have been a little shocked to find the Government giving way to these Amendments from time to time, and I rejoice that the Lord Advocate is not going to bring in a Clause, at the dictates of the Socialist Front Bench, which would entirely alter the common law of Scotland. That is not the kind of thing which the House of Commons should be asked to consider at this time of night, even though it would have the support of the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten). I ask the Government to be strong and not to accept this Clause, because if it were added to the Bill it would make it very difficult for us to deal with the further stages which we are being asked to consider to-night.
    11.10 p.m.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I am surprised at the Lord Advocate not accepting this proposed new Clause. He made reference to the amending Act of 1885, and in Sections 7 and 8 the principle is very clearly laid down regarding the right of compensation of any individual whose gear is damaged by any individual on a vessel.
    I think I am summarising accurately the intention of the Sections of the amending Acts that he mentioned in his reply. We have heard all this stuff from the Lord Advocate, and particularly from the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) who, living as he has for so long in the South of England, has so much knowledge of the fishery question, which is provoking the Highlanders of Scotland almost to revolt, that he monopolises the time of the Debate in expressing himself upon it. He has told us that we are moving a vindictive Amendment.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May I interrupt the hon. Member to say that I was particularly careful not to get up until no other Scotsman was to get up. I thought that was the best way to deal with it.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I am very glad to hear that the hon. Member for Torquay is always prepared to allow a Scotsman to lead him. As long as he follows the Scottish people he will not go far wrong.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: May I say—
    HON. MEMBERS: No!
    Mr. MACLEAN: What he says is vindictiveness on our part is really elementary justice. For many years the inshore fishermen of Scotland have suffered at the hands of those who have carried out their illegal operations—
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: From England—
    Mr. MACLEAN: —which are sheer piracy. I have heard statements in this House time and time again about the attitude of skippers and crews engaged in illegal trawling in order to make it impossible for a sea fishery officer to detect them or to identify them by getting their registered number. The vindictiveness is not on the part of the Socialist Members, who are doing their best to protect the inshore fishermen, but on the part of the hon. Member for Torquay who wishes to have continued the conditions against which the inshore fishermen have been protesting for so long. The hon. Member does not wish to see those who are breaking the law receive their punishment.
    I was surprised that when the Lord Advocate read the Sections, that he did not carry his sympathy a little further. This Clause has been upon the Order Paper since 28th March; surely something could have been devised by the Lord Advocate or by the Secretary of State for Scotland to meet the difficulties which he has been putting forward as the reason why this Clause cannot be accepted. This morning, when I looked at the Votes, and saw the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland against an Amendment above my own, leading the Scotsmen, as he ought to do, in this very decent and just Amendment, I came to the conclusion at once that, for once in a while, he had given a lead to other members of the

    Division No. 195.]

    AYES.

    [11.18 p.m.

    Banfield, John William

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

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Cape, Thomas

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Milner, Major James

    Daggar, George

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    John, William

    Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Dobbie, William

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Edwards, Charles

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Logan. David Gilbert

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Greenwood. Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Lunn, William

    White, Henry Graham

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Griffith, P. Kingsley (Mlddlesbro', W.)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Wilmot, John

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Leonard.

    Cabinet in accepting an Amendment moved by the Opposition. I was congratulating myself that our party had been able to draft an Amendment which Government draftsmen could not improve upon. I thought we were making progress in the House. But now I find that the Lord Advocate has to go back to an Act of 1885 and turn it round and round to prove that the difficulties which stand in the way are so gigantic that a National Government of all the talents, drawn from the various parties excepting ours, has evidently not the courage or the ability to draft a Clause to meet the difficulties and injustices with which these inshore fishermen have been faced for all these years. If the Government cannot accept this proposed new Clause we must carry it to a Division, as a protest against the continuance of a state of affairs which these inshore fishermen have been fighting against for so many years.
    11.17 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: If I might be allowed to reply to the attack of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean), who, I am sure, had not heard my previous statements, I should like to say that I very strongly deprecate this illegal trawling and think it should be punished, but the simple statement which I made, and by which I stand, is that the penalties under the Bill, considering the amazing difficulties of the position at sea and the poverty of the trawling trade to-day, are out of all proportion I apologise for rising again, but I feel that it is not right that I, who have always objected to illegal trawling, should be subjected to a statement of that kind—which I am sure the hon. Member made quite accidentally—when it is entirely against my real wishes.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 39; Noes, 182.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Goff, Sir Park

    Pearson, William G.

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

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Peat, Charles U.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

    Penny, Sir George

    Albery, Irving James

    Greene, William P. C.

    Petherick, M.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Grimston, R. V.

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

    Aske, Sir Robert William

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

    Pybus, Sir Percy John

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Hales, Harold K.

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Rankin, Robert

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Harbord, Arthur

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Blindell, James

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Remer, John R.

    Bracken, Brendan

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Braithwalte, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Rickards, George William

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Hewitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

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

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

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Jennings, Roland

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Rurgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Burnett, John George

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Salt, Edward W.

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Sandeman. Sir A. N. Stewart

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Scone, Lord

    Carver, Major William H.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Christie, James Archibald

    Liddall. Walter S.

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Clarke, Frank

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Liewellin, Major John J.

    Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

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

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Soper, Richard

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Mabane, William

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Crooke, J. Smedley

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

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

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    MacAndrew. Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Stevenson, James

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

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

    Cross, R. H.

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Stones, James

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    McKeag, William

    Storey, Samuel

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

    McKle. John Hamilton

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Dickie, John P.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Drewe, Cedric

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir. M.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Duggan, Hubert John

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

    Sutcliffe, Harold

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

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Templeton, William P.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Edge, Sir William

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Milne, Charles

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Elmley, Viscount

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

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Emrye-Evans, P. V.

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

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

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

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

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Flint, Abraham John

    Munro, Patrick

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Fox, Sir Gilford

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Womersley, Walter James

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Captain Austin Hudson and

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Commander Southby.

    Schedule (Enactments Repealed) agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    11.28 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: It is obvious that we English people have had a very hard fight to-day against the united forces of Scotland. There is one thing which I always notice. Whatever their political differences, whenever there
    452
    is a chance of getting a cut at England, Scotsmen of all political parties unite. It is fairly obvious that we who represent some of the fishing ports of England are going to be very severely affected by the Bill if it is worked in a vindictive spirit, which I hope will not be the case. The Secretary of State for Scotland has very kindly met us on three important points, and especially so in one respect, as a result of which everybody starts afresh in regard to a new conviction. This was unexpected, and we heartily thank him for it. I hope

    453
    that, although he refused to consider the Amendment which dealt with trawling in stress of weather, he will take another look at the matter. He shakes his head. I must make one or two points on that question, because there are trawlers which go to Scotland to trawl and which, owing to fog, have no idea that they are within the three-mile limit. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not undertake to meet the owners' representatives and see if he cannot meet the point? Scotland possesses very varied features. Fogs come on quickly. The skipper is concerned with looking after his fish, and perhaps not so much with his position. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see to it that innocent people are not affected by the new Act.
    We in England are now fully aware of the vindictive action of the Socialist party in regard to penalties, and we hope that it will be appreciated by the working-class population. These increased penalties are directly aimed at the working classes of this country, not only the skippers but the crews. We who represent the large fishing ports, the trawler owners and the fishermen, feel that this action of the Socialist party should be thoroughly understood. I am surprised at the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) talking about outlaws and poachers. I remember what he once said about poaching when he was speaking on a very difficult subject some years ago. Did he not stand up for the poachers?
    Mr. MACLEAN: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Member's recollection is bad.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the Question now before the House.
    Lieut-Colonel HENEAGE: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. The English trawler owners do not like illegal trawling and do not encourage their men to poach. They do not countenance any illegality of that kind. For these reasons I hope the Government will do their best to meet us on that point.
    11.33 p.m.
    Sir I. MACPHERSON: I support the Third Reading of the Bill, and I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State on his courage in introducing it. Various Secretaries of State for Scotland have for years paid lip service to this
    454
    question, but it is only now that we have had a Bill which will give great satisfaction to the fishermen on the West and the East Coasts of Scotland. I agree that the English Members of Parliament so far as this Bill is concerned have had to endure a great deal, but I think, oh the whole, that when they see the Bill in its ultimate form they will realise that it is a Measure of fairness, long overdue to the fishermen on the coasts of Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate has been very useful throughout the Debate. He has been most conciliatory and has taken great pains to explain the difficulties in connection with the Bill, and I am sure the House is indebted to him for the courtesy and the ability which he has displayed in connection with this very difficult and controversial matter. That it has been controversial there can be no doubt, but it is largely due to the way the Bill has been piloted through the House that it will be accepted tonight nemine contradicente.
    11.34 p.m.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: I should like to join with my right hon. Friend in congratulating the Secretary of State for Scotland in having seen the Bill through the House of Commons. Some of us have been engaged for many years in trying to get a Bill of this nature placed upon the Statute Book and now, at last that has been done. I hope that my hon. Friends who represent trawling ports in England will not regard the Bill as directed against trawling. It certainly is not directed against trawling as an industry but is merely a Measure to protect the inshore fishermen of Scotland from people who break the law. May I take this opportunity of reminding the House that this is only a portion of the policy of the Government, the more important part is an improvement in the patrol service, and we hope that by improving the police service there will be little reason for putting the penalties provided in the Bill into operation.
    11.36 p.m.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: This is an excellent Bill, but there is one omission. We shall all join in congratulating the Secretary of State for Scotland on bringing forward a Bill which will enable us to deal with foreign trawlers as foreign Governments deal with our

    455
    own trawlers. The Bill as far as it goes is one for which we must thank the Secretary of State. At last our dream is being partly realised and our fishermen will once more be able to make a living.
    11.37 p.m.
    Sir JOHN PYBUS: I should also like to congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland, although not for the same reasons as have been the theme of other hon. Members. I think we must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that this hardy annual has been at long last carried through because the Government have been able safely to immolate in the National Ministry four of the staunchest opponents of this far too drastic Bill and who for years have defeated it on every occasion. I congratulate the Secretary of State on his luck and hope that the Bill will have a good run, before the English fishermen demand its amendment.
    11.38 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I want to emphasise the fact that I am strongly against any form of illegal trawling, and, so far as the Bill is an attack on illegal trawling in Scotland, I agree with it. I only regret that the illegal trawling of foreigners is not dealt with by the Bill. It is difficult for an ordinary Member of the House on such a complicated Bill as this to know exactly the meaning of the Amendments which have been made when we have not the printed amended Bill before us. I do not want to take up further time of the House, but I should like to point out that the Bill has been a very controversial subject for many years. If this is the beginning of more drastic action in regard to illegal trawling, and action on a wider scale, I am in favour of it, but it is very hard that by accident the opponents of the Bill from the north-east coast of England and the north-west coast of England and Scotland should now be sitting on the Front Bench or are absent, and it is unfortunate that this side of the great fishing industry should be deprived of their excellent views this evening. I still regret that the Government should have seen fit to force the further stages of the Bill through the House to-night when we cannot possibly know what is the real position in the Bill.
    11.39 p.m.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I should like to be allowed to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that out of a long series of Secretaries of State for Scotland during the last 16 or 17 years he has at last done something to placate the feeling of people in Scotland in regard to the fishing industry, and I hope that the Bill will bring about the results we all hope. If it does not then I hope that amending legislation will be brought in to make good any defects. I hope that the patrol vessels we have been promised will not only be put in hand at an early date, but that they will also be vessels whose speed will enable them to overhaul any of the trawlers which they suspect of being engaged in illegal trawling. When the Secretary of State has completed his programme of legislation affecting the fisheries of Scotland, the whole House will be able to congratulate him on the completion of a piece of work which has been almost the despair of Secretaries for Scotland during 15 or 16 years.
    11.42 p.m.
    Mr. BURNETT: I would like to thank the Secretary of State for the concessions which he has made. But that does not alter my opinion of the Bill. I consider that the Bill has been founded on vague statements, on generalities, on charges which cannot be made good. It is founded, not on the convictions which have taken place but on convictions which it is said might have taken place but never did. For that reason, and because I consider that the Bill is aimed at the trawling industry generally, I am opposed to the Bill. But it is no use carrying opposition further. The Government has big battalions behind it and our opposition only a handful, and we can do no more than go down fighting.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  OVERSEAS TRADE BILL.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  SUPPLY OF WATER IN BULK (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Chorlton.]

  ARBITRATION BILL [Lords].
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. James Duncan.]

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (1925) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Order [2nd March] that the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee read, and discharged.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Friday.—[Mr. Godfrey Nicholson.]
  It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at a Quarter before Twelve o'Clock.

  LAND SETTLEMENT, SCOTLAND.
  LAND SETTLEMENT, SCOTLAND.
  BREWING CONCERNS (PROFITS).
  BREWING CONCERNS (PROFITS).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1929.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1929.
  HOUSING (DUDLEY).
  HOUSING (DUDLEY).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (BENEFIT AND TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS, COST).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (BENEFIT AND TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS, COST).
  ANGLO-JAPANESE POLITICAL RELATIONS.
  ANGLO-JAPANESE POLITICAL RELATIONS.
  IMPERIAL AIR ROUTES.
  IMPERIAL AIR ROUTES.
  RAILWAY AND CANAL COMMISSION ABOLITION BILL.
  RAILWAY AND CANAL COMMISSION ABOLITION BILL.
  POLITICAL PARTIES (UNIFORMS).
  POLITICAL PARTIES (UNIFORMS).
Preamble
Reassembling after the Easter Recess, the House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
CHURCH HOUSE (WESTMINSTER) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; and referred to the Examiners.

