Sitting of 2 April 1935

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bill Petitions [Lords](Standing Orders not complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following. Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:
London Building Act (Amendment)[Lords]
Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  BRITISH ARMY.

    CONTRACTS (FAIR WAGES CLAUSE).
    Mr. HEPWORTHasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a fair wages clause is insisted on in connection with all contracts entered into with his Department?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): The fair wages clause is included in all War Department contracts placed with contractors in this country for the supply of stores and the execution of services.
    Mr. T. SMITH: If I submit a case to the right hon. Gentleman, will he look into it?
    Mr. HACKING: Certainly.

    MACHINE GUN PRACTICE, WORMWOOD SCRUBS.
    Mr. WESTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware of the annoyance caused in the vicinity by the machine gun firing at Wormwood Scrubs on Sundays; and
    172
    Whether he will endeavour to restrict the practice to week-days?
    Mr. HACKING: It is only occasionally that firing takes place on this range on Sundays. It is limited to the hours 11 to 1 o'clock, and this is the first time that a complaint has been made. I am afraid that I cannot promise that the range will never be used on a Sunday, but efforts are made to restrict Sunday practice as far as possible.
    Mr. WEST: Is the Minister aware that nurses on duty at night in the nearby hospital, and numerous patients in the hospital, are frequently very seriously disturbed by this firing; and does he not think that at least on humanitarian, if not on sabbatarian grounds, he might consider not having these practices on Sundays?
    Mr. HACKING: As regards the humanitarian side, I should have thought that the objection would be just as great on, say, Monday or Fridays as on Sundays. I can promise, however, that we will use the range as seldom as possible on Sundays.
    Mr. WEST: As regards the question of Sundays as against weekdays, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that, if these people are disturbed on six weekdays, they might be given a chance of sleeping on Sundays?
    Mr. HACKING: This firing has only taken place on Sundays, so far as I know, on six or seven occasions since 1931.
    Colonel GRETTON: May I ask what is the reason for conducting this firing practice on Sundays?
    Mr. HACKING: In the case of troops of the Territorial Army it is very difficult for them to carry out practice on other days.

    TERRITORIAL ARMY (ARMOURED CARS).
    Mr. SAVORY (for Major CARVER)asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Territorial armoured car units undergoing annual training this year are to be issued with petrol of the same grade as that previously issued; and whether, in view of the fact that the engines so fitted cannot function properly with low-grade fuel, he will consider supplying the usual grade?
    Mr. HACKING: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and the second part does not therefore arise.

    REMOUNTS.
    Mr. SAVORY (for Major CARVER)asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the number and value of remounts purchased for the Army during 1934 in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the Irish Free State, respectively; and how these figures compare with those for 1933?
    Mr. HACKING: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures:

    —

    1933.

    1934.

    Number.

    Value.

    Number.

    Value.

    £

    £

    England

    774

    47,184

    744

    43,588

    Wales

    32

    1,702

    17

    1,005

    Scotland

    14

    841

    25

    1,530

    Northern Ireland.

    494

    29,644

    633

    36,416

    Irish Free State

    168

    5,712*

    165

    5,775*

    *These figures do not include customs duty

  SCOTLAND.

    MILK MARKETING SCHEME.
    Captain McEWENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the terms of reference of the Milk Reorganisation Commission now in session include power to investigate the administration of the existing milk marketing scheme?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The reference to the commission is very wide, and includes consideration of the working and administration of existing milk marketing schemes in all their aspects.

    CARFIN HALL, MOSSEND, LANARKSHIRE.
    Mrs. SHAWasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any information as to the purpose for which Carfin Hall, Mossend, Lanarkshire, has been purchased by Sir Arthur Rose, the
    174
    special area commissioner; and what use is to be made of the mansion and grounds?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I am informed by the commissioner that he is taking steps to acquire this property with a view to its development as a social service and recreational centre for the inhabitants of the district; and that details as to the facilities to be provided are at present under consideration.

    LANARKSHIRE POLICE.
    Mr. MAXTON (for Mr. McGOVERN)asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether a complaint has been lodged with the fiscal at Hamilton alleging that Alexander Shields had been beaten up by the police in a cell at Hallside Police Station;if he is aware that Shields had to be treated by his medical adviser for over two weeks as a result of the severe mauling received at the hands of the police; and whether he will set up a public inquiry into the running of the police force of Lanarkshire, and also dismiss Chief Constable Keith from office?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Jamieson): The complaint lodged with the Procurator-Fiscal related to a baton assault alleged to have been committed upon Shields in the street and not in a police station. I am informed that Shields was unfit for work for some time because of an injury inflicted by a police baton used in the street in the course of Shield's apprehension on a charge of breach of the peace. As regards the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend has no power to take action of the kind suggested. The Lanarkshire police authority is the statutory disciplinary authority in relation to the chief constable.
    Mr. MAXTON: But surely there is power in the Scottish Office to inquire into the conduct of any local police force?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: The police authority is the authority which has to deal with the chief constable.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that the Scottish Office have the last word in the appointment of any chief constable in Scotland?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: No, Sir.
    Mr. MAXTON(for Mr. McGOVERN) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the death by drowning of John Burns, who was alleged to be taking coal from No. 1 Newton Colliery, near Cambuslang, if he is aware that Constable Teller, when in pursuit, took off his helmet and tunic in order to enter the water of the River Clyde, but that John Burns was carried away by the water and drowned; and if he intends to set up a public inquiry into this man's death?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: My attention has been drawn to the death of a man named Robert Nicholson Burns by drowning under the circumstances referred to in the first part of the question. Inquiries are being made into the occurrence and consideration will be given to the desirability of holding a fatal accident inquiry when a full report of the facts has been obtained.
    Mr. MAXTON: Having regard to this question and the previous one, will the hon. and learned Gentleman advise his right hon. Friend to make full inquiry into the whole treatment of the civil population by the Lanarkshire police, in view of the two very grave allegations that are made in these two questions and many other happenings throughout Lanark?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: That matter does not seem to arise on this question, but I will convey to my right hon. Friend what the hon. Member has said.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    GAS DETECTORS.
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Secretary for Mines the position with regard to the objections lodged against the suggested regulation for the compulsory use of gas detectors underground?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): Negotiations are still proceeding, and no decision has yet been reached. I will let the hon. Member know as soon as I am in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. SMITH: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether a panel of referees has been
    176
    appointed at any time under the Coal Mines Act, 1911; and, in case the negotiations on this matter break down, will he submit the case to a referee?
    Mr. BROWN: That depends upon the discussions which are now proceeding on certain draft regulations.
    Mr. SMITH: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the Coal Mines Act, 1911, lays it down that, in the event of an objection being lodged against any regulation issued by the Secretary for Mines, it shall be submitted to a panel of referees, or to a referee? I am asking him whether, since the Act was passed in 1911, a panel of referees has ever been set up for this purpose?
    Mr. BROWN: If objections are taken and negotiations follow, of course the referee must be called in if arbitration is necessary.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. DAVID DAVIESasked the Secretary for Mines the quantity of coal exported from this country and the price per ton f.o.b. during the years 1933 and 1934; and the quantity of coal produced and exported and the price per ton f.o.b. from South Wales and Monmouthshire for the same years?
    Mr. E. BROWN: As the reply involves a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the
    OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:

    —

    1933.

    1934.

    Great Britain—

    Coal exported:

    Quantity (1,000 tons)

    39,068

    39,660

    Average value per ton,

    16s.1d.

    16s.1d.

    f.o.b.

    South Wales and Monmouthshire—

    Output of saleable coal (1,000 tons).

    34,355

    35,173

    Coal exported:

    Quantity (1,000tons)

    16,064

    15,918

    Average value per ton, f. o. b

    19s.9d.

    19s.7d.

    Mr. DAGGARasked the Secretary for Mines the average output per person employed in the mines in South Wales and Monmouthshire for the year 1934, and the average wages paid per person for the same year?
    Mr. BROWN: During the year ended 31st January, 1935, the average output of coal per person employed in mines in South Wales and Monmouthshire was 261 tons, and the average cash earnings per person employed during the same period was £119.

    ROYALTIES AND WAYLEAVES.
    Mr. DAGGARasked the Secretary for Mines the sums paid by British coal mines in rents, royalties, and wayleaves for the year 1934?
    Mr. E. BROWN: During the year 1934, the estimated amount paid by colliery owners in Great Britain in royalties and wayleaves, including the rental value of freehold minerals where worked by the proprietors, was £5,028,000.

    IRON CONVEYORS (NOISE).
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware of the complaints of miners about the noise caused by iron conveyors on the coal face; and whether it is the intention of the coal owners to gradually substitute rubber belting which is more suitable?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I have from time to time received representations as to the prejudicial effect of excessive noise on the safety and well-being of underground workmen, and it is certainly desirable that everything possible should be done to mitigate it. I am glad to be able to say, therefore, that the use of belt-conveyors, which is already extensive, is rapidly expanding, owing to the constructional improvements effected in recent years, and that this tendency may be confidently expected to continue.

    GATEWAYS.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that, owing to the introduction of coal-cutting machinery, the length of coal face between gateways has increased and where there is a. weighting of the roof there is added danger to the workmen owing to the greater distance they have to travel to a place of safety, i.e., the gateways; and whether he will consider fixing a maximum distance between openings or gateways?
    Mr. E. BROWN: The use of coal-cutting machinery does not involve any extension of the distance between gateways, and I assume that what the hon. Member
    178
    has in mind is the use of face-conveyors. I am advised that the reduction in the number of gateways made possible by the introduction of such conveyors tends, on the whole, to ensure greater safety from falls of ground. Reference to the statistics in the Divisional Inspectors' Reports for the past few years will show that a large proportion of the accidents front falls of roof at the face occur at and about gate-ends. The possibility of such a fall of roof between the gateways as would cut off the escape of men working in a longwall face is, on the other hand, remote. In the circumstances, the answer to the last part of the question is "No."
    Mr. TINKER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases now the distance between gateways is 100 yards; and that, should anything happen, such a distance makes it almost impossible for men to get to safety?
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the distance is sometimes more than 100 yards, and is he quite sure that the distances are being shortened? I should be very much surprised to hear it.
    Mr. BROWN: If the hon. Member will read the statement I have made, he will find that everything there is precisely as the inspectors' reports show. With regard to the other point, I assure the hon. Member that these points, and all points arising out of the change-over to machinery, are being closely watched from day to day.
    Mr. T. SMITH: Is the Secretary for Mines aware that a good deal of the controversy with regard to overtime is due to the fact that in some pits the distances are too long?
    Mr. BROWN: In some cases mistakes were made in the early days of the new system, but improvements have been and are taking place.
    Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Is it not a fact that the reason why there is such a long distance between these gateways is that it makes it cheaper for the coal-owner?
    Mr. BROWN: I could not make any general observation on that matter, because the circumstances vary from day to day.

    WAGES.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the coalowners have refused to negotiate with the Miners' Federation for the basis of a national wages agreement; and what action does his Department intend to take to bring both parties together to discuss it.
    Mr. E. BROWN: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes." With regard to the second part, I do not know of any action I can take, short of introducing a system of compulsory arbitration, which will bring the parties together in the absence of mutual agreement.
    Mr. TINKER: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the coalowners have persistently refused to meet the mine workers, and that the position is getting very acute; and will the Government do all that they can to bring them together, or, in default, introduce legislation?

    COPPICE COLLIERY, HEATH HAYES (WORK MEN'S COMPENSATION).
    Mrs. WARDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a number of mine workers awarded compensation against the Coppice Colliery, Heath Hayes, in the Cannock Chase coalfield, the ownership of which is at present under dispute, have received no payments for some considerable time; and if he can state why such payments have not been made?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I have no information in regard to the circumstances described in the question, but I will cause inquiry to be made and communicate with my hon. Friend later.

  AGRICULTURE.

    AUSTRALIAN MEAT (IMPORTS).
    Mr. EVERARDasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is in a position to make a statement on the negotiations with the Dominion of Australia regarding meat imports into this country
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The discussions with the
    180
    Commonwealth Ministers now in London are in a preliminary stage, and I am not at present in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. EVERARD: If I put a question down this day week, will my right hon. Friend then be able to give me a reply?
    Mr. THOMAS: I would prefer that my hon. Friend should ask me later.
    Mr. RONALD ROSS: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make any compensatory restrictions, in view of the increase in the number of cattle coming from the Irish Free State as a result of the coal-cattle pact?
    Mr. THOMAS: I do not agree. The restriction in the case of the Irish Free State is a restriction due to political reasons, and if happily, as I hope may be the case some day, a settlement were arrived at, there would be an entirely different figure. I do not accept at all the statement about the increase in the number of cattle coming from the Irish Free State under the agreement. I think it was a satisfactory agreement.

    INTERNATIONAL WHEAT COMMITTEE.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the International Wheat Committee has held any meetings recently and if any decisions as to future policy have been reached?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): There has been no meeting of the Wheat Advisory Committee since that held at Budapest in November last.

    IMPORTED CANADIAN CATTLE (SLAUGHTER, GLASGOW).
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the representations made by the Canadian High Commissioner and interested parties in Glasgow, asking for a re-examination of 44 Holstein breeding cows, 23 of which were condemned to slaughter a few hours after importation following a very severe voyage, solely on their conformation; that these cows were favourably reported on after examination by an experienced veterinary surgeon and the Glasgow Veterinary College as to health, had passed the tuberculin test of the Canadian

    181
    Government, and been accepted as suitable breeding stock by four representative dairy farmers; and whether he can state why the request for a re-examination was not granted?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I am aware of the circumstances referred to in the question, but I would point out that the animals were not rejected for veterinary reasons. I did not order a re-examination, because I was satisfied that the original examination was carefully carried out and that the decision that these animals were unsuitable for breeding purposes was well-founded.
    Mr. LEONARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of these cows have calved, and that the calves have been deemed to be healthy and of good quality? In view of the fact that they represent a large percentage of the shipment, does he not consider that in the circumstances it is only fair that there should be a re-examination, in support of which there is very weighty evidence?
    Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir. I cannot undertake to have any re-examination of these cattle.
    Mr. LEONARD: Is it not a fact that there has been no test to confirm this opinion and that it lies at the discretion of one man?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid that that is why it is so difficult to have a re-examination. One must rely upon one's authorised officer. As the hon. Member has said, it is a matter of opinion, and we have to take the opinion of the expert.
    Mr. LEONARD: Is it not the case that the type of the calves is sufficient to justify reconsideration of the matter?
    Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir, I am afraid not.

    CHINESE EGGS (IMPORTS).
    Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAYasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the continued importation of quantities of Chinese eggs is causing growing indignation in both Scotland and England, not only on account of the serious effect these eggs exert upon prices but also because the public is becoming increasingly aware of the fact that Chinese poultry are housed and fed in a filthy manner; and will he take some action in the matter
    Mr. ELLIOT: Imports of eggs in shell from China during January and February of this year were 246,000 great hundreds, as compared with 436,000 great hundreds for the corresponding period of last year, a. reduction of nearly 44 per cent. My hon. and gallant Friend will be aware that the Government made proposals designed to secure an overall reduction, by voluntary arrangement, of 10 per cent. in foreign imports during the first quarter of the year. Imports of liquid eggs from China have also been considerably lower than during the corresponding period of 1934. With regard to the quality of Chinese eggs, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the replies given by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Health, on 14th March to questions on this subject.
    Captain RAMSAY: While thanking my right hon. Friend, may I ask whether, in view of the fact that the importation is still having an effect on prices, he is taking any further steps in the matter?
    Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the main reason for the big reduction of 44 per cent. in the importation?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid that I cannot say that without notice.
    Captain RAMSAY: May I have an answer?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The question of the effect of imports as a whole upon the situation is being carefully watched by the Government. I am afraid that it would not be possible to take discriminatory action against one consignment.

    WHEAT OFFALS (FLOUR CONTENT).
    Duchess of ATHOLLasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that wheat offals produced in this country only contain 4 per cent. of flour, whereas Continental offals include 7 per cent. of flour; that in order to procure food of sufficient nourishment poultry producers are obliged to depend largely on foreign offals; and whether he will take steps to ensure that a larger proportion of flour is left in British offals?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I have no information to the effect that the quantities of flour contained in British and Continental wheat offals respectively are so low as

    183
    stated in the question. Furthermore, my present information does not show that the standard quantities of wheatings and super wheatings now produced by Britain are inferior to wheat offals imported from abroad. I understand, in fact, that in their administration of the Wheat Act it is the practice of the Wheat Commission to tolerate at least 15 per cent. of flour in parcels described as "wheat offals," and that full use is made by British millers of this tolerance. The third part of the question would not seem therefore to arise.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: As the information in the question was given to me by men engaged in the scientific breeding of poultry in this country, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ascertain whether the percentages mentioned are correct?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I have given the information that is in my possession. If the Noble Lady has any information to the contrary, I shall be glad to examine it.
    Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a growing feeling among farmers that they would rather have more British offals and keep out imported flour?

    IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Prime Minister whether the working of quotas has been under investigation by the Government; and whether it is anticipated that there will be any change of policy in this connection in the near future?
    Major CARVERasked the Prime Minister whether the possibility is under consideration of abandoning all existing quota schemes for controlling the import of agricultural produce into this country and substituting other methods, in view of the abuse of these quotas; and, if so, by whom such examination is being carried out and by what date it is anticipated that the change will be made?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): As the Lord President of the Council informed the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. H. Johnstone) on the 28th February, the Government have often stated that in their view
    184
    quantitative regulation of imports is not necessarily in all cases, and, I may add, for all time, the most appropriate method of assisting the home agricultural industry. The circumstances of each case are different, and it would not be possible to lay down a general rule. A wide variety of methods have, in fact, been adopted to meet the differing requirements of the industry under widely variable conditions. The Government have the situation under constant review and if, at any time, it appears to them, in any particular case, that the desired object can be better achieved by some other method, they are always prepared to make such changes as may be necessary as soon as it is practicable to do so.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    JAPANESE COMPETITION.
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take with reference to the increased import of exceptionally low-priced Japanese shirts and the increase of unemployment arising from it?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The question of an increase in the import duty on these goods is, in the first instance, one for the Import Duties Advisory Committee. It is open to the interests concerned to apply to that committee.
    Mr. CHORLTON: In view of the difficulty, of which my right hon. Friend will be 'aware, that small industries like this have in getting together to formulate an application, will he try to help in some way, because of the unemployment which arises from this competition?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No matter how small an industry may be, I am sure the committee will give them a hearing.
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give the figures for the imports of Japanese cotton goods into this country for January and February; if there is any fall over similar periods last year; and if any fresh action is proposed to modify the rate of import duty now in force?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The total value of the imports of cotton yarns and of manufactures of cotton, other than apparel, in January and February, 1935, was

    185
    £361,390, of which the amount consigned from Japan was £ 32,732. The corresponding figures for 1934 were £ 371,287 and £ 21,031. It will be seen that the imports from Japan represent a small proportion of the total imports from all sources, and that these total imports have declined. The question of any modification of the rate of import duty, if the cotton industry should consider modification necessary, is, as my hon. Friend is aware, for consideration in the first instance by the Import Duties Advisory Committee.
    Mr. CHORLTON: In view of the particular reference to the smaller firms dealing with made-up goods like shirts, is it not significant that the import of Japanese goods is eight times more this year than it was last year, taking it on the January basis? Will the right hon. Gentleman not take some steps to assist these small industries to put their case before the Advisory Committee?

    WHEAT FLOUR (IMPORTS).
    Captain RAMSAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the import of wheat flour, in contradistinction to wheat in grain, is detrimental to important interests of this country, in that British mills are thereby sidetracked and also the valuable wheat offals are lost to this country; and whether he will take steps to discourage the importation of wheat flour in favour of wheat in grain?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As regards the first part of the question I would refer to the answer given on the 25th March to the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. With regard to the second part, my hon. and gallant Friend will no doubt be aware that the Import Duties Advisory Committee both last year and in 1933 considered an application for an additional duty on foreign flour and decided to make no recommendation.

    JUBILEE BADGES, MEDALS, EMBLEMS AND SOUVENIRS.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange for separate statistics to be kept of the imports into this country during the present month and the following two months of all badges, medals, emblems, and souvenirs for sale in con-
    186
    nection with the celebration of His Majesty's Silver Jubilee; and whether he will also have prepared for circulation a list of those importing such articles, so that retailers may be able to avoid distributing them if they wish?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that my hon. Friend's suggestions are impracticable.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is it not possible for the Government to tell the country who are the super-patriots who are buying this stuff from abroad?
    Mr. HANNON: Will my right lion. Friend issue a statement to the Press of the country discouraging the sale of this foreign rubbish?
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Does not the Co-operative Society buy stuff from abroad?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: The Co-operative Society does not buy rubbish like this, but good material.

    RUSSIAN TIMBER.
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any further protest from the Canadian Government with regard to the revised contract for the importation of timber into this country for 1935 by Timber Distributors, Limited; and whether he proposes to take any further steps to secure fair treatment for Dominion importers of timber in this connection?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I received yesterday a further communication from the High Commissioner for Canada. It is now under consideration.
    Captain MACDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the net result of the elimination of the fall clause in the new contract is that all Russian timber is coming in 10 per cent. cheaper than timber can be economically be produced either in this country or in the Dominions?
    Mr. LIDDALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the position of English manufacturers of doors and the adverse effect which they are experiencing owing to the unfair and unreasonable competition from Canada?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The contract which has been made between Timber Distributors, Limited, and the Soviet Union is not for manufactured articles.
    HON. MEMBERS: Canada.

    CHINA.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the recent decline in British trade with China and of its value to this country through the balance being in our favour, he will consider the possibility of improving the present position by means of effecting some new trade agreement with China that will lead to better mutual co-operation?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Recent statistics show an improvement in our trade with China. I do not think it would be useful to enter into trade negotiations at the present time, but I am watching the situation closely.
    Liuet.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will not undertake any further negotiations with China to the prejudice of the British poultry industry with regard to the importation of Chinese eggs?

    INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
    Mr. MANDERasked the Lord President of the Council the present position with regard to the possible introduction of an enabling Bill for a levy on all firms in an industry for co-operative research; and whether the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has now received replies from the existing research associations?
    The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has now received replies from practically all existing research associations on the subject of whether, in their opinion, the industries they serve are likely to favour the introduction of an Enabling Bill for a levy on all firms in an industry for cooperative research. The replies indicate that there has been some change of a, favourable nature towards the principle involved, but the trend of opinion expressed does not lead to the hope that the powers of such a statute would be widely exercised.
    Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there appears to be a majority in favour of legislation?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    LOSSES AT SEA (INQUIRY).
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the inquiry, under Lord Merrivale, into the recent loss of certain British ships will be solely confined to the causes of those particular losses, or whether it will be empowered to examine the general provisions in existence at the present time to prevent ships proceeding td sea in an unseaworthy condition?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: While the Formal Investigation into the recent loss of four British ships will be confined to those particular losses, the Court will have before it the existing general provisions applying to the class of ship to which the ships in question belonged.

    SEAMEN (STATISTICS).
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the approximate numbers, respectively, of British-born seamen, seamen who are British subjects but not British-born, and alien seamen in the British mercantile marine?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The number of sea men employed in British ships is ascertained only at a date when a census of seamen is taken and the latest census at which any subdivision of British subjects was made is that relating to seamen employed on 26th April, 1931. I am circulating the particulars in the OFFICIAL REPORT, together with certain less detailed information obtained at the census taken on 15th June, 1933.
    Brigadier-General NATION: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the next census is due?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think that it is due about the middle of this year, but I am not quite sure.
    Following are the particulars:

    Seamen employed on the censal dates 26th April, 1931, and 15th June, 1933, on sea-trading vessels registered in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.

    —

    April26th, 1931.

    June15th, 1933.

    British subjects (other than lascars):

    Born in the United Kingdom.

    98,600

    Not separately enumerated.

    Born in other parts of the British Empire

    9,387

    "British" undefined, naturalised and natural born British subjects

    811

    Nationality not specified and born at sea

    84

    Total British seamen

    108,882

    96,916

    Foreigners (other than lascars).

    11,204

    7,661

    Lascars (British subjects and foreigners)*

    49,125

    42,475

    Total seamen

    169,211

    147,052

    * Information as to the nationality of lascars is not available.

    Mr. NICHOLSONasked the President of the Board of Trade how many alien seamen and coloured seamen, respectively, have been signed on at British ports during the last 12 months?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The information available is as follows:
    Engagements at ports in Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the year ended 31st December last show:

    Foreigners, other than Asiatics and Africans

    6,724

    Chinese

    1,584

    Arabs

    3,101

    Other Asiatics and Africans

    4,722

    The total number of engagements was 407, 472.
    The figures relate to the number of engagements and not to individual seamen.
    Mr. NICHOLSON: Does my right hon. Friend realise the great uneasiness and resentment that exists in the minds of British seamen when they see their jobs being taken by foreigners and coloured seamen, and will he direct attention to the matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir, some steps have been taken, and I have no doubt that more will be taken to increase the amount of employment of British seamen to the exclusion of others.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many in the figures given were subjects of the British Empire
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir, I am afraid that I cannot; I am not sure that we have that sub-division.
    Mr. LOGAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is stated in the Press this morning that 1,000 naturalisation forms were handed out to foreign seamen yesterday in Cardiff, and, if I give him particulars, will he let me have an answer by Thursday, as I intend to take up the Matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know that I could let the hon. Gentleman have an answer, but I shall be glad to have any particulars which he can send to me.
    Mr. WEST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the decrease in the employment of foreign sailors is not so large as the decrease in the employment of British sailors in the last few years?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is quite likely, because the number of British sailors is very much larger.
    Mr. WEST: The percentage, I mean.

    WRITE STAR LINE, LIMITED (LIQUIDATION).
    Mr. WHITEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it is anticipated that any loss will fall upon the Treasury as a result of the liquidation of the White Star Line; and, if so, to what extent?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): No, Sir. The White Star Line, Limited, have not

    191
    borrowed any money under Treasury guarantee. The loans of that character raised by the subsidiary company, namely, the Oceanic Steam Navigation Company, are not affected by the liquidation to which the question refers.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Major Sir HERBERT CAYZERasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the sufferings of certain incapacitated war orphans as a result of the regulation which precludes allowance being paid after the age of 21; whether he will seek authority to enable allowances to be continued in the case of totally incapacitated war orphans for so long as the infirmity exists; whether he will consider specially the case of Ada Marion Edwards, daughter of the late Private William Edwards, No. 5,765, Middlesex Regiment, who died on 30th November, 1934, in view of the fact that this war orphan is suffering from curvature of the spine and paralysis of the legs and is unable to contribute to her self-support?
    Mr. JOHNasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the position of certain incapacitated war orphans as a result of the regulation which precludes allowance being paid after the age of 21; whether he will seek authority which will enable allowances to be continued in the case of totally incapacitated war orphans for so long as the infirmity exists; and whether, when looking into this matter, he will specially consider the case of Lily Maud Roberts, daughter of the late Driver Thomas Roberts, No. 109,779, Army Service Corps, who died on 15th September, 1924, as she is suffering from cardiac debility and is unable to contribute in any way to her self-support?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I understand that both the young persons referred to are living with their mothers, who are in receipt of a widow's pension under the Royal Pensions Warrants. For the reasons given by me in my reply to similar proposals made by the hon. and gallant Members for Northampton and Coventry on the 27th ultimo, of which I am sending copies to
    192
    the hon. Members, I am unable to adopt the course suggested.
    Mr. JOHN: Seeing that the Government made it a national responsibility to maintain these children when they were young, does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman believe that it is essential on the part of the Government to extend their obligations to those who are incapacitated, because they are not being maintained and would have been maintained if their fathers had not made the supreme sacrifice?
    Major TRYON: No, Sir, as the hon. Member has referred to the Government, I would remind him that all Governments, including the last Government, have been in agreement with the decision which I have just announced. With regard to this particular point, I could not accept the proposal to give these children war pensions for life for infirmities which were not attributable to the war, when ex-service men themselves have no right to pensions in similar circumstances.
    Mr. JOHN: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that their predicament is on account of the War and their fathers having been killed in the War?
    Major TRYON: The infirmities of these men and women who have now grown up are in no way due to the War.
    Mr. JOHN: If the War had not occurred, would not some of the infirmities have been—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Mander.

    POST OFFICE (CONTRACT, BURSLEM).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Messrs. Corbett Goodwin, Limited, cask manufacturers, Burslem, are paying for Post Office contracts a rate of wages of Is. an hour, whereas the rate as agreed by the National Joint Industrial Council of the cooperage industry is 1s. 5d. per hour; and whether he will take steps to remove this firm from the list of Post Office contractors in view of their failure to observe the terms of the fair wages clause?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): I have already had full inquiry made into this matter. It appears that no agreement governing wages is recognised by cooperage firms in the Potteries and that Messrs. Corbett Goodwin, Limited, pay their coopers rates of wages not less favourable than those prevailing amongst good employers in the industry in the district. As, therefore, the conditions of the fair wages clause in their contract with the Post Office are being duly observed, there is no case for removing this firm from the list of Post Office contractors.
    Mr. MANDER: Is it not usual for the Post Office to recognise the decisions of joint industrial councils for the purposes of the fair wages clause, and is not this a direct infraction of the national
    agreement?
    Sir E. BENNETT: Not at all. Where there is a. national wage rate and it is recognised in a district, it is binding on Post Office contractors, but where a national rate is not recognised in a district the Post Office is guided by the action of good employers in the district.
    Mr. THORNE: In consequence of the differences of interpretation of the fair wages clause, will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of bringing the heads of Departments together to agree that the wages recognised by the joint industrial council should be regarded as the fair wage?
    Sir E. BENNETT: I will consider that.
    Mr. MANDER: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise this matter at an early date.

    ARREST, SHEPHERD'S BUSH (LOITERING).
    Mr. WESTasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of George Trinder, of Shepherd's Bush, who, together with two friends, was charged at Acton Petty Sessions with loitering; whether he is aware that two plain-clothes officers testified that the accused entered a Chiswick shop at noon and came out with a parcel and one of them looked into a motor car; whether, as the magistrate
    194
    dismissed the case after only hearing police evidence and as no evidence was given against Trinder, who had to pay a solicitor five guineas for his defence, some recompense will now be made to this young man of good character who has suffered injury; and whether, in view of this further evidence of unwarranted police activity against decent citizens, he will take steps to have these practices reviewed?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have carefully investigated the circumstances of this case. In discharging these men the chairman of the magistrates added that in the opinion of the bench the police were quite right in making the arrest and bringing the matter before the court to be investigated. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the case is not one in which the payment of compensation would be justified.
    ,Mr. WEST: Is the Home Secretary aware that I was present in court and that the chief grounds of police suspicion were that two of the young men had gone into a shop and come out with a parcel, but, on being searched, they discovered a paid bill; that one of the young men was carrying an overcoat which on investigation proved to be his own, and that it was also alleged that they looked into a motor car. When the evidence was heard the magistrates immediately dismissed the case. In view of the humiliation caused and the financial interests involved, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that these men should be recompensed?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: All I can say is that I have looked very carefully into this case and have considered it, but, in view of what the magistrates said, I had no alternative but to take the course that I have taken.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman go a little deeper into this matter, especially in view of the fact that several cases of this kind have arisen within the same area in London, and that there seems to be something wrong somewhere?
    Mr. MAXTON: May I press the Home Secretary? Is he not aware that these arrests for loitering in London are becoming very frequent? Will he make some inquiry into the number of arrests for loitering that have been made?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: It is part of my duty to go carefully into all these matters. When this particular case came before the court the magistrates deliberately stated that in their view the arrest was correct and that they should be brought before the court.
    Mr. WEST: Does the question not arise—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot argue the matter.
    Mr. WEST: May I not ask the Home Secretary a further question? It is a matter of great importance.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already asked his questions and received answers.

    ROAD TRAFFIC ACT (ENFORCEMENT).
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of his letters to magistrates exhorting them to enforce the speed limit by penalties, he can state whether he has sent any letter in the last four years to magistrates in general calling their attention to the need for enforcing the ordinary laws as regards motorists; and when such communication was issued?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir. A circular was issued on 22nd January, 1934, inviting the views of magistrates as to the desirability of extending the power to suspend driving licences; and another circular was issued on 28th September drawing attention to some of the new provisions contained in the Road Traffic Act, 1934. I am sending my hon. Friend copies of these circulars.

    ROYAL ALBERT HALL.
    Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the use of the Royal Albert Hall has been repeatedly refused to certain political organisations while it has been granted to others, he will introduce legislation to amend the Royal Albert Hall Acts so as to prevent any political considerations affecting the choice of persons to whom the use of the hall is granted?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is discrimination against organisations holding certain views, and will he inform the trustees that that must cease?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. The Albert Hall Acts are Private Acts for which no Government has any responsibility.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    BRITISH-BORN SEAMEN.
    Mr. G. NICHOLSONasked the Minister of Labour how many British-born seamen are at present unemployed?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The number of unemployed seamen, aged 18 and over, on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain at 28th January, 1935, the latest date for which figures are available, was 37,58.5. Separate statistics in respect of British-born seamen are not available.
    Mr. WEST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are nearly 50,000 foreign and coloured seamen employed on British ships, and has his Department any plans for putting British sailors into those foreign seamen's jobs?
    Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the figures quoted include British coloured seamen who are domiciled in Great Britain?
    Mr. STANLEY: I have said that separate statistics on the point are not available.

    DURHAM.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons receiving benefit from the unemployment insurance fund, and the number receiving payments from the Unemployment Assistance Board, in the County of Durham, including the boroughs?
    Mr. STANLEY: At 25th February, 1935, the numbers of persons on the registers of employment exchanges in the County of Durham, including the associated county boroughs, with claims admitted for insurance benefit and unemployment allowances were 41,229 and 80,532, respectively.
    Mr. BATEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government propose to take steps to find work for these people?
    Mr. STANLEY: The matter is receiving constant attention.
    Mr. BATEY: When will you make a beginning? You have done nothing yet.

    FEE-CHARGING AGENCIES.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour how many countries have signed the draft convention in connection with fee-charging agencies; whether His Majesty's Government are signatories; and, if not, whether he will state the reason why they did not sign the draft convention
    Mr. STANLEY: So far as I am aware the international labour convention concerning fee-charging employment agencies has not yet been ratified by any country. The reasons why it has not been ratified by His Majesty's Government are set out in a recent White Paper (Cmd. 4846) of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
    Mr. THORNE: Has not the right hon. Gentleman sufficient evidence in his office to prove the very unfair way in which these fee agencies are dealing with people who apply for work?
    Mr. STANLEY: If the hon. Member will look at the White Paper, he will see our reasons set out in full.