INDIAN SERVICE PENSIONS.
VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT rose to call attention to the proposals for pensions payable out of Indian revenue to retired officers of the Indian Army and of the various Civil Services, and for the administration of the family funds contributed by those Services, as contained in the White Paper. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I make no apology for intruding on your Lordships' time for the Motion standing in my name. Whatever views may he taken of the merits of the case of the Indian pensioners, I know well that if any body of public servants have any anxiety as to the future of their pensions and those of their widows and orphans, your Lordships would be the first to realise that their case ought to be considered, and considered sympathetically. I understand that my noble friend Lord Halifax takes exception to my bringing forward this Motion on the ground of its connection with the White Paper. On that point all I will say at the moment is that I did not put it down until I was quite satisfied I was fully entitled to do so by the rules of this House, and also until I had satisfied myself that the case of these pensioners was one which, at any rate in my opinion, ought to be brought forward and considered. If my noble friend does reply to me I shall take it as an act of great courtesy on his part, but I want to make it clear to him and

481
to the House that if he refuses to reply at all I shall not consider I have any grievance or complaint whatever against him.
I have not put this Motion down with a view to eliciting any reply from the Government. I have done it simply because I feel that the case of these pensioners and the future security of their pensions should be considered and brought out. Now these Funds, the Indian Pension Funds, come under various headings. There is the Indian Army Families' Fund, the Indian Army Widows' and Orphans' Fund, and there is what is called the Superior Services (India) Fund—rather a curious term that means, I understand, the Police, Education, Forestry, and similar Services. Then there is the Indian Civil Service Family Pensions Fund, and there is the Indian Medical Service Fund, which comes under rather a different category from the others, but for the purpose we are discussing this afternoon all these Funds can be lumped together. The point I want to bring out chiefly is that the future security of these pensions should be the ultimate responsibility of Parliament. I understand there are living in England between 7,000 and 8,000 of these pensioners, including widows and orphans, and including also the Army and the Indian Civil Service. In addition to that I believe there are about 450 who come under the Indian Medical Service Fund. From the answer given by the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State, to Question No. 11381, the sum required to meet these pensions is£4,000,000 a year. That is not a definite sum, I ought to explain, because he did not say that in reply to a definite question, but he happened to bring that figure in as he believed it to he the sum. I do not mention that as binding him to that particular figure. I have an idea it is probably a little more.
At present, thanks to the control which the Secretary of State has over the Revenues of India, these pensions are practically guaranteed by Parliament, but under the new proposals that control will cease to exist, and the conditions and circumstances will be very different. The present proposals as regards these pensions, as I understand them, are not yet complete. I have here paragraph 73 of the Introduction to the White Paper which says:
482
"His Majesty's Government hope to be in a position to submit recommendations on this subject later to the Joint Select Committee."
That, I understand, refers to the Family Pension Fund, and not to the particular Pension Funds I have mentioned. The India Office issued a Paper on November 14 with reference to these Family Pension Funds, and it is not necessary for me to go into that question to-day except to say this, that it must be borne in mind that these Family Pension Funds are subscribed by the members themselves. The money comes out of their own pockets, it is really their money, and owing to their anxiety as to this money coming back to them as pensions in the future, they lay stress on the wish that these funds should be transferred from India and invested in England. That is a very strong point, because if that is done they will not receive as high interest as they are getting now.
I lay stress on that point because it has been argued that these people have had pressure brought to bear upon them from outside sources to take up this question of their grievances, and I submit to your Lordships that if they are willing, owing to their great anxiety as to the future of their position, to receive a less interest on their money, it goes a long way to prove the truth of their anxiety. However, as I say, I am not going to dwell on that note of November 14. What I want to consider particularly to-day is the letter which the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State wrote to Sir Arthur Samuel on November 13 last. I regret that in taking this action I am obliged to take up an attitude against my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I do so with great regret. I have the greatest possible respect for him. He and I have been very old friends for many years, and I do not mind saying that I am quite satisfied, whatever I may say or whatever he may say, our friendship will not be impaired. At the same time I shall have to say things with reference to his action. I know his view, and I know he is only taking it from the highest motives, but I shall have to criticise him to some extent, for, after all, I am sure he would be the first to admit that he is the villain of the piece. Therefore I do not think he will mind very much.
That letter of November 13, which was published wholesale, caused great consternation to the pensioners, and I am bound to say—and I regret to have to do so—that it was written in an unfortunate tone. It seemed in some way rather offensive. I think it was a pity. I think it was an undignified letter. I do not think it was a letter which ought to have borne the signature of a Secretary of State, certainly of the Secretary of State of our great Indian Empire. However that may be, there it is, and I am only too glad to recognise that the strain on my right honourable friend has been so enormous that one ought not to attach undue importance to any little lapse into petulance. Now this letter to Sir Arthur Michael Samuel is full of safeguards—safeguards stated rather as facts. I thought we were all getting rather bored with safeguards. I observe that the Prime Minister himself has been bored with them for some time. Here is what he said on April 11, 1912, with reference to the safeguards in the Home Rule Bill of the late Lord Oxford and Asquith:
"I am bound to confess that I am one of those who do not believe that safeguards of any certain efficiency can ever be put into an Act of Parliament."
Well, if these so-called safeguards ever get as far as the Cabinet, I think the Indian pensioners may have some hope of finding that the Prime Minister is on their side.
I should like to read some parts of this letter to Sir Arthur Samuel. In the second paragraph it says:
"It is inconceivable that the Committee, many of whose members have held high office in connection with the administration of India, will make recommendations in their Report, or that subsequently Parliament will pass a Bill embodying a new Constitution for India, without satisfying themselves as to the security of pensions earned by service under the Crown in India."
I entirely agree with what my right honourable friend says, but even if the proposals as they now stand are approved by the Committee, even if they get as far as the Cabinet, and, still more, if they get as far as Parliament, I shall be very much surprised indeed if they are accepted.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has been very much upset by the action taken by a certain political body which he accuses of exercising
484
political propaganda. I do not know why he should object so very much to that. If he casts his memory back, I think be will find that he and I have both been very guilty in combination in years past in the same direction. However, he has been very much upset by this, and, as he thinks this body has so much influence all round, and as he may think that they are responsible for my wickedness in putting this Motion on the Paper, I think I ought to let him know that, although I am a member of the body myself and proud and glad to be a member, they knew nothing whatever about it until I had put it down on the Paper. I was the first to tell them that I had done so. I went to the office in order to let them know, and to ask if they could give me some propaganda. They very kindly supplied me with this letter which I am now discussing with your Lordships.
Now let us look at the so-called safeguards. They are for the most part condensed in the fourth paragraph on the second page of this letter, and I must again ask your Lordships if you will excuse me if I make a quotation:
"The Governor-General will he declared in the Constitution to be charged with a special responsibility for safeguarding the rights and legitimate interests of these Services. He will have the power in the event of need to carry out this responsibility, as he will be authorised to make such modifications in the Budget proposals as he considers necessary to its discharge, and he will also be empowered, if the Finance Act as passed by the Indian Legislature does not provide the resources necessary, to enact a Governor-General's Act. This would have the same force as an Act of the Legislature and would impose the taxation required to supply the funds necessary for him to meet pensionary charges."
That reads very well. These safeguards, like so many others, are all right so long as you have not got to use them. The trouble begins when you have to try to enforce these safeguards, and I want to know what is the position of the Viceroy going to be if there is a Budget with a deficit, if he has to find the money, if he has to impose additional taxation for the purpose of these pensions in the face, perhaps, of a majority of the Congress Party, then in power—and I suppose that the right honourable gentleman will not guarantee that that Party will not get power, or that never again in India, notwithstanding the new Constitution that may be enacted, will there be a Budget with a deficit.
I submit to your Lordships that it may be that the Viceroy may have power to enact special taxation in order to meet pension charges; but will he do it? Ought he to do it? Assume that the country or parts of the country are seething with discontent and that the Congress Party is in power. Is it conceivable that even the Home Government would be able to approve such drastic action on his part and upset the whole position in the Indian Empire? I repeat that in my humble opinion these safeguards accorded to the Viceroy are not worth the paper they are written on in the moment of stress and trouble which is sure to come some day or other in India as it has done in the past. What we are aiming at is that the responsibility of Parliament should remain for the payment of these pensions, as it is now, in some way or other. It must be remembered that the responsibility of Parliament has always been assumed in the past. It was assumed in the Simon Commission, and, before that, in the Lee Commission, and in the famous Despatch of the 20th September, 1930, signed by my noble friend below me (Viscount Halifax).
Let me first quote from the Report of the Simon Commission, Volume II, Part IX, page 292 The Simon Commission say as follows:
"It has been represented to us that a transfer from the Secretary of State in Council of the control over the finances of India might imperil the security of officers' pensions and the provident and Family pension funds which have been built up by their own contributions. These are, of course, and must continue to be, a liability on Indian Revenues, just as current salaries are: pensions are really in the nature of deferred pay."
Then they go on to allude to the Lee Commission as follows:
"The Lee Commission, in dealing with a similar representation, recorded its view that"—
the words following are from the Lee Commission—
"if any statutory change is made hereafter, involving the transfer of the financial control in this regard now exercised by the Secretary of State in Council, adequate provisions would at the same time be made for safeguarding Service pensions."
The Simon Commission go on:
"We are not in fact proposing any change which would bring these pensions in jeopardy, but we wish expressly to adopt and confirm this recommendation for the future."
Now let me quote from the famous Government of India Despatch of September 20, 1930, signed, let me remind your Lordships, by my noble friend below me (Viscount Halifax):
"…Parliament must remain responsible for the pay and pensions, family pensions and provident funds of all officials recruited by the Secretary of State. It may be argued that it would be a sufficient discharge of the responsibility of Parliament, if it were provided as part of the new Constitution, that the sums required to make the payments due under the above three main headings should be a statutory first charge on a Consolidated Fund, payable independent of any Vote by the Indian Legislature."
"But (a), a first charge on revenue is of no value unless the necessary taxes are levied to produce sufficient revenue—"
That is the point. Is it not quite conceivable that a state of affairs may arise in which there may not be sufficient money for the purpose of finding what is required for these pensions?
I must now say one word on the question of family funds. In paragraph 73 of the introduction to the White Paper, the following words occur:
"His Majesty's Government hope to he in a position to submit their recommendations on this subject later to the Joint Select Committee."
So far as I know they are not yet in a position to submit those proposals to the Committee. I understand that the Secretary of State is very kindly communicating with the subscribers to these family funds and waiting to hear their views and to see if he can meet their wishes. In reference to the family funds, I only want to remind your Lordships that those funds are the personal subscriptions of the individuals who subscribe them. They are money out of their own pockets. These funds are not invested in India—they are paid into the Inland Revenues but they are not invested—and the recipients get fairly good interest when the pensions reach them. But that is not what they want. They want more security, and they are willing to accept a less sum rather than lose the security of the money being properly invested in English funds. The Secretary of State also, in the letter I have referred to, rather dismisses a point that had been raised, that£12,000,000 should be guaranteed. He dismisses that as being an intolerable burden. Well, he had no difficulty recently in floating a 3½ percent. loan, arid I cannot help thinking

487
that a loan for this particular purpose of pension funds and family funds would not only be very popular, but would be very acceptable and approved by a great many people in this country as a help to the Indian pensioners.
Another point the Secretary of State raises is that any guarantee of the Treasury would weaken the credit of the new Indian Governments. I cannot help thinking that that is hardly a worthy consideration. I think it is answered by the Lee Commission and the India Despatch from which I have already quoted. These documents are signed by natives of great eminence in India, and they urge that Parliament should be responsible for the payment of these pensions. The right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State in this letter rather makes light of the financial position in India. He is certainly quite justified in calling attention to the success of his recent 3½per cent. loan, and to the present high credit of India. I do not pretend to understand finance myself, but I am told by experts in finance that there are circumstances of a purely financial nature amply sufficient to explain the rise in India's credit—that this present satisfactory condition is due, in the first place, to England having carried India with her off the gold standard, to the reduction of interest on the War Loan, and to the amount of capital awaiting investment here in this country which has enabled loans to be considerably cheapened. But the moment you impair credit all this will go with a run.
India depends largely on Customs Duties, and as foreign goods are being kept out to enable home goods to be sold Customs receipts will shrink. I am informed they are already doing so. Then, again, the cost of administration has already gone up and it is to be specially noted that where Indians have control the cost has increased very rapidly, while the returns from taxation, which is not levied with such fairness as with us, have been largely reduced. Now, on top of all this comes the statement of Sir Arthur McWatters, that£20,000,000 a year will be required from extra taxation to start the proposed new financial scheme. Sir Arthur, as those who have heard him can testify, is by no means an unfriendly critic of the White Paper. It is true that
488
he has an alternative scheme of his own. How much value is to be attached to that I do not know, but I do know that his reputation as a financier, and especially as an Indian financier, is beyond dispute. He is second to none. His opinion on this additional£20,000,000 cannot be ignored. I think that tends greatly to strengthen my argument that special protection should be given to future pensions.
The Secretary of State in this letter calls attention to the financial safeguards securing the financial stability of India. Sir Arthur McWatters has blown those sky-high with his recent announcement. It is impossible to contend that the pensioners are not justified in having—in fact, they must have—the gravest fears as to the future security of their pensions. I should like to add this point. As the law now stands the pensioners, if there should be any failure to pay their pensions, have the right to obtain a decree from the Courts in England against the Secretary of State in Council for payment out of the Revenues of India. Under the proposed new Constitution this will go by the board. I feel that this a very serious subject, which ought to be gone into very carefully, and I should like to make a suggestion to my noble friend below me.
It is not entirely my own suggestion. I happened to come across it and I thought it a good one. After all is said and done it is fair to state, I think, that this question of pensions does not bear directly on the constitutional proposals in the White Paper. They can be looked upon as separate and apart. I deplore that this question of pensions should come at all into the region of Party politics. It ought to be kept apart from Party politics and regarded upon its own merits. The suggestion I wish to put before my noble friend is this. Might it not be possible to appoint a small independent Committee, consisting, say, of three members, a legal functionary, a retired civil servant, and possibly a man acquainted with insurance work? A Committee of that kind might be appointed to go into this question and prepare a report. Of course, I do not contend for a moment that that Committee should do more than suggest and recommend, but I do think that some action of that kind might bring this question out of Party politics so that it could be treated entirely on its own merits. I do not ask my noble friend to

489
reply to me on this point to-day, but I ask him to consider it with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for India.
Who are these pensioners They are men who have served the greater part, the best part of their lives in India. They have served in a trying climate, with long periods of exile from the homeland, and, worse than that in many cases, with long periods of separation from home life with their children who have to be sent here for educational purposes. I cannot help thinking that they are deserving of very special consideration. Has there ever been a body of men whose work is comparable to the work done by these men of the great Indian Civil Service of which we are so intensely proud? They are men of the highest intellectual capacity, trained by experience of great responsibility, and that training has formed men of very deep and earnest character. I am sure that your Lordships will all hope with me that when the Report of this Committee is published it will be found that proper provision has been made to meet the claims of these men.
In that connection I should like to allude to an answer given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in his evidence before the Joint Select Committee. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, put a question to the Secretary of State and said:
"He does not think that some step ought to be taken to make it abundantly clear to them that they are in as absolutely strong a position as they were before the passing of this Act, if it becomes an Act?"
The Secretary of State replied:
"I am quite aware that many of them are very anxious. I think, if I may say so in passing, they have been made more anxious by the very active propaganda that has been carried out to stir up their anxieties; but, realising the depth of their anxiety, I still say that they are safe and we have taken effective steps for ensuring the security of their pensions, and I do not think anything further is needed."
I do not for a moment suggest that that was not an absolutely proper answer for the Secretary of State for India to give, but it is not an answer to the question. The question was whether the pensioners would be in as absolutely strong a position, if this became an Act, as they were before the passing of the Act.
I say with all respect to my right honourable friend—and I couple myself with him—that I do not think it matters twopence what he says or what he thinks, any more than it matters twopence what I say or what I think: the question is, what is the fact? Will these pensioners he equally secure and as certainly secure in the future, if these proposals are adopted, as they are now? I maintain that they will not. I hope that when this Report comes from the Committee it will be found not to bear the same complexion as it does now. If that be not the case, and if it gets as far as the Cabinet, then I shall be surprised if the Cabinet do not greatly alter it. If that does not happen, then I look forward to Parliament insisting that these pensioners shall be properly and safely secured by Statute, and not only the pensioners, but their widows and their children.
LORD CHARNWOOD: My Lords, I confess that the question raised by the noble Viscount opposite appears to me to be a question of simple honesty upon which it is unintelligible to me that there can be two opinions, if indeed it be the fact, when the matter has been finally considered by the Government, that there prove to be two opinions. I have nothing but the greatest respect and admiration, even when in a humble way I am inclined to disagree with them, for the Secretary of State and the other statesmen chiefly associated with him in our Indian policy. Looking at that letter of the Secretary of State to which my noble friend has already referred, I cannot believe that the full force of his wisdom and his perception has yet been applied to this particular question among all the multitude of difficult and important questions by which, as we all recognise, he must be overwhelmed at the present time. Surely it is quite incontestible that the proposed constitutional changes in India would create for the people entitled to these pensions, and people entitled to payments out of those various family funds, an appreciable risk, which risk is at the present time utterly negligible or non-existent. I am not going to urge that it is a great risk, but I do say that it is an appreciable risk which ought to be taken into account by reasonable men, and in particular by the Government and the Parliament which are proposing to create that risk for them.

491
It is not really taking a very gloomy view of things to say that there is an appreciable risk that the proposed new Government of India might at some time fail to meet these obligations. I am afraid that it is quite certain—I shall be glad to hear if it is not—that the burdens now falling on the Indian taxpayer are likely to increase under the new system of government. I am afraid it is very probable that the new Government of India will have very difficult financial problems to face, and it seems to me quite inevitable that large payments sent overseas to retired people of another race living overseas may be made to be regarded in a very odious light by large and important sections of the people. To say that is not for a moment to impute to our Indian fellow-subjects any special degree of obliquity. We have before known Governments to repudiate what seemed to us their plain financial obligations. It has been done in the past by several of the United States of America, communities composed of men who are of our own race, nurtured in English traditions of government in (as they would themselves have claimed) a rather improved form; and more recently we have seen, in the case of the Government of the Irish Free State, a repudiation of what seemed to ourselves plain and manifest financial obligations—an entire repudiation of them, which somehow or other Irishmen, not individually and personally dishonest, have, by some mental process, persuaded themselves to be just. Therefore it ought not to be felt that I am casting any slight on the Indian character as compared with our own character when I suggest that the idea of these payments becoming extremely unpopular, and an Indian Government under stress of difficulty defaulting upon them, is not an altogether wild idea. It represents a quite appreciable risk.
The answer commonly made to that is that after all there is the Governor-General there with those great and unlimited powers which he possesses to interfere in all sorts of matters in case the Government should go wrong. Does any one of us really feel quite confident that in the grave state of affairs which would exist in India if a question of this sort were to arise, the Governor-General would use, and strain, his arbitrary powers for this particular purpose, which
492
might seem to many people a small one in comparison with other issues pressing upon him? Will any one of us even say confidently that in all the circumstances which he can conceive arising in India in the future, it would be the duty of the Governor-General to make use of his powers and to legislate for that particular purpose? If that is the state of affairs, and if there is, as I contend there is, an appreciable risk—and I am not magnifying it; I repeat that it is a risk of a sort which reasonable people should take into account as real, even if they hope that it will never arise—surely the simple result of these considerations is that the British Parliament, in creating the new condition of affairs out of which the risk will arise, should guarantee these persons—persons who have served not merely India but this country and the whole British Empire.
I believe that the latest answer to this sort of argument which I have tried to condense—the latest answer on the part of the Government—is that letter of the Secretary of State which has already been referred to. On page 4 of that published letter of November 13, 1933, the Secretary of State expresses in a general way his great confidence that the Government of India will not only be perfectly willing, but perfectly able, to fulfil all its obligations. Of course he has that confidence. If he personally was not inspired with very sanguine hopes in this matter nobody supposes that under any pressure at all would he consent for a moment to adopt the policy outlined in the White Paper. That goes without saying. But in reference to the real argument which he uses, as an answer to the suggestion that these pensions should have the guarantee of Parliament behind them, he writes this:
"Such action would weaken the credit of the new Indian Government as implying doubt of their intention to honour in their integrity their obligations."
Incidentally, I may observe that the new Indian Government is an unknown quantity, to come into being in the future, and to be subject to incalculable change in a further future. Granted that the utmost confidence ought to be felt in the future actions of this future body, surely the very strangest possible way to manifest confidence in it is to refuse to guarantee its fulfilment of these obligations which concern us.

493
I hope that this matter will be considered very carefully. The Secretary of State refers to the efforts now being made "to exploit the anxieties of pensioners." I regret that he should have used that sentence. I think it was not quite worthy of him. Certainly I do not wish to exploit those fears, or to use the language of exaggerated fear. I do not happen to have spoken to a single pensioner on the subject. If I should do so I should never put that fear higher than, as I have said, a possibility of which a reasonable man ought to take account. I do not put it higher at present because, frankly, I regard that sentence which I have read from the letter of the Secretary of State as a sentence written or signed in haste, without thought or without full consideration.
But if that really is the fixed and final answer of the Secretary of State, and of the Government, on this question which we are pressing upon them, what follows? I speak as one not having great knowledge of these Indian questions—I am far from claiming that—but as one of many people who approach the whole Indian question with a most earnest desire to believe that the confidence of the Government in what I may call, broadly, the White Paper policy is right, and that our—probably in my own case ignorant—fears are ill-founded. I am most willing to be persuaded of that, but if with so manifest a claim, as I think it is, upon them, the Government still fight shy of giving the guarantee that is asked of them, what can we think? I am not specially interested in the point of pensions, important as it is. It is the whole scheme of the White Paper in its effects on the mass of the people of India, that mainly interests me, and interests most of us; but although the pensions, however important, may be said to be a minor point, they are in this matter intensely significant in regard to the whole policy concerned.
If the Government are not prepared to meet the arguments of my noble friend on this point, and if the Government are determined to leave the existing insecurity, or sense of insecurity, on the part of the pensioners just where it is, by absolutely withholding the guarantee of this country from those payments, what must be the effect on the feeling of the world at large—indeed on the feelings of
494
the Indians themselves? Surely, rightly or wrongly, the only inference that crowds of people all the world over must draw from the refusal of such a guarantee, is that at heart the Government themselves are far from feeling confidence in the soundness of the new Constitution which they are proposing to bring in.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I cannot help feeling that the whole of the arguments addressed to your Lordships by the two noble Lords would more usefully have been addressed to the Joint Select Committee, and I very much doubt whether the Government or the Secretary of State could possibly commit themselves to any policy on the subject before the matter had been before the Joint Select Committee, further than the giving of an assurance, such as any Government can give, that they will do their best to see that the obligations to the pensioners are fully met. Therefore I cannot help thinking that the arguments of the noble Lords are rather in the nature of beating the air. I wish, however, to make a suggestion. It is said that you cannot rely upon the Government of India to pay its debts, and the United States citizens say that you cannot rely upon the British Parliament to pay its debts, and therefore I suggest that you should seek a better security than either of those. I apprehend that the pension rights of these gentlemen can be actuarially computed at a certain value. I do not know whether in the books of the Indian Government account is kept of the accumulated value of, or the liability of the Government for, these pensions, but I believe that if communication was entered into with any of the large insurance companies they would be prepared, for the sake of certain payments, to take over the whole actuarial liability of the fund. I suggest that the Government of India should proceed to raise a public loan, and pay over that amount to the Prudential or other association, and make them liable for the payment of these pensions. I think that is quite as practical a suggestion as any that have been mentioned in this debate.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, although my noble friend behind me at the outset of his observations said he would not feel in any sense that he was being treated with discourtesy if I

495
refrained from making any reply at all to his speech, I feel for my own part, both on grounds of courtesy and perhaps on some other grounds more general, that the speech he made, and indeed the debate as a whole, calls for a few words of reply from one who represents His Majesty's Government rather than that we should leave the matter at this stage. In saying that, however, I am bound to point out to your Lordships, of which indeed you will be well aware, that in speaking on this occasion I speak under circumstances of considerable difficulty as a member of the Joint Select Committee which is charged with the examination of this and cognate problems, therefore conceiving myself to be precluded from expressing personal opinions on matters which are still, as it were sub judice. But I think that even within those limits there are certain things I may properly say.
I listened with great attention and with great admiration, if he will allow me to say so, to the eloquence of my noble friend, and with great agreement for the sentiments expressed in most of the speech which he delivered, but my admiration for his eloquence and my agreement with the main premise on which he built his speech still leave me, I am afraid, completely bewildered as to the purpose he has sought at this stage to effect by bringing this matter before your Lordships' House to-day. I hope in the few words which I shall speak to be able to offer some reasons to your Lordships why I think he has followed what seems to be a questionable, and what is certainly an inconvenient, course. May I remind your Lordships in a sentence or two of what the actual position of this matter at present is? His Majesty's Government made certain proposals in the White Paper rather more than a year ago. Consideration of these proposals was remitted by another place and by your Lordships' House to the Joint Select Committee almost exactly a year ago to-day—within a week of a year ago—and the instructions that your Lordships gave to that Committee were that before Parliament was asked to take a decision upon the proposals contained in the Command Paper "it was expedient that a Joint Select Committee of Lords and Commons"—I leave out irrelevant words—"be appointed in particular to examine and report upon
496
the proposals in the said Command Paper."
Now, my Lords, for a year that Committee—during the earlier part of the year in consultation with representatives from India—have been examining the problem in all its bearings. They have been taking evidence of every kind and have been making what, as a member of it I am perhaps entitled to say, is a most painstaking effort to find the best and wisest solution to recommend to your Lordships on every one of the problems involved. I believe there would be no member of the Committee drawn from your Lordships' House who would not say that the Committee had been approaching every part of its task with the utmost attempt to exercise a judicial judgment on the matters remitted to them. I can assure the noble Lord who spoke last and my noble friend that they have no monopoly of interest in seeing that the honour of Parliament and the honour of this country is maintained in this vital regard. That is a matter on which every member of the Joint Select Committee feels just as strongly as any member of your Lordships' House possibly can.
Yet it is at this stage that the noble Viscount behind me brings forward this question with the express purpose, as he says, that the matter should be considered, as if it had not already dawned upon the other members on the Joint Select Committee that there was here a problem that needed very careful consideration indeed. It is at this stage, when the Joint Select Committee has completed its efforts and will be shortly invited to consider its Report, that he thinks it opportune to bring forward this matter for debate. I would remind him, of what indeed he must be well aware, that this is no new subject to engage the attention of those who have followed Indian affairs. I think I should be right in saying it has engaged the attention of every Secretary of State from the days of Mr. Montagu when constitutional reforms on the larger scale were introduced or were under consideration. As he pointed out, it engaged the attention of the Statutory Commission, having engaged before that the attention of the Lee Commission. It certainly engaged the attention, as I shall have occasion to develop in a sentence or two presently, of the Government of India when they wrote