    IMPERIAL DEFENCE.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Prime Minister whether an opportunity will be given to the House before the Easter adjournment to discuss the adequacy of the defences of this country and the coordination of the services, in view of the altered conditions in Europe since the last Debate?
    Sir EDWARD GRIGGasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of recent developments in the field of foreign affairs, he will give the House an opportunity of discussing the joint responsibilities of the three defence services with regard to national and imperial security and with regard also to our obligations under the Covenant and the Treaty of Locarno?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that in the present state of public business the Government canont give a special opportunity for a Debate on Imperial Defence.
    Earl WINTERTON: Is the Prime Minister aware that the increases in certain Continental forces raise serious doubts in the minds of many of his supporters as to whether the relative strength of British forces as laid down by the Lord President of the Council in his speech last November is being maintained? When will the House have an opportunity of considering this question, which is of fundamental importance?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There are various occasions on which the question can be raised, and perhaps the right hon. Member will have a word with me on the matter.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to a recent statement by the Secretary of State for War, who pointed out the serious depletion of the forces of the Government in arms, personnel and reserves? Is it not essential that this vital matter of national defence should be discussed by the House of Commons at an early date?
    Mr. MAXTON: Are we to take it that the visits of the Foreign Secretary and the Lord Privy Seal to the Continent have not substantially altered the situation?
    Brigadier-General NATIONasked the Prime Minister whether, during the visit of Dominion representatives to this country for the Jubilee, opportunity will be taken to discuss the question of closer co-operation between the defence services of the United Kingdom and those of the Dominions, with a view to obtaining united action in all matters relating to Imperial defence?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As was stated in this House by the Lord President of the Council on the 30th July last, advantage will be taken of the presence of Dominion representatives in this country to discuss personally and informally any questions of particular importance outstanding. No precise agenda has been laid down but I think that my hon. and gallant Friend may be assured that questions connected with defence will not be overlooked.
    Captain A. EVANS: Will His Majesty's Government in this country take the opportunity of suggesting to the Dominions that a contribution from their country towards the cost of Imperial defence would be very opportune at this moment?
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that a representative of the Territorial Army will attend these deliberations?

    TITHE RENTCHARGE.
    Rear-Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the present hardship to lay tithe-owners because the valuation for rating purposes of the tithes is based on the full tithe payable and the lay tithe-owners are being compelled to pay rates on the full amount, which in many instances they cannot collect, less a small percentage for costs of collection which is less than the actual costs incurred, and that the Inland Revenue realise these difficulties and grant refunds of income tax; and will he, pending the report, of the Tithe Commission and possible legislation, take some steps to remedy the position?
    Mr. COOPER: I am aware of the grievance, and I understand that in some parts of the country tithe rent-charge is being reassessed annually so as to take account of difficulties in collection among the factors which influence its valuation for rating. I cannot however hold out hope of any Government action in anticipation of the report of the Royal Commission which is now sitting.

    ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the grounds upon which the British Government has been exercising pressure on Abyssinia not to take her dispute with Italy to the League of Nations?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): His Majesty's Government have not been exercising any such pressure.
    Mr. THORNE: When the Foreign Secretary meets Mussolini will he be good enough to ask him what his object is in regard to Abyssinia?
    Sir J. SIMON: I will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind.
    Mr. THORNE: And give him my compliments.
    Mr. MANDER: Do I understand from the answer that the right hon. Gentleman has no objection whatever to Abyssinia bringing her case before the Council of the League of Nations?
    Sir J. SIMON: My original answer was that the British Government have taken no action.

    GOLD COAST (CRIMINAL CODE ORDINANCE,1934).
    Mr. DINGLE FOOTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he was asked to approve of or advise upon the Criminal Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 1934, which received the assent of the governor of the Gold Coast Colony on 31st March, 1934; and, in particular, whether his approval was given to Section 4 (2) (e) of the said Ordinance, which provides that any person who, being found in possesison of any newspaper, book, or document, or any part thereof or extract therefrom, containing seditious words or writing, does not prove to the satisfaction of the court that at the time he was found in such possession he did not know the nature of its contents, shall be liable to imprisonment for one year or to a fine not exceeding £50?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The draft of this Ordinance was submitted to me in the first instance and my approval was given for its introduction into the Legislative Council of the Gold Coast. Subsequently, the Ordinance, as passed, formed one of the topics discussed with the Gold Coast, and Ashanti Delegation which was received by me last summer. The Ordinance had my full approval. The hon. Member will observe that Sub-section (9) of the Section to which he refers provides that no proceedings may be instituted under that Section without the written consent of the Attorney-General.
    Mr. FOOT: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it ought to be necessary, in a serious charge of this kind, for the prosecution to prove not only possession but also criminal intent? Further, can he point to any British Statute which enacts legislation of this kind?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Act is an exact counterpart of legislation, perhaps of a rather more stringent kind, that has been in operation in Nigeria since 1927, against which there has never been any objection or criticism whatever.
    Miss RATHBONE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any evidence of serious sedition in the Gold Coast or Nigeria which makes such drastic restrictions on the liberty of the Press necessary?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If the hon. Lady had seen, as I have seen, the filthy, blasphemous and seditious stuff which has been imported into that country, I am sure that she would join with me in taking whatever steps are necessary to prevent its circulation.
    Mr. FOOT: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the first part of my question, as to whether it ought not to be necessary for the prosecution not only to prove possession of literature of this kind but also criminal intent?

    HIS MAJESTY'S SILVER JUBILEE (CELEBRATIONS.)
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is yet in a position to make any announcement in regard to the military review which is to be held in connection with the Silver Jubilee; whether this will be open to the public; what will be the approximate price of seats and the amount of accommodation available; and whether special arrangements will be made for Members of Parliament?
    Mr. HACKING: Subject to His Majesty's convenience the Aldershot review will be held on 13th July. I regret that I am not yet in a position to announce detailed arrangements, but it is hoped to be able to make arrangements for the accommodation of Members of both House of Parliament.

    CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, despite the provisions of the Cinematograph Films Act, blind and block booking is taking place to an increasing extent, and that this is the sequel to the development since 1927 of the system of large theatre circuits; and whether he contemplates any amendment of the Act to deal with this situation?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that the Cinematograph Films Advisory Committee have this question under consideration and any recommendations which they may make will receive my careful consideration.

    HOSIERY WORKERS (WAGES).
    Mr. CAPORNasked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the House any information as to the current rate of wages now being paid to, and the normal hours per week worked by, hosiery workers employed in the manufacture of artificial silk stockings in Germany and in the United Kingdom, respectively?
    Mr. STANLEY: I regret that I am not in possession of comparable information as to the rates of wages and hours of labour of workpeople engaged in the manufacture of artificial silk stockings in Germany and in the United Kingdom.

BILLS REPORTED.

  NATIONAL GALLERY(OVERSEAS LOANS) BILL [Lords]
  Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee B.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
  Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered To-morrow.

  NORTHERN IRELAND LAND PURCHASE (WINDING UP) BILL
  Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee B.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
  Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered To-morrow.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. Drummond-
  Wolff; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Hammersley.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Superannuation Bill): Brigadier-General Spears; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Moreing
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision for the establishment of a criminal lunatic asylum in Scotland; and for purposes connected therewith." [Criminal Lunatics (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
  Considered in Committee [FIFTEENTH DAY—Progress, 1st April].
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

    CLAUSE 202—(Law declared by Federal Court and Privy Council to be binding on all courts.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    3.33 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I ventured to put a point of Order to you last night, Mr. Chairman, but you thought it might be more properly dealt with on the question being proposed "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." May I ask you to give your Ruling upon this point, which has arisen out of the arrangements which have been made for the discussion of the Bill? It has been agreed that a number of clauses may be put en bloc if there is no amendment to any clause; but last night there a case where six clauses were to be put, and there was an Amendment to the third of those Clauses. It was an Amendment which you did not select, but it was not an Amendment out of order. If it had been out of order it might be argued that it did not exist at all, but as it was an Amendment that you did not select it came into that category which I think you described as coming within the more questionable area of the selective power of the Chair in respect of amendments. We have always understood that that selective power related to making sure that the particular topic for discussion was taken at the best point which was on the Paper, and by no means related to the shortening of discussion and the excluding of any topics from discussion.
    That being so, it would appear that an Amendment which was on the Paper and which you did not choose to select would nevertheless be an Amendment for the purpose of barring the putting of a series of clauses en bloc. I should very much like to know how you have decided upon that matter, and I must of course say that if you have decided that an amendment may be put on the Paper and you may not select it and that then a whole
    208
    block of clauses may be put, obviously it would be necessary for those who are watching over the careful and thorough discussion of this important Measure to safeguard themselves from anything going with a run, by putting on the Paper an amendment to omit every Clause in succession from the beginning to the end. I hope that I may receive some Ruling from you on the point.
    3.36 p.m.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think it is necessary, in the interests of the Chair and of the Committee, to say that I cannot accept what the right hon. Gentleman has stated as to the Chairman's power of selection of Amendments. That, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is a discretion the exercise of which is a great responsibility, and the purpose of it has not been hedged with any rules or acknowledged usages. The right hon. Gentleman's first point of Order is to some extent mixed up with a second one. At any rate, it deals broadly with the question of taking a number of Clauses en bloc. I have discussed that matter with some of the right hon. Gentleman's friends and others at a meeting of the informal committee to-day. The Resolution of the House is, perhaps, not drawn in very clear detail, but the whole intention of that Resolution and of the arrangement under which we are working was co-operation; and with that end in view, I have come to the conclusion that the proper course for me to take, whenever I propose to take a number of Clauses in a block, is to give hon. Members an opportunity, if they wish to do so, of signifying the fact if on any particular Clause they wish to speak. That no doubt will meet the right hon. Gentleman's view, and I hope it will be acceptable to the Committee. I can only say that, wishing from the point of view of the Chair to assist the business in that way, it will be a convenience if, generally speaking, right hon. and hon. Members will put on the Paper an Amendment to omit any Clause on which they are quite sure that they want to speak. But if there are other Clauses as to which there is no such notice on the Order Paper, I will none the less give hon. Members an opportunity, before putting the whole of the Clauses in a block, to say that they wish to discuss a particular Clause.
    3.40 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I need not say with how much good will and gratitude the minority in this Committee will receive the statement which you have made and which ought to be satisfactory to all.
    The CHAIRMAN: The question is "That Clause 202 stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. CHURCHILL: If I may say so, Sir, you were rather "on the pounce" in rising to put that question. There are very important issues to be raised on this Clause. The Clause involves a point which we raised last night, namely, the question of the amenability of the Princes. It also touches the question of appeals to the Privy Council. These four Clauses numbered 200 to 203 inclusive combine to give us a picture, as it were, of the relations between the Federal and the State Legislatures. On these Clauses we have raised certain definite issues with the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General which have not yet been very clearly or fully determined. This Clause 202 relates to the procedure between the Federal Courts and the Privy Council. It is of considerable consequence, and I think we might have from the Government some explanation of its exact purpose, having regard to the discussion which took place late last night. Perhaps in the light of that discussion the Government could now make a statement which would relieve some of the doubts and anxieties prevailing in certain quarters in the Committee at present.
    3.42 p. m
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I am not sure whether this Clause raises or in any way affects the point which my right hon. Friend was discussing last night, but I will do my best shortly to explain what the Clause does. I think the Committee will see that its scope is limited and its effect obvious and desirable. What it says first is that
    "the law declared by the Federal Court and by any judgment of the Privy Council shall so far as applicable be recognised as binding on and shall he followed by all courts in British India."
    That is an obvious and necessary provision, because these are superior courts and their decisions must be followed and
    210
    recognised by lower courts. So far as the Indian States are concerned, it provides that any decision of the Federal Court and the Privy Council
    "so far as respects the application and interpretation of this Act or any Order in Council thereunder or any matter with respect to which the Federal Legislature has power to make laws in relation to the State"
    —in those cases the decision shall be recognised as binding and followed by the courts of the Federated State. I think that is quite clear. If a question comes before the court of a State as to the interpretation of the Constitution, or in respect of a matter on which the Federal Legislature has power to make laws in that State, the court in the State will follow the decision of what is for this purpose the superior court, namely, the Federal Court or the Privy Council as the case may be. It would be an impossible position if, in matters involving the interpretation of this Act in its application to a State, the Privy Council and the Federal Court were giving one interpretation and the court of the Federated State giving another. That is all the Clause does. It deals, first, with the position as far as British India is concerned, and, secondly, with the position as far as the Federated States are concerned.
    3.45 p.m.
    M r. CHURCHILL: I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his explanation. Of course, the pith and point of this matter is the extent of the intrusion upon the sovereignty of the Federated States which is involved. It now appears, and it would normally appear, that the Federal Court dominates the States which are parties to the union. There is nothing wrong about that so long as it is recognised and properly understood. But, of course, one must note in passing the very serious abrogation of sovereignty involved, and what is required from the federating units for the sake of federal union. Here we come to the important question of judge-made or court-made law, and that process by which there is built up on a substructure of statute law, a whole new superstructure. Here I think the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will be with me. He, I am sure, remembers the Taff Vale case, and the cases of Quinn against Leather' and Lyons against

    211
    Wilkins, and all those successive judgments by which the statute law —so it was contended by the Socialists and Radicals of those days—had been changed, and the real purpose of Parliament had been gradually subverted, and diverted from the direction in which it was launched by the Conservative legislation of Disraeli's Government of 1876, into an entirely different course, very much more favourable to the employers and property owners. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition has those matters in his mind.
    Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman wants to give me a headache.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Not at all. On the contrary, I only want to rouse the right hon. Gentleman to greater activity in the discharge of his constitutional duties.
    The CHAIRMAN: I hope, however, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) will not seek to lead the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) into wrong paths of irrelevancy.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am sure, Sir, you would not seriously think that I should attempt to induce the right hon. Gentleman into any wrong course or into referring to the Taff Vale decision or these other decisions otherwise than as illustrations to emphasise the actual argument now under discussion. The point is this. It ought to be marked that the Federal Court will move forward on its path making interpretations of the law in advance of the legislation—that is to say its interpretations will, until new statutes are passed, govern the actual practice. It is only from time to time that Parliament can pass Acts, but the courts are functioning continuously, and like the coral insects, they build up layer after layer until after a certain point has been reached you observe a new situation. At that point the legislature sometimes intervenes.
    The question which we have now in view is what is the position of the Indian States in the Federation in this respect. It is clear that they are amenable to the Federal Court. They are not amenable only to the statute law which is now going through. They are not amenable only to the India Constitutional Bill, or Act as it may some day become—which God for-
    212
    fend. Not at all. They are amenable to the continuous law making propositions and decisions which arise from the working of the Federal Court. Of course, we cannot resist this proposition. The Government must bear the consequences, but I think it necessary that the Princes of India and the Prime Ministers of these Federal States should realise that what they are subscribing to—if they should subscribe to it—is not a mere agreement to come into the Federal Constitution embodied in the Statute. There will be a ceaseless, perennial process of judge-made and court-made decisions in the far flung meshes of which they will certainly be enwebbed.
    3.50 p. m.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): My right hon. Friend is needlessly anxious and seems to think that he has made a great discovery that the sovereignty of the Princes and the Indian States may everywhere be undermined. Let me assure my right hon. Friend that he has made no discovery at all. This Clause has always been accepted by the Indian Princes.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No; surely in the speeches which were made at the Bombay conference, Clause 202 was specifically mentioned as one that would require amendment.
    Sir S. HOARE: I can tell my right hon. Friend that there has never been any question at any of the discussions we have ever had with the Princes or their representatives that the Federal Court should not interpret the Clauses of the Constitution Act. They have never expressed anxiety upon that point, and I can assure my right hon. Friend that to the great weight of anxiety which he has placed upon his shoulders in connection with this complicated Bill, he need not add any weight of anxiety about this Clause.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 203.—(Power of Governor-General to consult Federal Court.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    3.52 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We really must have some exposition of these important legal Clauses by a member of the Government. It need not take more than two

    213
    or three minutes, but I ask for an exposition as concise and informing as possible. No time is lost by giving a reasonable explanation of what is intended in these Clauses.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): We assume that the right hon. Gentleman, like the rest of the Committee, is able to read what is so plainly stated in the Clause. It deals simply with the power of the Governor-General to refer any question of law, on which he thinks it desirable to obtain the opinion of the Federal Court, to that court for a decision. There is an analogous power in a well-known section of the Privy Council Act.
    3.53 p.m.
    Mr. EMMOTT: The Committee will observe that if a certain condition is fulfilled, the Governor-General may in his discretion refer a question to the Federal Court for consideration. The Clause goes on
    "and the court may after such hearing as they think fit, report to the Governor-General thereon."
    If the condition is fulfilled, should not the court be under an obligation to make a report to the Governor-General? Should not the instruction be mandatory and not merely permissive?
    3.54 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My hon. Friend is familiar enough with the forms of legislation to know that in certain circumstances "may" and "shall" are interchangeable expressions. He knows quite well that "may" in this position means "shall," having regard to the consideration that you cannot compel a court to answer a question, although, no doubt, they will regard is as their duty to answer it having regard to the powers that are conferred on them.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: It is clear that any action which the Governor-General takes he takes in his discretion. It is not clear in the condition at the opening of the Clause whether it appears to the Governor-General in his discretion or whether it appears to him as the constitutional head of the executive and therefore on the advice of his ministers.
    3.55 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not think it matters in what capacity he has his attention called to a, question of law,
    214
    whether his ministers draw his attention to the point, or whether it appears to him of his own motion.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The point is that, if it appears to him on his own motion, he can act?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Certainly.
    Mr. BAILEY: Will the opinion of the court be binding in law, or will it be only an opinion? Will it actually have the force of law once the court has given an opinion, and will it be binding upon the Princes?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The binding effect of interpretations of the law by the Federal Court is dealt with by Clause 202.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 204.—(Rules of court, etc.)
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 115, line 20, after "rules," to insert:
    "as to the persons practising before the court."
    This is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that the rules which the Federal Court may make with the approval of the Governor-General shall include rules as to the persons practising before the court. Rules will obviously have to be made as to that, and to remove all doubts I am moving this Amendment.
    3.57 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We quite understand that it is a drafting Amendment, but what is the point of particularly defining the application of this Clause to the persons practising before the court? Does the learned Solicitor-General consider that undesirable persons may want to practise, or that seditious persons will utilise the court as a means of exposing the so-called grievances of the locality. What is the point of making rules as to persons practising before the court? Is there to be picking and choosing between persons, although duly qualified in a legal sense? Are people who vote with one party or another, Congress people or others, or people who have fallen within the ban of the law to be excluded? I am not saying that they ought to be included, but we ought to know the purpose of putting these words in. My hon. and

    215
    learned Friend has explained what his Amendment does. We can all see that. It enables the authorities to make rules about people who may appear before them. Ought not these rules, if any, to be merely rules governed, on the one hand, by the ordinary common law, and, on the other hand, by any special arrangement which may govern the procedure of the legal bodies which exist in India similar to those that exist at home?
    3.59 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My right hon. Friend's question is capable of a very short answer. Every court must have power to make rules as to who shall have the right of audience, whether a fully qualified barrister or a solicitor, and what barristers shall have that right, for in India there are different bars in every Province. Rules will clearly have to be made, therefore, as to who shall have the right of audience. There is no question of distinguishing between individuals. It might be said that a power of controlling the right of audience is so inherent in the court that these words are unnecessary. The Clause, however, contains the words
    "for regulating generally the practice and procedure"
    and it specifies certain matters as to which there must be rules. It is desirable, therefore, that this matter, as to which there must be rules, should also be specifically referred to.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: It seems to me to be giving very wide powers. I hope that it will not in any way take away the independence of the Bar, because we at home have our own rules which keep up the general standard of professional conduct. This looks as if the judiciary might step in and interfere with the independence of the Bar in India. The Clause seems to be capable of interpretation so that the Federal Court might in some way or other take away from the independence of the profession, which is one of the main guardians of public liberty.
    4.1 p.m.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I wonder if I might ask for an assurance from whoever is going to reply that it is not the intention to make these rules too
    216
    stringent, so as to ensure that there is not an abuse, but that they will be kept fairly wide, and reasonable protection will be given to the public to get sufficient lawyers.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I will certainly give that assurance. There is no intention to have any abuse of that kind. With regard to what my hon. and learned Friend said, it is not, of course, the Bar who make rules in this country, but the Courts, and that provision is covered by this Amendment giving this power to the court.
    4. 2 p. m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The learned Solicitor-General described this Amendment as purely a drafting Amendment. I do not think that that is quite a comprehensive statement of the scope of the Amendment, which, obviously, is one of substance. But let that be. Let us examine it purely from the point of view of a drafting Amendment overlooked until this moment. It is not correctly drafted. If the learned Solicitor-General will direct his gaze upon the earth, he will see that the Amendment which he is taking the responsibility of commending to the Committee will not even read. You must insert the word "and" after this Amendment to make it read. [HON. MEMBERS: "A comma."] The Clause will read:
    "the Governor-Genera] in his discretion, make rules of court for regulating generally the practice and procedure of the court, including rules as to the persons practising before the court."
    HON. MEMBERS: Comma.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg pardon—yes, a comma. But where is your comma? It is all very well, but I remember the Leader of the Opposition raising a long Debate and getting the Government into an awful hole about a comma. Let us not be contemptuous of commas.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May I point out that the Amendment has a full stop, which is more than a comma?
    Amendment agreed to.
    4.5 p.m.
    Mr. THORP: I beg to move, in page 115, line 26, after "vexatious," to insert "or of a champertous nature."

    217
    I do not want to be dogmatic, but perhaps I may be allowed to say that the word "champertous" means, in popular language, dividing the proceeds of the litigation. It has been, I believe, for many hundreds of years a criminal offence in this country to make a champertous agreement, and I am given to understand it is a very common sort of agreement, that people will undertake litigation in consideration of dividing the swag as a result of the litigation. As the Sub-section is now drawn the rules allow the court of appeal to deal summarily with frivolous or vexatious appeals, but a champertous appeal might certainly not be frivolous or vexatious. It might be a perfectly genuine appeal, that would not ordinarily be put in, by one of the parties being encouraged to appeal by having been induced to make a champertous agreement.
    4.7 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The law of champerty, to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred, is, I am told, unknown to the law of India and indeed, I think, it is unknown to any legal system but our own.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: In America it is the common way in which you undertake. litigation
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It would, therefore, be quite wrong to put into an Act applying to India a branch of law which does not exist in the Indian legal system. In so far as the kind of transaction to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred results in an appeal being frivolous or vexatious, the court can deal with that under the law as it stands, and it would be a pity to pick out one element not frivolous or vexatious and specify it, instead of leaving the court, with the wide discretion it has in these words, to deal summarily with an appeal which is frivolous or vexatious, and which ought to be summarily dealt with.
    4.8 p.m.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: The difficulty of the argument of the learned Solicitor-General is that in some of the districts in India this method of dealing with disputes is not considered to be frivolous or vexatious. I have it on very high authority that it is by no means
    218
    uncommon when a case has been tried for the plaintiff to put an envelope on one side of the judge, and a defendant to put an envelope on the other side of the judge, and for the judge to count the number of rupees—
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that that is champerty.
    4.9 p.m.
    Mr. RAIKES: I am very much disappointed by what the learned Solicitor-General has said. It may, indeed, be that champerty is unknown to the law of India, but surely the learned Solicitor-General might consider translating the word into language which could be understood. Does "vexatious" cover champerty? I do not think it does. My hon. and learned Friend has pointed out that champerty means making an appeal in order to divide the swag. That is not frivolous. It may be that the appeal is not frivolous, and it certainly is not vexatious to those lawyers who are going to be employed on the appeal, but if you insert "champerty" or some such word, it does lay down that that type of thing will not be allowed, and so the question of whether it is vexatious or frivolous will not come in. It will be illegal. As we have heard, there is a great deal of that type of financial action at the present time. If the Government do not like that word, at any rate let them give us something that means champerty.
    4.11 p.m.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: If this is the practice in India, and I believe it will be the practice there, because Indians are particularly fond of litigation, there will be champerty no matter what you do. As the learned Solicitor-General has pointed out, the illegality of champerty is a peculiarly English rule of law. We have something similar in Scotland where we call a man who finances and takes charge of litigation to which he does not belong and has no real interest in the dominus litis, or the master of litigation, and if the case is lost, he is liable to the expenses if the principal does not pay up. If the case is won, what does it matter to the man who has lost whether there was champerty or not? He was in the wrong and was found to be in the wrong and that is all there is to it. There may be a bad judgment against him, and somebody else comes along and takes it

    219
    up as an ordinary speculation saying, "I will finance the thing so far, and 1 will share the plunder," or the profits, or whatever it may be. What harm has been done? That is universal in the United States of America. It is the way lawyers work there. They come to a client and say," Look here, I think you have a very good case." The client says, "I will not spend any money upon it." The lawyer then says, "The case is so good that I will chance my hand, and take 10, 20 or 50 per cent." The client gets justice—if you can get justice in the United States. The Indians do the same and see nothing wrong in this.
    Champerty is an English rule. It is the strong, successful and prosperous people who can pay their expenses if they lose who do not like to see a fellow pursuing a case further than he has the money to pay for, on the off-chance, and so this law of champerty was invoked to keep the man of little or no account from getting much benefit out of the law. He was not, at any rate, going to be allowed to appeal. That is the very opposite of the law of-Scotland, because long ago we expressly provided that poor people should get the benefit of the law courts free of charge, and if they won their cases they could then get their costs against the other side. Since 1425, members of our Bar have been conscripted to conduct these cases for poor people, and get nothing for it unless successful. Great American jurists have described the Scottish as the only people who have found the ideal system, for in all parts of America, unless you can find money to get civil justice, they cannot get it, whereas in Scotland they can. Therefore, we should be very careful about putting in a word like this, because we are dealing with a vast race of people with different ideals from our own. Why then should we put in our stiff-necked English legalities, and impose them upon these Orientals? That, of course, is the fault of the whole Bill. The English, with their incredible vanity, will insist on foisting their institutions on Orientals who have wholly different ideas.
    The CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not discuss the Bill.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. and learned Friend has made a very fertile contribution to our discussion, but as he reached the closing period of his remarks I found that he was arriving at a different conclusion from my own. I am in favour of "champertous" being inserted in the Bill. The decision before the Committee is whether they will inflict upon India the Scottish or the English conception of the law in this particular. I must proclaim myself a partisan of the English conception. Champertous actions are banned with the idea of preventing litigation being fomented—although it may sometimes help some small person—by interested parties who are to be paid their fees out of the proceeds of the judgment if it should go in their favour. English opinion has always been opposed to champerty and, after all, England does still exist, although its nationality is submerged. For many generations that has been one of the essential propositions of our jurisprudence.
    Why should we not extend this benefit to India? Why should we not give them the whole of our message? "Champertous" is certainly part of the British message. Why should it not be included in this India Bill? Is there any portion of the earth in which it is more necessary that a prohibition against champertous transactions should exist than in India? China is a vast Asiatic country, but in China there is anarchy. Russia also is Asiatic; and there may be other parts of Asia which are under various forms of tyranny. But in India we have at present peace and order and legality, and we have this vice of Asiatic races, which the English themselves, inventing this word "champertous," have discovered is a matter to be corrected, and therefore why should we not confer this prohibition against champerty upon India together with all the other benefits which the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) wishes to bestow.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that in India there is a condition of law and order. They have no prohibition of champerty at present, and why should he desire to change the position?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There is a condition of law and order because the judiciary

    221
    of that country is influenced and dominated at the present time by English traditions, and inherent among those English traditions is this hatred of champerty; but now we are reaching to a new regime, another dispensation. Gradually English control of the judiciary will fade, and in consequence it is all the more necessary to bequeath to them our full inheritance while we are about it. I should have thought the hon. Member for Bodmin would have been the very first to have supported this proposal. He is surely not going to confer upon India all the blessings of modern democracy and deny them this English provision against champerty. Let them have the whole dose. It is a terribly dangerous thing to give a very strong and severe medicine to a whole nation and yet to leave out some essential element in the prescription I appeal to the Government to prohibit champerty in India just as they have put down dacoity, suttee and other vicious practices.
    Why should the Government not accept this Amendment? What harm does it do? It is sound of itself. It will be beneficial to India. It would make no difference to the Bill, only the Government have got into such a habit of refusing everything and of thinking that all they have to do is to ring the bell and bring in the crowd that they will not even address themselves to a proposition seriously put forward upon careful and reflecting legal authority? Why cannot the Government accept this Amendment? I do not suppose they will, having said that they will not. If they had said they would it would have been in the Bill. Now that they are cutting the painter, now that India is drifting apart, surely they might leave India with this principle of the law. I think I see that the Attorney-General is moved. He and his learned brother are consulting together. May I hope that some consideration will be given to this point? If not, I really think the House has a right to feel ill-used, not because the Government are not courteous and polite, but because they pay no attention whatever to anything that is said. No reason whatever has been given to us. What is this statement that the language is not the same? If they put the word "champerty" into Tamil or Hindustani or any other dialect the people would not understand it, it is said. What nonsense! They will gulp
    222
    down the word "champerty." If the Government imagine they will not understand what "champerty" means they are under a delusion. It is a real link of Empire between ourselves and them. If the Government insert the word "champerty" they will not need to translate it. They have only to tell the Indian people what it means in simple terms, and the Indian people will see the immense significance of it, and all over that vast sub-Continent there will be appreciative thanks.
    4.23 p.m.
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: With all respect it seems to me that both my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) have misread the Clause. The Clause and the Amendment do not deal with the question of whether we shall or shall not prevent champerty in the future, but with a much narrower point, and that is whether we shall allow the Federal Court, if it so wishes, to make rules against champerty. We are leaving it to the discretion of the Federal Court. If this Amendment is rejected, the Federal Court will have no power to make rules against champerty. We in this country found, many hundreds of years ago, that it was highly desirable to make rules against champerty, and I confess to a certain feeling of astonishment when I heard the learned Solicitor-General say that because the rules against champerty in our own system of law were unique, therefore they should not be applied to India. My belief has always been that our legal system was the envy and admiration of the world, and I was astounded when I heard him say that anything which was unique in our legal system should obviously be avoided. But, as I say, we are not dealing with the question of whether champerty is desirable or not desirable, but with the simple issue of whether or not it is desirable to allow the Federal Court to make rules against champerty if it so wishes. Champerty may or may not be a very desirable thing. In spite of the law against it I have had some considerable experience of it myself, and have been the victim, so I am thoroughly convinced, of a champertous action. I am sorry if I say anything which will upset my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyll-

    223
    shire (Mr. Macquisten), but agreements are entered into by which a lawyer undertakes to fight an action—
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: The Noble Lord is under a misapprehension. The lawyer in Scotland is not entitled to make a bargain for a. share of the proceeds of a litigation. The pactum de quota litis is illegal. But a stranger may do so, which is champerty in England.
    The CHAIRMAN: We are not discussing the law of Scotland.
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: There have been cases in which a champertous action was brought by an unscrupulous lawyer in the hope of gaining a rich reward; but if the action is unsuccessful he tries in vain to secure his costs, because champerty does not extend to dividing the loss if a loss ensues. I have myself been a victim of a case of that kind. It was hoped to derive some benefit from the action, but the benefit was not there, because I won the day, and costs were not forthcoming. In my view that kind of litigation is undoubtedly undesirable. It may be that our legal system is unique in making it illegal, but it seems desirable that the Federal Court should at any rate have the power to make rules.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the Noble Lord that even he is making the issue too wide. The Amendment only deals with the making of rules for the summary determination of any appeal. It is not a case of making rules against champerty at all.
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: I think, with all respect, that this Amendment applies to the rules which the court has power to make, and not to any general enactment against champerty.
    Mr. CHURCHILL; But the whole issue is raised on the question of whether the Federal Court shall make rules against champertous transactions.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think, with all respect, that view is wrong, and that many of the speeches on this Amendment have been made, apparently, before hon. Members had read the Clause with sufficient care to understand what would be the effect of amending it as proposed. The matter is perfectly clear. If the Amendment were inserted, there would.
    224
    be power to make rules for providing for the summary determination of any op-peals which appear to have been of a vexatious or of a champertous nature, or brought for the purpose of delay.
    4.29 p.m.
    Mr. WISE: I have had some small experience of litigation between Asiatic subjects, and particularly British-India subjects, and I would assure the learned Solicitor-General that this Amendment is an attempt to stop a practice which is extremely undesirable. It gives a court power summarily to determine an appeal in which the lawyer and his client may have made an agreement that the lawyer should reimburse himself out of the proceeds of the action, and I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that that is an extremely common practice with Indian lawyers. There were very few cases indeed in our East African dependencies in which such bargains were not made, and the effect of them is undoubtedly to cause longer and more tedious litigation.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the time has now come to say that we cannot continue this Debate on the impropriety or the wickedness of champerty.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir, but might we hear from the Government some reasons why, in this matter of making rules, together with the words "frivolous or vexatious" we should not also insert the word "champertous" The only reason we have heard from the Government is that the word "champerty" is not familiar in India, but the practice is all too familiar there, and, if we are conferring upon India our British system of democratic government, we ought not to deny them this extremely valuable element in our system. We have had no answer from the Government, and the Debate has been prolonged because the answer given by the Solicitor-General was so utterly inadequate. He merely said that there was not a native word for "champerty," or something like that. It is because they have not given us any reason for not adopting these words or have not accepted the Amendment which would have been a reasonable course which almost any other Government wishing to associate the House of Commons with their legislation would have

    225
    adopted, that this discussion has been, perhaps, protracted beyond the particular point. The responsibility rests with the Government. Let the Solicitor-General give some reason other than the difficulty of translating the word "champerty" into the Indian language, or let the Government accept the Amendment. We can then immediately proceed to the next Clause upon which further important points arise.
    4.32 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said that I did not anticipate in my answer a question which does not and could not possibly arise, either on the Amendment or on the Clause which we are discussing. The whole of this Debate has proceeded upon the question whether or not the subject of champerty should be introduced into the Indian Code. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think I am within the recollection of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said he thought tint this was a desirable ingredient, and he proceeded to tell us its advantages. The Clause merely deals with cases in which the Federal Court may make rules for the summary determination of appeals. You would not get any champertous proceedings there. In answer to what the Noble Lord said, if it is desirable to deal with champerty, the rules of court would be quite the wrong place to do so. The Clause deals with one very simple matter, which is to make rules by which the Federal Court can deal summarily with appeals which are considered frivolous or vexatious.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: In. what way are "frivolous" or "vexatious" separated, in the category which the Solicitor-General is now examining, from "champertous"?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: They are separated. If the proceedings before the court are frivolous or vexatious, the court is entitled to deal with them.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Why not champertous?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: A champertous case may be of the utmost importance, and it would be highly derivable that the court should deal with
    226
    it and decide it at length. The question whether there should or should not be a Clause against champerty is entirely outside the scope of the Clause with which we are dealing. I press upon the Committee to realise that the Clause with which we are dealing here is whether there should be power to deal summarily before the court with appeals which are frivolous or vexatious. When I spoke originally, I based my arguments on the fact that it would be wrong to accept the Amendment, because it would be inappropriate to attempt to introduce a new element which is not an offence in Indian law. I hope the Committee will now come to a decision.
    Amendment negatived.
    4.37 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 115, line 28, after "may," to insert:
    "and if the Federal Legislature make such provision as is mentioned in this chapter for enlarging the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court shall."
    This Amendment, and the next—in page 115, line 33, to leave out "shall compose that division," and to insert. "are to sit for any purpose,"—make two small alterations relating to the question as to whether the Federal Court shall, in certain instances, sit in two divisions. The Committee will remember that there is power in Clause 196 for the Federal Legislature to enlarge the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court by allowing the appeals to go there in other than what we may call constitutional cases. This Clause, as at present drafted, provides that rules may be made for the court to sit in two divisions, and the first of the Amendments provides that, if the power in Clause 196 is exercised, there shall be two divisions. That will ensure that there will be a division free to deal with constitutional matters and another division free to deal with matters which will come to the court under Clause 196. The first Amendment makes it imperative that there shall be two divisions in the event of the powers under Clause 196 being exercised, and the second is a drafting Amendment, so that the Clause shall read:
    "fix the minimum number of judges who are to sit for any purpose"
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Is that merely consequential?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes.
    4.39 p.m.
    Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I hope the Government will not press this Amendment and will reconsider the wording of the Clause. The point is raised in the report of the Joint Select Committee and the Clause does not correspond—nor does the Amendment—with the recommendation of that Select Committee. The Federal Court will start with a bench of not more than six judges, charged with the duty, broadly speaking, of dealing with constitutional cases. In so far as their function is to deal with cases involving the interpretation of the Constitution, it is of the utmost importance that all such cases should be dealt with before the full court. It is the universal experience of every country with a fixed constitution, especially of every federal country, that you must have one and the same tribunal dealing with constitutional cases. The principle is accepted, for instance, by every constitutional lawyer in the United States that the Constitution of the United States would become completely unworkable if the inter-State commerce clause had been interpreted now by one division of the supreme court and now by another division. It is agreed to be essential that all such questions should be heard before the full court, as the Federal court will first be constituted.
    The Clause gives the Chief Justice power to divide the Federal Court, even while it is concerned only with constitutional cases. Under the Government Amendment, the Chief Justice will have power to divide the court, with the approval, of course, of the Governor-General, and then arises the second point. Suppose that the new powers of the court of appeal should go to the Federal Court and the Federal Court were enlarged. It is unlikely that it would be enlarged to more than nine members, which is the size of the Supreme Court of the United States. There is no reason why they should not sit as a full court. I agree that it might be perfectly proper to divide the court so that there should be a supreme court division dealing with appeals and a federal division dealing with constitutional cases. There are arguments in favour of that, but this Amendment, while obliging the court to sit in two divisions, which has never been
    228
    recommended, so far as I know, by anyone as a mandatory necessity, does not prescribe that the two divisions shall consist of a Federal Court and of a Supreme Court, and that one division shall deal with constitutional cases and one division shall deal with appeals. Under the Amendment, it would become mandatory upon the chief justice to make these rules, and it would be perfectly open to him to make a rule saying that constitutional cases involving certain points should go to one division and that constitutional cases involving certain other points should go to the other division, in other words, the Amendment makes what I regard as the mistake of the present Government worse confounded. I press upon the Government to think again and before the Report stage to consider how we can ensure in the drafting of the Clause, which is the only thing which is important, that all constitutional cases shall be dealt with by the full court, as the full court is originally set up under the Bill, namely, the original Federal Court of not more than six judges.
    4.44 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I appreciate, and indeed I agree with, a great deal of what my Noble Friend said, although I think he put the case a little more rigidly than I should be inclined to put it. It is obviously desirable that the court, that decides constitutional issues, should have a substantial continuity of personality, the chief justice always presiding and the bulk of the other judges being the same. I am not sure that I go quite to the extent that he does, when he suggests that it is undesirable to have any latitude within which say a judge who, when Clause 196 operates has been doing other work, might come on to the constitutional panel. You might, for instance, having extended your court, and having set up, as my Noble Friend would, a separate division to deal with the other appellate work, find in your second division, if I may so call it, a man, or two men, obviously of outstanding ability, who would be useful in the constitutional section. Obviously that might happen, just as to-day you might have in your Court of Appeal in England the kind of mind which would be extremely useful on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. But we