497
their Despatch in 1930; and the noble Marquess on the Liberal Benches knows how well it has engaged the attention of every session of the Round-Table Conference.
My noble friend referred to the letter that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for India had occasion some time ago to address to Sir Arthur Michael Samuel, and he used one phrase in regard to it that perhaps he used in error, and he will no doubt allow me to correct him. If I understood him correctly—and I think I did—he said that the Secretary of State's letter was offensive to pensioners. I think that if he refreshes his memory about the letter he will not find anything in it which is offensive to pensioners, and it is just to my right honourable friend that that statement should not be allowed to pass if it is, as I think, without foundation.
VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT: The pensioners took it as very offensive that the Secretary of State seemed to impute to them that they had been led by an outside body called the India Defence League.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: Of course, if my noble friend says that members of the Services thought the Secretary of State's letter was offensive, I obviously have no more to say, because that would indeed be conclusive; but I am bound to say that, on reading the letter, I can see nothing in it that could rightly have earned that condemnation. It is quite true that the Secretary of State made a reference to the campaign to, as he said, "exploit, these anxieties and to mobilise them for an attack upon the Government's proposals for constitutional reform in India." Similar attempts are from time to time made under the guise of more than one very public-spirited and Innocuous form, but, after all, the Secretary of State, in saying that, is only stating what seemed to him to be a fact, on which he is, as a fact, I think, entitled to have an opinion, and on which I have no doubt he did not speak without having very full ground for the opinion that he there expressed.
But it is worth while reminding your Lordships that in that much-discussed letter the Secretary of State used language that could hardly have been stronger as to the responsibility that he conceived to rest both upon members o
498
the Committee and upon Parliament in regard to this matter. I think my noble friend quoted some of the words, but I, if I may, will quote them again, and quote the full context:
"It is inconceivable that the Committee, many of whose members have held high office in connection with the administration of India, will make recommendations in their Report, or that subsequently Parliament will pass a Bill embodying a new Constitution for India, without satisfying themselves as to the security of pensions earned by service under the Crown in India."
Therefore I do put it to the House that the main purpose to which my noble friend behind me and the noble Lord opposite have addressed their remarks—namely, that of securing the payment of these pensions—is not in dispute in any quarter of the House or among any of those who are concerned with it. But exactly for that reason I think the action of my noble friend at this juncture has been unnecessary and that, being unnecessary, it is liable to misinterpretation as an attempt to prejudge, and to that extent prejudice in advance, any Report that the Joint Select Committee may deem it wise and proper to make to Parliament.
After all, many persons who read debates that may be held to-day or to-morrow or the next week in this House are not able to follow the day-to-day proceedings that have been occupying the Joint Select Committee all through these long months, and they might quite naturally be led to conclude, by the fact that my noble friend thought it necessary to bring forward a special subject for debate in this House, that he had discovered that the Joint Select Committee were not applying their minds at all adequately to this problem; and that, I think, however much my noble friend might disclaim any such intention, might inflict a grave injustice on that Committee.
As a member of that Committee I do not wish, nor would it be right for me, to discuss the merits or the demerits of the Government proposals that are now sub judice, and therefore I deliberately refrain from following my noble friend into several matters that might, if I did so, possibly involve me in what would be an improper controversy. But think it is legitimate to remind the House and those who read our proceedings of what the Government proposals, as contained

499
in the White Paper, actually were; and I think it is the more necessary to do so because my noble friend who introduced this subject used a phrase that I think was as follows. He said that at the present moment these pensions are practically guaranteed by Parliament, because they are controlled by the Secretary of State, but that in future that control will cease; and it is on that text that, if I may, I want to say a word or two.
First of all, the discharge of these pension obligations under the White Paper is made one of the special responsibilities of the Governor-General. In the next place, those pensions are non-votable and are open only to discussion by the Indian Legislature; and, in the third place, if the Governor-General considers the Budget insufficient for the discharge of these special responsibilities, he can add to the Budget extra proposals which will not be submitted to the vote of the Legislature, and can, if need be, as my noble friend said, enact a Governor-General's Act to raise the requisite money. On that two points arise. The first is the sentence which I quoted from my noble friend—namely, that the Secretary of State's control would cease. If he would look at Paragraph 20 of the White Paper proposals he would see that it is there specifically laid down that
"The Governor General… in taking action for the discharge of any special responsibility… will act in accordance with such directions, if any, not being directions inconsistent with anything in his Instructions, as may be given to him by a principal Secretary of State."
Therefore on that point constitutionally the position of the Secretary of State is amply made clear, when the Governor-General is acting in discharge of his special responsibilities.
My noble friend is, of course, entirely entitled to advance his view—a view for which I was interested to see that he claimed the support of the Prime Minister, though from a totally different context, if he will allow me to say so—that no safeguards such as those suggested in the White Paper would, in fact, be operative. It is a view with which we are, of course, all familiar, and I have no doubt that it is one of the precise points to which the Joint Select Committee will feel it their duty to address their minds. All that I say on that point at this stage, speaking as
500
a member of His Majesty's Government, is this, that unless His Majesty's Government had felt that these safeguarding proposals were, and could be made, effective, they would not have submitted them to the consideration of Parliament or, through Parliament, to the Joint Select Committee.
My noble friend also quoted a reference from the Government of India Despatch on which I wish to say a word. He was concerned, I think, to draw the conclusion that the Government of India Despatch recommended that, inasmuch as there was this great responsibility resting upon Parliament, therefore Parliament must remain responsible for these pensions being maintained in the sense that he recommended to this House. I had something to do with the drawing up of this Despatch, and I think it is just and right to tell my noble friend that the conclusion that the Despatch was designed to lead up to was not that, and I think that would have been quite plain to him if he had read a little further in the paragraph than he did. He read so far as to show that the Despatch argued that it was not enough to meet these obligations securely to place a first charge upon Indian revenues, for the reason that, among other things, a first charge is of no value unless there is in fact sufficient money raised by taxes, and that in the Indian ease the total of the charges that have to be met formed a very substantial proportion of the whole Budget.
But the Despatch went on:
"We do not go so far as to suggest that this circumstance "—
that is to say, the possibility of a solution by way of imposing a first charge being inadequate to resolve the problem—
"must constitute a permanent obstacle to any transfer of financial responsibility. But Parliament may not unreasonably demand some signal guarantee for the future, before surrendering the security provided by its direct constitutional power to control proposals for taxation and expenditure through a Minister responsible to itself."
I think I perhaps can interpret what was in one's own mind at that time, and I find no discrepancy between the argument of that Despatch and the safeguarding proposals as proposed under the White Paper to-day. I do not re-discuss the question of the propriety of Treasury guarantee, or the technical treatment of the Family Pension Funds, which have

501
figured in the speeches delivered this afternoon. I have no doubt my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will inform himself in detail of what has been said. The two main points that I have been concerned to emphasise so far as I might are, first, that on the main purpose of making pensions secure and discharging every obligation that honourably lies in favour of those who long and loyally have served the Crown, men of all Parties, so far as I know, in and out of this House, are in substantial agreement. That was the first thing I desired to say. The second was that I did not think that it was profitable to discuss this matter, the position being as I have tried to describe it, until your Lordships should do so in the light of the Report I hope the Joint Select Committee in due course will make.

PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL POLICE FORCE.
LORD DAVIEShad given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether they will declare their willingness to consider the formation of an International Police Force under the control of the League of Nations with a view to increased security and the better maintenance of world order; and move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise for introducing the subject of which I have given Notice because it has already been discussed in another place where it received the support of members of both Parties. I cannot help thinking, however, that it is appropriate the matter should be discussed in your Lordships' House. Your Lordships will have observed that a statement was made that the Government would be willing to consider the question of the formation of an International Police Force, though they could not give it their support now. They simply suggested that in these most difficult times every avenue will be explored in order to find an international solution that will safeguard the security of this and other countries. I respectfully suggest that the least they could do is to consider seriously the subject of this Motion.
We do not expect them to give any decision to-night. I think it will be admitted that this matter has never really been considered carefully. It has never been discussed in the country, and
502
it would, therefore, be unfair to ask the Government to legislate in advance of public opinion. At the same time I think noble Lords would agree that the policy which has hitherto been pursued over a long period since the War is a policy that has not brought about the results which are desired. The prestige and authority of the League of Nations has become much less than it was some years ago. It is most important that every possible solution should be most carefully considered. I have no doubt that there are a great many people who will denounce any proposal for an International Police Force because they think it is quite impracticable, and that there are so many technical difficulties to he overcome. There are so many obstacles of a purely technical character to be overcome that they dismiss the proposition as being visionary and impracticable.
I would venture to suggest at the outset that it is not so much a question of discussing and considering the technicalities and practicability of any scheme, but rather of clearing our minds and endeavouring to discover what is the right policy to pursue and whether that policy is based upon sound and statesmanlike principles. In passing I would remind your Lordships, in regard to the practicability of any scheme for an International Police Force, that during the War it was found practicable and feasible to have a unified command. If it was possible to achieve the co-operation of the nations who were engaged in the War and to translate that co-operation into the terms of organisation, then it is, I submit, possible to do it now in peace time if we apply our minds to the solution of the problem. One reason which shows that the scheme is not so impracticable as many would have us suppose is that already a responsible Government has put forward definite and concrete proposals for the establishment of an International Force. I imagine that those proposals would not have been put forward at Geneva unless the Government of France had been convinced, supported by expert opinion, that the organisation and establishment of such a Force was a practicable proposition. I am also fortified by the opinion expressed by several very distinguished military experts who have definitely given it as their considered opinion that it is possible, assuming political difficulties are got out of the way, to

503
deal with the technical problems which arise in the formation of any scheme.
I do not want for one moment to minimise the difficulties of thinking out, elaborating and establishing a scheme of this kind, but in this vital matter the first thing we ought to do is to make up our minds upon the principles and upon the policy which should be the basis of any such scheme. I think a great many will agree that the main principle upon which any sort of durable, I will not say permanent, peace depends, is that it should be based upon the conception of justice. It is impossible to expect to secure peace unless there are means and methods and organisations capable of administering elementary justice. Therefore the first principle appears to me to be that in any scheme there must be at least an organisation for the specific settlement of all disputes. That principle is contained in Article 19 of the Covenant of the League, which provides at the moment a very inadequate method for the revision of treaties and for the settlement of disputes which are not suitable for submission to the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague. The necessity of a tribunal of that kind became manifest during the Sino-Japanese dispute. After a, very long delay because there was no permanent body available to deal with the matter, the Lytton Commission was appointed, composed of impartial persons who were sent out to the scene of the dispute to make an investigation on the spot. That Commission, as we all know, presented a most valuable Report, a most comprehensive Report, which was unanimously adopted by the Assembly of the League. When we talk about an International Police Force we link up with, that consideration the idea, of a tribunal which is capable of settling, and which is empowered to settle, all disputes of every kind which are not suitable for submission to the Court of International Justice at The Hague. That, I submit, is the first principle.
The second principle is the principle of the right use of force. I conceive, and I think very few noble Lords will dispute it, that the only right or moral use of force is the performance of the police function. I know that sounds a very elementary proposition. It is a proposition which we all agree to in national communities, but it is a proposition which
504
has not yet found its place in any system of international relationships. Until an International Force has been established, wielded by an impartial authority, that principle will not be allowed to function. The police function means protection against injury and aggression and also enforcement of international obligations. I cannot help feeling that there is still a certain amount of confusion of thought about the whole moral question of the use of force. We must all of us belong to one of three categories. Either we are abolitionists, who want to abolish force in all its forms—that I suppose is the principle underlying the Covenant—or we are duellists who still cling to the duelling system, which means the victory of the strongest at the moment, or we are policemen. To one of those three categories we must belong. We cannot escape from it. We must make up our minds that force is no longer to be regarded as the instrument of policy. When we have done that we have done what we did, in theory at any rate, when we signed the Kellogg Pact. If we are in earnest about it, then obviously we have to throw our weight into the scales upon the side of international solidarity, which can only be expressed in the terms of an organisation and not merely in terms of treaties.
Those are the two principles which I suggest we, as a country and as a nation, ought to support, and I am fortified in that opinion by one of the greatest and most distinguished historians of this country, the late Sir John Seeley, who, in regard to this matter, made this declaration:
"There has been found hitherto but one substitute for war. It has succeeded over and over again: it succeeds regularly in the long run wherever it can be introduced. This is to take the disputed question out of the hands of the disputants, to refer it to a third party whose intelligence, impartiality and diligence have been secured, and to impose his decision upon the parties with overwhelming force. The last step in this process, the power of enforcing the decision by the federal union only, is just as essential as the earlier ones, and if you omit it you may just as well omit them too."
I submit that that is a very important declaration, coming from one of our most distinguished historians, who spent a great deal of his time in studying and writing many profound books upon

505
the whole question of the solidarity of the federation of our Empire.
The next point which I should like to mention for a moment—and there is no need to dwell at length upon this—is the new situation which has arisen during the last twenty-five years, and winch from our point of view has steadily become worse since the War. That new situation to which I refer is the introduction of new weapons and new methods of war. I believe that, speaking roughly, from the time of the wars of the Spanish succession until towards the end of the nineteenth century there was very little change in the general character of weapons. Certainly the whole of the Napoleonic wars did not produce a single new instrument of fighting. But in the last twenty-five years, or the last thirty years, we have seen at least four new weapons emerge: we have seen the introduction of the submarine, the aeroplane, the tank, and poison gas as a species of ammunition. We have also seen the enormous development in naval craft and in artillery. We all know perfectly well that these developments are due to the advance of science, and to that advance no limits can be assigned. Therefore obviously we must try to adapt our vision, to adapt our plans and to adapt our policy to all these new conditions, which we do not like but which nevertheless science has imposed upon us.
I was reading the other day a book written by a very distinguished General of this country, who has great influence both here and abroad—a book called "Behind the Smoke Screen." In that book I found this quotation from Field-Marshal Foch:
"The military mind always imagines that the next war will be on the same lines as the last. That has never been the case and never will be. One of the great factors in the next war will obviously be aircraft. The potentialities of aircraft attack on a large scale are almost incalculable, but it is clear that such attack, owing to its crushing moral effect on a nation, may impress public opinion to the point of disarming the Government and thus become decisive."
It is, of course, some time since Field-Marshal Foch uttered that opinion, but it is an opinion which is being expressed and emphasised every day. The Lord President of the Council, in another place, has made many speeches in which he has told us quite clearly and quite practically of the dangers which at
506
present are hanging over our heads, as well as over the heads of every other nation in Europe. And, of course, our interest in this question is not a philanthropic one. We are concerned mainly, after all, with our own security, with the security of our own country, of our own children and our own people. I would venture to make one short quotation from a very distinguished member of this House: I quote from the late Viscount Grey. He said:
"London, the British capital and most vital spot, is more accessible to an air attack from a possible Continental enemy than are corresponding vital spots on the Continent to air attack from Great Britain."
I quote that only because we in this country are so prone to consider that this vital question of insecurity is a matter for other nations to talk about, that we are immune from all these dangers and menaces and therefore need not worry our heads about them.
Therefore the real question is what is the maximum defence which it is possible for us to evolve and to organise against a menace of this kind. I cannot help feeling that in this matter we cannot afford to stand alone any more than we were able to stand alone between 1914 and 1918. Surely there is only one sure defence against a potential aggressor, and that is to imbue in his mind the certainty of an overwhelming reprisal by a superior force under the control of an international executive and backed by the moral support of an impartial authority. I submit that there is no other way of combining moral and physical force so as to produce the maximum deterrent effect upon the would-be disturber of the peace. And so I venture to ask your Lordships to consider most earnestly the proposal contained in this Motion. I believe that there is no really satisfactory alternative.
Some people will, no doubt, tell us that we have to rely upon our own strong right arm—that that is the thing to do; that we must have parity. I dare say that parity is better than the position in which we are at present. I agree with that, but, after all, is parity enough? What about a two-Power or a three-Power standard? Can we attain parity, and if we attain it, can we maintain it? I doubt it. It has not happened so in the past in the other Services. I think that parity is a will-o'-the-wisp—one of those hopeless things;

507
and it is, after all, rather a counsel of despair, because we know perfectly well that it would never have sufficed to safeguard the security of this country during the last twenty-five years. Therefore, surely, parity is quite a hopeless proposition. During the War we were only too Pleased to secure the support of other armies, however strong or however puny those armies might be, to assist us in the day of trouble when we were facing great armies. Therefore I cannot understand why, when France proposes to form an International Force, we should give her the cold shoulder and say: "No, we prefer to rely upon our own strong right arm."
There are other people who say that we must have an Imperial Force and that defence must be organised on Imperial lines. After all, our Dominions are Members of the League of Nations, and therefore if defence is organised on a mutual basis, under the auspices of the League, there is no reason why they should disagree with us on that account. If this country is suddenly to be bombed, if the next war is going to be, as we are told, one mainly in the air, with the best will in the world our Dominions will be of little assistance to us, because the whole show will be over long before they will be able to arrive on the scene.
Therefore we are brought back to Europe and the League. Then, of course, it will be said that the League is a very attenuated institution; that the League now is an institution which does not comprise all the nations of the world and does not, certainly, include some of the great nations outside Europe. To that I would venture to submit that in the first instance the International Police Force should be confined to Europe, because the great danger arises in Europe owing to the proximity of States and the distance which can be travelled by aeroplanes. After all, bombers cannot travel for thousands of miles. Their range is limited to some hundreds of miles. Therefore the United States cannot bomb us, and neither can we bomb them. It is, however, quite another matter should disagreement arise between France and ourselves, for instance, or between Germany and ourselves. Therefore, because we cannot get a World Police Force seems to me to be no reason why we should not at the outset endeavour to put our house
508
in order in Europe, and establish a European International Police Force, and thus get the majority of the Members of the League to become members.
Every nation which becomes a member is one or more possible aggressor eliminated from the list, and we should be able to produce a greater deterrent effect upon any other State or nation which proposed to break the peace. In passing I might remind the House that there are twenty-three what we call "smaller nations" in Europe, and between them they contribute 306 units towards the expenses of the League. The four Great Powers contribute 323 units, so that for all practical purposes the contribution of the twenty-three small nations is equivalent to the contributions of the four Great Powers. Therefore if the smaller nations can be enlisted in this scheme, it will make up to a very large extent any deficiency at the outset which might be caused by the defection of one of the Great Powers.
I am afraid I am trespassing upon the patience of the House, but there is one other point that I would like to mention, and it is this. Many people say: "Oh yes, if you constitute an International Force amongst the existing Members of the League you will simply constitute a new alliance, because it is only an alliance in another form." I venture to point out that if the Force were constituted as I have suggested, if you have a tribunal to settle all disputes among members, and they pool their military resources in an International Police Force, you have, in effect, really a new system, and one different from any alliance that we have known in the past. If on top of that you say to any country who is outside: "You are free to come in at any moment when you agree or desire to participate, and you can come in on terms of equality with the rest"—if you say that, surely under those conditions you have a system which is entirely different from any alliance which we have known in the past.
I cannot help thinking that the great thing is to make a start—to get something done—and to get as many nations to come into this scheme at the outset as are prepared to do so. The great obstacle up to now has obviously been the attitude of successive British Governments. I do not make any charge against the present Government, because they

509
have only been following the policy, pursued since we signed the Covenant, of trying to evade some of its principles and of trying to whittle away Articles 8 and 16, and all those Articles which try to make the League into an authority instead of a talking shop. That is what General Smuts told us in 1919 that we must, at all costs, avoid, but that is the policy which has been pursued. We threw out the Protocol in 1924, after having a few months before pitched out the Treaty of Mutual Assistance. We have ignored the resolutions passed by the Assembly at different times, urging that the League should be endowed with efficient sanctions. We have in the last few years thrown out two French proposals for the establishment of an International Force, in the discussions going on at Geneva. Therefore, although I have no doubt we have no intention of under mining the authority of the League, the charge is that we have refused consistently to develop it into an institution capable of preventing war, and we shall go on doing that until we have made up our minds that the system of collective security, and of co-operative armaments, must be substituted for the system of competitive armaments. Until we do that we shall go on in a shilly-shally way, and the League will finally be brought to complete disaster.
I would suggest to the Government, that now, when it appears at any rate that the negative policy is not going to produce the results which it was hoped it would produce, now at this moment when the League is losing its prestige and authority, it is imperative that His Majesty's Government should reverse the policy they have been pursuing for the last fifteen years, and should realise that the feeling of the country is becoming very much disturbed, not about the breakdown of the disarmament policy, but because of a feeling that our security as a nation has been undermined and that all these safeguards which we hoped were going to come to us when we put our signature to the Covenant have been in a great measure illusory. I believe that at the beginning of the eighteenth century there is to be found a parallel to the existing state of affairs today. I was reading the other day Mr. Churchill's book on Marlborough and I
510
found this statement. It was made about the condition of things in 1701:
"But the Tories were slow in realising the evolution of opinion which was already so marked. They were still hunting William III and planning retrenchment. They were still dreaming of detachment from Europe when the nation awoke beneath them. On May 8, 1701, the freeholders of Kent presented a petition to the Commons begging the House to grant supplies to enable the King to break from his allies 'before it was too late.' The militant pacifists were for punishing the freeholders for their presumption. They actually indicted their leaders, but the ground crumbled beneath their feet. The insular structure in which they sought to dwell crashed about their ears."
I cannot help feeling that that is what may happen now. The only question is whether the crash is to be a shower of bombs on London.
It seems to me that as things are at present, if political programmes mean anything at all, the only alternative to that is a Socialist majority in another place, because they are the only Party in this country who, up to the present, have put an International Police Force into their programme. I hope myself, and I imagine most noble Lords hope, that this will not be allowed to become a Party question. It would be a national disaster if this matter were allowed to become the shuttlecock of Party politics. I appeal most earnestly to the Government—I do not ask them to decide in favour of it; all I ask is that they should seriously consider this matter now that we have come to the parting of the ways, when it is a question of going back to competing armaments, starting a new race of armaments, or adopting a system of collective security under the œgis of the League.
It is nearly twenty years—it will be twenty years in August—since war came, when the first hundred thousand went out from this country to fight for the sanctity of treaties and for the defence of Belgium, incidentally for the defence of their own country and of their relatives and friends. We swore to destroy militarism. I ask every noble Lord, what have we done since then to implement and carry out the pledge we made to those fellows who went out twenty years ago and gave their lives for the sake of their country and to make their country a safe place for their children to live in? I ask in all sincerity: What have we done to redeem that pledge? I would

511
remind your Lordships of the words of Abraham Lincoln:
"It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honoured dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we hem highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain."
I beg to move for Papers.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, my noble friend who has moved this Motion carried me so very far in agreement with him that I am sorry I cannot find myself going the whole way. With his impatience and his indignation I am in entire agreement. May I say, too, that I have the greatest admiration for the persistent way in which he has advocated this particular expedient as a method of attaining the object which all of us desire? I desire to confine myself to the particular point which he raised by his Motion. I was glad to hear him hope for a Socialist victory at the next Election. He said that in the Socialist programme an International Police Force was mentioned, but I would remind him that, different from the Motion he put on the Paper, in the Socialist resolution the International Police Force is dependent on total national disarmament. If the noble Lord had put that in his Motion, that this was a concomitant of total national disarmament—that is to say, national armaments were to be abolished and we should only have an International Force to keep the peace—then I think he would carry a great many more people with him.
I feel—and I speak always on this subject rather from the personal point of view—I feel that my noble friend, in dismissing as negligible the practical point of view, is making a very great mistake. Before we can see what an International Police Force can do we must thoroughly understand what an International Police Force must be. There are so many points of difficulty arising in regard to the creation or institution of an International Police Force that it seems to me to make such a proposal very difficult to accept. My noble friend referred to the example of the Great War, but I do not think that that is a very strong argument in its favour. It took
512
more than two years to get a united command for three nations who literally had their backs to the wall, with the enemy at their gate. I do not quite know how he expects a united command for, say, fifty-six nations who are going to lay down the rules and regulations for this Force in peace-time.
The practical difficulties seem to me almost insuperable. Where is the headquartens of this Force to be? It is often referred to as an Air Force, but I am thankful to say that an air force cannot have its headquarters in the air; it has got to have its headquarters on the earth. How is the International Force to be recruited? From which nations? Equally according to proportions? Which nations are going to be allowed to supply this International Force with armaments?—and remember the armaments must be very modern. Where is this Force to do its manœuvres—because it is not going to be only an Air Force. My noble friend says "a Police Force": it is to be a naval force, a military force and an air force. Where are the manœuvres to be held to keep it efficient and effective for the purpose which my noble friend has in view? Who is to command it? It is to be confined to Europe. That, I think, is rather a new departure on the part of my noble friend. If it is to be confined to Europe, who are to be the commanders of the three sections? I think it is pretty obvious that if they were chosen from France, Germany, Italy or Great Britain, there would be a great complaint that this was simply a Force by which the Great Powers were going to maintain the status quo. I think we should have to have commanders from some of the smaller nations, and I think there would be considerable difficulty if we had a Czecho-Slovakian general, a Dutch admiral and a Portuguese air marshal. But to make it a perfectly impartial and effective Force I think that sort of thing would have to be done.
But, most of all, who is going to set this Force in motion? What authority is going to say when it is to act? I think the noble Lord himself quoted the instance of the difficulty of getting unanimity in the Council of the League when we get near the moment of action, as illustrated in the difficulty over China and Japan. There we had a Report condemning a nation as an aggressor, and