    229
    think it might be undesirable to introduce too rigid a provision.
    There is another aspect of the matter. We believe that the considerations which my Noble Friend has urged would be as present to the Chief Justice of the Federal Court as to my Noble Friend or to anybody else. He will be as alive to the vital importance of continuity of personnel in dealing with these constitutional matters as anyone could be. He will be the person responsible for the general working and prestige of the Federal Court, and all those matters to which my Noble Friend referred will obviously influence him in the rules which he makes and in the manner in which he arranges for the judges who will be associated with him in the Federal Courts. We do not, therefore, want to tie him up too much, nor do we think there is any real danger in allowing him a useful latitude within which to work, but we are at one with my Noble Friend on what I may call the main lines of the condition which he has made.
    While believing that the Federal Court will work best if those lines are followed, we would ask the Committee to accept this Amendment, which I think will take its place in my Noble Friend's scheme, in that if you do not provide for two divisions, assuming that the powers of Clause 196 are exercised, you will have one or other of these results—either the ordinary non-constitutional appeals will have to go to the whole bench or you will never be able to hear a constitutional case while an appellate case is being heard. That surely would be undesirable. My Noble Friend says, what is quite right, that this Clause does not say in terms that one of the two divisions will try constitutional cases and one of the two divisions will try appellate cases. On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I will certainly say that we will consider again the point which my Noble Friend has raised and see whether, without making the machine too rigid, and by placing a reasonable confidence in the Chief Justice to arrange work in the best possible way, we can put in words which will go some way in the Bill to safeguard the results which both my Noble Friend and the Government have at heart.
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Supposing the Court was divided into two divisions, would there still be anything to prevent
    230
    the Chief Justice in any particular case directing that it should be heard by a full bench?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Nothing whatever.
    4.48 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: May I venture to ask whether my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) is satisfied with the answer he has received? After all, my Noble Friend sat on the Joint Select Committee, whose report on this subject, I gather, differs from the action of the Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] He said so, at any rate, but you must fight that out among yourselves. We are not usually associated with the Noble Lord, who is a most vehement supporter of the Government in these matters, but now he differs from the Government.
    "There is a length to which, I trow, Colonial bishops cannot go."
    I did not mean to refer to his pontifical qualities; but the Noble Lord has now pulled up. He has gone thus far with the Government, but he has now entered a serious caveat. I could not gather whether his objections were to the Amendment or to the whole Clause. I rather think he objected to both. He asked the Government to withdraw its Clause or to remodel it, and the point he raised was one of substance. He pointed out what confusion worse confounded would have resulted in the United States if there had been two Supreme Courts which might have given divergent rulings on, for instance, the gold dollar question. This is part of the amazing policy that you are constructing for India. There are to be two supreme courts, or the supreme court is to divide itself into two tribunals, which may give opposite opinions, but all is to be entrusted to the good sense of the chief justice, who will naturally' divide the business as he may choose.
    I must say that my part in this matter will be determined by the Noble Lord. He has raised the issue; he has opposed the Government and taken the responsibility—I admit he has the Joint Select Committee at his back—of confronting the National Government with a very definite point of divergence. He has been given an answer which, as anyone who has listened to it will agree, is no answer at all. He has been fobbed off with. This

    231
    vague and airy assurance, which I must say the learned Solicitor-General does in a most skilful manner, that "perhaps at some future time, before the Report stage, we will bear the matter in mind and see if some words cannot be inserted which will perhaps go a little nearer to meeting the point of view advanced by my Noble Friend," etcetera, and so on. Is be satisfied with that? Will he accept the rebuff which he has received? I think it is a rebuff. The mocking cheers of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) do not at all alter my view that it is a rebuff. When a Member who has followed all the process of the Government for two or three years with the faithfulness of a hound for his master, and who suddenly asks for a bone, has something flung to him, however small—and he has a legitimate and substantial point—and is told by the learned Solicitor-General to go off and eat his own tail, I must say that I think that constitutes all the elements of a parliamentary rebuff. At any rate, I shall hold my judgment in suspense as to what I do on this Amendment until I have heard further from my Noble Friend.
    4.55 p.m.
    Lord E. PERCY: I was about to give expression to my attitude when my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) thought it necessary to get up and to give me a pat on the back; or was it to give me a little courage? If that was the object, I confess he has not succeeded. If any hon. Member of this House raises a point of argument of some specific importance, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping is sure to drown any meaning there may be in the point by a sea of oratorical soapsuds, so that no one any longer knows what the discussion is about.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Just repeat it, will you?
    Lord E. PERCY: Let me at least thank my right hon. Friend for one thing. It is a high privilege to receive a lecture on proper political behaviour and on the principles of political consistency from my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: You are welcome.
    Lord E. PERCY: I have one complaint to make against my hon. and learned
    232
    Friend the Solicitor-General. He used the expression, which is too commonly used in these Debates, "that, of course, the Amendment does not say in terms that" so and so. Well, you cannot say anything except in terms. If you do not say it in terms, you do not say it at all, and the real trouble is that my hon. and learned Friend does say in terms something which he says he does not want to say, for he says that these rules
    "may specify the division in which in cases of any specified class the jurisdiction of the court is to be exercised."
    "Any specified class" in terms gives to the chief justice liberty to divide the court at any point that he may wish, and clearly, if there is one obvious principle of construction of a piece of legislation, it is that if you go out of your way to specify, in the first place, that he must do a certain thing when a certain contingency arises, and then go out of your way to say that what he then shall do need bear no necessary relation to the contingency out of which his action has arisen, you obviously give him the strongest reason for supposing that he may divide the court, not at the point between constitutional and supreme court cases, but at any point which he thinks fit.
    I quite agree with the learned Solicitor-General. Nobody is asking for an impossible continuity of personnel in your Federal Court. Judges die, and judges are appointed, and, of course, the Supreme Court of the United States today is not the Supreme Court, of 10 years ago. In the same way, I agree, it might be very desirable to appoint an additional judge of the Federal Court by transferring him from the Supreme Court. It would be no different from taking a judge and appointing him from outside. I am not asking for any impossible continuity of personnel of that kind. I am asking that there shall be a division of the court, and that that division shall be identified with the hearing of constitutional cases; and, unless that Amendment is made, the Amendment which we are now discussing is worse than useless. I am not going to argue as to whether this Amendment should be accepted now and the thing reconsidered on Report, or whether the Amendment should be withdrawn now and the whole thing reconsidered on Report. It is not worth while wasting time by arguing that, but I would like an

    233
    assurance that the whole question, from the point of view which I have stated, will be reconsidered by the Government before Report.
    4.59 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: We were under the impression that the Amendment was making more clear the intention of the Joint Select Committee. That intention undoubtedly was that there should be a division between constitutional and appellate cases, and it was to make that clear that we proposed this Amendment. My noble Friend is not satisfied with the wording of the Amendment, and I suggest that probably it will be most convenient if we pass the Amendment now, and I give him an undertaking that we will look into the question further, keeping in mind the fact that he and I are agreed that the division should be between constitutional and appellate cases.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think this matter ought to be settled in this fashion. Here is the Secretary of State doing a private deal with the Noble Lord, keeping in mind, as he said, the fact that they were agreed. After all, we are dealing with the Committee of the House of Commons, and I do not think that these transactions should be of such an extremely selective character as all that. I quite understand that a Member who presses a point with a great deal of knowledge, as the Noble Lord did, has the right to an answer specially by the Secretary of State. But I should have thought that when the Secretary of State intervened at the end of the discussion on this particular point he would have given his pledge to the Committee rather than make it one of these many compliments which he extends to those who have supported his fortunes so long.
    5.2 p.m.
    Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I was proposing when my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), to rise in support of the point made by my noble Friend. I am as satisfied as he is with the assurance which the Secretary of State has given, but I must admit that I was not satisfied with the arguments which my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General used. I am not very much impressed by his plea against too much rigidity. I think this is a matter in which a certain amount of
    234
    rigidity is desirable; and that the dangers of leaving the matter open to the discretion of the chief justice are much greater than the losses that would follow from the fact that at some particular time a particular judge was not available in the Federal Court to try a constitutional issue. I only wish, therefore, to urge upon the Government that their consideration of this matter should be a really frank and candid consideration of the case put by the Noble Lord and that it should lead to a real desire to meet us. I hope my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will not be deterred by the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping. We must remember that he is very much in the position described by one of the characters in "Alice through the Looking Glass":
    "The fact is,' said the Red Queen, 'she wants to deny something and she doesn't know what to deny.' A nasty, vicious temper, I call it,' said the Red Queen."
    5.4 p.m.
    Major HILLS: Would not the real solution be to make all constitutional appeals go as a matter of course to the full Federal Court of six judges? These will be the most important appeals. There will not be many of them, and it is quite reasonable that the full court should share these decisions. For the ordinary appellate jurisdiction of the court, split up your court into two or even three divisions if you like. Those appeals will be by far the most numerous and they could be very well taken by a smaller court than the full court. If you split the court up into two divisions and apportion one to the constitutional appeals, I think you lose something in a smaller court. The Supreme Court of America is certainly much larger than three judges. I think you may have a difference of personnel which would affect a smaller body more than it would affect a bigger body. For those reasons, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether he could not in the amended Clause consent to constitutional appeals going to the full court of six judges, making two divisions for the purpose of dealing with the ordinary appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
    5.6 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Is not that possible? Here is a practical suggestion. I am most anxious to preserve the accord

    235
    for the time being between representatives of the Joint Select Committee and the Secretary of State, and here it seems to me that my right hon. and gallant Friend has come forward with a perfectly practicable—and as it seems to me prima facie; I do not commit myself—a thoroughly reasonable and sensible proposal. What is the answer to that? After all, the Government may be prepared to deal with those who oppose the Bill with all the roughness and rigour of Parliamentary power, but here are their faithful supporters,! Here are men with deep anxieties, though with them in the general purpose of handing over the sovereignty of India. Surely the Government will answer their own supporters. What is the answer to what they have said,? Here are three Privy Councillors who have spoken against the Government case. They are three supporters of the Government who are all members of the Privy Council—and senior members, long established. Two out of the three have sat all through the discussions of the Joint Select Committee. They have put their proposal. What is the answer of the Government? Will they accept the proposal made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken, or will they give a specific assurance that on the Report stage a definite statement will be made on this point with a view to trying to give satisfaction? After all you are giving away our Indian Empire, and you may as well be agreed one with another about the proposals. At least be solid. Do not be breaking up at this stage; otherwise, one cannot tell how far the rot will spread. What is the answer to my right hon. and gallant Friend, who seems to have contributed a point of substance and one helpful to the House? It is a point on which the Government might at any rate tell us whether this would be the kind of thing they would be likely to favour and embody in the Bill when we get to the Report stage.
    The CHAIRMAN The CHAIRMAN rose—
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Are we to have no answer?
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot compel Ministers to speak. I to put the Question, and I must put it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 115, line 33, leave out "shall compose that division" and insert "are to sit for any purpose." — [The Solicitor-General.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 205.—(Powers of Federal Legislature.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    5.11 p.m.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I should like to know if we can be told by some member of the Government what sort of powers are referred to in this Clause. The Clause envisages that the Federal Legislature might supplement the powers of the Federal Court. Perhaps the Secretary of State can give us an idea of the powers which will be covered by this Clause before we pass from it.
    5.12 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: This is a Clause put in purely out of precaution, in case it should turn out that in some very important and vital matter some supplemental power is necessary for the purpose of enabling the court more effectively to exercise its jurisdiction. Where you are dealing with such important matters as this, it is thought wise to put in an enabling Clause to enable the Legislature, should the need arise, to fill up the gap. The Committee will see that the powers under the Clause are definitely limited and restricted. The powers are to be such as may appear necessary to enable the court to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by or under this Act. Necessarily, there is no specific point in mind or the Clause would have been made specific. The Legislature will have the power, should it be required, to confer upon the court the powers necessary to enable it to perform the functions placed upon it under the Bill.
    5.13 p.m.
    Sir BASIL PETO: Is the real purpose of this Clause to avoid the necessity of passing amending legislation in this House in the event of supplemental powers being required by the Federal Court? I would point out that it is rather a curious method of procedure that we should go into the most minute details in setting up a Federal Court in this Bill which will become an Act of Parliament,

    237
    and then say that another Legislature, the Federal Legislature, should in fact be empowered to enlarge the powers of the court in any way necessary so long as the supplemental powers are not inconsistent with what has been passed by this House. We shall have this position, that the Federal Court will have powers enacted by legislation passed by two different bodies—the Houses of Parliament here and the Federal Legislature which is to be set up in India. I do not know whether this is going to be the rule in other matters, but it seems to be a rather curious rule to set up as a new precedent. The rule always has been that a law passed by this House could not be amended by any other Legislature.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Would this make it possible for the Federal Legislature to take away any appellate powers from a High Court and place these in the hands of the Federal Court?
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 20.—(Expenses of Federal Court.)
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. BAILEY: I beg to move, in page 116, line 18, to leave out Sub-section (2).
    At first sight this Clause seems to be of a somewhat harmless and, I was almost going to say, meaningless character, and one of my objects in moving this Amendment is to obtain some elucidation of the exact meaning of the Clause. I am bound to say, however, that a certain amount of reflection has left one not quite so certain as to whether Sub-section (2) is as harmless or meaningless as it looks. One would like to know definitely why it should be necessary for the sanction of the Governor-General to be given to the expenses of the Federal Court being put in an estimate. Surely it should be self-evident that the expenses of a Federal Court should be allowed without question in any circumstances, and the question whether such expenses are to be allowed or not should not depend upon the individual judgment of the Governor-General. It seems to me that this Clause is going to introduce into the relations between the Federal Court and the Executive in India just that element which we have tried to keep out of the relations between the judiciary and the Government in this
    238
    country. It is most undesirable that the members of the Federal Court should feel that they are dependent for their salaries in any way upon the good will of the Executive, or at any rate that the administrative expenses of the Court, or the finances of the Court, should be dependent upon the good will of the Executive. It seems to me that under Sub-section (2) of Clause 206 such a position might very easily arise, because the phrase is used:
    "The Governor-General shall exercise his individual judgment."
    At an earlier stage we were told that that meant that he would in practice consult with his ministers before acting, and, in the view of those of us who are opposing the Bill, it is most undesirable that the Governor-General should consult with his ministers before allowing the expenses of the Federal Court.
    5.19 p.m.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member does not seem, if I may say so, to have read the Clause sufficiently carefully. The whole of his speech appears to me to have been made under a, misapprehension, and to be irrelevant. The first part of the Clause deals with payment of salaries, but, in the case of the Subsection with which he is dealing, it is only a question of including certain salaries and expenses in an estimate. It has nothing whatever to do with the Governor-General having power to decide what the salaries are to be, or to reduce them.
    5.20 p. m
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I think it is easier to understand the import of Subsection (2) if one has read Record 3 presented to the Joint Select Committee, or that chapter in Record 3 which explains that the Government propose that, whereas at present the administrative expenses of the High Court are entirely votable by the Legislature, in future the Governor should have the power to certify what are the necessary administrative expenses of the Court. Clause 217 of the Bill appears to me to carry out that intention. Clause 206 appears to me to be modelled on Clause 217 with respect to the Federal Court and the Governor-General, and therefore Sub-section (2) raises a rather important point. Sub-section (1), if it stood alone, would mean, I gather, that

    239
    the whole of what the Court asks for as administrative expenses would be charged upon the revenues of the Federation; but Sub-section (2) requires that the Governor-General shall be satisfied that the administrative expenses asked for are reasonable, and therefore throws upon him the responsibility of fixing the sum which is to be charged on the revenues of the Federation.
    5.22 p.m.
    Sir B. PETO: It is noticeable that Sub-section (2) says that the Governor-General shall exercise his individual judgment; and therefore, presumably, if the amount asked for appeared to him to be in excess of the amount that should be expended, he could reduce it. Does not that mean that in other cases the Governor-General cannot in his individual judgment reduce expenses? If that be not so, it seems rather dangerous to specify this particular matter of the expenses of carrying on the duties of the Federal Court as one in which the Governor-General can intervene and reduce the sum that can be asked for from the Legislature.
    5.23 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think there is a little misunderstanding as to what the procedure is. The Noble Lady rather suggested, but I think on consideration she will agree that it would not be possible, that in connection with all administrative expenses the court should finally decide what the figure should be. Suppose, for instance, that a question arises as to the upkeep of buildings, or an enlargement or reconstruction in one particular year or another. Part of the object of this Sub-section is to ensure that, if that is a proper and necessary thing to do, there shall be no question about its being done. But you could not put on the judiciary the executive responsibility of deciding whether, say, rebuilding should be done in any particular period. The necessary procedure is, that the High Court knowing what they require—and in passing I may mention that this, of course, does not deal with the salaries of the judges—for the salaries of their staff and for necessary expenses in connection with the upkeep or reconstruction of buildings, the construction of new buildings, and so on, the responsibility for expenditure of that
    240
    kind must be on the Executive. Otherwise you would have the judges being criticised for spending public money and so on. An executive minister must be responsible. The object of the Sub-section is to safeguard the demand, in this case of the Federal Court, and similar provision is made for the corresponding case of the High Court, for all proper and reasonable expenditure, and to prevent ministers from seeking to cut down such expenditure and starve the Court of money which it needs for its purposes; so that should it unfortunately happen, which we do not anticipate, that ministers suggest that expenditure which the Governor-General has said was reasonable is excessive, it will be the Governor-General who has the last word as to what figure shall be put in the estimate when the matter comes into the Budget.
    5.26 p.m.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I would point out to my hon. and learned Friend that, as I understand it, the expenses of the courts in England are borne on the Consolidated Fund, and I do not think—
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I did not say that. The expenditure for upkeep and so on is votable. It is the salaries of the judges that are borne on the Consolidated Fund.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: But is there not a distinction between the cost of building, say, new Law Courts, which, as the Solicitor-General rightly says, would have to be voted by Parliament, and the salaries and so on of the servants of the court—the staff of the court? I would like, before we part from this Clause, to tell the Committee that the High Courts in India have been faced with very real difficulties in more Provinces than one because their administrative expenses have had to be voted by the Legislative Council, and memorials on that subject were presented by several High Courts to the Simon Commission, in which they spoke of the criticism to which they had been subjected and the extent to which their independence was threatened in consequence. The High Court at Bombay, in particular, expressed anxiety about being subject to the Government of Bombay as regards their administrative expenses. We recognise, of course, that it is much better if the Governor-General—
    The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lady will realise, in the first place, that this Clause does not relate to the High Courts, and, secondly, that the very Clause to which this Amendment is related deals with that point in the first paragraph, to which I have already called attention. The salaries are, under that first paragraph, to be charged on the revenues of the Federation.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I am well aware that the judges of the Federal Court and of the High Courts—
    The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lady mentions salaries, and I did so too, but I was not speaking of the salaries of the judges, which are not in question here, but the salaries of the servants of the court.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I was only using the High Court as an illustration. No Federal Court has yet been established, and, therefore, it is not possible to express an opinion based on experience with regard to the procedure in the case of a Federal Court, because there is no experience on which to base it. One can only base it on the experience which the Provincial High Courts have already had. I recognise, however, that the position under the Clause is an improvement on the existing provision, and I was just drawing attention to the fact that the Governor-General might find himself in a difficult position—
    The CHAIRMAN: I am very sorry, but I do not seem to be able to explain the matter to the Noble Lady. There is no doubt that these moneys about which she is so troubled are not moneys which are votable, but moneys which are charged on the revenue. In the particular case provided for in this Clause, they are charged upon the revenues of the Federation under this particular Clause.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: It will rest with the Governor-General to cut down estimates which may have been presented by the Federal Court, and the Governor-General may find himself in a rather difficult position. The Federal Court may present to him a demand for a sum which criticism of the Federal Court, or possibly of the Federal Legislature or of Ministers, may make it
    242
    difficult for him to grant. I wish to say before we pass from the Clause, that the Committee should realise that this is one of the many instances in which the Bill imposes a very heavy, and possibly a very difficult responsibility upon the Governor-General, but I recognise that from the point of view of the Federal Court, it ought not to be placed in a better position relatively than that in which the High Court has been placed and, therefore, I do not propose to ask my hon. Friend to proceed further with his Amendment.
    5.31 p.m.
    Mr. BAILEY: After giving very careful consideration to the courteous reply of the learned Solicitor-General, I would like to withdraw the Amendment, but, before doing so, I wish to say that we on these benches have given much anxious labour in considering the exact meaning of these Clauses. I am happy that we have been reassured at any rate to some extent by the reply of the learned Solicitor-General, and I have great pleasure in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment after a discussion o which, I am sure, has been of great value to the Committee in trying to ascertain the exact meaning of the Clause.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    5.32 p.m.
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Before we pass this Clause finally, I should like to ask the Secretary of State a question. Has he or his financial advisers arrived at any estimate of the actual cost of the Federal Court? What will be the salaries of judges and the staff and the cost of the buildings? We have been told that the extra cost of Federation will be about £560,000. How many items are included in the £560,000? I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us if possible, the cost of the Federal Court, and whether it is included in the £560,000?
    Sir S. HOARE: I cannot tell my hon. and gallant Friend the figure off-hand. I will see if there is an estimate and let him have it, if there is one. There must be an estimate, because it has been included in the £500,000 odd of extra

    243
    expenditure, but what it is exactly I cannot say off-hand.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 207.—(Construction of references to High Courts in States.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    5.33 p.m.
    Sir REGINALD CRADDOCK: I only want to ask a question regarding this Clause. It does not seem to be quite clear as to how many States and what kind of courts will have sufficient status to be termed a high court for the purposes of the Act. As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, there are very few States which have anything that can possibly be called a high court. In fact, there are cases in which there are magistracies which are not qualified in any way to have the status of a high court or to have appeals considered by the Federal Court. It is possible that certain States, if they federate, might combine by agreement to have a common court for those States which might be considered qualified to be a high court. In the absence of anything of that nature in this Clause, it is very difficult to know by what principle and what method a court qualified to be a high court in the Federal State will be determined. I should like the Government to give me such information as they can of their intentions in the matter of these High Courts in the Federated States.
    5.34 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Under this Clause, it will be for the Crown to say what courts should be determined to be high courts for the purposes of this part of the Act. Such decisions will be by the Crown after communication with the Ruler of a State, but the decision will rest with the Crown.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 208.—(Savings.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Duchess of ATHOLL: May we be told to what sort of territory the Clause refers?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This Clause is only included with a view to
    244
    making good the intention of the Government to maintain the right of appeal from the court at Aden to the High Court at Bombay.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 209.—(Meaning of "High Court.")
    5.35 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 117, line 9, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that, if provision has been made before the commencement of Part III of this Act for the establishment of a High Court to replace any court or courts mentioned in this sub-section, then as from the establishment of the new court this section shall have effect as if the new court were mentioned therein in lieu of the court or courts so replaced."
    This is an Amendment to meet the possibility of what is now the Judicial Commissioner's Court in the Central Provinces and Berar being, as may well happen, converted into a High Court before this Bill becomes an Act. At present it is referred to as what it is now, namely, the Judicial Commissioner's Court in the Central Provinces and Berar. It may well be that before the Bill becomes an Act it will have been turned into a High Court, and the Amendment merely makes provision in case that happens before that date.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: As the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned specific bodies, is there any intention of converting the Judicial Commissioners of Sind?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: As I understand the matter, the question only affects the court in the Central Provinces, which, independently of the Bill, is about to be made into a High Court. This may result in it having become a High Court not under the Bill but before the Bill comes into operation.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 210.—(Constitution of High Courts.)
    5.37 p.m.
    Mr. CAMPBELL KER: I beg to move, in page 117, line 17, to leave out "Governor," and to insert, "Governor-General."
    May I ask for Ruling, Sir Dennis, as to whether this Amendment raises the

    245
    general question of the control of the High Courts, or whether that question should be postponed to Clause 217?
    The CHAIRMAN: My view is that this particular Amendment is the first one which deals with, and is probably the most convenient occasion for discussing, the main question, or the whole principle of whether the supervision of the High Courts, that is, the Courts in the Provinces, should be under the Federal Government or under the Provincial Government. I will ask hen. Members to bear that fact in mind, and to confine the discussions to that particular principle, and upon matters falling within that principle.
    Mr. BAILEY: On a point of Order, and for my guidance, may I ask you, Sir Dennis, whether, in discussing this Amendment it will be in order to discuss the various points as to the constitution of the High Courts which are raised in other Amendments?
    The CHAIRMAN: No, I think definitely not. That is why I pointed out that I hoped hon. Members, in taking as wide a discussion as possible on the principle of whether supervision should be by the Federal Government or the Provincial Government would confine themselves to that principle. The hon. Member and other hon. Members have Amendments down to this Clause in connection with qualifications of the judges, which is an entirely different matter, and must arise on one or more of those Amendments.
    Mr. KER: The general case raised by the Amendment is the principle that the administrative control of High Courts in the Provinces should rest with the Federal and not with the Provincial Government. The principle has been agreed upon by all authorities who have studied the question, namely, the Statutory Commission and the Joint Select Committee, that the High Court in the Provinces ought to be independent both of politics and of the executive government of the Provinces. The Bill itself carries out that principle to a large extent, and the object of the Amendment is to carry it still further. It is important, as everyone has agreed, that the High Courts in India should not only be free from political or executive control, but that they should seem to be free from
    246
    it. It must be apparent to the public that they are not in any way under the domination of the Executive. In other words, the High Court in India, like Caesar's wife, should be above suspicion. At present the position in India is that in the High Court in Bengal the administrative control is in the hands of the Government of India. The administrative control in other High Courts in India remains in the Provinces, as it has from the start, but in Bengal the High Court has grown up along with the Governor-General of India, and the control of the High Court has always been in the hands of the Central Government. When the change from a single Province to two Provinces took place that control remained, and in 1911, when the Province of Bengal was reunited into a single Province, which was the time when any change ought to have been made, the High Court was still left under the Government of India. The reason was that public opinion in Bengal, both European and Indian, would have been strongly opposed to any proposals to remove the control from the Government of India to a new government of Bengal.
    The Secretary of State will remember that during the sittings of the Joint Select Committee this question was raised with considerable force both by the European and Indian public of Bengal, and a large number of questions were asked in connection with it. I think my right hon. Friend would be glad if he could find that all the questions in this Bill received the same kind of European and Indian support as has been received by the proposal which I am now putting forward. One of the chief reasons why the control should be with the Federal Government and not the Provincial Government is, that these Provincial High Courts try cases not between the Federation and the Provinces, but between the residents of the Provinces, among themselves, and between the public in the Provinces and the Government of the Provinces. Therefore, it is important that the control should remain with the Government, which has no direct interest in the cases to be tried by it. It has been suggested that the control of administration means that the courts are in some way connected with the controlling government. In that ease the argument for the Amendment is even stronger, because the

    247
    Federal Government is not interested in the great majority of cases, indeed, has no interest at all in the cases which the Provincial High Courts will try, but the Provincial Governments may have very considerable interest in those cases, particularly in criminal cases, which are cases between the Provincial Government and the residents in the Provinces. That argument is strongly in favour of the Amendment.
    Another point which falls to be considered is the financial question. The administrative control if it remains with the Provinces means that the Provincial Governments will have to find the money for the expenses of the High Court. It is well known to Members of the Committee that in India the finances of the Provinces are notoriously fluctuating. You may have in one Province a famine or a scarcity which lasts for one season only and is very local in its effect. The result of that may be that the finances of that particular Province suffer for that year, but it does not mean that the Federal finances are necessarily suffering to the same extent. If in a Province there is a scarcity one year and difficulty with regard to the financial position, there will be every encouragement for the local government to try to bring about economies, and perhaps make undesirable economies in the case of the High Court, whereas under the Amendment the expenses will fall on the Federal Government and the adjustments which are necessary can be made with the Provincial Governments so as to carry over from a year of scarcity to a year when there is no difficulty.
    In Bihar, for instance, the Government last year might have found great difficulty in finding funds for the High Court on account of the earthquakes. A similar catastrophe has occurred in other Provinces, and great difficulties have been found. Under the Bill as it stands the expenses of the High Court fall to be discussed by the Provincial Councils. It is true that the salaries of the judges do not fall on the Provincial revenues but the expenses of the High Court, the buildings and the expenses of the staff, although they are not voted by the Provincial Councils, fall to be discussed by them, and experience has shown that in the past that has led to very undesir-
    248
    able discussions in the Provincial Councils. The Joint Select Committee were given several examples of that kind, where discussions reflected on the judges of the High Court and did very much to spoil the prestige in which they were held in that particular Province.
    If the Amendment were accepted, these expenses would have to be met by the Federal Government and the Federal Legislature where there would be no room and no time for detailed discussions about the particular judges of any particular High Court. The Joint Select Committee considered this question very carefully and came to a different conclusion from the Statutory Commission. The Joint Select Committee came to this conclusions for two reasons, one being that the High Court would be regarded as connected with the Federation and therefore an outside body in the Province. There are two answers to that. The first is that that feeling has not so far been felt in Bengal. At the time I was in India public opinion in Bengal would have been strongly opposed to the removal of the High Court of Bengal from the Government of India, and public opinion would still be opposed to that change. When I say "public opinion" I mean both European and Indian opinion in Calcutta and Bengal. The second answer is that the High Courts do not decide Federal cases except under very exceptional circumstances, so that the interest of the Federal Government in the decisions of the High Courts is very small.
    The second argument used by the Joint Select Committee against this proposal is that the financial difficulties would be very great, and that if we placed the High Courts under the Federal Government the financial adjustments would cause considerable difficulty. To that again there is an answer, and that is that the question would not be so much a financial question as one purely of accounting, because the High Courts are very largely self-supporting; the revenue derived is usually equal to the expenditure. If the financial question is to be taken into account, it rather tells in favour of the Amendment, because the finances of the Provinces are fluctuating and may be applied with considerable difficulty. For these reasons, therefore, because it is wanted by the people who are mostly affected by it, especially in

    249
    Bengal, and because it will make the High Court independent, I move the Amendment. This Amendment and the subsequent Amendments form part of the same proposal, namely, to place the High Court of the Provinces under the control of the Federal Government and not under the Provincial Governments.
    5.52 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. Campbell Ker) speaks with great experience upon any Indian question, and I am sure that we have all listened to him with great interest. I rise to put before the Committee the reasons that led the Joint Select Committee to make the recommendation that, administratively, the High Courts should be Provincial rather than Federal. I admit that in making that recommendation the Joint Select Committee were taking a line different from the line recommended by the Statutory Commission. My answer in a sentence to any hon. Member who asks why they went contrary to the recommendation of the Statutory Commission is that the Joint Select Committee were really considering a different system of government. I suggest to my hon. Friend that there are considerable differences between a state of affairs in which a Government becomes a Federal Government, with the Federal and the Provincial fields delimited by Statute, and the state of affairs contemplated by the Statutory Commission, under which the unitary government at the Centre still continues to exist.
    It is true, as my hon. Friend has stated, that opinion in Bengal has been definitely in favour of continuing the present arrangement, under which the Bengal High Court at Calcutta is centrally administered, and not administered by the Province of Bengal. The Joint Select Committee went into the question in some detail and came to the view that, whatever may have been the historical reasons that led to this special treatment of the High Court at Calcutta, the system in actual practice is not working well. What is happening is that the Central Government is little more than a letterbox for administrative questions connected with the Bengal High Court. All that is really happening is delay in getting questions settled in connection with the High Court, the Central Gov-
    250
    ernment playing little more than the part of a letterbox, communications going from Bengal to Delhi and back from Delhi to the Province for the purpose of getting an action recommended taken, and as a result, taken after considerable delay. In the view, therefore, of the Joint Select Committee the present system in Bengal is not working well.
    Be that as it may, let us look at the two alternative proposals and dismiss from our minds any idea that there is any difference of principle between one section of opinion and another. I remember very well that in the Joint Select Committee, at the outset of our discussion of this question, opinion was mobilised in two very distinct camps. On the one hand, there were the strong adherents of Provincial autonomy represented particularly by the Moslem community, taking the view that the High Courts ought to be Provincial. On the other hand there was the Hindu community, supported by other sections of opinion in India taking the view that the courts ought to be Federal. When we went further into the question we came to the conclusion that there was not a great gulf of principle between those two points of view. In fact, the extremer views on both sides seemed to us to be based on a series of misunderstandings. They were, first of all, based on anxiety as to the appointments of the judges. We were easily able to disabuse the minds of the Indian delegates and the members of the Joint Select Committee on that point. There need be no anxiety in regard to that, for the very simple reason that we are making these appointments Crown appointments, that is to say, neither Federal nor Provincial. So far as that particular controversy is concerned it has ceased to exist.
    Secondly, there was anxiety as to the salaries of the judges and the expenses of the courts, one side taking the view that the salaries of the judges and the expenses of the court were more likely to be met if the charges were Federal charges. There, again, I think we were able to remove difficulties in the minds of certain of the Indian delegates by making it clear, as we make it clear in the Bill, that the salaries of the judges and the administrative expenses of the courts are non-votable. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Clackmannan seemed

    251
    anxious as to whether even though they are non-votable, there might not be a risk in the case of the Provinces of not having sufficient money to meet the charge. He need not be anxious on that point for the very good reason that in the principal provinces the cost of the administration of the courts is more than paid for by the fees. In the Province of Bengal I believe the Provincial Government makes a considerable profit out of the courts. That shows that there is no risk in the Provinces of the charges not being met.
    Sir B. PETO: Has the Secretary of State noticed that the amendment is to the proviso which says:
    "any additional judges appointed by the Governor."
    That seems to imply that the Governor deals with the appointment of additional judges, whereas the right hon. Gentleman says that the question is entirely removed, and that they are to be appointed by His Majesty.
    Sir S. HOARE: They are to be appointed by the Crown in every case.
    Sir B. PETO: Then what does the proviso mean? It says: "Provided that the judges so appointed together with any additional judges appointed by the Governor."
    Sir S. HOARE: In the case of additional judges the appointment is to be made by the Governor acting as the agent of the Governor-General and the Secretary of State.
    Sir B. PETO: That is what we do not want.
    Sir S. HOARE: I hope that the hon. Baronet will not attach too much importance to that difference. There is very little difference between the two. The Governor or the Governor-General will act as the agent of the Secretary of State and the Imperial Parliament as a matter of convenience in the case of additional judges, who will presumably be appointed in a case of emergency. It is better that the appointment in that case should come from the Governor, but even if the Governor-General was substituted for the Governor, the Governor-General would inevitably act on the recommendation of the Governor of the Province. Turning to the larger issues on this question, there was evidently a feeling that
    252
    less pressure would be likely to be exercised by the executive upon the High Courts if they were controlled by the Federal centre. That is not the view of the local governments. We have received no indication that pressure of this kind will be exercised by local executives, and in my view, if there is likely to be pressure—we have a number of safeguards against it—I think you are as likely to get pressure exercised at the centre as you are in the local governments. That argument is not a valid one in favour of federalising the High Courts.
    But what is the real difficulty if we adopt the Amendment? The hon. Member will agree that the subordinate judiciary must be provincial. In India there is not the distinction in the lower ranks between the executive and the subordinate judiciary, and it is quite inevitable whether you federalise the High Courts or keep them provincial, as they are now, with the exception of the High Court of Calcutta, that the subordinate judiciary will have to be provincial. I suggest that there is every objection against taking the higher ranks of the judicature and making them federal while maintaining the lower ranks under provincial administration. All sorts of administrative difficulties will at once occur, and, apart from those, it seems to me that there will be a grave danger of the Provinces regarding the High Court as isolated and insulated from the Province itself, as something imposed by the Federation from outside, with the result that there will be much more likelihood of friction between the local government on the one hand and the High Court on the other, and, within the Province, between the subordinate judiciary, which is to remain part of the administration, and the federalised High Court. I suggest to the Committee that the Joint Select Committee was wise in making the recommendation that these courts should remain part of the provincial administration, accompanied by the safeguards that they are to be Crown appointments and that the expenses are to be non-votable charges on provincial budgets. I think that we should be wise to accept the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee.
    6.7 p.m.
    Sir B. PETO: I want to investigate a little further the question which I put to

    253
    the Secretary of State. I have had representations made to me from European associations who attach great importance to the Amendment. One of the reasons why they want to substitute the Governor-General for the Governor is that they want to preserve the outward appearance of a complete severance of the supreme judiciary of a province from the executive of the province. The Secretary of State says that if an additional judge should be required and the Amendment was in operation, under which the Governor-General would be the person to appoint the additional judge, it would not make any difference, because the Governor-General would act on the advice of the Governor. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is right or not, but, apart from that point of view, all those who will have to live and work under these high courts, who will have their cases decided by them, think that it will make a great difference, perhaps not actually in practice, if we remove all appearance of the high court being closely connected with the executive of the Province.
    There are even more substantial reasons than that. They want the Amendment because they desire to maintain, as they regard it, the absolute independence of the courts from all political influences. If we take out the reference to the Governor of a Province and substitute the Federal Legislature, which is far removed, we are doing something which is in accordance with the ordinary understanding of the Indian people generally. They regard a thing which is remote and afar like the Governor-General and appreciate the power and independence of such an authority, but when you bring it nearer to them and give the legislature the government of their own Province, whom they elect by their votes the power to make these appointments you are bringing in an element which is undesirable in connection with the high court of a Province. There is a great deal more to be said on this matter than what the Secretary of State has said. It may be true that the question has been carefully considered and that a new decision has been arrived at, but I am not satisfied that it is better than the old decision. The more you remove the administration of justice from the actual legislature of a Province, the more you are likely to
    254
    have it respected. I hope that the Government will be willing not only to listen to the admirable exposition which has been given of this matter by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, but that they will allow the Committee to consider whether the decision which has been arrived at is better than the one which was previously given, and decide that it is not wise to bring the administration of the high courts under the government Of a Province.
    6.12 p.m.
    Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: On the general question as to whether the High Court in a Province should be administered by the Province, it seems to me that the Secretary of State has made an unalterable case for the programme which is proposed, but the Amendment with which we are dealing, which refers to the appointment of the judges in the High Court—
    The CHAIRMAN: I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Member was in the Committee when the Amendment was moved, when I gave an indication as to the limits of the Debate.
    Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I was addressing myself to the question as to whether the appointment of judges in the High Court should, as a matter of form, be the appointment of the Governor-General. My only object in rising was to point out one or two considerations which strike me, as to whether it would not add to the status of High Court judges in the Provinces if the formal appointment were made by the Governor-General.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The High Court judges ordinarily are to be appointed by the Crown.
    Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I am dealing with the additional judges referred to in the Amendment now before the Committee. I am very much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for correcting me in the language that I used. It occurs to me that the status of these additional judges might be increased by the fact that the formal appointment comes from the Governor-General. I do not think that these matters of form are sometimes quite sufficiently appreciated, in the effect that they are likely to have on the people who litigate and have to act under the judgments and orders of the particular judges. I do not wish to say a single

    255
    word on the general principle that is involved, and I merely throw out this suggestion as one which perhaps the Secretary of State might think worthy of a little further consideration.
    6.16 p.m.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I should not venture to intrude into a discussion on a point that might seem only to concern people of legal experience if it were not that I have devoted a little time to studying the evidence on which the Statutory Commission made their recommendation; and because I was extremely impressed by that evidence I have taken considerable interest in this question, and I am afraid I must say that I feel that my right hon. Friend's answer to the Amendment was not very convincing. His first reason for not accepting the Amendment was that the form of government proposed in the Bill is something different from what the Statutory Commission contemplated. But if we are all agreed that desire to keep the executive and the judiciary as independent of each other as possible, is that really a very valid argument? The independence of the judiciary is something of such fundamental importance that there can be very few arguments, if any, that can stand against it.
    My right hon. Friend's second point was that the Joint Select Committee have said that the Bengal system is not working well. With great respect I ask what judicial evidence the Joint Committee heard on this point. Did they call before them any representative of the Bengal High Court to give an account of how the system was working from the point of view of the judges of the High Court Themselves? Did they question any judge of any other High Court on this point? Did they consider the memoranda presented to the Statutory Commission by no fewer than three High Courts showing how greatly, in their view, the independence of the High Courts was already being threatened by a system which required them to depend for administrative expenses on the votes of provincial councils? It would be interesting to hear a reply to these questions. Then my right hon. Friend spoke of the interest taken by Hindus and Moslems in this question, Hindus favouring the courts being under federal government and the Moslems favouring the present system,
    256
    and he indicated that this interest largely centred round the question of appointments.
    Sir S. HOARE Sir S. HOARE indicated dissent.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I am sorry if I misunderstood my right hon. Friend, but if he looks to-morrow at the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that after mentioning the interest of Hindus and Moslems he quickly referred to the question of appointments, and knowing what interest is taken in appointments on communal grounds—
    Sir S. HOARE: I never mentioned it or went near it.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I hope my right hon. Friend will look carefully at that part of his speech to-morrow. Even if I am wrong, surely we know that both these great communities do take great interest in appointments of all kinds from the communal point of view. It is a recognised thing. My right hon. Friend yesterday mentioned it as something that had to be taken into account in another connection. That fact and the interest taken in it by representatives of these communities do indicate the danger that if you have a court too near to, the community that may hope to get appointments, not so much as judges themselves as of the personnel of the court, you may have a. very undesirable interest taken in the courts.
    Then my right hon. Friend stressed that the administrative expenditure of the Courts would no longer be votable, or anyhow such part of it as the Governor felt that he could recommend to the Provincial Legislature; but he omitted to remind us that it would still be possible for the Provincial Legislature to discuss and criticise the expenditure. That is admitted in Record 3, where the change of procedure now embodied in the Bill is outlined. It is admitted in Record 3 that, though the expenditure or as much of it as is certified by the Governor would be non-votable, the Courts would not be spared the criticism of the Provincial Legislature. If you once admit that there may be a continuance of criticism which has been found hampering to several of the High Courts, you may have a continuance of a system which some of these High Courts definitely said would threaten their independence.

    257
    The Secretary of State went on to say that he thought less pressure would be exercised on a High Court by the Federal Government than by a Provincial Government and he said that that was not the view of the Provincial Governments themselves. But can we expect the Provincial Governments to admit that they might be ready to put pressure on the High Courts of their Province
    Sir S. HOARE: I wish my noble Friend would make her statement on her own thoughts and not quote me.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Again I hope that my right hon. Friend will look very carefully at what he did say. He used the phrase "local government" instead of "provincial government" That is a phrase which is misleading to people in this country and as I did not use it I plead guilty to having paraphrased my right hon. Friend's speech to that extent, We have to bear in mind that the pressure which may occur in the case of a High Court is pressure in regard to the minor appointments, of clerks and various officials of the Courts. Quite obviously that is pressure which is more likely to come locally than from a central source. As a matter of fact I have been informed by an ex-Judge of a High Court that if any person who wanted an appointment of this kind in a High Court did not get it he was very apt to become "an enemy of the High Court"—those were the very words my informant used—and then the High Courts would be opposed and criticised in the Provincial Legislature. I do feel that the danger is very real. May I read to the Committee one or two extracts from the Memoranda submitted to the Statutory Commission on which the Commission based their opinion? Here is a brief extract from the Memorandum of the Bengal High Court:
    "The Court reviewed the history of this Court for a period of nearly 60 years and pointed out how, on several occasions the head of the local government had attempted directly to interfere with the independence of this Court and of the courts over which this Court had superintendence."
    Therefore they gave a strong expression of opinion against being transferred to the Provincial Government. They quoted the opinion of the late Mr. Justice Mukerjee, who, on 1st September, 1921, wrote as follows
    "In my opinion the continuance of the present state of things is impossible, as it
    258
    is harmful in the highest degree and is calculated to impair very seriously the prestige and efficiency of the court. The present position is that in all financial matters we are subject to the control of the Government of Bengal, that is, of the Bengal Legislative Council. The dangers inseparable from such a position have been well illustrated by recent events."
    Then the Punjab High Court also sent in a very strong statement:
    "The judges in their administrative functions find their proposals and actions exposed to public debate and criticism in the Legislative Council … In the event of greater power being granted to the Council and the Ministers, they cannot view with equanimity the possibility of the Council adopting measures designed to harass the judges in their administrative functions or calculated to lower the efficiency of the judiciary."
    We must bear in mind that, though the administrative expenditure will be non-votable as certified by the Governor, the Court is still to be open to the criticism of the Provincial Legislature. They go on:
    "When the reforms are extended in British India there will probably arise many questions of importance affecting the constitution and the rights and liberties of the people which will require determination by the highest tribunals of the land. Political parties or political leaders may bring their disputes before the courts of law and the decisions of the courts may not he liked by them."
    They therefore expressed their approval of the recommendation made by the Associated Chambers of Commerce, that the High Courts should be put under the central Government. The Commission wrote to the Chief Justice of the High Court in Madras and got from him an equally strong statement of this view. The Bombay High Court also spoke of the fear of loss of independence, though they said they had been more fortunate than other courts. Therefore, the weight of evidence submitted to the Statutory Commission in favour of this change was very great. From what I have been able to see of the evidence submitted to the Joint Committee, I cannot recollect that they had any evidence so weighty or so specific recommending them to take the opposite course. Unless my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can tell us on what evidence, weighty and specific evidence, it was that the Joint Committee overturned the recommendations of the Stautory Commission, I hope that my

    259
    hon. Friend will press his Amendment to a Division.
    Mr. CAMPBELL KER: After the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    HON. MEMBERS: No!
    Question put, "That the word 'Governor' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 277; Noes, 44.

    Division No. 135.]

    AYES.

    [6.30p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

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

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

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

    Dunglass, Lord

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Addison Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Edmondson, Major Sir James

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Albery, Irving James

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Lawson, John James

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

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

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

    Entwistie, Cyril Fullard

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Leonard, William

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Lewis, Oswald

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Walsh Univ.)

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Fermoy, Lord

    Liewellin, Major John J.

    Banfield, John William

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Batey, Joseph

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Fremantie, Sir Francis

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Bernays, Robert

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Lunn, William

    Bilndell, James

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Mabane, William

    Boulton, W. W.

    Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

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

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E.W.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

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

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

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

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

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

    Goff, Sir Park

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

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

    Goldie, Noel B.

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Bullock, Captain Malcolm

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Burghley, Lord

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    MacLean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Butler, Richard Austen

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

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Grimston, R. V.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

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

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

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

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

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

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

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

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

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

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Milne, Charles

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Christie, James Archibald

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Cleary,. J. J.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Munro, Patrick

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

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

    Conant, R. J. E.

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

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Paling, Wilfred

    Cooke, Douglas

    Hornby, Frank

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Peake, Osbert

    Crooke, J. Smedley

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

    Pearson, William G.

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Peat, Charles U.

    Cross, R. H.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Cuiverwell, Cyril Tom

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

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Daggar, George

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Petherick, M.

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

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

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

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

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Davies, Stephen Owen

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

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

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    John, William

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Denville, Alfred

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

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Dickle, John p.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Dobble, William

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Doran, Edward

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Rickards, George William

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Kirkwood, David

    Rothschild, James A, de

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Soper, Richard

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

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Salt, Edward W.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Stevenson, James

    West, F. R.

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

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    White, Henry Graham

    Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).

    Stones, James

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Sandys, Duncan

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

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

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Fortar)

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Wilmot, John

    Shute, Colonel Sir John

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Thorne, William James

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswintord)

    Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd' & K' dine, C.)

    Tree, Ronald

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Sir George Penny and Dr. Morris

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Jones

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermilne)

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

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

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Templeton, William P.

    Bracken, Brendan

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

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

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

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Burnett, John George

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Clarke, Frank

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Lees-Jones, John

    Wells, Sidney Richard

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Maxton, James.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Donner, P. W.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Mr. Raikes and Mr. Wise.

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    6.38 p.m.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): Before I call upon the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst) to move the next Amendment may I suggest that it would be convenient if on that Amendment we also discussed the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp)—in page 118, line 11, to insert:
    "(4) Provided that not less than one-third of the judges of a High Court, including the Chief Justice but excluding additional judges, must be such barristers or advocates as aforesaid and that not less than one-third must be members of the Indian Civil Service."—
    and also the point raised in a manuscript Amendment which has been handed in by the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl). That Amendment would, I think, be too long and complicated to put to the Committee without having it on the Order Paper.
    Mr. BAILEY: On a point of Order. Would it be in order also to discuss in connection with these Amendments the manuscript Amendment which I handed in earlier and which is also concerned
    262
    with the constitution of the High Court?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I gather that the Chairman does not propose to select the hon. Member's manuscript Amendment.
    6.40 p.m.
    Sir GERALD HURST: I beg to move, in page 118, line 10, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that not less than one-third of the judges of any High Court including the chief justice must be barristers or advocates as aforesaid."
    It would be impossible, I think, to exaggerate the importance of having a first-class personnel manning these tribunals in India. The well-being of a country is always associated with the independence, integrity and ability of its judges. India has enjoyed the services of independent and able judges, and it is particularly important that they should be endowed with those qualities, because there is no other part of the world where litigation is mare indulged in or more enjoyed by the inhabitants. Anybody who is interested in the law must have been struck by the manner in which Indian opinion has been stirred

    263
    by the decision of the Government to do away with that Section of the Government of India Act of 1915 which provided that the Chief Justice should be a barrister. The matter does not appear to have been canvassed very much in public, but since the proposals of the Government have found expression in this Bill, a great volume of opinion has manifested itself in India, not only among lawyers but also among laymen, to the effect that there is no apparent ground for having as the chief justices of these High Courts persons who are not barristers.
    It seems fairly obvious that if you were appointing, say, a physician to the Sovereign, or an accountant to act for the Government, you would select a highly skilled and highly trained medical man in the one case or a highly qualified accountant in the other, and there is a natural prejudice in favour of maintaining in India the existing practice by which the chief justice in that country for 150 years past has always been a barrister of at least 10 years standing. I hope Members of the Committee will not think that this Amendment is brought forward or supported here by lawyers acting from any trade union point of view. The number of English barristers practicing in India is infinitesimal and the stream of Englishmen going out to man the judicature or the Civil Service in India is likely to become more and more in the nature of a very small rivulet. We are only concerned in this matter with what is best for India and the peoples of India in the future.
    The view expressed in this Amendment is that there is no ground for departing from the existing system in force since 1774, by which the chief justice has always been a barrister. That practice was confirmed in the Act of 1915 under which the qualification was extended to include Scottish advocates. When the Bill was under discussion yesterday the Secretary of State, in reply to one of my hon. Friends who moved an Amendment in regard to the Chief Justice of the Federal Judicature, said he would sympathetically consider the idea that only a barrister or an advocate should act in that capacity. The same reasoning applies to the Provincial Constitutions. The work to be done by a chief justice
    264
    of the High Court of a Province will be work of the utmost importance affecting the lives and interests of a great mass of people—probably a great many more than those who are directly concerned in the cases which come before the Federal court. Moreover, in the case of the Federal Court we are dealing with a new office. As regards the High Court in a Province it is an old office with an existing system under which the chief justice has, since 1774, been a man who has practiced at the Bar.
    I urge upon this Committee that the burden of proof in this case rests upon those who wish to show that a change is necessary. There is no evidence that this system has not worked well. I looked in the report of the Joint Select Committee to see the recommendation upon which this proposal had been founded, and I will come to their argument later, but there is no suggestion that the work of the chief justice or of the judges has not been performed well, or that there is any marked need for a change, nor is there anything in that report to say that there is any movement either among the legal profession or among the public in India in favour of a change. But I do not want to base my case only on the fact that the burden of proof rests on the Government. I wish to submit grounds on which, in my submission, it is desirable to have as chief justice a man who has had considerable experience at the Bar. I contend that a man who has practised at the Bar is best qualified to fulfil the high functions with which the office of chief justice is associated.
    I do not dream of reflecting on the ability or the conduct or the experience of members of the Civil Service. They possess many qualities which a judge or a chief justice is less likely to possess to the same degree; they have local knowledge, and know a great deal about local customs; but the work of a chief justice requires something more than a knowledge of local customs and languages. He has to deal with questions of equity, of constitutional law and of commercial law of first rate importance, for which legal knowledge and legal training are essential requisites, and in the nature of things a judge who has acted as a civil servant, although on many sides of his work he enjoys great advantages, and

    265
    has very great experience, cannot compete with a trained and experienced barrister on those points of law with which he has to deal as a. chief justice and with which a local judge is much less likely to come into contact. That is one reason why it is desirable that the chief justice should be a barrister. The second is that we are dealing here with what will be an Indianised Bench and Bar, and I suggest that it is an advantage for a judge never to have been a civil servant, never to have acted as an employé of the Executive Government and never to have acquired the mentality which, consciously or unconsciously, a, civil servant may easily acquire in matters which come before him in a court of law. I am not in the least reflecting upon India in saying this. It is our English principle which I am supporting in moving this Amendment.
    In England, as distinguished from the Continent of Europe, the Bar supplies the Bench with its personnel. The Bench is not a branch of the Civil Service. In my submission the English principle is better than the Continental principle. It certainly makes for a more independent Bench, more independent in action and more independent in mind. Where we have, as on the Continent, judges who are civil servants we are much more likely to get that disciplined and docile type of judge who is perfectly willing, as we have seen recently in one great country, to see a purge made of persons whom the Government for the time being consider undesirable persons to act as judges. I cannot conceive that our English judicature would tolerate the things done with the judicature in other countries where judges are simply civil servants. The English principle makes for independence of judges, and stimulates also the view, which I was always taught to regard as a good one, that in England our constitutional law has been beaten out by decided cases. It is a curious thing that at a time when we in England are more and more in favour of having the judicature well separated from the Civil Service—not out of any disrespect for or dislike of the Civil Service as such, but because we consider the separation of the functions a good thing, and that is the burden of the report of the committee which dealt with the question of Minister's Powers—it is a curious thing that at a time when the
    266
    Lord Chief Justice of England is denouncing the new despotism of the Civil Service we should be introducing into India a system under which the chief justice in India need not have been a practising barrister at all and may simply be a civil servant who may not even have been called to the Bar.
    To those like myself who are loyal supporters of the Government and admirers of this Bill, and who support it and champion it in the country as being the consummation of our promises to give self-government and self-governing institutions to the people of India, one of the attributes of freedom has been the idea that the judicature should be entirely separate from the Civil Service, and we do not want to see the opposite system introduced into India. So far as the chief justice is concerned the case for the retention of a system which has Already been the established order in India for 150 years, against which there has been no agitation and from which there is no reason to depart, is very strong. The Committee will, I am sure, be curious to know why the Joint Select Committee suggested that there should be this change. I have very carefully read the paragraphs which deal with the point. The only suggestion the Joint Committee make is that it is an invidious distinction that a barrister alone should be entitled to be a chief justice. To me that is an unconvincing argument. It is not an invidious distinction that in England a barrister can become a judge after having practised at the Bar for 10 years and that a solicitor or civil servant cannot. All we say is that all experience proves that the system of having as chief justice a man who has been at the Bar for 10 or 15 years has succeeded, and that there is no ground for giving it up.
    Now I have a few words to say on the other portion of the Amendment, which is borrowed from the Government, of India Act, 1915. It leaves two-thirds to be allocated among a. class which would include native advocates, who are becoming more and more important in India, and who undoubtedly have turned out many good men well qualified to be judges, although they have not come to the Inns of Court in London to qualify. It leaves two-thirds vacant for the members of the Civil Service and for those advocates in India who are not barristers in England. Let

    267
    me make it clear that what I speak of barristers I am not talking about English barristers. Barristers connotes persons, whether Indian or British, who have been called to the Bar, and in 999 cases out of 1,000, so far as this section is concerned, they are Indians. The proposal also has the advantage of holding out an inducement for Indian students to come to the Bar in England. Many of them make great sacrifices to come here in order to be brought into touch with English practice and procedure and with English legal tradition, I think to their advantage, and I feel that if they do go to the trouble to come here and are qualified in other respects they ought to have their fair share of judicial office.
    There really are no practical difficulties in the way, except that one-third is a fraction and it might be awkward to apply it sometimes, but it has not been found an insuperable difficulty in the past. I am not concerned with what the fraction is. If it were thought preferable to put it into figures we could say "one member on each tribunal of three," and that would meet our case. The point is that we do leave a margin for the Civil Service and for those Indian advocates who do not come to England to he called to the Bar here but are able and distinguished enough to be rightly entitled to hold judicial office. The one solitary argument advanced in the report of the Joint Select Committee in favour of the change—I am resisting the change—is that the existing system which has worked so well since 1774 makes an invidious distinction. I submit that there is no force or persuasion in that argument, and I think every legal Member of the House has received a large number of appeals from persons in India, from members of various branches of the legal profession and societies and associations in India, in favour of the view I have tried to put forward. Holding the view we do about the importance of having the very best men to fill the highest posts in the Indian law courts, it would be less than our duty not to support the Amendment.
    6.58 p.m.
    Mr. MALLALIEU: I hope the Committee will not think that this is a sort
    268
    of lawyers' "thieves' kitchen." I was in the Committee yesterday when a similar Amendment was discussed, and I was pained to note that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), who was watching the point on behalf of his party, to say that he was unable at that stage to give a decision on the point in view of the fact that the Amendment had been proposed by a lawyer, that lawyers had spoken to the Amendment and that the Solicitor-General had replied rather favourably to it. I was sorry to see the legal member of the Labour party leave the Chamber just now, because I am sure that even he would have supported the views so ably put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst). The object of this Amendment is to ensure, as far as practicable, the separation of the executive from the judiciary. It is a proposal which would not need the slightest arguing in this country. No one would suggest that there should be the connection between the executive and the judiciary in this country which there has been in India and which it is suggested should be increased. The suggestion of this Amendment is that there should be at the head of every High Court a man trained in the legal profession. Centuries of experience in this country have shown that that is a desirable state of affairs, and now that we are setting up a Constitution for India surely it is important that we should do our best to hand on to India at the outset of her career under these new reforms the benefits of that experience.
    Under the Bill, as I understand it, all the judges of the High Court, including the Chief Justice, may be Civil Service judges and not have legal training in the ordinary way. The learned Solicitor-General, when he replied to the Debate about the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, said that Indian Civil Service Judges had considerable judicial experience. They have, but that is not to say that they have ever practiced in any court or have legal training in the ordinary sense, and I should put that in inverted commas, because those are the words of the Solicitor-General. He however, later said there is a difference between a judge of the ordinary Civil Service who has served as a magistrate and graduated through the various courts until he becomes a district judge

    269
    and a barrister who has actually practised.
    This Amendment asks only for an ordinary training. These Indian Civil Service judges do, of course, have very wide judicial experience, going through a magistrate's court and becoming district judges; but 90 per cent. of their work is criminal, and the remaining 10 per cent. deals with such matters as insolvency. When they come to deal with vast matters of constitutional importance, it may be that they may not be the right men to have in that position—excellent men, no doubt, but not trained as legal men should be. The most important thing, to my mind, is that having been brought up in the Indian Civil Service, they must unconsciously become executive-minded. Unconsciously, there must be with them a considerable bias in favour of the executive. When the judge knows of the difficulties that the executive have to cope with, and what effect his judgment will have on the difficulties of his friends, he will be thinking all the time of that position, rather than whether his judgment is in accordance with the law.
    I read the Amendment to this effect, that if it were passed then Indian barristers called in India would not be classed as barristers "as aforesaid" as in this Amendment. I hope the Attorney-General if he replies will not be put off by the words of this Amendment as drafted, because for my part I feel it would be impossible to maintain a connection with this country to the extent of insisting on white judges, or even that they should be those called to the Bar in this country. I hope that the learned Solicitor-General will not reject the Amendment out of hand on the ground that members of the Indian Bar called in India, many of whom are distinguished men, are not covered by this Clause, but that he will include them by widening the Amendment. It does seem to me a matter of real importance to give to India the best constitution we can, ensuring that the judiciary is as free and independent as possible. It seems to me that the way to make it independent is to ensure that it shall not be executive-minded, but drawn from the independent legal profession.
    7.5 p.m.
    Mr. THORP: I wish, if I may, to move the Amendment standing in my name, for
    270
    I understood, Captain Bourne, that you decided to take the two Amendments together.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member cannot move his Amendment at this moment because there is another Amendment before the Committee. He can, however, discuss the points raised.
    Mr. THORP: I am very grateful to you. The Amendment that appears in. my name is designed with the same objects as those that the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst) had in mind, to preserve the existing state of things, one-third of the judges to come from practicing members of the Bar. I do not wish to delay the Committee by attempting to improve on the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side, but I should like to anticipate what may be one of the answers in opposition to the apparent rigidity in these appointments. It might be said that at times it will be somewhat difficult to find a person from the Civil Service available at the moment to fill any vacancy that may occur. In Clause 212 the Governor is enabled to appoint temporary people pending appointments, and no such difficulty therefore ought to arise. I do hope that this system which has worked so well will be preserved as it is now, because of the extremely valuable training that the rough-and-tumble of actual practice really gives.
    7.9 p.m.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I am very grateful to you, Captain Bourne, for saying that I may discuss the Amendment I handed in in manuscript. I thought it was handed in yesterday, and I was disappointed not to find it on the Order Paper to-day. I regret therefore that hon. Members have not got what is a complicated Amendment in front of them. It seeks to preserve a definite and adequate number of barrister judges, Indian Civil Service and pleader judges in every Court, and to ensure that the Chief Justice shall be a barrister judge. Instead of fixing at least one-third barristers, at least one-third Indian Civil Service judges, it proposes a numerical basis, which would mean in the case of a High Court bench which consisted of a multiple of three, that one-third would be barristers, Indian Civil Service, and Indian pleaders respectively. Where you had a

    271
    High Court bench of 10 or 11, you would have a proportion more favourable to pleaders than under the present system. At present, if you have a High Court consisting of 10 members, not less than one-third are barristers and one-third come from the Indian Civil Service. That means that out of 10 you must have four barristers and with the Chief Justice five, four Indian Civil Service judges, and that leaves only one pleader. In the case of a. High Court Bench of 11 you have two pleaders.
    I understand that this is regarded as a grievance by the pleaders, the Indian-trained lawyer. My plan provides that in a High Court Bench consisting of nine you would have three barristers, three Indian Civil Service judges, and three pleaders. In a High Court Bench of 10 you would still continue with three barristers, three Civil Service judges, but you would have four pleaders, which would give a larger proportion of pleaders. This would therefore secure what is desirable, a definite and substantial number of barristers and Indian Civil Service judges, and yet would go some way to meet the claims of pleaders for a better proportion in High Courts, while ensuring the retention of a definite and considerable proportion of barristers and civilians in every High Court. That does seem to me of very great importance. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side spoke strongly of the importance of retaining a proportion of barristers, but I think he was inclined to under-value the retention of a proportion of Indian Civil Service judges. The Select Committee stressed the value of these judges. It was important for them to do so, for any one who read the evidence before the Joint Select Committee would know that Indian delegates showed a good deal of hostility to them. It is important that in view of this hostility, the Joint Select Committee should have expressed appreciation of them, though I thought they failed in not asking for a definite proportion of these judges in the High Court.
    I quite recognise the possibility that some of the Indian Civil Service judges might be rather executive-minded—one has to recognise that. Their great value, however, is, I understand, their knowledge of the people, of their languages, of their ways, of their customs, of the customs in one particular locality as com-
    272
    pared with another. Where the importance of that comes in is that by means of their knowledge they are able to test the credibility of witnesses in a way that no barrister judge coming from home could, who would not know the ways and customs of the people and might be completely taken in. Much evidence is available to the effect that it is not difficult to buy witnesses in India, so that it is important to have people on the Bench who can put witnesses through acid tests. For this reason I do regard my Amendment or that of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu) as of great importance. I would prefer my own Amendment because it does redress what I understand is a grievance. It has been impressed upon me by more than one ex-judge of the High Court how greatly these courts have won the confidence of the people. I have even been told that in one Province there is a saying that justice is not obtained until you reach the High Court. It seems of the utmost importance that you should not leave the question of proportion, the continuance of two very valuable elements, in the air in this way, but that you should try to ensure a definite and adequate proportion of barristers and Indian Civil Service judges in every court.
    7.14 p.m.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I do not believe with the last speaker that the judges should have local knowledge. It is the last thing wanted. You should have as they had in the Middle Ages, in Genoa, Venice and Rome, the practice of taking their chief justice from other towns, because they did not want these men to have any local knowledge, wanting them just to judge the cases before them. That is the advantage of having men who are members either of the Faculty of Advocates or the English Bar, who are trained barristers, who may be Indians trained in India, because, once they have become members of that great profession, they develop a code of conduct which you cannot breed anywhere else. They get an idea of what is right. We all look back with pride to English history, because it was the members of the Bar, the barristers and judges, who vindicated English liberties against the tyrannies of the executive in the old days. They were the one citadel where the Englishman could stand safe from executive tyranny. The hon. and learned Member for Moss

    273
    Side (Sir G. Hurst) ought to be astonished at his own moderation in stipulating for one-third.
    Where would we be in England or Scotland if all our judges were not properly trained for their business? It is all very well for the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) to make cheap jests, as he did yesterday, at this profession. I would like to ask him, as a member of the teaching profession, how he would like the suggestion to reserve the most important posts in the profession to people who had not been trained as teachers. This is a question of trained barristers who have had a considerable court practice, who have been in the rough and tumble of the court and who know how to sift and judge evidence in a way that the executive civil servant and business man cannot do. In ordinary business affairs such as they deal with complete proof is not required to be sought in the painstaking and laborious way in which the court must conduct cases if they are to do justice. They are apt to jump to conclusions, for they have not had an analytical training.
    If we are to present Indians with courts of justice, the least we can do is to give them courts which are as well equipped as our own in respect of legal training. It is, of course, said that these people may have had some training as magistrates in small cases. The cases with which magistrates have to deal, however, are mainly small criminal cases and matters of no special moment; but when we come to questions which come before the High Court we must have a properly trained judge. I appeal to Members of the Opposition; I appeal to the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), who is a good trade unionist. He would not like to see somebody in the engineering trade put in a high position if he had not served an apprenticeship.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: It has been done.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I admit that it has been done, and that is all the more reason why it should not be repeated. I have no interest in this matter. I have shot my bolt in regard to the legal profession, and I am only speaking for the good of the public and of the Indians, because I regard the whole of this Bill as a dubious experiment in governing Orientals by the unimaginative Anglo-
    274
    Saxon race. If we are to give them courts of justice, let us see that at least they are courts staffed by men with the necessary legal training and juridical skill.
    7.20 p.m.
    Sir R. CRADDOCK: With regard to these Amendments, I have not the slightest idea why it is necessary to change the existing law which has been in force with perfectly satisfactory results for a large number of years. The suggestion was that the possibility of an Indian Civil Service judge being Chief Justice was invidious and should no longer continue. As a matter of fact, however, the selection of the Chief Justice will depend on the people who appoint him. It is very unlikely that any judge of the Indian Civil Service would be selected as Chief Justice. Under the existing practice in law, when a Chief Justice goes on a long vacation to England, or is put on other duties, or when there is a vacancy owing to illness, it may happen that an Indian Civil Service judge of experience—he must be very senior before he can be appointed—may fill the place for a short time. There is no objection to that under the existing law. It was unnecessary to alter these proportions. I will dwell mostly at the moment on the question of the Indian Civil Service judges. These judges are not people who have been trying petty cases such as come before the ordinary magistrate. They have been magistrates and have many times acted as district magistrates; they have had powers to deal with important cases, and have full experience and that judicial frame of mind to which so many hon. Members have referred.
    The Indian Civil Service man goes through a probation in England. In my time it used to be two years, but I am afraid it is shorter now. That probation included considerable studies of law and a long time spent in the courts. He went round the courts from the magistrate's court up to the King's Bench and the Old Bailey, and made notes of cases and submitted full reports on them. He saw the methods by which British justice was conducted, and it was most valuable help thereafter, not only if he were a judge, but if he had ordinary executive work. A certain amount of judicial training is important in executive work. These officers have their training as magistrates, and the usual rule is that