513
no action was taken. No diplomatic representatives were even withdrawn, no idea of economic pressure was put forward, and, of course, no military sanctions were taken at all. What authority is going to take the responsibility of setting this International Police Force in action? The Council of the League? We know by experience that the Council of the League will not be able to judge the aggressor as an aggressor, but that each nation is going to regard that aggressor as a friend, a possible friend, or an economic rival, and will judge from the point of view of its own self-interest the particular position that arises. You are not going to get unanimity.
Now, if I could visualise as my noble friend does a disarmed world, with a small efficient Force just ready and alert to prevent this aggressor from breaking the peace, I should go with him all the way; but I cannot visualise a world like that at all. And when I think of the instrument he suggests for bringing about peaceful relations, I feel that it is almost impossible to conceive such an idea materialising. It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord said, that France at a certain stage of the proceedings suggested that there should be an International Force. I cannot recollect at the moment whether that proposal was accompanied by a suggestion that France would renounce all her national armaments. I rather think not. But unless that is done this International Police Force is going to be an additional burden of armaments on the world, and a menace, I think, to the possible maintenance of peace. No, I should like to see this ideal as my noble friend sees it, but I do not. I know the difficulty of picking out the aggressor. I know the force of the analogy, which is always trotted out, of the police force and the individual criminal—an entirely false analogy. Here we have our Courts, here we have our punishments, here we have the policeman to arrest an individual criminal, who can be proved to be a criminal. No nation is a criminal. There are criminals in every nation, but the idea of calling a nation a criminal—which, of course, has to be done in war time in order to whip up sufficient animosity against it—is an absolute fallacy. Nobody is going to declare any nation an aggressor, they will not do it
514
with unanimity around a table, and then say to a Brazilian admiral, or whoever he may be in charge of the International Force: "Now you may operate."
No, I really cannot treat this suggestion as one that is likely to bring about an abolition of international war or a solution of the disarmament problem. I share my noble friend's feeling of impatience at the slow progress that has been made, but not a word shall fall from me to disturb the delicate negotiations which are going on at the present moment. Any advance is better than a break-up, and I do not want to say anything on that point to-night. I confine myself merely to expressing my personal opinion on the proposals which the noble Lord has laid before your Lordships, and to saying that I am afraid that the ideal that he visualises in this International Police Force is not one in regard to which can share his hopes.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, there are, it seems to me, two ways of looking at this question. Yon can look at it on the lines of the very large view that my noble friend Lord Davies has on these matters—the establishment of an entirely new system, with an International Court, something like an International Legislature and an International Force to carry out the orders of the Court. That would, no doubt be accompanied by the abolition of all national forces, and nothing would be left except the International Force. Oddly enough, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby rather sympathises with that view; he thinks that that would be a possible solution. I wish I thought so. I suppose most of us, at any rate many of us, would be very glad to see a re-arrangement of Europe on such lines, but I think that that is outside practical politics at present. I do not see my way even to advocate that as a practical contribution to the present situation. But there is a much more narrow proposal that has been actually made, and I should be sorry if anything passed in this House which would seem to condemn out of hand that narrow proposal.
The much narrower proposal is that as part of the disarmament scheme we should all of us agree to abandon national air forces, military and naval, altogether—then, of course, the familiar difficulty of dealing with the civil aircraft

515
would arise—and that we should be able to deal with that partly by some kind of international control of the civil aircraft. So the French urge—I am not now confining myself to the actual French proposition put forward before the Disarmament Conference but the popular discussion of this matter in France—that you must have in addition to that some final security lest you should be at the mercy of any disloyal country that used its civil aircraft for the purposes of aggression. They suggest that in order to deal with that and that only, at any rate to start with, there should be created this International Air Force, which would be, therefore, of limited use, and, since it would not have to meet any other military force in the world—it would have only to deal with the misuse of civil forces—it need not be of a very large size. I do not think the difficulty of finding a location for it would be so great as my noble friend imagines, because of the extreme mobility of an air force. Therefore it does not so very much matter where its headquarters are, for it could be brought on the scene of action with extreme rapidity from almost any point in Europe. I do not think the practical difficulties would turn out to be so great. I do not pretend to be an expert in these matters, but the French experts believe firmly that these practical difficulties could be got over.
I confess that idea does appeal to me very greatly. My noble friend more than once has suggested, and I sympathise with his view, that the great ideal is total disarmament of all national forces, and I am sure he would agree with me that that is not practical politics at this moment. We ought, in my judgment, to direct our policy to that ultimate result, though it may be a very long time hence before we can hope to reach it, and it is for that reason that I have always been, or at any rate for many years now have been, an advocate of this system of getting rid of bits of the armaments of the world—total disarmament partially applied. You cannot apply it generally but you might get rid of some of the most dangerous forms of armaments. If you could get people to agree in that you are then really in accord with my noble friend's principles, that in a situation in which you have total disarmament in the air, you may then have an International Air Force charged only with the duty of
516
seeing that no disloyal country uses its civil aircraft in order to replace the military aircraft which it has abandoned. That proposal does not seem to me so wildly impracticable as my noble friend thinks.
The larger proposal of Lord Davies, I agree, is for the moment at any rate not practical politics. I confess I should very much like to see a definite scheme worked out in detail dealing with all these difficulties which undoubtedly exist, such as who is to command the Force, where it is to be situated, how it is to be recruited, who are to supply the machines. All these things are practical difficulties. I do not think they are insuperable, but they are practical difficulties which would have to be dealt with. I should like to see the French or, if it were possible, even our own Government, work out some definite, practicable, detailed scheme for a plan of that kind to be used only to secure the world against the disloyalty of some of those who had agreed to abandon their military land naval air forces. I cannot help feeling that that would be a most hopeful experiment to try. It is possible it would fail. It is possible that when you came to try and establish your International Air Force, you would find that the practical difficulties were too great. I do not myself think so, but it is possible. You would in that case then have to go back no doubt to the old plan of national air armaments.
I think that at present the immense probability is that there would be no major war for some little time, even if we failed altogether in our efforts to secure peace by disarmament and by the reinforcement of the League. But this seems to me the time in which we can fairly say to the French: "Now come forward with your definite scheme; if you can show to us that it is a practical scheme we are prepared to consider it, and if it does furnish a solution of the great difficulties in the way of international disarmament, or even a partial solution, it will be an immense advantage." I cannot see that any evil could result from it. Therefore, up to a very small point, I go with my noble friend Lord Davies. I cannot go the whole length of his Motion on the Paper. That seems to me to be asking too much, and to be asking so much that if we ask for that we shall get nothing. But the

517
other proposal seems to me well worth trying, and I should bitterly regret it if we were to abandon the hope of getting rid of national air forces throughout the world because we were not prepared even to consider, arid consider favourably, this proposal of the French Government and a large section of the French people. I am sure that if we were prepared to consider it, and really prepared to consider it, we could do something which the French would feel was worth paying for, and they would pay by being much more reasonable about the general disarmament question.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My, Lords, the noble Lord who introduced this Motion prefaced his observations by saying that he thought it was a great mistake—so at least I understood him—that the question of the practicability or impracticability of the technical details of a scheme of this kind should prevent the theory and the principle of the policy being discussed, and a little later in his speech I think he deprecated what he conceived to be the attitude of the representatives of His Majesty's Government at Geneva in their welcome to certain plans and propositions which had been placed before the Assembly or before the Disarmament Committee. I must say I quite agree with all he said when he quoted General Smuts as saying that the danger of the League of Nations was that of becoming a, talking-shop and not an active agency. It seems to me that any Government or any delegate—I certainly would have felt it so when I myself was a delegate at Geneva—who would support, or even give partial support to any scheme which is put forward unless he is certain that it is a practical scheme, would not be doing his duty to his Government. No Government would give countenance to a scheme unless they knew it was possible to carry it through. Otherwise it seems to me the difficulties which would be met would be so great that the efforts would only result in disaster. Therefore I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Ponsonby that it is most desirable to examine a scheme of this kind from the point of view of its practicability before you give any support to it.
I do not think it has been mentioned in detail before during the debate to-night, but people are sometimes apt to
518
forget that the conduct of war and the character of armaments differ considerably to-day from what they were before the War. The noble Lord did refer to it, and said that there had been great developments during recent years in the air, on sea and on land. I do not think perhaps that that is so generally accepted as the noble Lord suggested to your Lordships. The reason of this development is the extension of mechanisation. This question recalls to my mind a conversation I had with the late Marshal Foch the last time I met him. It was a very interesting conversation that I had with him on this topic. My colleague at that time was the Master-General of Ordnance, General Birch. I have taken the opportunity to refresh my memory by consulting him in view of the debate in your Lordships' House. The late Marshal Foch said that with the development of inventions mobile war must become less possible, and that as the power of machinery increased so the actual distance between front lines would become greater and greater. The result would be that fewer men would be necessary and the actual rank and file would be mechanics who would press buttons under the orders of non-commissioned officers.
Right through the intervening formations from the higher command there would be a system of telegraphy, so to speak, communicating with the highly-mechanised forces in the front line. The result would be that the real pivot of war would not be in the field but in industry and in the factories, and much more organisation would be required to produce machines rapidly and repair them as quickly as possible. So the country which was most capable of making war successfully and the country which would have the greatest advantage would be the one which could produce the largest number of warlike machines in the shortest possible time. Organisation of industry would supersede in importance the field training of troops, the fighting troops themselves would tend to become fewer in numbers, and the importance of the organisation of men behind the lines would increase proportionately. For example, if one man was required to work a machine it might take ten men in industry to keep that. machine in the field. The cardinal point therefore is that the

519
nation whose industry is best organised for war, and whose manufacturing system can most swiftly turn from peaceful to warlike purposes, will be the strongest military power apart from its peace-time standing armies. If that is the case I think it makes a great difference in the situation.
Mechanised engines of war must be simply designed, quickly constructed by mass production and easy in their manipulation by the post-mobilisation trained men who would have to work them. It will be impossible and useless to maintain a large mechanised force in peace time because if you do you will run the risk of its being rendered obsolete by any new invention at any given time. Therefore, more and more will depend upon post-mobilisation construction and post-mobilisation training. That must render the whole problem of disarmament much more difficult. It might be quite possible perhaps to lay down scales for the size and character of armed forces in peace time, but it would be quite impossible to make any arrangement to control the switching over of industry from peaceful to warlike methods more quickly in one nation than in another. The capacity to do that would depend on the genius of the particular nation concerned, upon its enthusiasm for the cause, Upon the nature and state of its industries and upon the supply of raw material in its hands. I do not want to let it be thought that I regard the state of mechanisation as so far advanced as this. As the representative in the House of Commons of my noble friend opposite, the Financial Secretary to the War Office has said, you must still rely to a certain extent on men and horses. I do think, however, as I said when I was representing the Army Council in your Lordships' House, that mechanisation is sure to come and that it will supersede the legs and arms of men and horses as surely as sails and wood have been superseded by steam and iron.
In any proposition of this kind we must look to the future. If your Lordships agree with me in thinking that the state of affairs I have envisaged is not inaccurate, then I would ask you to examine the effect it would have upon the proposals made by the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said the
520
proposal of his Party was that there should be complete disarmament on all sides. If it were possible to get real total disarmament it might seem that the proposal of the noble Lord would not be so very difficult of execution. All that would have to be done would be to abolish the armies of all nations and then to superimpose an International Police Force. But, my Lords, think what a huge force would be necessary. We are not considering this simply from the point of view of Europe alone, but from the point of view of the whole world. Given a little time, any country by the development of industry might become formidable warlike power. The International Police Force must be able to strike immediately to overwhelm the recalcitrant Power, and to occupy its territory, because if it did not do that it could not prevent post-mobilisation development.
It must be ready to do this in any part of the world, no matter how far from its base. It must have a strong force always at command at the base, ready to act perhaps in two parts of the world at once, because two emergencies might arise and the Force would have to deal with each one. There would have to be —and this is a very important point—land and sea transport always available. You could not want to charter ships. The International Police Force would have to be able to strike at once in order to prevent a recalcitrant Power developing its resources. Then, as my noble friend behind me said, this Force must have a territory to live in. It must have a home, a base, and an area for training, and ports and all the resources of a Great Power. Assuming all this to be possible, a Force of this kind must have in addition a General Staff and plans—plans to deal with every possible emergency and to deal with it swiftly. We all know that if operations are to be successful surprise is a very great factor. As the International Force contemplated by the noble Lord must consist of members of all nations—at least I understand that to be the idea—all nations must be represented on the General Staff at any rate in turn as upon the Council of the League of Nations.
I suppose the relations between the General Staff and the International Police Force would be much the same as were the relations between the Cabinet