    275
    after seven or eight years the members of the Indian Civil Service are expected to choose whether they will be transferred, as it were, to the judicial side of the service or whether they will remain on the executive. If they decide to go to the judicial side, they are put in appointments which give them special experience in judicial business. They have to pass severe departmental examinations when they are young men and they have every encouragement and desire to improve their law. When they come home and study, some of them get called to the Bar and others work up those sections of the law with which they are less familiar.
    It is absurd to surmise that these gentlemen will have an executive mind. After all, if a man is put on judicial duties, and if he is an Englishman, he will, from his very characteristics as belonging to that race, require to be independent and to feel independent, and he will resent any attempt by outsiders to influence his decisions. I have always found from my experience—and I have had many of these judges working under me in the Central Provinces and Bombay; in fact I had to appoint them all—that when you make an experienced magistrate into a judge the one thing he insists upon is that he is independent, and that, whatever may be his position as executive officer, he now adopts an entirely different attitude. I can assure the Committee that the cases in which any subservience to the executive can be detected in the work of the Indian Civil Service judges are almost negligible; I might even say nil. One sees very strongly the way in which the change in employment impresses itself on the man and evokes from him those qualities which make for independence in political work.
    Another point is the value of the Indian Civil Service judges as an adjunct to the High Court. It is necessary to have a certain proportion because they have great experience of the country, the people, the value of evidence and the language. Therefore they have a much better understanding of the people of the country—I am not talking about the urban population—than any of the pleader and barrister judges. If they come out from home, not knowing a word of the language, they can never get into
    276
    real contact with the people of the country. The evidence has to be interpreted to them, and it is extraordinarily difficult to judge of the value and sincerity of a witness if his evidence has to be given through an interpreter. If you understand a man in his own language, you can tell much better whether he is a witness of truth or not.
    We get all these advantages among the Indian Civil Service judges. You may ask any barrister Chief Justice of any High Court who is retired in England whether he wishes to have the contribution of the Indian Civil Service judges, and with one voice they will say, "Yes" Another way in which the Indian Civil Service judges are important is that they are the only people who ever inspect subordinate courts. They are selected by the Chief Justice to do all such inspections. In every High Court one of the Indian Civil Service judges is selected as an administrative judge, that is to say, he is the judge who, in the first place, deals with all the many administrative points which come before the Chief Justice. He is also the man who in the first place is 'called upon to select subordinate judges for promotion.
    There is no need to change those conditions. I have never yet heard, although I have been in India for 40 years, and have studied these matters—I have been the Home Member in the Government of India dealing with the Calcutta High Court and with judges of other High Courts—that that system ever caused any inconvenience. The suggestion that it causes inconvenience comes from barristers who are making their living at the bar and who have sons and nephews who are doing the same. It is quite natural, and I am not blaming them, that they should catch at any argument to get rid of the Indian civil service judge. The examinations for pleaders are extremely stiff. We have all heard of the man who has sat for those examinations and has failed, and has then come straight away home and passed all the examinations for the English Bar. It would be nothing short of disaster if the Indian civil service judges did not contribute their quota to the High Courts and were not available to help in the burden of criminal work and on the administrative side of the court. These are matters in which the chief justice or any other barrister judge may not for the time

    277
    being have the materials or the knowledge necessary. The Indian civil service judges are likely to be as honest and impartial as any you can get in the matter of the promotion and appointment of the subordinate judiciary.
    There is another point I want to stress, and that is that the district judges, who are mostly entirely Indian, and who preside in the Civil Courts, are not subject to any pecuniary limit of jurisdiction in the suits they try. Subordinate judges can take suits up to 5,000 or 10,000 rupees. District civil judges have specialised on civil cases. I am sure that every hon. and learned Member will appreciate that men who have been engaged all their lives in civil cases, whether as judges or as barristers on the civil side, are much less at home with the ordinary criminal case, and that considerable practice is necessary in the Indian criminal law to make a good criminal judge. It is a great advantage that a judge who is to preside at the Old Bailey should have experience at other sessions throughout the country. It is that great knowledge that we have in India which has resulted in the system of appointing men of experience in the work, men who have studied the country. Other judges are quite good enough for the ordinary civil work of the country, for work under the Contract Act, the Transfer of Property Act and other Acts which define the ordinary relations of members of the community towards one another, but they have not the same experience in relation to commercial and maritime questions, and complicated questions of Admiralty jurisdiction and so on.
    I would therefore like to see the ordinary law remain as it is, with the ordinary courts of the judges, without specially permitting the civilian judge to be made chief justice, but as at present letting him act in short vacancies. He is never appointed a permanent chief justice, and I do not think the Indian Civil Service, after all these years, would have either a good case or would themselves wish for that new privilege. There is one limitation in respect of these judges, and that is that in the smaller Provinces the character of the litigation is not so complicated. We do not get maritime cases and complicated commercial cases there. Everything is comparatively simple. In such cases the court is presided over by
    278
    the Judicial Commissioner, or it may be by the Chief Judge of a chief court, as still exists in Oudh, and did until quite recently in Rangoon. It, has never been held necessary to have a barrister Chief Justice in these courts because the judicial commissioner fulfilled the functions of Chief Justice arid was a man selected as a rule from the Indian Civil Service. In many cases that I know personally these were men who occupied that position with as good a reputation for ability as many of the ordinary High Court judges.
    I do not want to take up too much time talking about these judges, but I would ask the Government to consider the question of the statutory proportion. There is one argument which I introduced before and which I should like to have time to introduce again, and that is in regard to the proportion of the Indian Civil Service judges. The new recruits to the Indian Civil Service now have a reasonable hope of becoming High Court judges—I do not say certainty, because naturally the number of Indian Civil Service judges is greater than there are vacancies in the High Court, but if the inducements are reduced, the judicial side, being not nearly so attractive and far more sedentary than the executive side, it may become difficult to get men for that side. If that position arises, they are afraid of political pressure if there is no statutory protection as to the proportion. They themselves dread it, and they say that they will gradually be pushed out on one pretext or another unless they are protected with this statutory percentage. It would be very serious for us if we lost these experienced men, who bring a valuable contribution to the general wisdom and knowledge of the courts for the sake of altering a law which has long been in force, and which alteration will make very little difference in practice. The system has always worked conveniently and well, and was designed to give diversity to the various High Courts.
    The Noble Lady the Member for Kinross and Western (Duchess of Atholl) has suggested a manuscript Amendment which it appears to me would meet any doubt that the Government may have as to the statutory percentage. It would leave scope for pleaders and subordinate judges who may be promoted. I have known a man

    279
    who was a Munsiff, a lower sub-ordinate judge, and who was promoted straight to the High Court bench. I am afraid that I have take up a long time, but I am asking the Government to reconsider the Clause in regard to the proportion of the several classes of judge, and to restore the present statutory limit, with the slight modification necessary. If the percentage comes to a fraction, you take the lowest whole number and adopt it.
    7.43 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Two points have been raised in this discussion. The first is as to whether the Indian Civil Service judges should be eligible for the position of Chief Justice, and the second is as to the percentage rule which, under the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst), which we are now discussing, takes the barristers' third. I think a later Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp) covers the Civil Service third as well as the barristers' third. It is the object of everybody in the Committee to make the best provision for ensuring that by their qualifications, their method of appointment, and the field which may be open, the best High Court may, be provided for the Provinces of India.
    I will deal with these matters in the order in which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side dealt with them, but I would preface my remarks by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) for the extremely interesting manner in which he put before the Committee, much more authoritatively than I could, the actual legal work that is done by these civil servants. From the very outset of their career they are trying cases. They elect, in about four or five years from going out, whether they will or will not go on to the judicial side, and in about seven or eight years from going out to India, if they have opted for the judicial side, they will be either district judges or session judges, or performing the work of district or session judges.
    The work that they do in that capacity is not, as my hon. and learned Friend the
    280
    Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) suggested, dealing merely with petty, small cases. They have complete power to deal with all kinds of cases, and they are practically in the position of High Court judges in this country. The High Court in India is really the Court of Appeal for nearly all purposes, and the work which these Indian civilians are doing in the eighth or ninth year of their service is really the work of a High Court judge. They are eligible now, and nobody suggests they should not be, for positions in the High Court, where, as I think the Noble Lady the Member for Kinross and Western (Duchess of Atholl) pointed out, their work has earned a well deserved tribute, in which everybody would join, from the Joint Select Committee, and it cannot be right to say that men who have devoted their lives to the administration of justice to the extent and in the way which I have described have not had legal training. In intention and effect you admit them to deal with and judge cases up to any amount and crimes of any degree of gravity, but under the present system you say to them, "You can sit in the High Court, but however well you do that, whatever aptitude you show, however you may in fact have shown the qualities which normally only come after practical work at the Bar, still you never can even be considered for the presiding position in one of these High Courts." We do not feel that it is right that there should be this statutory bar. It may be that the appointing authority will not be likely at any rate to select a Civil Service candidate to a chief justiceship, but both as a recognition of the work which they are being asked to do and also in order that the field may be open, so that if the best man really is a Civil Service judge he can be named, we think it is right to make this change.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: May I remind the hon. and learned Member that the opportunity for Indian civilians to become judges of the High Court will be very much restricted under Clause 243?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not think that has anything to do with the point with which I was dealing. We do not think it right, in principle, that this bar should remain. On the other hand, of course, we do not contemplate that a Civil Service judge would normally be

    281
    selected for a chief justiceship. My right hon. Friend is certainly prepared to consider putting in a provision of this kind, that those described in paragraph (b) i.e., members of the Civil Service should not be eligible for a chief justiceship until after some period, say, three or four years, of service as judges of the High Court. That would ensure that they had had that experience, but that if, having that experience, they are, in the opinion of the appointing authority, the best men, the Crown would be free to give them that position. That deals with the first matter which my hon. and learned Friend and others have raised, and we feel it is right to make this change. I may also point out that, as the hon. Member for the English Universities said, in the Judicial Commissioners Court, which do exactly the same kind of work, this bar has never existed, and if the Amendment were accepted, or if we accepted the principle of ruling out the chief justiceship, the Bill, by turning these courts into High Courts, would preclude the Civil Service judges from presiding in courts where they at present in fact preside.
    With regard to the second point, namely, the question of percentage, my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities, in giving us his Indian experience, said he had not come across any inconvenience caused by the percentage rule, but that is an inconvenience, I think I can convince him, which has been felt, and felt increasingly, in recent years; and the nature of it is clear. If you have a fixed percentage for certain members of a court, it very much restricts your choice when a fresh appointment has to be made, and there is this further undesirable rigidity, that if one, say, of your third of barristers retires or dies, you have to fill up his place with someone of the same category. It may be that you have an unusually large number of men of a certain standing among the Indian Civil Service ranks, and you want to take the opportunity of getting the right man, but you cannot do it because this percentage rule hampers you, in that you have to replace the man who has died or retired by a man of the same class.
    There are other reasons against the percentage rule. If you took the existing statutory provision of a third barristers, a third Indian civil servants,
    282
    and so on, you would have to add the Indian pleaders. Why should not they have their percentage? They are as much entitled to it as anyone else, but if you did that, you would have to increase the aggregate. They may be something to be said for something of that kind, but it could not be right to take one of the interested groups, if I may use the term without offence, and to give them a statutory safeguard, while leaving everybody else at the mercy of the appointing authority. Therefore, dealing at first with my hon. Friend's proposal, I say that it could not be accepted because it is one-sided. If you make a percentage, as the Noble Lady suggests, that has given rise to great administrative inconvenience, and when the scheme is definitely rigid, whenever one category drops out, you have to appoint someone of the same category.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: But it meets the. difficulty which arises when your total number of judges is not a multiple of three.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think the Noble Lady's Amendment meets that point, but the great objection to it is its rigidity. There is a table showing exactly how many judges must be barristers, how many pleaders, and how many Indian civilians in courts of all possible numbers, and I am sure it cannot be right to hamper the appointing authority in that way. In conclusion, may say that, after all, the real safeguard for proper appointments is the nature of the appointing authority. Whatever qualifications are laid down in the Bill, unless the appointing authority exercises its duties with a sense of responsibility, and with care, you will not get good men. If it does exercise its duties with a sense of responsibility, courage and independence of mind, you will get the best. We have provided in this Bill that these appointments are to be by the Crown, and we think it is impossible to over-emphasise the importance of that provision, having regard to the matter which we are now considering, because that matter is whether the best appointments are going to be made to the office of chief justice, whether a proper proportion of barristers are going to be appointed to the Indian courts, and whether a proper proportion of civil ser-

    283
    vants are going to be appointed to the courts. These will be the duties of the appointing authority, and, having made that provision, we have no fear that these duties will not be properly and responsibly exercised. We think that the changes we propose are right and proper.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: May I ask a question? The Crown must, of course, have nominations made to it. Will those nominations be made by the Minister, or
    will they be put forward by the Governor acting in his discretion?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not think there is anything to fetter the Secretary of State in making inquiries from the Governor-General, the Governor, or anybody he thinks proper. I think it is a. perfectly unfettered duty.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 55; Noes, 220.

    Division No.136.]

    AYES.

    [8.5 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

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

    Alexander, Sir William

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

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

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Greene, William P. C.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Spens, William Patrick

    Bernays, Robert

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

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Blaker, Sir Reginald

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)

    Bracken, Brendan

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Templeton, William P.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Burnett, John George

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

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

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

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

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Courtauid, Major John Sewell

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H

    Lees-Jones, John

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Donner, P. W.

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Doran, Edward

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Wise, Alfred R.

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

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Fleming, Edward Lascelies

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. Bailey and Mr. Emmott.

    NOES

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Grimston, R. V.

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

    Cleary, J. J.

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Cook, Thomas A.

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

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Cooke, Douglas

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Harbord, Arthur

    Assheton, Ralph

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Daggar, George

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

    Balniel, Lord

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

    Hornby, Frank

    Banfield, John William

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

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

    Batey, Joseph

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Davies, Stephen Owen

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Blindell, James

    Dickle, John P.

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

    Boulton, W.W.

    Dobble, William

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E.W.

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

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

    John, William

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Dunglass, Lord

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Ker, J. Campbell

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

    Edmondson, Major Sir James

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

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

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Kirkwood, David

    Burghley, Lord

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Lawson, John James

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Leonard, William

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Lewis, Oswald

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Gilliett, Sir George Masterman

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Cassels, James Dale

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

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

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Loftus, Pierce C.

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

    Grenfell, David Rees (Giamorgan)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S)

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Christle, James, Archibald

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Strauss, Edward A.

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Strickland, Captain W.F.

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

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

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Summers by, Charles H.

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Rickards, George William

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Magnay, Thomas

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Thorne, William James

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Tinker, John Joseph

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

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Train, John

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

    Salt, Edward W.

    Tree, Ronald

    Maxton, James

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Sandys, Duncan

    Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermilne)

    Milne, Charles

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

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

    Milner, Major James

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Shute, Colonel Sir John

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

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

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Warrender, Sir Victor A.G.

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

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

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeous

    Munro, Patrick

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    White, Henry Graham

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

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

    Soper, Richard

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Paling, Wilfred

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Pearson, William G.

    Stevenson, James

    Sir George Penny and Major

    Petherick, M.

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    George Davies.

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

    Stones, James

    Mr. BAILEY: I beg to move, in page 118, line 17, at the end to insert:
    "(4) Provided that not less than one-third of the judges of a High Court, including the Chief Justice but excluding additional judges, must be suet barristers or advocates as aforesaid and that not
    less than one-third must be members of the Indian Civil Service."
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 44; Noes, 215.

    Division No. 137.]

    AYES.

    [8.12 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Sandys, Duncan

    Alexander, Sir William

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Spens, William Patrick

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

    Greene, William P. C.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Atholl, Duchess of

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

    Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Templeton, William P.

    Blaker, Sir Reginald

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Bracken, Brendan

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Burnett, John George

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Lees-Jones, John

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Crevdon, S.)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Donner, P. W.

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Mr. Bailey and Mr. Emmott.

    Fleming, Edward Lasceiles

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard.

    NOES

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

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

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

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Christie, James Archibald

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

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Cleary, J. J.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

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

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Assheton, Ralph

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

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Cooke, Douglas

    Balniel, Lord

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Banfield, John William

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Batey, Joseph

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Dagger, George

    Bernays, Robert

    Cassels, James Dale

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Blindell, James

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

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Davies, Stephen Owen

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Dickie, John P.

    Lawson, John James

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Dobble, William

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Salt, Edward W.

    Doran, Edward

    Leonard, William

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Lewis, Oswald

    Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).

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

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Dunglass, Lord

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Shute, Colonel Sir John

    Edmondson, Major Sir James

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Loftus, Pierce C.

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

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Soper, Richard

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Goff, Sir Park

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Magnay, Thomas

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Stevenson, James

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

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

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Stones, James

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

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

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

    Maxton, James.

    Strickland, Captain W.F.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Milne, Charles

    Thompson, Sir Luke

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

    Mliner, Major James

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Thorne, William James

    Harbord, Arthur

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Munro, Patrick

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Train, John

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

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Tree, Ronald

    Hornby, Frank

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

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

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

    Paling, Wilfred

    Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermilne)

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Palmer, Francis Noel

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

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

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

    Pearson, William G.

    Watt, Major George Steven H.

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

    Penny, Sir George

    White, Henry Graham

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Petherick, M.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Jenkins, Sir William

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

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    John, William

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

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Rickards, George William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Major George Davies and Dr.

    Kirkwood, David

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Morris-Jones.

    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 211 and 212 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 213.—(Jurisdiction of existing High Courts.)
    8.20 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 119, line 28, after the first "Act," to insert
    "to the provisions of any Order in Council made under this or any other Act."
    It is necessary to put in these words because there may be Orders in Council either under this Act or under such an Act as the Foreign Jurisdiction Act which will affect the jurisdiction.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper
    In Clause 213, page 119, line 37, at the end, to insert;
    "Provided that any provision of any Act of a Provincial Legislature which derogates from or reduces the Dowers and jurisdiction of any High Court shall be void and of no effect."—[Mr. Thorp.]
    In Clause 218, page 121, line 22, at the end, to add:
    "(3) No law affecting the jurisdiction, powers, and authority of the High Courts shall be introduced into any legislature without the prior assent of—

    (i) in the case of alterations affecting the Letters Patent, the Secretary of State;

    (ii) in the case of other matters, the Governor-General."—[Mr. C. Ker.]

    8.22 p.m.
    The CHAIRMAN: Before I call upon the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp) to move his Amendment, may I mention to the Committee that the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. C. Ker) has agreed to my proposal that his Amendment would be better brought up immediately after that of the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne, and that the two Amendments should be discussed together? I mention this to the Committee so that they may realise that the two Amendments will be discussed as one, and a separate Division taken, if necessary, on the second Amendment. This will merely involve, in the case of the second Amendment, striking out the "(3)" and inserting the words "Provided that," so that the Amendment would read, "Provided that no law" and so on.
    8.23 p.m.
    Mr. THORP: I beg to move, in page 119, line 37, at the end, to insert;
    "Provided that any provision of any Act of a Provincial Legislature which derogates from or reduces the powers and jurisdiction of any High Court shall be void and of no effect."
    I do not propose to occupy the time of the Committee at any length, but, having secured immunity for the High Court, and realising that the High Court may have to stand as the protagonist of the rights of the subject, it seems advisable to see that any legislation which is passed by any provincial legislature shall not have the effect of rendering nugatory the protection given by the Bill to the judges of the High Court, in order that they may protect the person who has had recourse to them. The object of my Amendment is that not only the spirit, but also the letter, of the immunity of the High Court should be borne carefully in mind, and that no attempt should be made with any success by any provincial legislature so to alter the law as to oust-the jurisdiction of the High Court. The powers of the provincial legislatures are laid down, and they should, no doubt, adhere strictly to those powers, but they might, by ingenious draftsmanship, succeed in eliminating from the High Court any power to interfere or to protect subjects who have recourse to the High Court. In these circumstances it seems to me
    290
    that it would be well to place on record, in the form of words which I am proposing to insert, that a provincial legislature shall have no power whatever to pass any Act which would have the effect of derogating from or diminishing in any way the powers of the High Court
    8.25 p.m.
    Mr. CAMPBELL KER: In accordance with your Ruling, Sir Dennis, I should like to say a few words about the Amendment which I have tabled to Clause 218, and which appears to come better in 'Clause 213. The Amendment is slightly wider than that which has been proposed by my hon. and learned Friend, and also is not quite as drastic. It refers to the introduction of any amendment to any legislature, whereas the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend refers only to a provincial legislature. On the other hand, it is not quite as drastic, because it provides that amendments can be moved with the prior assent of the Secretary of State or the Governor-General. I do not attach any great importance to the wording of my Amendment because the Governor-General acting in these matters is practically the same authority as the Secretary of State, and I should be quite content, if the Government agreed, that these laws should not be introduced without the prior assent of the Governor-General. It might be held that the position of the Letters Patent is covered by the Instrument of Instructions to the Governors and the Governor-General, but it appears to me that the instrument for this purpose is rather a heavy instrument because the Governor or the Governor-General is not even to interfere unless the amendments derogate from the powers of the High Courts in such a way as to endanger their position.
    The Amendment which I have put on the Order Paper would cover minor changes in the law not so serious in nature as to warrant the Governor or Governor-General in interfering. The words "jurisdiction, powers, and authority" and so on are used here, not in any wide sense, because any amendment of the law affects the jurisdiction of the courts in some way or other, but the word "jurisdiction" is used in the rather narrow sense of competence to try cases and persons, and as it is used, as I

    291
    understand it to be used, in the Seventh Schedule where the items provide for amendments of the jurisdiction of the High Courts. Most of this "jurisdiction, powers, and authority" is covered by the Letters Patent which were passed in 1865, and have been subject to amendment by the Governor-General in Council since 1865, but only by the Governor-General in Council and not by Provincial Legislatures. I would remind the Committee that the Governor-General in Council in 1865 was a very different authority from the Governor-General in Council being set up to-day. The new Federal Legislature is a very different thing from the Council of the Governor-General in 1865. At that time the Governor-General had from six to 12 members in his Parliament, all of whom were nominated, and besides them h, had five members of his own Executive Council, so that no law was likely to be passed in those days contrary to the wishes of the Government. The position now is entirely different.
    I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman who will reply how the position stands in the Bill with regard to Letters Patent; first of all, whether they can be amended by the Federal Legislature and whether they can be amended by the Provincial Legislature, and, if the latter be the intention, what are the reasons for introducing this innovation in the law? At the present moment the Letters Patent can only be amended by the Governor-General in Council, that is to say, by the Central Government. If it is proposed in the Bill to make these Letters Patent subject to amendment, by Provincial Legislatures, it is a new point and an innovation in the law which requires some explanation. My Amendment is not so drastic as that which has been moved by my hon. and learned Friend in that it simply provides for the previous assent of the Governor-General before any such amendment can be proposed, and the object which we both have in view, and which, I think, is secured by my Amendment, is to maintain the prestige and dignity of the High Courts in India and Keep them in the same position in the public mind as that which they have occupied since they were first introduced.
    8.31 p. m.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Both these Amendments deal 'with a matter of very great importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. C. Ker) made a plea that his Amendment is less drastic than that moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp), but, on the other hand, it is much more comprehensive and covers much more ground, because it would not allow the Federal Legislature to restrict the jurisdiction of the Provincial High Court without the previous sanction either of the Secretary of State or of the Governor-General, whereas the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne would only prohibit the Provincial Legislature from restricting that jurisdiction. If hon. Members will look at the Seventh Schedule they will see that this so-called drastic Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend will still enable the Federal Legislature to exercise restriction with regard to every matter in the federal list and in the concurrent list, so that that leaves a very wide field out of account. However, both Amendments deal with something of very great importance, and that is the power that the Bill would give to a Provincial Legislature to restrict High Court jurisdiction.
    It has been pointed out to me by someone who has been a judge in a High Court that one of the first matters on the list that could be removed by a Provincial Legislature from the jurisdiction of the High Court is everything that has to do with public order and the police—indeed everything that comes into the first item in the provincial list. That means, as this ex-judge pointed out to me, that a Provincial Legislature could remove from the jurisdiction of the High Court all proceedings arising out of any form of public disorder; Civil disobedience, the red shirt movement, communal riots and everything of that kind might be removed from the jurisdiction of the High Court. Therefore, both these Amendments seem to be of extreme importance; otherwise, I should not have ventured to trouble the Committee with another speech, because I am aware that I have already trespassed on its time this afternoon.
    It has also been said to me that attempts have already been made in some Provinces to restrict the jurisdiction of

    293
    the High Court. An instance was given to me where the Provincial Legislature had been trying to create a city court in a presidency town in order to take away from the High Court the jurisdiction in regard to matters in the city. We have to remember the large number of men there are in India with legal training who are looking for work. There is, therefore, a temptation to many people to work for the creation of new courts and possibly, therefore, to limit the jurisdiction of existing courts. Another very important subject that may be removed from the jurisdiction of the High Court by the Provincial Legislature is anything to do with water disputes and water rights. An ex-judge of the High Court told me that nothing causes more frequent murders than disputes about water rights. Yet it may be within the power of the Provincial Legislature to remove these subjects from the jurisdiction of the High Court. These are points of great importance to the welfare of the people of India and for the general preservation of order which are raised by the Amendments, and I would ask the Government very carefully to consider whether they cannot accept one or other of them.
    8.36 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The two Amendments raise the same sort of point but in different forms, and I am sorry to say that I cannot admit that either of them are Amendments that can be properly made within the scheme of the Bill. The scheme provides that the Provincial Legislatures shall have competence to legislate in respect of the jurisdiction of the High Court on any matters in connection with which they may pass legislation. It will be seen at once how important it is that if the Provincial Legislature is to have power to legislate upon any particular matter it shall also have the power to legislate in respect of the necessary jurisdiction of the High Court as being connected with that matter. My Noble Friend has suggested some ways in which legislation might be passed by the Provincial Legislature derogating from the jurisdiction of the High Court. I am informed that, judging from present day and past experience, the tendency has been and would be in the future in exactly the opposite direction. The inclinations of the Legislatures have been to increase the
    294
    jurisdiction of the High Court and not to diminish it or derogate from it.
    The reason that I would mention as the one which makes it impossible to accept the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp) is that his Amendment makes it impossible for the Provincial Legislature to derogate from the jurisdiction of the High Court. That would really mean that the Federal Legislature would have to come in and legislate in respect of jurisdiction to deal with that which had been made the subject of legislation in the Provincial Legislature, and you would get an inextricable tangle between the two, or you might easily get such a tangle. The Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. C. Ker) is not so obviously open to the same objection, but the same objection does really apply when one considers it. His proposal in Clause 218 is that no law shall be introduced with respect to the jurisdiction of the High Courts without the prior assent in the case of alterations affecting the Letters Patent, of the Secrtary of State, or in the case of other matters, of the Governor-General. The logical conclusion is that if these assents were withheld in any particular case legislation by the. Provincial Legislature would be impossible. Then we should get the same position as that which would be reached if the Amendment of my hon. Friend the. Member for Nelson and Colne was adopted.
    The Government regard that as impracticable, but I hope it will be some satisfaction to my hon. Friends to appreciate that the matter has not been overlooked. In spite of what I have said as to the probable tendencies being in the direction of increasing the jurisdiction of the High Court, rather than diminishing it, provision has been made in the Instrument of Instruction by which any legislation derogating from the powers of the High Court so as to endanger the position which that Court is by such Act designed to fill, is to be sent by the Governor for the consideration of the Governor-General. That would give the most ample safeguards against the possibilities suggested by my noble Friend who last spoke. I hope that my hon. Friends will feel that the safeguard which will be inserted in the Instrument of Instruction will prevent them from feel

    295
    ing any fears as to the jurisdiction of the High Court being tampered with by the Provincial Legislatures.
    Mr. THORP: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: I take it that the hon. Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. C. Ker) does not wish to move his Amendment?
    Mr. CAMPBELL KER: No.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 214.—(Administrative functions of High Courts.)
    8.44 p.m.
    Mr. THORP: I beg to move, in page 120, line 5, at the end, to insert:
    "(b) direct the transfer of any suit or appeal from any such course to any other court of equal or superior jurisdiction."
    The Clause as it stands enables the High Court to call for returns, to make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts, to prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept, and to settle tables of fees. The Amendment which I wish to insert may be compared to the English procedure of certiorari, whereby if a superior court has any reason to believe that a case which is being dealt with in an inferior court could better be dealt with in a superior court it may issue what we know as a writ of certiorari, to bring that action up into the Higher Court in order that justice may be done. The new paragraph which I propose may be compared to affording the machinery to the High Court to give effect to the control, which the rest of the Clause rather connotes, which the High Court should have over subordinate courts. In this respect may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend, if he has any specific reason, why these words which appear in the Government of India Act, Section 107, have been omitted from this Bill?
    In Section 107 of the 1915 Act, these words have been found to work satisfactorily. If these powers were necessary to be given to the High Court in those days, why are they omitted from a similar Clause in this Bill? There should be machinery by which the High
    296
    Court, if they are dissatisfied with what is going on in any case in an inferior court, should have the power to say that the case must come up for adjudication to the High Court or be transferred to some other court where it would be more satisfactorily disposed of. I would compare by way of an analogy, which may be rather forced, the jurisdiction of the King's Bench Division in this country, which by means of certiorari is able to overlook and control and make subordinate courts behave themselves in cases where they are not behaving quite satisfactorily. When we have a procedure by which the High Court here can if it be necessary, by writs of certiorari, control subordinate courts in this country, then a fortiori the High Court in India should have power to control subordinate courts in India.
    8.47 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. and learned Member is perfectly right in saying that similar words appear in Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915. He asks why these words have been omitted from the Bill. The answer is that in practice it has been found that there is ample provision for what he contemplates in the Criminal Civil Code. That would afford an answer to his Amendment if I were disposed not to accept it. But the insertion of the words can do no harm and, therefore, I am glad to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 215 to 218 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 219.—(Extra provincial jurisdiction of High Courts.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I should like to ask the learned Attorney-General to explain the meaning of Subsection (3).
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This Clause reduces substantially Section 109 of the existing Act. It provides that where the High Court exercises jurisdiction in relation to an area outside the Province in which it has its principal seat, then the Bill shall not be interpreted as empowering the Legislature of that

    297
    Province to increase or restrict the jurisdiction of the court, or prevent the Legislature from having power to make laws for that area. The Legislature having power to make laws for the area can pass laws in regard to the jurisdiction of the court. The Clause ensures that the arrangement now in force in Bengal and Assam shall not be terminated except, say, on the initiative of the Assam Government.
    Clauses 220 to 222 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 223.—(Eligibility for commissions in Indian, Forces.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    8.52 p.m.
    Sir A. KNOX: I should like to ask what this Clause means. It says that His Majesty is to have power to grant commissions in any naval, military or air forces raised in India to any person who might be or has been lawfully enlisted or enrolled in that force. That seems to be the natural prerogative of the Crown. Is there any hidden reason why the Clause is inserted?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): The Clause has to be read with Clause 8, which says that the executive authority of the Federation;
    "does not extend to the enlistment or enrolment in any forces raised in India of any person unless he is either a subject of His Majesty or a native of India or of territories adjacent to India";
    This Clause relates to the Defence Services, and makes it clear that His Majesty can grant commissions in the Indian Forces to subjects of Indian States or natives of territories adjacent to India. Commissions can be given to such excellent members of the Indian Army as the Nepalese.
    Sir A. KNOX: Is it the object to grant commissions to members of the Army who have served in Indian regiments over the natives of India?
    Mr. BUTLER: The hon. and gallant Member will remember that there are portions of His Majesty's forces in India which are recruited in territories adjacent to India. The most remarkable of these
    298
    come from the territories on the Nepalese border. This applies to such persons as are recruited in the forces in India.
    Sir H. CROFT: My hon. and gallant Friend is inquiring whether a Nepalese officer could be granted a commission to command other Indians in other Indian regiments.
    Sir A. KNOX: Would a Gurkha officer be put in command of a Sikh regiment?
    Mr. BUTLER: That is a question for the administration of the Indian Army, and I should not be in order in referring to it now. The Clause would enable Gurkhas to be given commissions in the Indian Army; and there are no more valuable members of the Indian Army.

    CLAUSE 224.—(Control of Secretary of State with respect to conditions of service.)
    8.55 p.m.
    Sir A. KNOX: I beg to move, in page 123, line 16, after "may," to insert:
    "acting with the concurrence of a majority of his advisers."
    The object of this Amendment is to limit the dictatorial powers of the Secretary of State. We shall have various Secretaries of State in the years to come, and I think it would be an advantage if they could give their decisions regarding rules for the Indian Army with the concurrence of their advisers. There is a truism that "If a murder is committed, better it should be committed in daylight than dark." There are a certain number of people, at present Indian army officers, who are more likely to get justice if decisions regarding rules affecting the Indian Army were made by the Secretary of State with the concurrence of his advisers.
    Sir S. HOARE: I do not know what the hon. and gallant Member means by reference to murder.
    Sir A. KNOX: I mean that some regulations or rules might be made which would be very disadvantageous for officers in the Indian Army, and there is less chance of such rules being made if the Secretary of State acted in concurrence with his advisers. It seems quite plain.
    Sir S. HOARE: Even so, I do not see the application of my hon. and gallant

    299
    Friend's simile. Be that as it may, I am not myself clear that the Indian Army itself wants this proposal. I am ready to insert the Amendment in the Bill, but I have had no evidence of such a desire. If the Indian Army wants it I am ready to insert it. Has my hon. and gallant Friend any knowledge about the feeling of the Indian Army on the subject?
    Sir A. KNOX: It is quite impossible for me to say. I am not in a position to say, but as an ex-officer of the Indian Army I should have thought it was the sort of thing they would like. If I was still serving it is what I would like.
    Mr. ATTLEE: One is rather in a difficulty about this Amendment, because one does not know who the advisers would be. I cannot see the point of the Amendment. I gather from the Mover that it is an advantage when murdered if there are several accessories before the fact.
    Mr. DONNER: As the Secretary of State says he has no objection to the Amendment, will he consider it again before Report
    8.59 p.m.
    Sir H. CROFT: This Bill involves possibly very considerable change in the rules and regulations affecting the Indian Army, and I think my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment was probably speaking with the sympathy of a great many. I have had two or three gentlemen who have served in the Army and have referred this matter to me. Their view is that it would be safer, not necessarily with the present Secretary of State but with some future Secretary of State, that any changes in the rules should be made with the concurrence of his advisers. Will my right hon. Friend consider the matter before the Report stage?
    Sir A. KNOX: At the present time there is an India Council at the India Office, but it is being done away with and the Secretary of State has his advisers to take the place of the India Council.
    9.0 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: I do not wish at all to oppose an Amendment of this kind, but I protest against the way in which it has been moved. It is quite unnecessary for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to make the kind of charges that he made
    300
    in connection with it. I think he would better expedite our proceedings if he did not make charges of that kind. After what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) has said, I am quite ready to accept the Amendment.
    Sir A. KNOX: I would like an explanation of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I did not make any charge. I merely made a semi-jocular remark about "If a murder is committed." Injustices do take place. It is our duty to see that injustices do not take place.
    Sir S. HOARE: All I can say is that I cannot congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend on his sense of humour.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 225 to 228 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 229.—(Tenure of office of persons employed in civil capacities in India.)
    9.2 p.m.
    Sir H. CROFT: I beg to move, in page 124, line 23, to leave out from "rank," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert:
    "otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Seventeenth Schedule to this Act."
    The object of this Amendment is one to which very considerable importance is attached, and I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to accept it. Associated with it there will be found on page 1298 of the Order Paper a new Schedule standing in my name and that of my friends, the whole purpose of which is to carry out to the full extent rule 55 of the "Civil Service, Classification, Control and Appeal." I would briefly refer to the words of these rules as corrected up to 1st September, 1935. The three points in the rules which I hope will be included refer to the right of an officer to an inquiry, the formulation of grounds of dismissal in writing and the cross-examination of witnesses. These words actually occur in the rules, though in somewhat different order. On page 14 of the rule referred to, these words occur:
    "If he so desires or if the authority concerned shall direct, an oral inquiry shall be held."

    301
    On page 13 of the rules we read
    "Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Servants Inquiries Act, no order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank shall be passed on a member of the Civil Service unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds upon which it is proposed to take action."
    Then on page 14 he is entitled to cross-examine the witnesses. It would have been a cumbersome Amendment if we had attempted to embrace those words here.
    9.5 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: The proposed Schedule to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers consists of part of the rules known as the classification rules. These rules are very long and complicated. Hitherto they have been drawn up by the Secretary of State acting with his council, that council being, as the Committee will remember, definitely charged with the duty of watching over the interests of the services. It is proposed that the Secretary of State should have similar advisers in future and that it should be the duty of those advisers to watch over the safeguards necessary for the services just as the present council does. There will therefore continue to be the same safeguard as that which exists now, namely, the Secretary of State, acting in this case with the majority of his advisers.
    The question then arises whether, in view of that fact, it is necessary to put part of these rules either into the Statute itself or into a Schedule. I suggest to the Committee that it is not necessary and that there is a good deal of objection to putting into a Schedule a part of these classification rules. There are several other rules just as important as this. In any case they are very voluminous, and to put them into the Bill would mean tying up a number of service conditions, some important and some not important, with statutory red tape and making it impossible to change them at all without an amending Act. I suggest that that would be to go too far. I submit that in the first place the safeguard of the Secretary of State, acting with his advisers, is sufficient, and, secondly, that we have already in Clause 229 met one of the chief points urged by my hon. and gallant Friend. If he will look at that Clause he will see set out explicitly in statutory form the rights which the ser-
    302
    vices have in these matters. I suggest to him, particularly in view of Sub-section (3) and the safeguard which I have already mentioned, it is unnecessary to 'add a Schedule of this kind. There is also the serious objection of including details of this kind, with the result that they can only be altered in future by amending Acts.
    9.9 p.m.
    Sir H. CROFT: I am obliged to the Secretary of State for the courteous way in which he has answered my proposal. Sub-section (3) to which he has referred provides:
    "No such person … shall be dismissed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to ho taken."
    "Reasonable opportunity" is not very definite and although it would be absurd to suggest that all these various rules should be embraced in the Statute I think my right hon. Friend will agree that the particular points referred to in my proposed Schedule are of great importance. If these words could be included it would give a feeling of confidence to the people concerned. I think I am entitled to mention, as an instance, the kind of cases which a during the War. In cases where there was some criticim of an officer these points were regarded as vital and I think the Civil Service in India would be better satisfied if they knew that the three main points dealt with in the Schedule were included.
    In the circumstances contemplated in the Bill when we are setting up this new machinery it seems to me that any person who is in trouble should have the opportunity of receiving a formulation in writing of the grounds of his dismissal and should be allowed the opportunity of cross-examining witnesses. There have been some critical cases in India in the past and, as I say, great importance is attached to the three main heads dealt with in the proposed Schedule. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give me some encouragement to believe that he will look into the question further. I know it is a subject on which many civil servants feel very keenly. They are not able to express their views but one learns privately that this proposal if accepted, would give a greater feeling of confidence to gentlemen whose careers may be at

    303
    stake under the new regime than they now have.
    9.12 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: I necessarily approach a proposition of this kind with great sympathy but again I say to my hon. and gallant Friend that I do not believe it to be necessary. First, the Sub-section I have mentioned to a great extent covers the point. Second the proposed Schedule would add nothing to the security of the Secretary of State having to give his approval to any change in the rules. Thirdly, this is only one of many other important rules. There are rules with reference to the right of appeal just as important as this one. Fourthly, this proposed Schedule itself does not appear to be the kind of watertight safeguard which my hon. and gallant Friend imagines because in the last paragraph it says that exceptions may be made in carrying it out. For those reasons, I think it better to keep the rules in the hands of the Secretary of State and his advisers. What I will do is to look into the paragraphs about the Public Service Commission to see if we could introduce there some reference which would ensure a proper bearing being given to a case before the case actually comes to the Secretary of State. I will look into the matter from that aspect but I do not think it would be a good plan to attach this Schedule to the Bill.
    9.14 p.m.
    Sir R. CRADDOCK: I am very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is still prepared to give some consideration to this point and I would ask him whether this Clause could not be slightly expanded so as to include a reference to Rule 55 on these particular heads. I am familiar with the rules of the Government of India and of the Provincial Government dealing with what are called departmental inquiries into the alleged shortcomings of Government servants, however humble they may be. It is most desirable that nothing should be left vague. One of the most important of these instructions is that specific charges must be brought against a person against whom complaint is made. The opportunity of giving an answer in writing or orally to specific charges is a prime con-
    304
    sideration of departmental inquiries, so that if we are to have the provisions contained in Clause 229 this particular Sub-section, at all events, should be included, unless you follow the practice which was followed in the case of the White Paper of putting all the rights into a schedule or a list. That has not been done here. In some respects, it might have been more satisfactory if it had been done, because otherwise it will take a man a long time to fathom out what his rights are. It is not a thing which he can keep in his head, and the next time he wants to look up his rights he will have to go through the list again. There is a good deal to be said for putting the principal rights in a schedule, but if that is not considered suitable the essential points should be included in the Clause.
    Sir H. CROFT: Suppose some future Secretary of State decided to alter these rules, there would appear to be nothing to prevent him. The trouble is that this is a changing world, and that while we may feel happy and contented to-day about the rules, the rules might be varied in future.
    9.17 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: This is a changing world and we have changing Governments. They make many Acts, just as changing Secretaries of State may have different policies. There has, however, been a great continuity of policy in the Services question, and I think that one of the safeguards is that the Secretary of State will not be able to act without his advisers in a question of this kind. It is intended that the Services shall be represented among the Secretary of State's advisers and shall be there to watch over points of this kind. However, I will look into what both my hon. Friends have said to see whether it will be possible to put anything more into the body of the Bill. I will look into it sympathetically, but I am against the Schedule.
    Sir H. CROFT: In these circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 230.—(Recruitment and conditions of service.)
    9.20 p.m.
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: I beg to move, in page 125, line 17, after "Governor General," to insert:
    "in the exercise of his individual judgment."
    The Committee will realise that Clause 230 deals with the recruitment and conditions of service, and the opening Subsection provides:
    "Except as expressly provided by this Act, appointments to the civil services of, and civil posts under, the Crown in India, shall, after the commencement of Part III of this Act, be made—
    (a) in the case of services of the Federation, and posts in connection with the affairs of the Federation, by the Governor-General or such person as he may direct."
    The purpose of the Amendment is, after the word "Governor-General," to add the words "in the exercise of his individual judgment." It has been a little difficult in the past discussions on this Bill to arrive at any very definite information as to the meaning of the words in the exercise of his individual judgment," but, as far as we can make anything of the various statements that have been made, we on these benches have arrived at a certain conclusion. It is that where the words "in his discretion" are used there is no obligation for the Governor-General to consult anyone. Where, as in Clause 230, nothing is said, it is assumed that not only will the Governor-General consult his Ministers, but that he must accept what his Ministers advise. If, however, this Amendment is inserted, there will be an obligation on the Governor-General to consult his Ministers, but he need not take their advice. We hold strongly to the view that this Clause will be immensely strengthened if these words are added. The Services to which reference is made are those Services the recruitment of which lies in the hands of the Governor-General, and not in the hands of the Secretary of State. They are, in fact, the Services other than those enumerated in Clause 233.
    I am anxious not to revive in any detail the charge that is frequently and often properly made as to Oriental nepotism and corruption, but there is every expectation that under this new Constitution those time-honoured practices, which
    306
    are very frequent even under the present Constitution, will flourish exceedingly. We feel that if these words are added and there is only an obligation for the Governor-General to consult his Ministers but not to accept their decision, there will be far less opportunity for corrupt patronage and nepotism. Although we oppose the Bill fundamentally, we are anxious that it should work if, as seems likely, it is placed on the Statute Book, and we want to minimise to the greatest extent the possibility of the Constitution being brought into disrepute, and the whole intention of Parliament being neutralised by these practices being encouraged. We feel that if the Amendment is accepted there will be an opportunity for the Governor-General, and, if the next Amendment is accepted, for the provincial Governor, to safeguard his officials from the enmity of ministers. It has frequently been advanced on behalf of those who support this Bill that with the measure of responsibility that is being given there will come a realisation on the part of the Indian ministers of their responsibilities, and we believe that in this particular situation they will focus their indignation on the Governor-General and on the Governor in the Province if he is not safeguarded in the way that we propose he should be safe guarded.
    9.24 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: The hon. Member has made clear the intention of this Clause, which applies to the appointments to the Civil Service in the case of the particular services of the Federation, which are known as the Central Services, and which comprise such services as the railways, Indian post and telegraphs, Imperial Customs, and similar services. The second Amendment applies to Provincial Services, which are under the Provincial Governors and which conduct some of the affairs of the Provincial Governments. The hon. Member desires that in every case of appointments to the Services I have mentioned we should go back on the present practice and that the Governor-General should be brought in in his individual judgment. The hon. Member, therefore, means and desires that we shall bring in the Governor-General in the ease of the Central Services, and in the case of Provincial Services the Governor, for the appoint

    307
    ment in every case I have mentioned. We consider that would be going too far. These particular services are those which are, in the case of the Federation, under the future Federal Government, and, in the case of the Provinces, under the Provincial Government. They have been in the case of the Provincial Government transferred for some time, and it would seem to be rather excessive caution, and would impose an excessive burden on the Governor-General and the Governor, to insist that they should be brought into every appointment. In addition, this would imply distrust in the Federal and Provincial Governments in the future, if it was considered in these particular circumstances that they were unable to make the proper appointment. It is for these reasons I regret very much that we are unable to accept the Amendment, although I see its point.
    9.27 p.m.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I do not think the Under-Secretary sufficiently realises the significance of the Amendment. According to paragraph (a), which deals with the affairs of the Federation, if the Amendment is carried in the exercise of his individual judgment the Governor-General is enabled to do this, by "such person as he may direct." Therefore, it is not necessary, as the Under-Secretary suggests, if this Amendment is carried for the Governor-General personally to carry through all appointments. I am not satisfied that the drafting is complete. Not being a lawyer, I am not quite certain about the words, but I am clear about their intention. The Under-Secretary made his reply on the assumption that on every one of these jobs he would personally have to go through the qualifications of every individual. He entirely overlooked the other words, "or such person as he may direct." These other persons would be directed, by the Governor-General and not by ministers. Therefore, the argument is not in the least met by the Under-Secretary, who bases the whole of his reply on the fact that it would be imposing an intolerable burden of work on the Governor-General, who is perfectly well able to say to some persons, "I appoint you to make this class of appointment. In the case of appointments above that, you will refer them to
    308
    me for my personal direction." This is no answer to the Amendment, and, quite clearly, the words already in the Bill have been overlooked.
    9.30 p.m.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I think the Amendment requires more consideration than the Under-Secretary has given to it. We have to remember in the matter of these appointments for how much community and caste count, and the pressure to which ministers may be subjected on this ground in regard to appointments. It is just in regard to the type of appointments described here that there is this pressure. It is just in regard to the Central or Provincial services that I understand there is apt to be so much pressure, particularly in the lower grades. It has been said to me, both by Indians and British, how much ministers may be apt to do in the way of getting friends appointed to services, particularly Provincial services. It has been said that there can be a sort of paralysis among the men serving from fear of being pushed out of their posts or done out of promotion, because the minister seeks appointments for his friends. Indian members of the service are even expected to help ministers in finding posts. Many Indian members of the services entertain great fears of serving under ministers, because their posts might depend on whether a minister wanted posts for his friends. I do not think it is a thing that can be dismissed lightly. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) said the Governor may waive his powers in the case of a minister in whom he has confidence. I may remind the Committee that the Joint Select Committee were very anxious that canvassing for promotion or appointments should disqualify candidates and they suggested that for postings or promotion in the higher grades there should be the personal concurrence of the Governor. This Amendment is moved on the authority of the Joint Select Committee, and I feel I must support it.
    9.32 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I wonder if we cannot come to a compromise. It does seem as if the Under-Secretary has spoken a little hastily. After all, the Governor-General has full powers. All such persons as he may direct may supervise appointments for the post office or

    309
    railway, such as the ministers in charge. It does enable the Governor-General, if necessary, to cover himself, yet this was the whole of the case on the basis of which lay the objections of the Under-Secretary. I certainly would not support the Amendment if it meant going back on the present position. I do say that if words of this kind somewhere near the Amendment can be put in, the Governor-General might easily be able to make the appointments in that way without having to exercise special powers. Quite frankly, I do not like the idea of the Governor-General having to exercise special powers very often. It does seem that some Amendment of this kind might be inserted on the Report stage of the Bill, which would enable the Governor-General to make particular appointments if he thought it necessary. I simply put it from that point of view because I am sure that we want some safeguard here, and I am equally certain that we do not want to go back on the present position. The Clause as it stands, even with this Amendment, would undoubtedly mean that the Governor-General could transfer whole blocks of appointments to a Minister, which is what is wanted, but I think we ought to put in the Bill some words which will give him a reserved position. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to assure the House that he will consider the point carefully to see whether it is not possible to put in some safeguard.
    9.36 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: I am quite sure that this Amendment either goes much too far, or is not any good at all. It goes much too far in making the Governor-General and the Governor personally responsible not only for innumerable appointments but also for all the dismissals. If it had a wide scope it would mean that the Governor-General and the Governor would be doing little or nothing except dealing with individual cases, and, moreover, cases connected with Departments which have already been transferred. If, on the other hand, the last words in paragraph (a) of Clause 230 are to have a wide intention, it would mean that he would delegate his powers to somebody else, and the Amendment therefore would have no effective result at all, or little or no effective result. In
    310
    any case I suggest that it is unnecessary to have any provision of this kind. The Governor-General and the Governor are the heads of the public services, and the public services are the services of the Crown and not of the local Governments, just as they are the services of the Crown here; but that does not mean that the Governor-General and the Governor are personally responsible for all these appointments, without any ministerial responsibility at all in. wide fields of government which have already been transferred.
    So far as the reserved Departments are concerned, the question does not arise. So far as the Secretary of State's services are concerned there are all the various safeguards connected with the Secretary of State's services. So far as the transferred Departments are concerned, it would be a great mistake, after these Departments have been transferred for many years, to attempt to withdraw responsibility from the Ministers at a time when we are trying to increase the field of responsibility generally in India. In these latter cases there will be, first, the safeguard of the Public Services Commission, which I regard as a very effective safeguard—we shall come to that Chapter of the Bill shortly—and, secondly, there is the general responsibility of the Governor-General and the Governor to safeguard the legitimate interests of the services. In view of these safeguards it is unnecessary to go any further, and it certainly is unnecessary to accept an Amendment such as that which is proposed.
    9.40 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Amendment was not at all satisfactory on the ground that the Governor-General could transfer that responsibility to such persons as he may direct, but as the Clause stands the Governor-General, in making appointments, would act on the advice of Ministers, because where nothing is said to the contrary he has got to take the advice of Ministers. If he delegates the power to such persons as he may direct, quite clearly the Ministers' advice must come in. He cannot relieve himself of taking the Ministers' advice by asking some other person to do the job, as the other person must act on the Ministers' advice. If the words "in his discretion" are put

    311
    in the Governor-General does not take the Ministers' advice, and logically such other person as he may direct does not take the Ministers' advice. That was the burden of the remarks I tried to make earlier to the effect that, whether right or wrong, it is a real and effective transfer of responsibility to the Governor-General from the Ministers, or to such other person as the Governor-General in his judgment may direct; but, quite clearly, the ultimate decision is taken away from the Ministers. Therefore, the interpretation of the Secretary of State, like the interpretation of the Under-Secretary, still seems to ignore the significance of the words "such person as he may direct" as qualifying the Amendment.
    Sir B. PETO: Would the Secretary of State address his mind to the converse proposition? If the Amendment be not accepted and the words remain, does that mean that the Governor-General can never make an appointment of his own volition without consulting the Ministers?
    Sir S. HOARE: That is a very wide question. Obviously, the answer is, No. In the matter of the reserved Departments the Governor-General has the sole word as to appointments. Here we are dealing with transferred Departments, and that is a very different question, and I say that in the case of the transferred Departments appointments should be made upon the advice of the Ministers.
    9.43 p.m.
    Sir H. CROFT: The Government on this occasion seem to think that we are urging that the Governor-General should always interfere in appointments, but we only want to give him a discretionary power. We all hope that the optimism of my right hon. Friend will prove to be well-founded. On the other hand, we can say without any offence to Indians that the family feeling among them is so great that it is well known that whenever any man attains to any sort of power in India all his brothers and sisters, aunt and cousins expect to get jobs. I am not saying that offensively towards Indians, because that is the recognised thing all through the East. I think the hon. Member who interrupts will admit that that is a very common fact, admitted by everyone who
    312
    has come from India with the exception of himself.
    At one time I was connected with a big business in India, and I had very frequent reports showing that in this respect the family feeling is very strong. I thought it was generally known. The more one knows of the East the more one knows it to be true. A man is considered a fool if he does not give a job to a relation. Let us be frank about it. Let us go to Indians who have been in the higher posts in India and ask them whether it is not a fact, as I have been told, that their lives have been made a perfect burden owing to the fact that all their numerous relatives regard it as a right that they should be given jobs. Of course we hope that all that is going to change in a night, that under the reforming spirit the whole character of the East is going to change. We are all hopeful, and the right hon. Gentleman is the greatest Micawber among us. He is always hoping that some new way is going to turn up, but the fact remains that we are up against this difficulty and in view of the widespread tendency in this direction would it not be wise for the Governor-General or the Governor to have power, in his judgment, to intervene to see that these tendencies are checked? That is all we ask.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I wonder whether hon. Members who constantly make these allegations about nepotism and jobbery pause to think how they may be regarded from the other side. Such jobbery is not confined to India. While sitting here I like, sometimes, to take up "Dod's Parliamentary Companion" and to work out relationships. Of course I know that every appointment here is made on its merits and that it is merely an accident that there are cousins, second cousins and grandsons in this list. It is rather unfortunate that so many allegations are made that everything is done by jobbery on the other side. The Indians may see high appointments going to political friends of people in this country, and of course they do not understand that everybody a Conservative Government appoint is always on merit but that whenever an Indian is appointed it is always a job. That kind of assumption is going too far. We have had it alleged several times in this Committee by Members of the party

    313
    opposite. This country was stiff with jobbery about 100 years ago, and the fortunes of many families in this country were made by nepotism; yet they are throwing stones at the Indians all the time and wanting extra precautions. If we had an examination into some of the aristocratic families of England and Scotland only 100 years ago it would be found that the kind of thing they did was far worse than anything done in the East.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask the hon. Member why he objects to the setting up in India of a public service commission called the Federal Public Service Commission with the same rigidity of powers as our own for taking over the obligations, duties and powers of making appointments?
    Mr. ATTLEE: The answer is that I do not object. On the contrary, I was one of those who recommended it on the Indian Statutory Commission, and I voted for it on the Joint Select Committee. I might answer by asking the hon. Member whether he is prepared to allow public appointments in this country to be made by the Civil Service Commission such as to the British Broadcasting Corporation, the judges and so on?
    The CHAIRMAN: We had better get back to the Amendment.
    9.49 p.m.
    Mr. WISE: I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) into the history of this country, but if he will examine the list of his own party in this respect—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now proposing to do what he said he did not want to do, and what I murmured to myself he had better not try to do.
    Mr. WISE: I will not dispute your Ruling, but I would say that the fact that nepotism exists in other countries is not an argument for extending it. We are proposing to prevent the evil from growing in the new Constitution which we are building, and it is surely incumbent upon us to build the Constitution as free from any form of vice or graft as we can. The Secretary of State rather confined his
    reply to the Governor-General. He forgot that there is a second Amendment under discussion at the present time, referring to the Governors of the Provinces. He said that because of the Governor-General the reserved subjects would be well away from any chance of nepotism, but he forgot to remind the Committee that in the Provinces there are very few reserved subjects, and that the bulk of the Provincial appointments will be in the hands of the elected ministers. The Governor, or any person whom he may appoint, is entirely at the mercy of the Ministers' advice. It is quite certain that Indian Ministers must have a great number of obligations to repay before they become Ministers, and the difficulty of their task will not be less by throwing the burden of these appointments on them. Surely it is very much better, without any appeal to them to relieve them of the responsibility of disappointing their relatives. By removing them from the odium which they may incur by refusing to appoint, perhaps, some prominent supporters, we shall make their task much easier.
    If this Amendment were accepted it would make it possible for the Governor not to make these appointments himself, but to delegate the making of them to some entirely impartial person who is not affected by the whims of a popular election. In the case of major appointments he might undertake the responsibility himself. Surely it is reasonable to ask that. We are endeavouring to secure the most efficient form of civil administration among people for whom we have a responsibility, and the least we can do is to remove their appointments from the possible swing to and fro of party politics. At the moment we are condemning them to a system very much like that in the United States, where so many offices are dependent upon a wave of popular passion. It is in our power to avoid that. I think the Secretary of State might give us rather more sympathetic consideration.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 38; Noes, 248.

    Division No. 138.]

    AYES.

    [9.54 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

    Alexander, Sir William

    Blaker, Sir Reginald

    Burnett, John George

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Bracken Brendan

    Courtauld Major John Swell

    Bailey Eric Alfred George

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Craddock Sir Reginald Henry

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Templeton, William P.

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Donner, P. W.

    Nail, Sir Joseph

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Doran, Edward

    Perkins, Walter R.D.

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Black pool)

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Greene, William P. C

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Remer, John R.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Mr. Emmott and Mr. Wise.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd't'n, S.)

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

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

    Fleming, Edward Lascelles

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Albery, Irving James

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

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

    Fremantie, Sir Francis

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

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

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Magnay, Thomas

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Assheton, Ralph

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

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

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Glossop, C. W. H.

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

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Goldie, Noel B.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

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

    Balniel, Lord

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Maxton, James

    Banfield, John William

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Batey, Joseph

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

    Milne, Charles

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Grimston, R. V.

    Milner, Major James

    Blindell, James

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Bossom, A. C.

    Grundy, Thomas W.

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

    Boulton, W.W.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Munro, Patrick

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

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

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Hammersley, Samuel S.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Harbord, Arthur

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Paling, Wilfred

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

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

    Palmer, Francis Noel

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

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastie)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Peake, Osbert

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

    Pearson, William G.

    Burghley, Lord

    Hornby, Frank

    Penny, Sir George

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Petherick, M.

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

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

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

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Hume Sir George Hopwood

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Cassels, James Dale

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

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

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

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

    Rankin, Robert

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

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

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Christie James Archibald

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Reid, William Altan (Derby)

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Rickard, George William

    Clayston, Sir Christopher

    Ross Taylor Walter (Woodbridge)

    Cleary J. J.

    Jesson, Major Thomas E

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel

    Cochrane, Commander Hon A. D.

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Colforx, Major William Philip

    John William

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Jones Morgan (Caerphilliy)

    Salt, Edward W.

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Salt, Edward W.

    Cook Thomas A.

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Crooke, Douglas

    Kirkpatrick, William M

    Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Sandys, Duncan

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

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

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Lawson, John James

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Daggar, George

    Leckie, J. A.

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Shute, Colonel Sir John

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Leonard, William

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

    Davies, Stephen Owen

    Lewis, Oswald

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Denman Hon. R. D.

    Liddall, Walter S.

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

    Dickie, John P.

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Dobble, William

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine. C.)

    Doran, Edward

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Dunglass, Lord

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Soper, Richard

    Eastwood, John Francis

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

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T, E.

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    MacAndrew, Capt. J, O. (Ayr)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Spens, William Patrick

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    316

    317

    Stevenson, James

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    White, Henry Graham

    Stones, James

    Train, John

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Tree, Ronald

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

    Wilmot, John

    Thompson, Sir Luke

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

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Thorne, William James

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Warrender, Sir Victor A.G.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Watt, Major George Steven H.

    Sir Walter Womersley and Major

    George Davies.

    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    10.2 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, in page 12.5, line 36, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that it shall not be necessary to make rules regulating the conditions of service of persons employed temporarily on the terms that their employment may he terminated on one month's notice or less, and nothing in this Sub-section shall be construed as requiring the rules regulating the conditions of service of any class of persons to extend to any matter which appears to the rule-making authority to be a matter not suitable for regulation by rule in the case of that class."
    The Government of India is apprehensive that there might be danger, if there were not some limitation of the rule-making procedure, of having every case of a temporary appointment bound up with a vast mass of regulations. If hon. Members are apprehensive of inserting this proviso, they will be comforted by the special responsibility of the Governor for the different interests of the Services, and if there was any case likely to arise where any interest of any particular member of some subordinate Service appointed for one month was affected by the insertion of these words, I believe that would be covered by the special responsibility to which I have referred.
    10.3 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Member say whether any restrictions are to be imposed as to the extent to which persons can be employed temporarily?
    The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on the Amendment.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: This is a proviso dealing with the services of persons employed temporarily, and in respect of those persons rules will not be made. This is a perfectly sensible proviso, subject to the condition that there is no abuse of it and large numbers of persons are, not going to be regarded as nominally on a monthly basis, but really for life. Every Member of this Committee will be familiar with the difficulties we have ex-
    318
    perienced through the recruitment into our Civil Service of men who served in the War, some of them known as the "P" class and some as the "S" class, and will remember the settlement made by Mr. Walter Guinness, as he then was, now Lord Moyne, with regard to those endless troubles. I am very anxious that there shall not be established in India the same kind of difficulty which we have had of large numbers of people in the public service with no security of employment, no pensions at the end, no conditions laid down, and no rules regarding them. I have no objection to this wording here to cover the conditions of the persons taken on temporarily, but I am perturbed lest under the cover of this wording it may be open for large masses of people to be given in fact permanent jobs. I should like to have some assurance from the Under-Secretary that there will be some precautionary words inserted to prevent the kind of trouble arising in India which has given us so much difficulty in this country.
    10.6 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: The terms of the proviso are permissive, and I think I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance straight away that it is not intended under the cover of these words to allow temporary appointments to be made which will in fact last for life. As regards his request that the matter should be considered, we have already been in touch with the Government of India on this subject, which is one in which they are very interested. I will look into the point he has raised, knowing the experience which he has had in these matters.
    Amendment agreed to.
    10.7 p.m.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I beg to move, in page 126, line 32, to leave out Subsection (4).
    I do so chiefly in order to get an explanation of this Sub-section. It is not very clear to the uninitiated what the

    319
    other provisions of this Act are to which reference is made. Nor am I clear whether persons serving His Majesty in a civil capacity in India include members of the All-India Services recruited by the Secretary of State or whether the Subsection refers to members of the Central and Provincial services.
    10.8 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: The Noble Lady, with her great knowledge of documents in this matter of India, will remember that in paragraph 293 of the Report of the Joint Select Committee it was suggested that local governments should be empowered in the case of the provincial services to regulate, for example, the recruiting conditions of service of personnel locally recruited by them. That is the object of this Sub-section (4). It in fact implements the recommendations in paragraph 293 of the Joint Select Committee's report. To take an example, it will give a province power to regulate the conditions of service of persons serving His Majesty in a civil capacity recruited locally. With regard to her further remarks, I am sure that the Noble Lady will have paid attention to the proviso of Sub-section (4):
    "provided that nothing in any such Act shall have effect so as to deprive any person of any rights required to be given to him by the provisions of the last preceding Sub-section."
    She will also have noticed the further provisions in Sub-section (5), which add a safeguard in respect of the Act so passed under Sub-section (4). In view of the recommendations on this subject of the Joint Select Committee and in view of the power which the Committee would wish to give to a Provincial Legislature in these matters, I think that it would be rather unreasonable to leave out the powers given in this particular Sub-section.
    10.10 p.m.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Are we to understand that Sub-section (4) relates only to members of a provincial service, and is the Sub-section designed to give the improved status and security which I understand the Joint Select Committee wished given to members of these Services?
    Mr. BUTLER: The terms of the Subsection say "the appropriate Legislature in India." In this case, that will apply to the federal service.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: To the central services?
    Mr. BUTLER: The central services under the control of the Federation.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Would the hon. Gentleman answer my second question: whether it is designed to give these services the improved status and security which the Joint Select Committee wish to give them?
    Mr. BUTLER: That is the design of the Bill, to implement what the Joint Select Committee said about the status of the provincial and central services.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: In view of the explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    10.12 p.m.
    Sir A. KNOX: Before we pass this Clause finally, I should like to ask the Under-Secretary if he considers this Clause really satisfies and allays all the fears of the Civil Service in India. In the three Round Table Conferences and the Joint Select Committee the Secretary of State was at great pains to meet the wishes of the politicians of India, but he was very anxious always to avoid giving offence to their feelings. After all, for the Civil Service it is really a matter of their livelihood. This Clause is the most important in the whole Bill as regards their future and the future of their dependants. I would like to ask what steps he has taken to ascertain whether this Clause meets the wishes of the Civil Service in India. We know that the Civil Service will be to a large extent exposed to dangers under this new Constitution. We have heard from very responsible Indian politicians that in their pursuit of economy they will first attack military expenditure and secondly that they would like to attack the pay, Pensions and recruitment of the Civil Service. They would like to get a cheaper Service. I would like to know to what extent the rights of the Civil Service in India are to be safeguarded. They are more responsible than any one in India for building up the conceptions of a country; if that great sub-continent is ever a country, it will be largely the

    321
    work of the Civil Service. Before we hand them over to people whom, in the memorandum which they put before the Joint Select Committee, they did not hesitate to say they looked upon with some apprehension, we should make it quite certain that their livelihood is safeguarded.
    10.14 p.m.
    Mr. DONNER: Before the hon. Gentleman replies, I wonder whether he could answer one other question. The wording of the Clause seems to me slightly obscure. It would seem that the Secretary of State as the Clause stands can empower some new authority, not specified, who can alter the rules to the disadvantage of the Civil Service. As I understand it there is no indication who such an authority is to be. It might perhaps be an Indian minister. I wonder if my hon. Friend can answer, that point; it is the significance of the lines 8 and 9 particularly.
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Donner), lines 8 and 9 on page 126 give power to the Secretary of State to give directions in the respects referred to in the previous lines, and in those previous lines reference is made to an authority, such for example as the Railway Authority. The Clause is particularly designed so that the position of the officers of the Railway Authority, for example-which of course would make, under a succeeding Clause, rules for its own personnel-shall be safeguarded by the fact that the Secretary of State himself will have to give the directions as to who the new authority shall be. The example I have taken is the new Federal Railway Authority. I hope that this explanation will allay the anxiety of my hon. Friend on that score.
    With regard to the points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox), Clause 230 does not, of course, go quite so far as my hon. and gallant Friend supposes. It does not, for instance, take in the whole question of the livelihood and future of the Services in India, because it refers primarily to Services not recruited by the Secretary of State, and that is the reason for the words,
    "Except as expressly provided by this Act,"
    322
    which are the opening words of the Clause. If my hon. and gallant Friend will refer to Clause 233, he will see that that exception is there made good, and that Clause 233 and the following Clauses deal with the Services expressly recruited by the Secretary of State. I am afraid I must further limit the scope of the Clause, because it is not only in this Clause that we find all the various safeguards as to provision for the future happiness and livelihood of the Services not recruited by the Secretary of State. There are some important questions not coming within the scope of this Clause, which refers to the recruitment and conditions of these Services. Within that limited scope I believe the Clause does fulfil what my hon. and gallant Friend would desire. It does include, for example, in the proviso to Sub-section (4) and in Sub-section (5), very important safeguards for the Services not recruited by the Secretary of State.
    My hon. and gallant Friend asked in conclusion how far we have been in touch with the representatives of the Services. I think he may rest assured that, throughout the very long discussions of the last five years, it has been the first wish of my right hon. Friend to keep closely in touch with the Services and to do his best for them, and I believe that, by enacting in this Measure so many of what were formerly only statutory rules, we have done even more for the Services than has been done in the past, in so far as many of these provisions will now be established in the Act. I believe that the Services not recruited by the Secretary of State will appreciate the status which they are given by this Clause, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that it is the first intention of the Government to do their best, by a provision such as this, to make the future of those Services safe.
    10.19 p.m.
    Sir H. CROFT: The Under-Secretary has mentioned that the Secretary of State has done his best to keep in touch with the Services during all this time, but I suppose he would not suggest that the Services have had any real opportunity of expressing their views except through their Service organisation. There is no doubt that a very large number of Civil servants in India have felt rather

    323
    gravely the suggestion, which has been made from time to time in this country, that they were in favour of the general proposals embodied in this Clause. The Civil servants, as they have so repeatedly stated, are not permitted to give their views, and they very much resent the fact that it has been stated in public in this country that they have so expressed their views. I think my hon. Friend will agree that through the various Service organisation representations have been made to the effect that they have the very gravest anxiety with regard, not only to this Clause, but to many other points.
    10.20 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I will only reply quite shortly to my hon. and gallant Friend. I am certain that the Services realise that we are trying to do our best for them, and that we have done our best for them in this particular Bill. I have always tried to avoid dragging the Services into any of our discussions. Their job is to do their job in India, and there is no better body of people to do it. We are all, including my hon. and gallant Friend, equally desirous of doing our best for them, and he may rest assured that during these long discussions there have been frequent interchanges with India and that we have done our best to put in the Bill what is considered to be best for all the interests concerned.

    CLAUSE 231.—(Application of preceding section to railway services, and officials of courts.)
    10.21 p.m.
    Sir R. CRADDOCK: I beg to move, in page 127, line 23, to leave out "the recruitment of officers generally," and to insert:
    "recruitment to such posts and in recruitmeat generally for railway purposes shall have due regard to the past association of the Anglo-Indian community with railway services in India and."
    The Amendment I am moving bears specially on the case of the Anglo-Indian community. I know very well that the Secretary of State has always been anxious to do what he can to preserve the state of security for their livelihood, and, as far as possible, to insure that
    324
    opportunities are given to them and that they are fairly treated. I do not feel at all satisfied that the Anglo-Indian community will receive sufficient protection. They have rendered great services in the past to India. In the customs, the railways, posts and telegraphs, and in many posts in the provincial services, they have fulfilled most useful functions with honesty and ability, but as time goes on they are gradually sinking and the number of appointments open to them are steadily growing fewer and fewer. The reactions on that community are such that, as they get less employment and become more unemployed, the parents have less means with which to educate their children sufficiently well, and as the children are not educated sufficiently well they have failed to secure, on that score, the appointments that used to be available to them. The result is that it goes on in its accumulative effects—less education—less employment, still less education—still less employment.
    Although I am well aware that certain efforts have been made to secure their position as far as possible by laying down percentages on the railways and in some of the other services which should be given to Anglo-Indians, yet at the same time I am not satisfied that those percentages will save them, and for this reason. Eight or nine per cent. of railway employment, scattered as it will be over all the railways in India, will make it very difficult to realise at any given time whether the maintenance of that percentage is being jeopardised or not. There is another point. Those percentages at present include large numbers of the elder servants of the railways and the customs who will, before long, he retiring, and it may be practically impossible to fill up every vacancy due to the retirement of the older men who are in a larger proportion perhaps than the percentages available, and it will be very difficult to keep up records of them and for an one in authority to realise exactly how the matter is going. It may be that after a certain time figures can be compiled, and we shall suddenly awake to the fact that Anglo-Indian employment has been falling short of the percentages laid down.