521
or the Allied Governments and the Army during the War. But you cannot compare the unified command during the War with the International Police Force because the unified command during the War was fighting against a common enemy whilst the International Police Force in peace time would have, as its potential enemy, one of its own governing body. Members of the Council of the League of Nations would all want to know the plans of the General Staff of the International Police Force. They would not be willing to vote money for the Force without knowing how that money was to be spent. Therefore every potential recalcitrant would know what. would happen if the International Police Force was sent against it. It would lay plans accordingly and the difficulties of the International Police Force would be enhanced enormously.
I think there is another difficulty. We all know—at least we have been informed by the memoirs of many distinguished people—that the relations between statesmen and military commanders in time of war are not always free from a certain amount of difficulty and friction. Now what happens if you have a military commander acting under the Council of the League of Nations, and the Council of the League of Nations disagrees with the commander of its International Force? What may happen is that that officer may say: "I am not going to be over-ruled by these people, who do not understand these matters, or I shall be defeated and destroyed. I shall take the whole matter into my own hands." Then one would have the same result as happened in ancient Rome to the Praetorian Guard: if you had a force like that, they might not only take over the direction of the military operations under an international civilian Cabinet, they might take over the whole administration itself, and the Council of the League of Nations would then be like Frankenstein when he had created his monster.
I have one other reason for rather de precating this proposal from another point of view. As your Lordships will perhaps remember, there was some years ago a great meeting at the Albert Hall under the chairmanship of Sir William Robertson, and if my memory serves me correctly—I have not, verified it—among the speakers was Mr. Lloyd George. He said—I am not quoting him textually, but.
522
only from memory—that you will never ensure peace until you banish the idea of war from men's minds. I do not think that Mr. Lloyd George (if I have quoted him accurately) ever spoke a truer word. The Disarmament Conference has now been sitting for many years, and before that, as my noble friend Lord Cecil and I both remember, there was the Disarmament Committee which had been going on for years and years. Many people think that in the result the Conference may be unsuccessful. I sincerely and devoutly hope that that may not be the case; but it would, I think, be unfortunate if we did not recognise that the chance of success is not by any means absolute, and indeed some people might think that it was slender. But I think that the chances of success of the Disarmament Conference very largely depend upon the efforts of His Majesty's Government. Supposing that at the Disarmament Conference agreement is not reached, that nothing is done, and that after years and years of preparation and years and years of discussion the world definitely pronounces that any kind of arrangement for disarmament is impossible, I think a disastrous blow will then have been struck against the endeavour to banish the idea of war from people's minds, and in fact it may be fatal to the idea of moral disarmament which personally I always think is of more importance than the question of material disarmament. I think moral disarmament must come first.
Some measure of success I do feel must be attained by the Disarmament Conference, or you will have going out all over the world, as I said before, a direct negative to the possibility of making any sort of arrangement for disarmament, and that is what must be avoided. I think that possibly the success of the Conference may not be very great in its positive nature, but it is imperative that there should not be a negative result, and therefore a complete failure from that point of view, by which we should confess that any effort on our part to arrive at a solution is unavailing and that a solution is impossible. Therefore I venture to think that it is rather unfortunate to discuss these ideas at the present moment. I should like to see all members of your Lordships' House and all sections of opinion throughout the country supporting His Majesty's

523
Government in their difficult task, in which it is so very important that they should have the support of everyone in order that they may avoid a failure and a direct negative to the efforts of the Disarmament Conference at Geneva.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I think at this late hour your Lordships will not expect me to follow all the noble Lords who have spoken into the many points which they have raised in the course of this debate. My noble friend the Lord Chairman, who has just sat down, has said, and of course quite truly, that it will be a disaster if the Disarmament Conference fails after all the efforts that have been made. That, as everybody knows, is the view of His Majesty's Government, and therefore I need hardly say that we are using our utmost endeavours to see whether success cannot still be attained. I wondered somewhat when the noble Lord, Lord Davies, was approaching the end of his remarks, whether his statement that this country had done more to undermine the League of Nations than any other, would have been supported by the noble Marquess his leader. I am sorry that the noble Marquess is leaving the House, otherwise I should have appealed to him as a former Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to say whether, so far from this Government having done less to support the League of Nations than any other, the reverse is not true, that no country has given to the League such warm and consistent support as England has.
After all, the point which we are discussing to-night is an International Police Force under the control of the League of Nations, but that, I am afraid, is not what most of us have been talking about. My conception of a police force is that it is a civil force raised to maintain law and order. What at any rate became perfectly clear from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, was that the Force that he had in mind was certainly not a civil force. He talked about a military air force, and he quite obviously forecast that the Force would bomb other countries, including, I imagine, the cities and their occupants, both men and women, and also children. That, at any rate, is hardly the function of a police force. Moreover, a police force, as I understand
524
it, is a permanent body which is permanently in existence, but from some remarks which were made by the noble Lord I rather gathered that he thought that it might be produced when a crisis arose and might be a more or less ad hoc body. Further, a police force is raised to maintain the law; but what International Law have we got? There is a code of law in this country, and if we do not know it, that at any rate is merely our own personal fault. A force can go out to see that that law is obeyed, and if anybody breaks it he can then be dealt with. Of course the whole strength of the country is behind that civilian force and a delinquent can be brought into court and dealt with there. As the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, said quite definitely, you cannot judge nations as criminals, and so far from having to deal with individuals you are dealing in this case with nations, and with the forces of those nations.
In my view the analogy of a police force is entirely inappropriate and absolutely misleading. The true analogy as I see it is the King's Army in the times of the barons' wars. Then, in this country and elsewhere on the Continent, there were great and powerful barons, each with his retinue of followers and often a very considerable army; they quarrelled, and they fought amongst themselves, until eventually there came an authority which imposed its power upon the others and reduced the country to peace. I do not pretend to be an historian, but I think that the noble Lord will agree that the barons' wars in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, so far from having been merely minor encounters, and possibly stopping one or two people taking part in duels, were prolonged and bloody conflicts; and that is what he is really facing when he talks about an international force.
I do not think that anybody in this House really believes that at this moment the world has got to the stage when it is prepared to abolish its national armies. I doubt whether many of us believe that the nations are prepared at this moment to give up all their national ideals and their national hopes, sometimes for expansion, sometimes for greater trade facilities, and to say that they will come under the control of what is really in fact a super-State. If we are really going to have this International Military

525
Force (which is its correct description, for it is not a police force) then it will definitely mean, as I think the noble Lord himself visualised to some extent, a super-State, with an executive under that State, with presumably a Parliament, which would lay down what should be the policy either for the whole world or for the parts with which this Force had to deal, and presumably, in this case, Europe. Now may I remind the noble Lord, with regard to the League of Nations, that two of the greatest nations in Europe are not members—Russia and Germany—and therefore if this military force is to be put under the control of the League of Nations, presumably he thinks that Germany will be prepared 'to be ruled by this super-State and controlled by this military force, although she, herself, will not have a vote in this Assembly?
After all an ounce of fact is worth many pounds of theory. The noble Lord referred to the unity of command achieved in the War. I can tell him something about it from personal knowledge. At the beginning of 1918 I was serving on the Military Staff at Versailles, and our duty was to try to forecast what was likely to happen in the next six months of the War. We decided that it was obvious that a very heavy German attack was going to be made on the Allied line, and we came to the conclusion, after a considerable amount of thought, that the best way of securing the safety of the line was to have an Inter-Allied Reserve. We decided that that Reserve should, consist of six British and twelve French Divisions. We put forward our scheme to the Governments of the allied countries, and our proposals were approved after long discussion at Versailles. Eventually the Governments decided that an Allied Reserve should be set up, and that it should be controlled by the Supreme War Board, which was to consist of representatives of the four allied nations—namely, France, represented by Marshal Foch; Italy, by General Cadorna; the United States, by General Bliss; and the British Empire. by Sir Henry Wilson. Eventually that scheme became known in this country, and the storm of criticism that arose at the suggestion that the Allied Reserve should be controlled by a Committee I can remember to this day. It was pointed
526
out that a Committee was not a suitable body to exercise executive action; that it would not be in touch with the situaion; that the four Commanders or four Staff officers drawn from four different nations would be thinking of their own part of the line and the security of that particular section; and that in every respect such a proposal was hopeless.
I can only say that the Supreme War Council at Versailles undoubtedly suffered materially from that criticism. We were appointed an advisory body, and the criticism that an advisory body was not equally good for executive action undoubtedly did the Staff there a good deal of harm, in that their advice thereafter was not looked upon with as much favour as it had been previously. A further thing happened. When it came to the test the Commanders-in-Chief of the British and French Armies refused to find their respective quotas of divisions, and I think your Lordships will realise that I have given an analogy which fits not inadequately into the situation put forward by the noble Lord. The Leader of the Opposition has, I am glad to say, enabled me to shorten my speech very materially, because I agree with every word he has said. I understood him differently from the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches, because I understood him to be entirely opposed to an International Police Force, whereas the noble Viscount appeared to think that he was in favour of it.
It is undoubtedly true that you cannot consider merely the principle, as Lord Davies suggested, but must look into the practicability of these proposals. I have already ventured to point out the difficulties of dm question of command, but I would point out further that when you come to this great body, the League of Nations, even the appointment of some one to a comparatively subordinate position on the secretariat leads to endless discussion, and is only solved after considerable delay. Then I understood from the noble Lord that he proposes to confine his International Military Force to Europe. That, at any rate, will solve some of the difficulties in regard to shipping and how to get that force to various parts of the world, but there is still the difficulty, as pointed out by the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches, and the Leader of the Opposition, as to

527
where such a Force would be situated. The proposal put forward by the French at Geneva was that it should be merely an Air Force, and that it should be established in what was called one of the minor countries, but the whole proposal was extremely indefinite and not backed up by any other nation, and therefore it really received comparatively little discussion.
I venture to think that when we went into the whole question of where such a Force would be situate, and came down to an actual definite location of such a Force, we should find that practically every nation in Europe would object to its location, for two reasons. The first is strategical. It might not be considered an advantageous position for dealing with an aggressor. The second reason is a comparatively minor one, but of no small importance—namely, that wherever such a Force is situated there does it spend its pay, and therefore becomes an immense asset to the country in which it is situated. As every country will presumably be expected to contribute towards the expenses of this Force, each country will expect some return for its payment, and so the fact that all the money would be spent in one country would be quite sufficient to destroy the scheme. After all, the League of Nations was established to endeavour to prevent war rather than to make war on other countries. I am not going to suggest for one moment that this country is opposed to an International Force. We have already agreed to it in regard to the Locarno Pact. There we are definitely committed, if certain occasion should arise, to supply such a force as is necessary to deal with the situation; but an International Military Force is a very different matter. It is not to be established to deal with a particular situation that arises, but it is presumably to deal with any situation which this Supreme International Control will order it to deal with.
The noble Lord quoted the instance of the Lytton Commission. That Commission was not a tribunal, as he suggested, at all. It was an ad hoc body set up by the League to elucidate the facts. It was not there to give judgment on the situation but merely to report back to the League, for the League to give its own decision.
LORD DAVIES: They certainly made recommendations.
EARL STANHOPE: They made a general recommendation, but they were not set up as a tribunal, but merely to establish the facts. I do not want now to go into many other points which were raised. The noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, I think exercised flights of fancy as to what the war of the future was likely to be. I think he will find, if he enquires from those whose profession is naval or military, that an inferior weapon in the hands of a highly skilled man is more effective than a better weapon exercised by one who is only an amateur; and if he thinks these nations will be able to wait until a crisis has developed and then set their factories to work to produce armaments, I hope at any rate he will get some other nation to agree to do it rather than this one, because I am quite certain myself it is an extremely dangerous doctrine.
Lord Davies suggested that force should no longer be used as an instrument of policy, but he went on to say that this super-State should deal under Article 19 with the revision of frontiers, and presumably would enforce those decisions made on new frontiers by its own Force, which is exactly contrary to the proposals which he agreed to, and which were that every nation has signed its name to say it will no longer use force as an instrument of policy. It seems to me there is very little difference between an international body using force as an instrument of policy and a national one doing so, because in every case there will be those who will object and war will ensue. I think that is all I can really say to your Lordships on this matter. I think your Lordships will realise from what I have said that the view of the Government is still that expressed by the Lord President of the Council in another place a few weeks ago. The world is still a very long way from the international mind which would make a proposal for an International Military Force a possibility and, that being so, we cannot of course accept the Motion which the noble Lord has put down. I am afraid I have no Papers which I can lay, but presumably the noble Lord knew already that that would be unlikely, and he merely put down his Motion in that form in order to have the right of reply.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, it is difficult at this late hour to reply to all the points which have been raised. After hearing the speech of the noble Lord who sits on the Front Opposition Bench I cannot quite understand why he is associated with the Labour Party, because apparently he has no use whatever for the programme that his own Party claim as the one which they support. It is all very well to say you must have complete disarmament simultaneously with the arrival of an international Police Force. That is bound to happen, because once the principle of the international Police Force is established no nation which subscribes to the maintenance of that Force, and which contributes effectives towards the Force, is going to keep a national force of its own. There would be no object in its doing so. Private individuals gave up carrying arms, not because Acts were passed by legislative bodies, but because they found that these arms were highly inconvenient, and that there was no object in carrying them any longer when the sheriff and afterwards the constable arrived on the scene. The same principle applies to nations, and I think the great mistake Disarmament Conferences have made is that they have tried to put the cart before the horse.
Once you have security, once you take away that feeling of insecurity which possesses Europe at this moment, you solve the problem, and the whole object of an International Police Force is to provide that security before and not after a crisis develops. If, as in 1914, we do not make up our minds or declare our intentions we can only expect that a fresh war will break out. If you can, as I believe you can, with the co-operation of the other Members of the League who have already expressed their willingness to do so, express in terms of organisation that determination to secure peace, then you have gone as far as you can go towards the prevention of war.
It is hopeless to attempt to answer all the questions that have been raised, but I think their very number proves that this discussion has not been entirely futile. Obviously, it is a question of practicability, but the question of practicability is primarily one for military experts. I am not a military expert, but I am sure many of the points Lord Ponsonby raised are susceptible of practical
530
solution. He said that I had ignored that particular aspect of the question. I tried to explain at the beginning of my speech that it is not a question of ignoring, but it is a question first of all of deciding on general principles. After we have decided that the general principles are sound, then the question is how to apply them, and that is a matter for experts and technicians, who can supply the necessary answers and work the principles out in terms of organisation. For instance, what about recruitment? I think somebody said it would be impossible to recruit this Force. The French Government are able to recruit their Foreign Legion from every country in Europe. They have no difficulty in getting recruits. Why, then, should there be any difficulty in getting recruits for an International Force?
Then, there is the question of the supply of armaments. Armament firms could be specially licensed for the purpose in each particular country that joins in a scheme of this kind, and they could be limited to supplying the international authority as their only customer. That is a practical way of solving that question. I venture to think that if such an arrangement were made with individual private firms who were recognised and licensed to supply the international authority, then we should be, able to deal effectively with all the gun-running and all the scandalous export of armaments to countries which will probably use them against us in the event of hostilities. I could go on talking for a long time, but at this late hour I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