    325
    Those appointments start from humble positions. It is a far cry from the appointment of a guard or a ticket collector or an apprentice driver to the Viceregal throne. It is impossible for the Governor-General to keep himself in touch with appointments of that kind. It may be said: "The railway authority, which takes the place of the Railway Board, will be able to prescribe rules and so on, in order to maintain the percentages," but the railway authority cannot come down to details of the appointment of guards and humbler appointments. That will have to be left to the traffic authorities operating each part of the system. It will be the local superintendent on the spot who will have the disposition of appointments of that kind.
    Another way in which the proper percentage of Anglo-Indians may be lost is that standards may be prescribed which are really higher than is required for the positions. In certain cases the Anglo-Indian may be less well educated, though he may be a much more responsible person than the other man, and they will turn him down on the ground that he has not the requisite qualifications. One hears of these cases. The representative of the Anglo-Indians was able to quote a good many cases of that kind, in which in one way or another excuses have been made for the non-employment of Anglo Indians. The percentages of 8 or 9 per cent. laid down for these railway appointments are only arrived at after an enormous decline in the appointments of Anglo-Indians under the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. Even under the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms the Governors, in the Instrument of Instructions, were responsible for looking after the interests of the Anglo-Indian community, but I am sorry to say there is no sign of their having done so in this respect. I do not blame them, because the facts never came to their knowledge, and I do not think that in future the facts will come to the knowledge of the authorities. Suppose it does at last come to the knowledge of the railway authorities that there has been a large fall in the appointments which ought to have gone to Anglo-Indians under the percentages laid down. That knowledge may only come after a year or two and in the meantime other people will have been appointed. They cannot turn out all the
    326
    Indians who have been appointed. There would be trouble, perhaps a strike, on the railways, if those people were summarily turned out. No railway manager wants to face a strike in the workshops or on the railways in order to save a few Anglo-Indians. I do not like to lay too much stress upon it but I think that incidents of that kind very likely prove a deterrent to Anglo-Indians getting appointments in the proportion which it was intended they should get.
    Let me stress the fact that the Anglo-Indian is an important person on the railways at the present time. He is a loyal British subject. He is very unwilling to forgo his British nationality; he clings desperately to his British stock and to the Christian religion. He suffers extraordinary disadvantages because of this. For instance, he cannot live in the same way as an ordinary Indian, he does not receive the same consideration. A driver who is an Englishman can rise to 250 rupees a month, an Anglo-Indian driver can only get up to 150 rupees; whilst an Indian is quite well off on 60 rupees a month. His wants are entirely different, his style of living is entirely different, and for that 60 rupees he gets all that he requires in the social scale in which he lives and was perfectly happy. An Anglo-Indian cannot live on so little. Errors sometimes creep into the ideas of hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) on the Second Reading, in a reference to the grants given to the Anglo-Indians, betrayed an extraordinary misunderstanding, which can only be explained by the fact that the hon. Member must have been misinformed by someone.
    It must be remembered that the education of the Indian boy is met by local funds supplemented by provincial funds. The Anglo-Indian boy has only a grant in aid. Schools are kept up by charities, partly by endowments and partly by funds, and the fees are much larger in the case of the Anglo-Indian boy. I do not keep in my head the fees which are paid all over India, but I remember that in my own province the parents of an Indian boy in a primary education school only paid one anna per month. With two months' vacation that is 10 annas, or one shilling a year. In the case of the Anglo-Indian at his Church school, or whatever school it is, his parents pay

    327
    five rupees a month, or 80 times as much as the parents of the Indian boy. So now, when the hon. Member for Westhoughton, or one of his colleagues, thinks at all of this subject, and of the disparity between the Anglo-Indian boy and the Indian boy, perhaps he will learn the facts before expressing opinions.
    There is another point. Whenever there have been serious railway strikes we have had to depend on the help of the Anglo-Indian because he was not so subject to the intimidation of the strike leaders or agents as was the pure Indian. It is necessary, therefore, to keep the Anglo-Indian factor in the management of railways and telegraphs. You will always find in the history of every strike and every trouble that you have had to depend on the Anglo-Indian. It will be noticed that any Anglo-Indian entering the railway service has to join compulsorily the auxiliary force. Here again he fulfils a most useful function. It is no good ignoring all these facts and saying, "Oh well, the Anglo-Indian has to look after himself now." You have to realise what the facts are and to deal with them. I heard an Indian member of the Secretary of State's Council not long ago make a speech, I think it was in the Caxton Hall, in which he said, "Of course we are willing to give grants for the aid of Anglo-Indian children, but they must be on the same scale as the grants for the Indian boys, and if they want anything more they must pay for it themselves." That is specious enough but it is not justice at all. It must be remembered that the fees paid form a large part of the cost of education, and it is not the case that the Anglo-Indian children are educated at the cost of the State.
    At all points of administration in these departments the facts must be borne in mind. Take defence. Railway communications are all connected with defence, and even Customs are. The smuggling of arms is becoming very common, and it is highly important that we should have Anglo-Indians in the Customs, if only for that reason. Telegraphs and so forth are all connected with communications. It is no good trying to ignore the part that the Anglo-Indians play. It is no good saying merely, according to some rules laid down in 1933, that appointments should be kept for them. It is necessary
    328
    to see that practical effect is given to that rule in the case of appointments knowledge of which can scarcely come to the Viceroy or the Governor. So far as the railways are concerned, the Governor has no responsibility whatever, because the railways do not come under him. Employment on the railways is under the Federal Railway authority. In view of all the circumstances I think it would be a very valuable record and one to which Anglo-Indians would look, if we put into this particular Clause a special reference of the kind proposed in my Amendment.
    I have the greatest sympathy with the Anglo-Indian community and I fear for what may happen to them under the new conditions. Sir Henry Gidney has said that about the time of the war there were only 1,000 Anglo-Indian men unemployed, and that now there are 20,000 unemployed out of a total adult male population of some 60,000. I do not know whether those figures are an overstatement of the case or not, but I have heard the same thing from other sources and I know that there are many cases in which a woman or a girl in a family has been able to get employment as a nurse or in some other capacity while her brothers are unable to find any employment at all, and in those cases the woman or girl has, more or less, to support the whole family. Knowing as I do, the circumstances of many of these people and how they have undoubtedly lost a great number of the employments which were formerly open to them, and lost them almost irretrievably, I fear for what the results may be in the future. I fear particularly for their position in regard to education because without education they cannot qualify for these appointments. I fear also that if this protection is not given to them in every way possible the Anglo-Indians before long will become the flotsam and jetsam of the big cities and finally disappear as the remnants of a depressed class.
    10.43 p.m.
    Lord E. PERCY: I need not tell my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) that he and I think entirely alike on this subject. I have been very anxious to see that the Anglo-Indian community is properly safeguarded. Of course we are not concerned here and now with the question of education because what we are now discussing is solely the question

    329
    of railway appointments, and after listening to my hon. Friend's speech my original impression of his Amendment remains, namely that it is a most dangerous way of trying to give additional protection to the Anglo-Indian community. I thought we had all agreed that that protection must be primarily the protection which is in the hands of the Governor-General in his discretion. There is a great deal to be said for mentioning the Anglo-Indian community specifically in the Clause, but I ask the Committee to observe what the Amendment would do.
    Instead of leaving the Clause as it is to provide that the Federal Railway Authority is bound to follow the instructions given to it by the Governor-General as to allotting a fair proportion of appointments to every community, including of course the Anglo-Indian community the Amendment proposes to give the Federal Railway Authority a separate responsibility from the responsibility of the Governor-General. It is the Federal Railway Authority which is to have due regard to the past associations of Anglo-Indians with the railways, and it is the Governor-General who is to give instructions to the railway authorities. Surely the railway authorities would then say, "I have my responsibility, which is to pay what I think is due regard to the interests of the Anglo-Indian community, and I have also a responsibility to carry out instructions from the Governor-General. If these two responsibilities in my judgment conflict, I shall not obey the instructions given by the Governor-General." It is very dangerous to introduce that kind of division of responsibility into this matter instead of leaving it entirely in the Governor-General's hands and making it quite clear that the Federal Railway Authority must carry out any instruction which is given by the Governor-General. By all means put the duty, if you wish, on the Governor-General to have due regard to the associations of the Anglo-Indian community, but do not throw that responsibility on the Railway Authority.
    Sir B. PETO: If this Amendment were accepted, the Federal Railway Authority, in representing to the Governor-General what percentage of Anglo-Indians should be employed, would have due regard to the circumstances stated in the Amendment, and therefore they would recommend to the Governor-General to have regard to the
    330
    appointment of Anglo-Indians, and the Governor-General would still have his own authority.
    Lord E. PERCY: I do not think that that is how it would work. I do not think that the appointments generally in this case are made by the Governor-General, but by the Railway Authority. The Governor-General has to give instructions to the Railway Authority as to whom they are to appoint. In any case, my answer to my hon. Friend is that I dislike a division of responsibility, and I especially dislike a division of responsibility placed in the statute. My hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities says that the Governor-General does not know these people, but he also says that the Railway Authority does not know them. I think that the safer way is to leave it in the hands of the Governor-General, but, I should be glad to co-operate with my hon. Friend in putting a special protection of the Anglo-Indian community into this Clause in another connection without disturbing the sole responsibility of the Governor-General.
    10.48 p.m.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I am glad to hear that my right hon. Friend will be ready to co-operate in framing some Amendment which would recognise the special claim of this community for employment on the railway, although I do not think that all of us are convinced by what he says. The Clause as it stands only requires the Governor-General co have regard to every community, without bearing in mind any special services that any community may have rendered to the railways in the past. That seems to me very material, and it is well worth while raising this point on the Amendment in the hope that we may get some other form of words which may perhaps commend itself to my right hon. Friend. The Governor-General has to bear in mind the claims of all communities to have fair representation, presumably more or less according to their numbers without any regard to past services.
    It is very necessary that we should recognize the valuable services which the Anglo-Indian community has rendered in the past, for it is not too much to say that they have been the backbone of the three security services of the railways, telegraphs and customs because they

    331
    could be relied upon to be loyal to British rule. They have laid us under a great debt to them in the past, a debt which has been recognised by everybody who has considered this question in the last few years. This was recognised in the Montagu-Chelmsford Report, the Report of the Statutory Commission, and the proceedings of the first Round Table Conference. In all these documents emphasis was laid on the obligation of the Government to safeguard their position because of the peril in which they stood. In a memorandum submitted to the Joint Select Committee, it was stated that of 1,000 employés in the North Western Railway, only half per cent. of the total were Anglo-Indians. It was pointed out that this was an extreme danger in a railway of that strategic importance. A disloyal telegraphist could disorganise the traffic in a few hours and bring about a position similar to that in 1919 in the Punjab.
    A much more comprehensive Amendment than this was brought before the Joint Committee by Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, seeking to secure for the community due weightage in all services, not merely in the railway service. Unless some Amendment of that kind were put into the Constitution to safeguard their position, it was stated that the fate of the community was doomed and India's gain would be their destruction. The Prince of Wales when receiving Anglo-Indian delegates in 1922 said, "You may be confident that Great Britain and the Empire has not forgotten the devoted services of your community to the King Emperor, and that you gave so great an example of your devotion in the Great War." I would suggest that those words gave a pledge to that community which we in Parliament are bound to make good.
    10.53 p.m.
    Sir H. CROFT: I think the Committee will permit me to say that, although we have listened perhaps to four or five speeches from the Noble Lady, we have done so with the greatest admiration, for the wealth of knowledge she has displayed has almost converted me to the suffragette movement. I feel that this question we are discussing now is possibly one of those which every Member of this House ought to regard as perhaps his greatest responsibility in considering
    332
    the reforms for the Indian Empire. The Anglo-Indian as he is now termed, a generally accepted term, is perhaps one of the most unfortunate of any peoples in the world; not being a member of any special race, the consequence is that almost invariably he falls between two stools. That is why in this Amendment we are asking Members, whatever their views may be upon this question, to give their special consideration to these people.
    May I remind the Committee that at one time Englishmen who had retired from the service, or who were actually in the service in the days of the East India Company, were urged to marry Indian women. The consequence was that this vast population has grown up feeling that they are absolutely dependent for their whole future on the British raj. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that. I would like to quote the words of the Montagu-Chelsford report, because it sizes up this matter very adequately, and bears out the claims for the Anglo Indians which we are trying to press on the House. Paragraph 346 reads
    "Some reference is needed also to the case of the large Anglo-Indian or Eurasian community which on historic grounds has a strong claim on the consideration of the British Government. It is not easy for them, occupying as they do an intermediate position between the races of the East and West, to win for themselves by their own unaided enterprise a secure position in the economy of India. They have been hitherto to a great extent political and economic dependents of the Government, and they would not be strong enough to withstand the effect of changes which omitted to take account of their peculiar situation. We think the Government must acknowledge and must be given effective power to discharge the obligations to see that their interests are not prejudicially affected."
    I regret to say that from that day to this the position of Anglo-Indians has gone steadily from bad to worse, and the reason why it is so vital that we should give full consideration to the subject of their employment and why we want to press on the Government to put in words such as are proposed, is that their lot at the present time has really become deplorable—that is not too strong a word to use. I receive every week letters from Anglo-Indians who are trying to strike out for themselves in agricultural cultivation because of the loss of employment upon the railways, and they are making every effort as communities to get

    333
    together and establish new colonies with a view to finding a new outlet for their energies. But it is in the Statutory Commission's Report that we have the very strongest argument for giving special consideration to their case, and I would like to read one or two brief paragraphs from it. They say on page 42:
    "The events of the 12 years which have elapsed since the passage of the Montagu-Chelmsford Report was have not diminished the concern of this community for its future, and we warmly sympathise with its anxieties. Anglo-Indians are found in every part of India, but almost entirely amongst urban populations, and very largely in railway and administrative centres."
    The report says further;
    "For a long time the usefulness of Anglo-Indians in staffing administrative posts was widely recognised. The community has played an honourable part in developing the country and in supporting the forces of order. These avenues of employment are the more important since Anglo-Indians are not cultivators and have riot held any positions in the world of commerce. It is, generally speaking, a poor community and now finds itself, largely as a result of reforms and the progress of Indianisation, exposed to the danger of falilng between two stools."
    Coming from such authorities, those words must impress upon us the real need for the people of this country to see that very special consideration is given to this very large community, these hopeless, powerless children in
    334
    India. Now I come to the work they have done. It is common knowledge that on the railways and in the post and telegraph services of India these people have been established from very early days in positions of responsibility. Why 1 Because in almost every case they can speak English as well as the vernacular in the locality and the consequence is they have been specially adaptable for all these great services, and—
    It being Eleven of the Clock,The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  VAGRANCY BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  MERCANTILE MARINE (CENSUS OF SEAMEN).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (CENSUS OF SEAMEN).
  MR. BAILLIE-STEWART.
  MR. BAILLIE-STEWART.
  BRITISH UNION OF FASCISTS.
  BRITISH UNION OF FASCISTS.
  EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS (RETURN).
  EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS (RETURN).
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL SCHOOL (PROPHYLACTICS).
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL SCHOOL (PROPHYLACTICS).

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Viscount Buckmaster—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD STANMORE): My Lords, by Standing Order 105 a Private Bill has to be read a second time within seven days of the First Reading. This provision sometimes conflicts with another Standing Order, Standing Order 103, which lays down that the Attorney-General must approve of a Bill in certain cases. In this case the Attorney-General has approved of this Bill, but the interval of seven days has been exceeded because of some delay. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will agree to dispense with the Standing Order. I beg to move that Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order that it may be dispensed with in respect of this Bill.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed kith in respect of the said Bill.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Standing Order No. 105 suspended accordingly.
LORD ROCKLEY: My Lords, as the member for many years for the Aston division of Birmingham, I have been requested to move the Second Reading of this Bill. The Birmingham Corporation, after giving the subject very careful consideration, have come to the conclusion that an adequate air port for the City is essential. For that purpose they are acquiring an area of 500 acres, a considerable portion of which is actually in the City, although at a distance of approximately six miles from the centre, and the cost of the land and the equipment of the air port will involve an expenditure of £250,000. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Rockley.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed: The Committe to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, I beg to move that it be an instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred to amend the Bill by leaving out paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of Clause 103. In effect, that means that, although the Corporation of Birmingham under this Bill would have power to purchase and lay out an aerodome, they would not have power to run an air service from that aerodrome. I understand, privately, that the noble Lord, Lord Rockley, on behalf of the Birmingham Corporation, will accept this instruction, and therefore I will not detain your Lordships any further.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred to amend the Bill by leaving out paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of Clause 103.—(Lord Mount Temple.)
LORD ROCKLEY: My Lords, in answer to Lord Mount Temple, I may say that the Corporation have already stated—about a month ago—that they proposed to withdraw this clause, and they intend to adhere to that decision.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, as a business man whose interests this paragraph is framed to look after, perhaps I might be allowed to say one word in regard to this measure, and to explain what I understand was in the minds of the Birmingham Corporation when this paragraph was framed. They propose to spend a great deal of money on this aerodrome, and they naturally wish to ensure that in the future there shall be an adequate air service, if and when necessary in the interests of Birmingham and the Midland districts generally. At present, I believe, there is no service whatsoever linking up the capital with the most important provincial City in England, or linking up that City with other parts of the Empire. I do not say that is either necessary or economic at the present moment, but still that is a condition which obtains and which I believe does not obtain in any other important nation in the world.
Personally I travel backwards and forwards between Birmingham and London

463
as much as anyone, and I would not use an air service myself—a train is good enough for me—but the day will probably come when aeroplanes will be quickened up and safer and when access to aerodromes will be easier, and it may be important that Birmingham should have an efficient service between London and other parts of the Empire. There is at present nothing to ensure that we shall get such an efficient service, and such an economic service. This paragraph, I understand, was framed to act as a sort of lever that such a service shall be obtained and, if private enterprise is not forthcoming, to provide that the Birmingham Corporation—and after all Birmingham is the best governed City in England—shall be empowered to maintain and provide that service. I think it is a very reasonable request, and I rather hoped that we might have a word from the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for Air, giving us an assurance that if the time does arise when it is necessary in the interests of Midland commerce that such an air service should be instituted, particularly in view of the fact that the Birmingham Corporation propose to spend such a large sum of money, the Government will ensure that we shall get it.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I had not proposed to intervene in this debate, but the noble Earl who has just sat down invited me to say something, to give the attitude of the Air Ministry in connection with this matter. Lord Mount Temple has drawn attention to paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of Clause 103, by which the Birmingham Corporation were seeking powers, in connection with their proposed aerodrome undertaking, to
"provide own work and use (but not manufacture) aircraft and by means thereof convey passengers and passengers' luggage parcels and merchandise to and from the aerodrome and demand and take in respect of traffic conveyed services rendered and facilities afforded in connection with such aircraft such reasonable fares rates and charges as they may think fit and as may be approved by the Secretary of State for Air."
My right honourable friend the Minister of Health and I myself, in my capacity as Secretary of State for Air, objected to this provision, which would enable the Corporation of Birmingham to
464
establish air services to and from the Continent, or within this country, and thus to compete with air transport undertakings which have not the rates of a great city to back them. Both my right honourable friend and I consider that commercial air transport services are something entirely different from road or tramway services, which are essentially local in character, and that air transport, services are not a suitable subject for municipal provision and management.
I can assure your Lordships that the establishment of an air port by Birmingham is most warmly welcomed both by the Minister of Health and by myself. I am sincerely hoping that their splendid example will be followed by the great municipalities all over the country, and that in a very short time we shall find that aerodrome accommodation will spring up in many places, and that will probably encourage our air lines more than anything else. While we fully recognise that the Corporation would be prepared to agree to the Secretary of State's being given express power to allow or veto an air service, this does not meet the objection, and I am sure your Lordships will agree when I say that we do not consider it suitable or desirable to put upon the Secretary of State the onus of vetoing a service when Parliament, as it would do, has given approval in principle. I can assure your Lordships that the attitude of the Government on this question has only been arrived at after the fullest consideration of all the arguments so ably put forward by a deputation, headed by the Lord Mayor of Birmingham himself, which had been received at the Ministry of Health by officials of the two departments. I should add, for the information of your Lordships, that the Government have heard with satisfaction the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Rockley, on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, that in accordance with the views expressed by the Government the provision to which my noble friend has taken exception will be withdrawn on the Committee stage.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: Can the noble Marquess give the Birmingham business men an assurance that the Government will support and encourage private enterprise in providing a proper air service at economic rates—not at exhorbitant rates—between Birmingham and London and

465
other parts of the world, should necessity arise?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Earl is inviting me to open up a very wide subject on which I should be only too glad to dilate to your Lordships, because the development of air services all over the country is one of the chief objects we have in view. At a recent date there were seventeen air lines in this country, and I sincerely hope that the number will be greatly increased. I should like to repeat what I have already said, that I hope the example which Birmingham has given by the provision of aerodrome facilities will encourage the development of these services, to which we are all looking forward with so much interest.
On Question, Motion agreed to and ordered accordingly.

VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS (PAYING PATIENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD LUKE: My Lords, attached to this Bill you will find a Memorandum which contains a brief statement of the reasons for and the conditions of the Bill. This Bill will enable additional hospitals to provide private accommodation or pay beds in wards of one or more beds and thus enable the neighbourhoods they cater for to have the advantages enjoyed by many other parts of the country. There are already 4,600 pay beds as compared with 73,000 ordinary beds in the voluntary hospitals of the whole country, showing that the principle is well established. These pay beds have not been provided at the expense of a reduction in the ordinary beds; they have, in fact, been accompanied by an increase in ordinary hospital beds. The patients requiring these pay beds are those whom the hospital almoner would not usually accept for the ordinary wards but who cannot afford the cost of private treatment in their homes, and urgently require treatment in a hospital, with all its specialised equipment and staff. These patients sometimes have to be admitted to ordinary wards because the treatment cannot be given outside a large hospital. Thus the provision of pay beds should release ordinary beds occasionally used in this manner.
466
The patients I refer to are not the very poor but are comparatively poor, when faced with the great cost of serious illness or an operation. They are those who are without the benefits of national insurance, and who have sometimes been called "the black-coated poor," and they are certainly very deserving of our sympathy. King Edward's Hospital Fund records show that the proportion of pay beds to ordinary beds in London hospitals is 1,871 to 13,800. For these 1,871 beds, charges of from £2 2s. to £7 7s. a week are made in the case of 1,680, and higher charges in the case of 191 beds. These pay beds have provided advantages not only for the patients who could not afford to obtain facilities elsewhere, but also for the hospitals. The hospitals have profited financially by the surpluses realised, by the fuller use of their expensive equipment, and by the friends they have made among the new classes whom they have served. This has facilitated the maintenance and extension of their ordinary beds. Because of the advantages to both the hospital and the patients, the provision of pay beds has in recent years become recognised as a customary part of the function of a voluntary hospital.
There seems to be no reason why these advantages should be enjoyed only by hospitals whose trusts were settled after this became recognised, and should be denied to hospitals whose trusts were settled at earlier dates, and therefore denied also to the neighbourhoods served by those hospitals. This Bill is designed to provide a simple method of removing these inequalities. The immediate raison d'être for the Bill is that some hospitals in order to provide pay beds have recently had to obtain Private Acts at considerable expense, and other hospitals which wish to provide pay beds are in the same difficulty. The cost of such a Private Bill is at least £500, and it is a pity that hospitals should have to spend their scanty funds in such a manner. If numerous Acts are obtained privately by hospitals it is sure to lead to a lack of uniformity. This Bill provides a uniform method of removing these anomalies whilst the interests of the sick poor are safeguarded by reserving control to the Charity Commissioners, who are the recognised custodians of such interests. This is not the private Bill of an individual hospital enthusiast; it

467
embodies the considered view of King Edward's Hospital Fund and the British Hospitals Association. Those leaders in the hospital world have approved every clause in the Bill. I should, however, mention that the following Amendments in detail will be submitted in Committee: To leave out the words after "made" in Clause 3, line 22, and in Clause 5, page 2, line 43, after "to," to insert "Scotland or to." As there are several noble Lords who will speak, I have only briefly covered the ground, and now beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Luke.)
LORD SANDERSON: My Lords, the noble Lord has done so much good work for the voluntary hospitals for many years that I am sure your Lordships will treat with the greatest respect and consideration any suggestion he has to make with regard to the improvement of the voluntary hospitals. We on these Benches recognise that there is not adequate provision for health treatment for the comparatively poor people and even, I would say, for comparatively well-to-do people. There are many sorts of treatment which it is impossible for them to have in their own homes, and many nursing homes are very bad and most of them very expensive. I suppose also that it is becoming increasingly the case that various kinds of treatment are required which cannot possibly be provided in peoples' houses or even in the best equipped nursing homes, the treatment being too costly to introduce and too elaborate. Therefore it is only in hospitals where people of all classes can have certain necessary treatments for illness.
While we recognise that, we have certain rather serious misgivings about the Bill. While we recognise the necessity for better treatment for the comparatively poor people, we are very anxious that the Bill should not be the means of cutting down services for the people who cannot afford to pay. Nearly all the hospitals at the present time have very long waiting lists. I believe that the Royal Infirmary at Edinburgh, which is a hospital which will be affected by this Bill, has an average waiting list of about 3,000. That means, of course, that there are people waiting to get into hospital
468
and who, when they do get in, may have become so ill that the treatment is not effective. A great deal of suffering is, I believe, caused in that way. Then again there are cases—I am afraid fairly frequent—in which patients have to be sent away from hospital before they have fully recovered or, to put it in another way, who certainly would benefit by a longer stay in hospital, which they cannot have because of the pressure for admission by people on the waiting list. We do not want these waiting lists to become longer. We do not want to run the risk of people's time in hospital being cut short so that they are not able to have full treatment. In fact, we do not want the provision of paying beds to be the means of cutting down services for poor people.
I know that Clause 4 (1) lays down that no order shall be made by the Charity Commissioners unless they are satisfied that accommodation for people who cannot afford to pay will not be diminished or restricted. That is all right but there is a qualification immediately afterwards "having regard to the monies at the disposal of the committee of management and the demand for accommodation" by persons who cannot afford to pay charges. That seems to me to be a loophole. It seems to me possible, as that clause stands, for a hospital to reduce its number of nonpaying beds and increase the number of its paying beds. I do not say that would happen, but it might happen. Supposing the income of a hospital was greatly reduced, then according to this clause it seems to me possible to reduce the number of non-paying people admitted and increase the number of paying beds. Supposing you had a hospital of 100 beds, for example, and the income fell off by 25 per cent., would it not be possible for the management committee to say: "We can only take in seventy-five nonpaying people and we can use the other twenty-five beds and make them into paying beds"? It seems to me that might be possible, but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Luke, will be able to reassure us on that point when he replies.
My noble friends and I are very much dissatisfied with the hospital system or lack of system. We want to see all the hospitals taken over by the municipalities, to see them publicly controlled and

469
kept open for free treatment for everybody who needs it, and to have them supported by the rates. That, I think, is, if I may say so, a better solution of the problem which this Bill introduced by the noble Lord raises. Of course voluntary hospitals have done good work in the past and are doing good work now, but the methods by which they are financed, or largely financed, are, think, most unsatisfactory; they are chaotic and entirely haphazard. It is not right that a great health service like the hospitals should be so largely supported by costly banquets, balls, bazaars, fêtes, and flag days, and very inadequately supported at that. Again, the present system of supporting the hospitals means they are very largely supported by a comparatively few rich people. Large numbers of people who could well afford to contribute to voluntary hospitals; get off scot-free. If these hospitals were put under public control they would then be supported on the principle of ability to pay, which would be far more satisfactory.
It used to be said, I believe, that voluntary hospitals were necessary in order to provide an outlet for the charitable instincts of the well-to-do and the rich, but I do not know that anyone would hold that view now. If they do I would merely say that if all the hospitals were municipalised there would still be ample opportunity left for charity in the true sense of the word. We shall continue to press for the municipalisation of the hospitals, but in the meantime we realise that adequate provision must be made for people who cannot afford to pay, and we criticise this Bill merely on the ground that it seems to us there is a loophole which might lead to the reduction of nonpaying beds, a reduction of the services to the poor, and the substitution of paying beds. That we should very much regret. We think the Bill requires amending so as to safeguard that position and make the position of non-paying patients, of the poor people, absolutely secure. I hope very much that the noble Lord will be able, if the Bill receives a Second Reading, to accept an Amendment on the Committee stage with that object in view.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I will only detain you for a moment or two upon this Bill, which I desire to support. Nevertheless I think
470
it is necessary that we should pay considerable attention to the point raised by the noble Lord who has just spoken. My anxiety in reading this Bill is not with respect to its main purpose, which is to afford greater facilities for paying patients in the voluntary hospitals. The object of the Bill is to enable this to be done by hospitals which hitherto have not been able to do it because of their trusts. I imagine that your Lordships will have no doubt that the noble Lord in introducing this measure is really anxious, for the benefit of the public, to make it possible for those who are not able to indulge in the expense, of a nursing home and do not wish to go into a hospital in the ordinary way but are prepared to pay a moderate fee for what would be good accommodation and no doubt good nursing and. surgical and medical attendance, to do that. There is, however, a part of the Bill which gives me some anxiety and in regard to which I will address a few words to your Lordships.
We must take great care in the Bill that in giving these powers to the voluntary hospitals the effect will not be to decrease the advantages that are given to the poor people for whom these hospitals exist. Some figures were quoted by the noble Lord who has just spoken, and I agree with all he said on this subject. I think he quoted the case of one hospital where there was a waiting list of some 3,000 patients. There are other hospitals, to which attention could be drawn, in a similar position. I think any of your Lordships who have had an opportunity of looking into hospital affairs will realise that over and over again cases occur in which an outpatient is recommended for treatment at once, surgically, as an in-patient and there is no accommodation for that patient as an in-patient, so that consequently the patient has to wait and suffer. We must take care in this Bill that ample power is given to the Charity Commissioners. Clause 4, to which attention has already been directed, does purport to give the controlling power to the Charity Commissioners. I have no desire to take up your Lordships' time in discussing this matter at this moment. Obviously, it will be considered again in Committee.
As I wish to support the Second Reading, I make now only this one observation

471
with regard to the Bill, that when we are considering it in Committee, and when the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has to deal with it, I hope every attention will be given so as to make the powers in Clause 4 as wide as they can be made. I doubt very much whether the words as they actually appear in the Bill are sufficient. There are some possible dangers, and we do want to make certain, notwithstanding that we in this House are in favour of allowing the voluntary hospitals to have these paying beds for patients, that poor people shall not suffer by decreased or worse attention that is at present given to them. I leave that matter at this stage, simply asking that the noble Lord will consult those who may be advising and acting with him, and take steps as far as possible to strengthen this clause so that it is made clear that, it goes sufficiently far to cleat with the matter have indicated.
With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord at the end of his speech, I do not propose to say anything now, because it does not seem to me that it is germane to this Bill. I do not complain of his having raised it, but it is a matter which has been discussed before, and, for myself, I think that so long as we can we should maintain the voluntary system, for it does afford to persons who really-wish to help poorer people the opportunity of supplying funds to the hospitals and in that way of providing all this accommodation. On the whole, it seems to me preferable to have a voluntary system of hospitals rather than a state or local authority system. I wish to support the Second Reading of the Bill.
LORD GREVILLE: My Lords, as treasurer of one of the voluntary hospitals, I should like to say a few words in favour of this Bill. Any hospital which up to the present date has not had the power to take in paying patients has had to apply for a Private Bill. This is a very expensive and a very lengthy proceeding, and if this Bill goes through it would put all hospitals on an equal footing. Anyone, I think, who has had anything to do with voluntary hospitals during the past twenty years will have noticed that we get a very different class of patient attending, or endeavouring to enter, voluntary hospitals—a patient who, perhaps, is accustomed to a certain amount of
472
privacy and quiet, and who is unable to pay the fees of a nursing home, yet who could probably afford his doctor's fees and some small fee towards maintenance. This is a class of person in respect of whom applications to enter voluntary hospitals are being increasingly made every day. It is a class that probably may be taking beds away from those who cannot afford to pay at all. If this Bill goes through it will remove those people entirely from the general ward of a hospital. These extra paying rooms or beds will be supplementary to the ordinary beds in the hospital and will in no way interfere with those who cannot afford to pay, because the patients who go into these paying beds generally are treated by their own doctors and arrange their own fees and merely pay something towards their maintenance.
There is another class of patient that is continually, I am sorry to say, being brought to, our hospitals, a class of patient which even includes members of your Lordships' House. These are the patients that either are taken with sudden illness or meet with some accident in the street. In the hospital which I have the honour to serve there is no accommodation for any accident case except in the general ward, and we have cases of people in all walks of life brought in there. Many of them are perfectly well able to pay full fees to the doctors and full maintenance, and they are in the class of patients who will use these paying beds. I think that in the future there will be a very much larger demand on all hospitals from people who can pay something, and I should like to emphasise very strongly that these paying beds would be extra to the ordinary beds of a hospital.
As regards waiting lists, those are found in every hospital, but the way to overcome that difficulty, as a rule, is to get the patients out to a convalescent home as quickly as you can and fill your beds with fresh patients. As to the question of State hospitals, I do not propose to deal with that to-day, but as one who has been connected for a very considerable time with voluntary hospitals I should be very sorry to see the voluntary hospitals disappear from this country. I hope your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill, which is long overdue and much needed.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY:My Lords, as another member of your Lord

473
ships' House who has had the privilege for very many years of being closely associated with hospital life and work, I should like to support my noble friend behind me (Lord Greville) who has commended this Bill to your kind sympathy. I do not think that there need be any real alarm on the part of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, or on the part of the noble Lord who spoke from the Front Bench opposite (Lord Sanderson) that those who are unable to receive treatment other than through the voluntary system will be excluded by the passing of this Bill. If this Bill is passed, it will merely enable something to be done which has been done already in a great many hospitals, and for which there is, day by day, an increasing demand and need. I was very glad to hear my noble friend behind me refer to the importance of the voluntary system. I am convinced that if the voluntary system ever went, and if a national system was substituted for it, it would be one of the greatest blows which the nation could possibly receive. It is impossible to over-estimate the value of the magnificent work which the voluntary hospitals have done, and are doing, with increased effort at the present time. If it ever came about that an official system was substituted for the voluntary system based on skill, sympathy, care and love, the nation would soon realise the difference.
One thing I would like to say is that, as I think we all know, there is an increasing horror—I say it with all respect—of nursing homes. There are, of course, many good nursing homes, I do not doubt that for a moment, but a large number of people have told me that, if they ever had to receive treatment again, they would prefer to go into the paying ward of a hospital. In a hospital with which I am closely associated, there has recently been a big extension, and that extension was made, not only to provide more free treatment, but to provide paying wards in order to meet the increasing need. Naturally, those who go into, the paying wards of a hospital do not expect all the luxuries to be found in the best nursing homes. I support this proposal, not only because paying wards meet a need, but also because I feel sure that they will be a source of definite income to the hospitals.
There is one danger, however, in modern hospital life, and it is an
474
increasing danger. I will tell your Lordships what that danger is. I have come across it, I am sorry to say, more than once. That danger is that there is a tendency for people to get into a hospital and make every attempt to disguise their means. I heard of a case recently—I will not mention the name of the hospital—in which a very expensive treatment was being given. To that hospital there came a patient whose wife said that his means were very small, and he was taken into the ward. It was subsequently discovered that he was a rich man. In these days when every-body wants everything for nothing—and they do not blush when they ask for it—I venture to say that this is a real danger which we have to meet. I hope that whatever Amendment the noble Lord opposite may think fit to move later, the Bill will be given a Second Reading.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, as chairman of one of the large voluntary hospitals in London I should like to add a few words in support of the Bill. There is, however, one point on which I should like to have an assurance from the noble Lord in charge of it. I should like to be assured that the Bill will not in any way interfere with the power to charge varying fees now possessed by the committees of management of some hospitals. I have heard it said—I hope groundlessly—that under Clauses 2 and 3 it is the intention of the Charity Commissioners to say that the limit of charge shall be seven guineas. That would be a hardship, as I think I can show to your Lordships, on patients who now occupy beds at a lower charge. In the hospital with which I am connected we are able to charge fairly high fees for single bedrooms—as high as ten guineas—because people can get there better treatment than anywhere else. If we have to limit our charges to seven guineas, it would mean that we should have to raise the charges to patients who now pay less, because the fee of ten guineas covers, to a large extent, the cost of the beds below seven guineas. It would tend to increase those charges of four, five and six guineas, which we now make, and that would create a hardship. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give an assurance that that is not the intention.