RODEO PERFORMANCES.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN had the following Notice on the Paper:—To call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the proposal to hold a rodeo in this country. In view of the character of that previously held and the cruelty involved to the animals concerned, to move to resolve: That it is desirable that no rodeo should be permitted in this country; and to ask whether His Majesty's Government propose to take steps to secure that end.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not apologise to the House for bringing

531
this matter before it to-night, because we have it on good authority that it is intended to hold in this country this summer another rodeo such as was held in 1924. When it was proposed in that year to hold such a rodeo a debate was initiated in this House with the object of seeing whether it would not be possible to prevent any form of cruelty being practised during such performances. On that occasion there were very few in this country who knew what these performances implied. There had been, I think, practically no previous experience of them here, and as the Lord President of the Council said on that occasion, the problem for the House was whether there was cruelty in such performances. He went on to say that it ought to be decided whether there was cruelty or not. I venture to say that the experience of 1924, not merely at Wembley but in other parts of the country, would leave little doubt that there was a very great deal of cruelty in those performances.
To deal first with the most conspicuous item of those performances, that of steer roping, in that case I think nobody can question that there was a considerable number of cases of cruelty. For example, on June 17 one steer's leg was broken, and on the same day, after a private performance three steers were found in the shed, two very lame and one with the left horn broken off. On the 18th one steer's neck was broken, two steers were very lame, and eight steers were bleeding from the nostrils. On the 19th, one steer's neck was broken, one steer's right horn was broken, one steer's left ear was lacerated, bleeding freely, and two steers were very lame. Take again the case of steer wrestling and bulldogging as it is called. In that case there was a considerable amount of pain and suffering caused to these animals. With my own eyes I saw on one occasion at Wembley one steer which had its horn broken off and another which went bellowing across the arena with one horn hanging down and flopping about. As a matter of fact, out of some 25 steers that went through this performance 13 were injured, the injuries ranging from laceration of the nose up to broken necks.
I come to another item, that of steer riding. In order to illustrate the riding qualities of those who ride these steers
532
it was necessary to make the animals buck. The steers were supposed to be wild animals, and they placed a cinch round them in order that, in the effort to get away from the unpleasant pain caused by that cinch, they might buck with great violence. When these cinches were removed, as in the case of the buck-jumping horses, the animals in some cases became quiet. We were told in connection with that rodeo that wild steers would be employed, and it is curious to notice that those who witnessed the arrival of those steers at Avonmouth could see very little difference in their attitude and behaviour from that of ordinary steers brought into the country. I believe that 149 of those steers were subsequently bought and went clown to Kent, and those who had the handling of them reported that they were rather more quiet than other steers in the fields at the same time.
In putting down this Motion on the Paper I do not wish for one moment to question the intentions of those who actually took part in the rodeo on that occasion. Lord Denman was among those who spoke in the debate in 1924. It was not a question, as he imagined, of accusing these people of cruelty, but such rodeos cannot be held without entailing suffering on these animals in one way or another. We can rightly praise and admire the courage and skill with which cowboys and the women engaged in the performances managed to survive the bucking and buffeting to which they were subjected, but that does not to my mind justify the holding in this country of such exhibitions.
It was said on that occasion, when the rodeo was held under the ægis of the British Empire Exhibition, that those responsible for it had previously been satisfied that what was to occur would be consistent with the spirit of sportsmanship and would not involve cruelty, that, in short, the exhibition would be typical of what was going on on cattle ranges in different parts of the Empire, and in America; but from what one can understand of what goes on in those parts, though I cannot pretend to have seen it myself, it seems obvious that the conditions under which such exhibitions may take place in America or here are artificial conditions, not a real representation of a cattle round-up on the ranches. In fact, humane

533
societies in America have made efforts to secure the regulation of the rodeos to prevent cruelty, though their real object has been, as it has been with some of our societies here, to prevent these rodeos being held at all, because cruelty seems inevitably involved. In fact, one American described the rodeos in this way. The rodeos, he said, are a purely artificial sport devised to satisfy jaded appetites for spectacle. They serve, he says, no good purpose and they are not typical of any authentic frontier life.
It seems to me the question is to-day whether it is really desirable to hold rodeos here at all, and I should like to recall to your Lordships that it was as the result of publicly-expressed indignation at the Wembley Exhibition itself that one feature of the rodeo performance was taken out of the programme, that of steer roping. Such indignation was caused by this exhibition among the people round the ring that after a very few days that part of the programme was cut out, though it had been included in the general programme, and that item of the programme had been previously allowed to be included on the assurances of those who were responsible for the holding of that rodeo. This year, it is reported, it is proposed to have steer-wrestling and bull-dogging, bare-back broneo riding and steer riding. I think that we have no guarantee that what was experienced in 1924 will not be experienced again if rodeos are held in this country to-day.
I have only quoted for the sake of brevity the cases of cruelty in connection with one particular rodeo, but there were some very revolting cases that came before the Courts, and penalties were inflicted, in other parts of the country, and the scenes were sufficiently bad to disgust at any rate a very large portion of the people who saw them at the holding of such shows as these. I think what I have said, that cruelty is inherent in the holding of rodeos, has been shown to be true. If, however, it were possible to avoid such cruelty as I have described, then I think one might withdraw one's objection to the holding of such performances. But if that is not the case, then what other step is left to us than to ask for the prevention of the holding of such exhibitions? I am told that the holding of rodeos of necessity must involve steer riding and steer wrestling and bull-dogging. You are told
534
that is of the essence of what is called rodeo. If that is the case it will be very difficult for us to check the amount of cruelty which was experienced in 1924. I believe, as the law stands, there are considerable difficulties in the way of the Government taking what some of us would consider adequate steps to prevent the holding of rodeos, but if that is the case—and I hope the answer of my noble friend will not confirm me in that—then I would appeal to the Government to give facilities for the Bill that has been moved in the House of Commons recently. It is down for Second Reading very shortly now. In that Bill powers are taken to stop the holding of rodeos in this country.
I would conclude as briefly as I can by appealing to His Majesty's Government to take all the steps they can to prevent the holding of these rodeos. If it is a fact, as we are assured, that such parts of the programme as I have indicated are a necessary part of such performances, the experience of the country of 1924 I think justifies me in saying that cruelty is inevitable if those parts of the programme are carried through. I will not go into other aspects of the ease. I will not enlarge upon the inevitable effect on the minds of the numerous children who naturally would attend exhibitions of this nature. I will not elaborate whether that is a, good thing or a bad thing, but I will leave it to the good sense of the House to see what a deleterious effect the holding of such exhibitions might have on the young people of to-day. With this, I am afraid very inadequate, statement, in view of the hour, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that no rodeo should be permitted in this country.—(Lord O'Hagan.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, on behalf of the Socialist Opposition in your Lordships' House I desire to say that we give full support to the Motion on the Order Paper.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, may I add one word in support of the noble Lord's Motion? I will not take up your Lordships' time. I beg the Government, if they say that they have no powers as the law stands, that then they will give facilities for the Bill which I understand has been introduced in another place. There have been similar

535
matters before your Lordships' House involving cruelty to animals, such as the Plumage Act. When such matters come forward there are always found representatives of the interested trade ready to get up and make a case why, on the ground of employment and other reasons, legislation should not be introduced. The noble Lord has stated his opinion with great moderation and complete conviction. I do not believe that any representative of any trade could be found willing to defend such an exhibition as the noble Lord has described. If that is so, it means that the Bill which has been introduced in another place will be a noncontroversial Bill and your Lordships know that. such a measure can be passed without much loss of Parliamentary time. I do beg the Government to give favourable consideration to the necessary passage of legislation, if such is necessary.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I expect your Lordships' House, and in particular the noble Lord who has moved this Motion, will not expect me, in replying on behalf of the Government, to take up the time of your Lordships by enumerating the various difficulties which this subject raises. I will deal only with one of the chief factors. This matter first came to the notice of the Department I represent in February last when a communication was received from a firm of solicitors in London intimating that the National Sporting Club, Limited, of London, in conjunction with Mr. Tex Austin, was desirous of promoting rodeo exhibition in London in June, July and August of this year, and for that purpose permission was asked for some 120 American cowboys to be allowed to land in this country. The action then taken was that the firm of solicitors was informed that application should be made to the Minister of Labour for permits under the Aliens Order, 1920, for each of the American cowboys whose services would be required at the rodeo.
There is at present no Act of Parliament in existence which will restrict or prevent such performances being carried on in this country, but, as the noble Lord has already intimated, on Friday next a Bill is coming before another place to be discussed. The law, however, does provide a remedy in the event of cruelty occurring in the course of any
536
performance. I think it would be well at this juncture to mention the chief clauses of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, which makes it an offence to torture, infuriate or terrify any animal or to cause, procure or assist at the fighting or baiting of any animal, to keep, use, manage or act or assist in the management of any premises or place for such purpose, to permit any premises or place to be so kept, managed or used, or to receive or cause or procure any person to receive money for the admission of any person to such premises or place. Your Lordships, therefore, will observe that while it is considered not a proper exercise of the statutory powers under the Aliens Order to prevent aliens coming into this country merely because they are going to take part in a certain performance, nevertheless, if that performance contravenes either the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, or the Performing Animals Act, 1925, action can be taken. I would remind the noble Lord that when rodeo performances were given in 1924 at the British Empire Exhibition, a case was brought forward by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and that, in spite of the prosecution and the cruelty to which the noble Lord has referred, the Bench dismissed the case.
Loan O'HAGAN: May I interrupt to remind the noble Earl that the decision was come to by a majority of six to five?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: There were other cases in the provinces, but I believe I am correct in saying that in the London case the prosecution was not successful. As I previously indicated, the proposal of which His Majesty's Government have knowledge would involve the employment for the purposes of the performance of a large number of aliens. The Home Secretary and the Minister of Labour have given the most careful consideration to the question whether such aliens should be allowed to enter this country for this purpose. They have reached the conclusion that it would not be a proper exercise of the statutory powers under the Aliens Order to exclude aliens from this country merely because the object of their visit is to take part in a rodeo performance. It was stated on behalf of the Home Secretary in the House of Commons on March 5 that if any sufficient reason

537
should arise during the presence of alien participants in the rodeo the Home Secretary would be free to require the promoters to remove the aliens, either wholly or individually, from the country. On that same day the firm of solicitors in London, from whom the inquiries referred to were received, were notified that such action would be taken if occasion arose. Since that date no application on behalf of the National Sporting Club, Limited, or Mr. Tex Austin has been received for such performances in this country.
Therefore, my Lords, it is possible after the statement that has already been made that the proposal will not be pursued; but in any case on Friday when the Bill comes up for Second Reading in another place it will, of course, be open to members to decide whether or not the instances of cruelty that have been quoted by the noble Lord are of such a nature as to warrant steps being taken to prevent rodeo exhibitions taking place in this country at all. Perhaps deliberations after that date will determine whether the noble Lord would wish to pursue the matter.
Loan O'HAGAN: My Lords, I wish very briefly to thank the noble Earl for the way in which he has answered my questions. I only wish to make one comment. It is perfectly true that there was the decision to which he alluded, but the decision that there was no cruelty was come to by a majority of the Bench, by six to five. There have been other cases and the question of whether cruelty is involved in the performances is not to be gauged by the result of one particular case. I would like to ask the noble Earl to use his influence to secure that such facilities as the Government alone can give shall be given for the passing of the Bill in another place. In view of what has been said I will not press my Motion, but I should like to reserve the right to bring it forward again at a subsequent date if it appears necessary.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT, 1933 (BACON (IMPORT REGULA TION) ORDER, 1934).
Order, dated 8th April, 1934, made by the Board of Trade under Section 1 of the Act:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ROAD SAFETY PROPAGANDA.
  ROAD SAFETY PROPAGANDA.