475
I should like to endorse everything that has been said by the two previous speakers about the voluntary system. I think it would be a tragedy for this country if ever it were abolished. The sick would, undoubtedly, not get the same treatment which they receive at the present time. With regard to what the noble Lord opposite said concerning banquets and balls and so on, I think he perhaps did not realise that the revenue derived from these sources is a very small part of a hospital's revenue. Such things are very irksome, but we live in days of publicity, and these things bring publicity to hospitals which increases their revenue. If the noble Lord had been more conversant with the situation, I do not think he would have made the remarks he did make. I hope your Lordships will realise that the higher paid beds cover charges which are of benefit to the poorer patients, and that the noble Lord will be able to assure me that this Bill will do nothing to prevent the charging of a fee which, in the view of the committee of management, the patient in question can pay.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the introduction of this Bill has obviously aroused interest in all quarters of the House, and I was glad to hear from every speaker an expression of approval of the principles of the Bill and support of the Second Reading. I cannot claim to speak with the same authority as my noble friend Lord Luke, who brings this Bill forward with the support of King Edward's Hospital Fund, and I cannot claim the same intimate knowledge of the work of hospitals as my noble friends Lord Greville, Lord Malmesbury and Lord Dudley. At the same time, I think it would be useful for your Lordships that something should be said as to the Government point of view upon this measure. I have been at some pains to discuss the Bill with the Ministry of Health, and also with my right honourable friend the Attorney-General, and I have been able to ascertain the attitude which they think ought to be adopted towards the measure now before your Lordships' House.
As my noble friend Lord Luke said, there are a number of cases in which already by Private Bill legislation power
476
has been conferred on individual hospitals to have pay beds, and I think—and I rather gather that your Lordships all agree—that a case is made out from the facts which he states as to the desirability of having some beds available for those who are able and willing to make some payment towards the necessary expense of their receiving adequate medical and surgical treatment, and who at the same time are unable to pay the sort of fees which are necessarily involved in their going to any nursing home. It is not an answer to say that those people might be treated in their own houses because, after all, in many cases very expensive and intricate apparatus is required which would not be available unless they went to some hospital or nursing home.
I think, therefore, that the case for paying beds is a case which is made out, and if that case is made out, then I think it follows that the Bill ought to have a Second Reading. At the same time, the Government have already felt the necessity for considering the point which was made by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Sanderson, and the view which we reached was that it was right to provide pay-bed accommodation but that safeguards should be inserted to ensure two things: first of all, that the property and funds of the hospital settled upon trusts for the benefit of the sick poor were protected; that is to say, were prevented from being diverted to any other purpose; and secondly, that the accommodation which would otherwise be available in the hospital for the sick poor would not be restricted; that is to say, that by the introduction of pay beds there should be no risk of preventing poor people from having that amount of accommodation which would otherwise be available for them.
Your Lordships will probably have noticed that under Clause 2 of the Bill it is possible to provide these pay beds by two different methods: first of all, by the erection of new accommodation on land which already belongs to the hospital or which is acquired by the hospital; and secondly, by the use of existing accommodation for providing for the paying patients. It perhaps tends to clarity if those two matters are dealt with separately. So far as new accommodation for the use of paying patients is concerned, it seems to the Government that

477
there would be no objection to such accommodation being erected upon the land owned by the hospital, provided that such land is not required for the general purposes of the hospital and provided that it is made quite clear that the cost of erection must be borne by funds subscribed for the specific purpose of paying-patient accommodation, and that no part of the funds of the hospital subject to charitable trusts for the sick poor may be diverted to that purpose.
With regard, on the other hand, to the existing accommodation of the hospital, there would appear to be no objection to its user for paying patients in so far, and only in so far, as it cannot be used for the sick poor, either because of the lack of demand by the sick poor for such accommodation, or because of the lack of funds to maintain such accommodation and to keep it open for the sick poor. That is to say, that existing accommodation ought only to be used for paying patients so long as there is in regard to it what would be regarded in legal parlance as a failure of the purposes of the existing charitable trusts. Your Lordships will appreciate that under the existing law the Charity Commissioners or the Court may, in the event of such a failure, establish a scheme cy près, and to some extent the proposals in the present Bill may overlap those powers. The Fill, however, will enable the Commissioners to make orders in cases where under the existing law doubt arises whether failure has in fact taken place, or even to anticipate a failure which appears imminent.
I have pointed out those two matters, but my noble friend Lord Luke will no doubt reply that he has made provision in Clause 4 (1)—which was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson—to deal with those two matters. While the wording of that subsection would seem to show that the restrictions therein contained are based on the right lines, yet they seem to the Government to be somewhat indefinite in scope and rather difficult of application. We do not feel confident that they will ensure that protection of the trust funds which is desired, and which we know that my noble friend Lord Luke desires just as much as we do.
Another matter which I think it is necessary to raise, and which was touched upon by my noble friend Lord Dudley,
478
is that of the class of patients to be entitled to use the paying patient accommodation. The Memorandum accompanying the Bill states that the demand for paying-patient accommodation arises from the fact that there are many patients who cannot afford the cost of private treatment but are able and willing to pay for treatment in a hospital at charges proportionate to their means. The Bill as drafted provides in Clause 2 (2) that the charges for accommodation and treatment shall be in accordance with the scales specified in the order of the Charity Commissioners. Your Lordships will, however, appreciate that the fixing of charges does not limit the class-of patient to be treated. It would be equally open to the rich man—to whom I think the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, made reference—as well as to the person of more limited means, to pay the charges specified in the order. It is suggested, therefore, that it would be right that power should be given to the Commissioners to insert in any order made by them provisions reserving a certain proportion of the accommodation for patients of limited means. In those circumstances your Lordships will appreciate that, while the Government will support a Second Reading of the Bill, I think it is necessary to state now that we shall feel it our duty to move Amendments imposing specific safeguards with regard to the funds and property of the hospital and dealing with the other matters referred to in what I have just said. Incidentally, I may say that care has been taken to ascertain that the Charity Commissioners concur in the views that I have been expressing.
There is only one other matter to which I desire to refer. I may be asked whether the Government will undertake to give facilities for this Bill in another place. I should like very much to be able to say "Yes" to that question, if it were ever asked, but I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that it is not possible at this stage to give any definite assurance. It is not possible, in the first place because we do not know in what form the Bill will emerge after the Committee stage, and in the second place because we do' not know what the exigencies of Parliamentary time may permit in the other place. But there is just this to be said. The noble Lord opposite indicated his preference for municipal rather than for

479
voluntary hospitals. I am not going to follow him in that discussion. He will forgive me if I say that I do not agree with him, but I am very anxious not to embark upon a controversial topic of that kind because, although he holds that view, he was good enough to say that he regarded this as a useful measure under the existing condition of things. I think it would be a great pity if any difference of opinion which might prevail on that broader question of municipalisation were to threaten to hamper the quick and easy passage of the Bill, making the provision which we all desire, if it can be achieved, and I hope very much that nothing which is said in this House will give any encouragement to those in another place to raise difficulties about the passage of the Bill.
I hope very much it may be a matter about which it may be possible to obtain such assurances that the Bill would be granted a swift passage, so as to make it possible for the Government to find time to help it. I cannot give an undertaking that that will be so, but I feel sure, when I look around and see the powerful support which is given to the Bill from all quarters here, that there is valuable influence which I hope will be directed to obtaining such a smooth passage for the Bill that it will be possible to find time to discuss it. In these circumstances I can only say that we give it our blessing, for what it is worth, on the Second Reading, and I am sure that Lord Luke will appreciate that we desire only to assist the object that he has in view, when I venture to indicate the direction of the Amendments which we shall feel it necessary to bring forward on a later stage.
LORD MACMILLAN: My Lords, I would like to thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for the very sympathetic reception which he has accorded, on behalf of the Government, to this beneficent and useful measure. The Bill has really, I venture to say, two qualities which ought to commend it to all who are interested in the great work of our hospitals. It has a technical and a legal aspect, which has been alluded to by the Leader of the House, and also a philanthropic aspect. On the philanthropic side there is one point which I would like to bring before the House which is perhaps not fully
480
appreciated. Owing to the very great strides made in medical and surgical science in recent years, the methods of treatment have become much more expensive than they formerly were, and consequently have been placed beyond the reach of many persons who would greatly benefit by receiving such treatment. Suffering knows no class and knows no incomes. It is a visitation which may befall any person, and we, who are responsible for the administration of the hospital system, feel that these means, which the hospitals alone can provide, should be available for all persons, without distinction of class or income. It has come to pass at present that in great hospitals probably better means are now provided for the treatment of sickness and illness than can be had in the best nursing homes, and why should not these means be made available to others who will benefit by them also? That sums up the philanthropic aspect of the Bill—that we desire that nobody should be unable to benefit merely because he is embarrassed with regard to money.
On the legal side what appeals to me is this. The position is really quite chaotic. Some hospitals have full power to provide paying beds. They may go on and carry on their beneficent work without obtaining the consent of the Charity Commissioners. Others are perplexed with doubt. They do not know whether they have power or not. They have to obtain the opinion of Counsel, and indulge in other such expensive luxuries to ascertain their position. Others are quite sure that they have not the power, because of prohibitory words in their charters or constituent documents. This is an anomalous position. We hope that under this Bill it will be possible to bring about a measure of uniformity, and that it will be possible for all hospitals to know where they are in this matter. It has been a feature of our legislation that a General Bill has often been preceded by a number of Private Bills. In this connection several of the hospitals which required these powers came forward and at their own cost got Private Bills. That is an expensive practice, but five or six such measures already stand on the Statute Book. The theory on which this Bill proceeds is that the time has now come for a general measure, and that private

481
hospitals should be relieved of the cost of obtaining Bills for themselves. Those are the two main features.
May I say that I share entirely the anxiety voiced from all quarters of the House that nothing in this measure contained should in any way deflect the hospitals from their great work of ministering to the poor. If that had been even its possibly indirect effect I think this House might take it that the Bill would not have had the support of the two great organisations for which I speak, the King Edward's Hospital Fund and the British Hospitals Association. We have studied the case most carefully. We have endeavoured to secure the most adequate safeguards and I can assure the House that we are in no sense wedded to any particular formula; that those interested in the promotion of the Bill will be in no sense obdurate to any suggestion which may be made. We are most anxious to see that, so far from infringing in any way the primary purpose of the hospitals, these powers will enable the hospitals to do more good.
There are many instances where hospitals have found themselves in the position of having to close down some of their wards owing to shortage of money. In these cases we would be able, with the help of the money derived from paying beds, to reopen wards now closed, and possibly also to expand premises where expansion is needed. The purpose of the Bill is in no sense inimical to the primary purpose of the hospitals, but we believe it will enable them to extend more widely their beneficent services. We shall be most happy on the Committee stage to consider any suggestions which come from this House, which has shown itself so friendly disposed to this measure, because it is manifest that the principle of the Bill is accepted, and all we desire is to make it as workmanlike, as satisfactory and as safe as it can be made. I will only conclude by thanking the House for the reception which it has given to the measure.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: Before the Second Reading may I press for an answer to my question, whether it is proposed in the Bill to limit the committees of management who at present have rower to charge for paying beds—to limit their powers to less than the scale which they are at present charging?
LORD MACMILLAN: May I say on behalf of Lord Luke that the point is this. The initiative of getting a scheme from the Charity Commissioners is left to the hospitals, and therefore the hospital which already has power will not require to apply for a scheme.
LORD LUKE: My Lords, I beg to thank the House for its kindly reception of this Bill, and I hope we shall be so fortunate as to find time in another place. My experience is that the opening of paying beds has not on the whole reduced the number of beds for the sick poor, but increased them. I would also like to mention with regard to the voluntary hospitals, that many people do not quite realise the magnitude of the finance that would have to be contemplated if we were deprived of them. The actual expenditure in the voluntary hospitals in this country amounts to some £12,000,000 a year.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NOTIFICATION OF POVERTY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, it is perhaps in some measure fortunate that I should be privileged to introduce this Bill so shortly after the interesting debate which we had last week on the socialist system. In that debate this House, and in my humble submission rightly, decided against the value of a socialist system in this country, but at the same time I think it was admitted in all parts of the House that there was something wrong with our present industrial machinery. A fault has developed—whether it is, as my noble friends on my left think, a permanent and irremediable fault is open to discussion, but it is admitted on all sides that a fault exists. The Prime Minister, in a recent speech at Doncaster, admitted that there was a fault in our industrial machinery, and stated that he would welcome any responsible suggestion which might be put before him for getting rid of that fault. I thing I may claim that this measure is in some sort such a plan as the Prime Minister asked for. The fault to which I refer is one with which

483
your Lordships are only too well acquainted, because it has been discussed many times in this House. It is due to the fact that in these latter years our powers of consumption have fallen out of line with our powers of production. Whether owing to good harvests or the advancement of scientific methods of manufacture, we have found that there is an increasing glut and overplus of the world's goods and the world's wealth, and, contemporaneous with that, we have found less and less capacity for the consumers of those goods to consume them. Now I think it to be almost beyond argument that there can only be one of two methods of redressing that lag which has occurred between production and consumption. Either we may cut down production of goods, or, alternatively, we may try to increase consumption. I think I shall carry the House with me when I say that it would be better to increase consumption. The only way to do that, to my knowledge, is to increase the purchasing power of those who most need it.
If your Lordships will allow me to say so, it is not members of your Lordships' House who need their purchasing power increased so much as other people. Supposing I were to introduce a Bill which would increase your Lordships' incomes by, let us say, ten, or fifteen, or even fifty per cent. a year. That might be very pleasant for us. The effect would, in fact, be that a very large part of that increase, if not the whole of it, would be devoted to swelling still further the present overplus of money and idle credit which are in this country, and it is therefore more likely that a remedy will be found by increasing the purchasing power of those less fortunately situated than ourselves. It is on that view that the broad economic basis of this Bill rests.
There is a class of people in this country, perhaps far larger than your Lordships realise—and I am not trying to make the best case I can, I am trying to be honest with your Lordships' House when I say that I believe that those people number five million persons—people in receipt of wages which are not controlled, or are not subject to any organisation such as a trade union, a trade board or an arbitration board. According to the figures of the Ministry of Labour, there are 18,000,000 persons
484
in this country earning under £250 a year. Of those only 4,500,000 are trade union members, to whom this Bill does not apply. It is true that there are a great many who work at trade union rates, and those may number perhaps another 4,500,000. There are perhaps 2,000,000 workers whose wages are regulated by trade boards. Taking those figures as a basis, I think I shall be on the safe side in saying that there are 7,000,000 or 8,000,000 workers who have no protection in regard to the wages they are paid.
I want to make it quite clear from the outset that this Bill does not propose any compulsory minimum wage for any workers in this country. It merely proposes that the country should be divided up into what are called in the Bill "ascertainment areas" which, as far as I can see, for all practical purposes would be areas now controlled by local authorities, and the local authority in each of those areas would make itself responsible for determining what the cost of living in its area should be, either per hour or per week. That is a figure which can be arrived at without any great expense or difficulty. The Ministry of Labour, I think, would have all the necessary statistics at their disposal. The Bill further provides that when that has been done, such employers in that area as pay less than the cost-of-living wage as determined by the local authority—your Lordships will notice that I do not refer to it as the minimum wage, because it is in fact not a wage at all—will be compelled to make a return to the employment exchange.
Perhaps the implications of that are not immediately obvious, but I think the, main results would be as follows. In the first place, the amour propre of the employer would incline him to pay a better wage if he could afford it, rather than incur the public odium of being a bad employer. Under this Bill the result, I think, would be that comparatively few such notifications would be made. A great many ill-paid people would therefore receive a higher wage. Moreover, under the Bill the employer is given the chance of justifying the payment of a lower rate of wages than that fixed by the local authority, and if he could do that, no penalty would attach to him. It is my belief that the psychological effect of having to notify that you are paying less

485
than a living wage would be enough to effect the purposes of this Bill. Thirdly—and I think this is important, though somewhat secondary—the notification of the employers who are paying these lower wages will, I believe, be of inestimable value to the Government. I have been at, some pains to find out from the Ministry of Labour how many people there are in these circumstances, and the Ministry of Labour can, in fact, give me no information so that any estimate I may make must be an estimate and no more. But I believe that the Government, being anxious, as it is, to improve the lot of our people, will find a great value in knowing where this disease of poverty most rife. That it can only find out by some method such as is incorporated in this Bill. In parenthesis I would remark that in discussing, as we so often do both in this House and in another place, the lot of those less fortunately situated than ourselves and the poorest of this country, we are a little prone perhaps to concentrate, and naturally concentrate, on the unemployed. I do seriously believe that there are a larger number of people than the two million unemployed who are much less well-off even than they. That is a thing which I am sure your Lordships would not be willing to lose sight of.
Furthermore, I would stress very strongly the point that I believe the passage of this Bill into law would involve no expense either to the ratepayer or the taxpayer. Machinery for determining the cost of living is already in existence, and the only other thing that has to be done under this Bill is for the employer to make a return of those employees to whom he pays a less sum. I can see no possible way in which expense to the Government could be incurred. I mention this particularly because the Prime Minister, again in his speech at Doncaster, said of any claim submitted to him that he must be satisfied if it did no good, at least it did no harm. I do not put that forward as an argument in favour of this Bill, because I believe the Bill would do good and certainly can do no harm.
Another point which comes to mind, and which I believe would result from a notification of poverty as is laid down in this Bill, is that it would act as a spur to inefficient workers and give a preference to the efficient worker. To-
486
day you will find far too often that the efficient worker has to take the wage of the inefficient worker simply because the inefficient man is prepared to accept less. If by this means the efficient man is given a preference I believe that is carrying a principle into law which is a principle of very elementary justice. Moreover, this Bill will give a protection to what I may term the good employer. The good employer I take to be one who recognises his duty to his employees, and who will pay them at least a living wage and as much as he can afford to pay them. That is made very difficult by the existence of what is, I hope, a comparatively small number of bad employers who are prepared to employ labour which is unorganised and voiceless, and who are prepared to employ them in order that they shall pay less. Since this Bill has been made public I have come across, I cannot say millions or even thousands, but at least tens of cases—which in the short time is, I think, remarkable—of employers who say quite definitely they are prepared to increase their wages if the rest of the people in their particular line of business are prepared to do the same. They believe it would be good for the trade as a whole. As to the classes of people who would be affected by this Bill, they chiefly fall into those employed in the distributive and retail trades. There would be others, representing smaller classes, but in the total sum perhaps involving a large number. I might instance charing and similar work where the people engaged are in the nature of things not organised.
I cannot see—and I wish to stress this once more—that this Bill can have any ill effect at all, and I believe that the effect will be very much larger than perhaps some of your Lordships anticipate. I recognise that a large principle is involved, the principle to which I alluded very briefly because it was well discussed in your Lordships' House last week, and therefore I would ask your Lordships' House to give a Second Reading to this Bill on the understanding that if that is done it will be referred to a Select Committee. I do not claim, and it would be impertinent to do so, that at the moment this is a perfectly drafted Bill, nor do I claim that it is altogether complete. What I am anxious to establish, if I can, is that your Lordships are aware of this problem and that you should be

487
aware that there are methods of dealing with it. I have tried briefly to outline what these methods might be. If you accept, as I think you must, that in order to set the wheels of industry in this country once more in motion, you must increase the purchasing power of those at the bottom rung, so to speak, of wealth and society in this country, then I believe this Bill is a step in the right direction.
I do not put it forward as a panacea for all our ills or even as a cure for all unemployment. I do believe, though, that if you have in a town such as those with which I am only too familiar, one of the Lancashire cotton towns, even 3,000 or 4,000—no more than that—men and women on Saturday evening with another five shillings to spend, the result will be that the money will be spent, and spent on essential goods—food, clothing, heating, and other such necessaries—and that that will so largely stimulate the productive trade in this country that we shall find, where machinery is now lying idle, it will once again begin to operate. I need hardly remind members of your Lordships' House who have industrial knowledge that one of the largest items in the costs of manufacture is not the wages we pay, but the machinery and plant which, to-day, alas! we have to keep standing idle. It is on these grounds, very briefly stated, as I am anxious to avoid boring your Lordships, that I would ask you to give this Bill a Second Reading and to do so, I repeat, on the understanding that it may be allowed to go before a Select Committee.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME, who had given Notice that he would move, That the Bill be read 2a this day six months, said: My Lords, anyone who may have read the title of this Bill would probably be in favour of it, and some of your Lordships who have heard the moving terms in which the noble Lord has appealed to your hearts may at first blush also find yourselves in favour of it. I do not intend to appeal to your hearts but to your heads. I was glad to notice that in the course of the noble Lord's speech he did not reiterate the inaccurate statement which appeared in his Whip. I refer to the second paragraph in which he says: "This Bill passed its Second Reading
488
in the House of Commons without a Division and had support from all sides of the House."
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: May I make an explanation? I had intended to refer to that. That statement was due to my ignorance, never having been a member of the House of Commons. I thought the First Reading in the House of Commons was purely formal as it is in your Lordships' House. I knew there had been discussion in the House of Commons, and therefore thought that that discussion had taken place on the Second Reading.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I do not for a moment suggest that the noble Lord wished to mislead your Lordships, but he has access to the OFFICIAL REPORT and he might have seen for himself what passed in the other House. As the noble Lord has told you, the purpose of this Bill is the enforcement of uniform minimum wages based on cost of living. These wages are not to depend on the circumstances of the industries and occupations in which people are employed, but upon certain arbitrary decisions of the Minister of Labour, based on his opinion as to the minimum amount necessary to provide reasonable amenity and to obtain reasonable comfort for at least two persons. I will deal with the general effects of such a statutory form of regulation of wages later. I will first draw your Lordships' attention to the arbitrary character of the proposals and to the uncertainty which would be introduced into the field of industrial relations by these proposals.
Before I further develop my argument I would stress the fact that hitherto Parliament has always taken care to avoid placing upon a Minister the authority to fix wages. For instance, in the Trade Boards Act wages are fixed by a properly constituted body, of which the representatives of employers and employees form the majority, and the power of the Minister of Labour is limited to granting or withholding legal sanction to the findings of that body. By this means political interference in regard to the fixing of rates of wages is avoided. This Bill enters upon the dangerous and undesirable course which so far has been deliberately avoided by Parliament. The wage which is to be the minimum is to be determined by areas, and is to be the minimum cost of living in those areas.

489
Dictatorship immediately enters the matter, as these areas (which are to be fixed so that "throughout each of such areas the cost of living shall so far as is reasonably practicable be the same") are to be determined by the Minister. There is no obligation upon him to take any advice upon this difficult task, although so much depends upon the number and character of the areas chosen. Further, the Minister can change the boundaries of the areas whenever he thinks fit "to meet the change of circumstances."—whatever that may mean.
Your Lordships will already have seen that this power introduces an element of uncertainty into the wages situation, and that against the vagaries of a future Minister neither employers nor employees are given the least protection. Parliament can only enter into the matter if the Minister chooses to make regulations under Clause 6, and then only by a Resolution of both Houses. Why provide for the unusual course of a Resolution of both Houses instead of following the usual practice of a Resolution by either House? Is it because the noble Lord leans towards his left and agrees with the Socialist Party that this House should be treated with as little courtesy as possible? I can think of no other reason. But the Bill gives no protection in regard to the decisions actually taken by the Minister on areas and cost of living. It is of interest to note in passing that only England and Scotland are mentioned in the Bill. What about Wales? Is Wales to have a special new deal, or have recent events in Wales scared the noble Lord in charge of the Bill? Of course I refer to the fixing of assistance rates which have taken place in that country. Perhaps, on the other hand, the noble Lord thinks that the English and Scottish are more law abiding and more easily put under the heel of dictatorship.
Let me return to the determination of the areas. A question arises as to what is meant by the condition that "the cost of living shall so far as reasonably practicable be the same." The same for whom? Clearly the cost of living as defined by the Bill varies according to the class of persons whose cost of living is in question. I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord has fallen into confusion with the Ministry of Labour's cost-of-living index number. This index,
490
however, refers to an average working-class family and it intended to show the percentage of change month by month over that family's cost of living in 1914. It does not pretend to fix the cost of living nor does it deal with the cost of living of all classes of workers. Nevertheless there has been continual controversy owing to its restricted character and to the difference of opinion as to the items included in the calculations. Different classes of workers have represented that it has no reference to their circumstances.
The matter becomes for more serious when a proposal is made, as it is in this Bill, that such a controversy shall be introduced into the settlement of statutory rates of wages, and there would clearly be disputes on this subject immediately this Bill came into operation. Only think for a moment of the Minister's problem—a Minister who, as your Lordships know, is already overworked—in determining the number of areas, and see how difficult would be this extra duty with which he is to be burdened, and realise how small is the chance of acceptance of any decisions he may reach. Under Clause 2 (1), having divided the two countries into areas, the Minister must proceed to ascertain for each area

"(a) the minimum cost of living for an adult able-bodied person living within that area; and

(b) the maximum values in money to ho attributed to receipts in kind."

These become respectively "the declared minimum weekly cost of living" and "the declared value of receipts in kind," and these determine the minimum wage to be paid.
It is important, to examine these provisions closely. Your Lordships will remember that the Minister already has power to alter the areas when he pleases, and in Clause 2 he is given the further power of introducing uncertainty and instability into the wages position by making new ascertainments and declarations whenever he thinks fit. Employers making forward contracts would be entirely dependent upon the vagaries of the Minister—I do not refer to the present Minister, who, of course, has no vagaries—in regard to the wages they might be expected to pay, and uncertainty of this kind can hardly be regarded as an advantage either to employer or employee.

491
If any noble Lord makes a suggestion that this is similar to the cost-of-living scale it is an erroneous suggestion. It is not so, as in the cost-of-living scale there is prior agreement as to how this should move and the cost-of-living figure is calculated on a known and consistent basis. It is true that a sensible Minister would not make such changes lightly, but human nature being what it is, it is unwise to pass legislation which provides full scope for arbitrary action by an overzealous Minister.
It is almost incredible that so reckless an invitation to arbitrary action should ever have found its place in a Bill which purports to provide a scheme for determining a minimum wage such as is contained in this clause. If your Lordships will refer to the Schedule of the Bill you will observe that "the minimum cost of living for an adult able-bodied person" is in fact to be the minimum cost of living of not one, but two, adult able-bodied persons, so that either you get an incentive to a worker not to marry, which is contrary to public policy, or to marry another worker and so obtain four times the minimum cost of living. You may, I think, take it for granted that two such people would take care not to have a family, which is also against public policy. It is true that the Minister is given power to make provision for the maintenance of an unlimited number of dependants, and there you have the reverse side of the picture. An employer would naturally choose an employee who has no dependants, and so these wretched people will be thrown on to public assistance.
There is this further objection. The minimum wage applies equally to juveniles and to male and female employees with or without dependants, and whether skilled or unskilled, irrespective of the kind of employment, including even domestic service. I think it must be obvious to your Lordships that the noble Lord in drafting this Bill has confused the payment of wages with a system of public assistance of a most vague and arbitrary character, and has overlooked the fact that employees will not be prepared to have their wages determined as if they were recipients of public assistance. It must be clear that the determination would not be likely to be on a higher basis than that. I will not say too much as to the amount of controversy
492
which would be likely to arise, especially where the ascertainment of wages depended upon the result, on items of food, clothing, accommodation, transport and the other items to be included in the Minister's discretion after consultation with such representative organisations as lie might choose to consult. It is well known that there is no end to the argument as to what items should be included in the cost-of-living index figures, and the weights to be assigned to them. At each level of wages or salary a case can be made out for different calculations, and the task set before the Minister in this case is obviously calculated to land him into a sea of trouble and to introduce an explosive element into industrial relations.
But the position envisaged by the Bill is made even worse by the provision which permits the deduction from money payments of a declared value of receipts in kind. This declared value is "the maximum values in money to be attributed to receipts in kind" as determined by the Minister. In this provision, the Bill seems to be contrary to the letter, if not the spirit, of the Truck Acts which have been of such inestimable value to workers as a protection against unscrupulous employers. There is no provision for assuring that receipts in kind are to be of the value assigned to them, and as full board and lodging are among the receipts in kind enumerated, there is obviously an open invitation here to a considerable reduction of the total minimum wage, and to a revival of a living-in system of the worst description with all the sanction of law.
The fixing of wages on a subsistence basis can only have the object of protecting the workers against the worst employers, and it is in that light that I ask your Lordships to examine the Bill. It is astonishing in these circumstances to find that one method of securing the payment of this subsistence wage is that the employer who is paying a lower wage should have to notify the nearest labour exchange of his guilt in order that his name may be inscribed on a black list to be open to public inspection. Surely that is a provision without precedent. The noble Lord, just now, said something about amour propre. I think he must be confusing fear with amour propre. It is a well-known fact that collusion in regard to breaches of wage

493
regulations is most common among workers whose position is weakest, and that without an inspection system or an organisation such cases are never discovered except by chance. Bad employers could fairly safely take the risk of the formidable punishments contained in Clause 3 (2). It is true that there is an apparent safeguard in Clause 4—more apparent than real I think—that when an application for insurance benefit or public assistance is made the Government officer shall make inquiry as to the rate of wage paid to the applicant. Seeing, however, that an individual worker will not usually wish to make it more difficult for himself to obtain re-employment, as it undoubtedly might be if he was made the instrument of the prosecution of his former employer, it is quite possible that the truth will not be told.
I do not agree with the noble Lord when he says there would be no extra cost to the Exchequer. I believe that there would have to be a large addition to the staffs of the labour exchanges to check the statements made. Then there is no provision for requiring that records should be kept, or that receipts for wages should be given, so that under the provisions of the Bill there would be no, evidence upon which to rely against statements made by the employer—which, by the way, are not compulsory—and by the worker. The general effect of the Bill, therefore, is to introduce a minimum wage system on a public assistance basis without any real prospect of any result except to give legal sanction to such a rate of wages. What greater menace could there be to the wages system than passing this Bill into law? The noble Lord has given no indication that the Bill has any support from workpeoples' representatives, and it would be surprising if he could produce such support. For workers who need protection I submit that Parliament has provided amply in the Trade Boards Acts. The noble Lord has not said that these could not be used in the cases he has in mind, but he proposes legislation of a far less satisfactory character which would, in effect, express as the opinion of this House that wage earners should be treated in a similar way to applicants for public assistance, irrespective of the value of their work. That, I submit, is a backward step to which support ought not to be given in the interests of the general body of wage
494
earners. I am afraid I have been an unconscionable time, but the Bill is of such an ambitious character that I felt it only courteous to the noble Lord to treat the subject fully. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ROCHESTER): My Lords, before addressing myself to the subject matter of this Bill, may I, as representing the Ministry of Labour in your Lordships' House, be permitted to pay a tribute to the memory of one who was a former chief of that Department, and who was called to higher service, with tragic suddenness, on Saturday last? Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland was Minister of Labour from 1924 to 1929. It was he who piloted the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1927 through another place, and one of his last acts as Minister of Labour was to propose the setting up of the Industrial Transference Board to help unemployed workers. I sat in the House of Commons with him for many years, albeit on the opposite side of the House. While holding strenuously to his own principles, he was always able to appreciate the viewpoint of those who differed from him. He was at home among the things that are pure and lovely and of good report. His life was actuated by nobility of purpose and characterised by undeviating loyalty. I feel sure that I may be permitted to associate your Lordships in all parts of the House with this expression of sympathy with Lady Steel-Maitland and the family.
Coming to the Bill that is before your Lordships' House, may I say that I believe there is no disagreement in any part of the House with the desire of the noble Lord who has introduced the Bill, that workpeople shall not be paid unduly low wages for their work. The main object of Government policy has been to create conditions which would not only increase the number of workpeople employed, but would also enable them to be employed under better conditions. It is satisfactory to note that during the last few months there has been increased employment of workpeople and increases of wage rates in many industries. In addition, the earnings of workpeople

495
have been increased by more full-time working. Also my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour has during the past year taken action which has produced better conditions for thousands of workpeople, as for instance in the constitution of the National Conciliation Board for Commercial Road Transport, and the establishment of two more trade boards. If, therefore, I express serious doubts as to the value of this Bill, it is not because there is any lack of sympathy with its general object.
There are, however, considerations which the noble Lord who has introduced the Bill may possibly have overlooked, but which the Government cannot ignore with a due sense of its responsibility for the general interests of the workpeople of this country. I do riot propose to deal with all the details of his Bill, although I cannot help saying that I find myself in more or less general agreement with much that has been said by my noble friend Lord Bertie as to the Bill's provisions. I propose, with your Lordships' permission, to deal only with the main principles of the Bill, because if those principles are unsound, or are incapable of adoption, then the details concerning the application of the Bill do not, I suggest, call for your Lordships' minute examination.
The main principle of the Bill is that every person employed shall receive wages either by the day or the week at a rate not less than the sum calculated to provide the minimum cost of living for two able-bodied adult persons. Any employer who pays less than this sum is to be required to notify that fact to the employment exchange in order that his name may be inscribed in a register open to public inspection. An employer's name may also be inscribed by the employment exchange officials, if and when an employee applies for benefit. I have no doubt that it is by inadvertence that the Bill proposes no special provision for juveniles, for I scarcely think it can be the intention of the noble Lord that the wage of a juvenile should be such as to be not less than sufficient to provide for two able-bodied adult persons. The difficulty, too, of fixing a minimum cost-of-living amount is very great; and serious as may be the differences in some cases us to the rate of wages which can be paid in a particular industry, these differences are
496
small compared with the controversy which could take place on the subject of a minimum cost-of-living basis. Moreover, under the provisions of the Bill, persons employed in the same industry would have differing legal rates of wages, according to the opinion of the authorities in differing areas as to the minimum cost-of-living sum. I scarcely think in such circumstances that there would be much stability in the position. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether it is seriously contended that, instead of the present trade board principle of fixing legal minimum rates According to the circumstances of the industry, it would be an improvement to adopt this new system of fixing rates on a minimum subsistence basis, irrespective of the circumstances of the industry.
The important point, however, to which I wish to draw the attention of your Lordships' House is this, which I feel by itself makes it impossible to regard the Bill as offering a practicable scheme for regulating wages. It would threaten the whole wage system of this country, and would create circumstances which, I submit, all responsible organisations of workpeople would almost certainly strenuously oppose. It would, in fact, create a situation in which any employer in any industry who paid to his workers a minimum subsistence rate would thereby fully satisfy his legal obligations. In other words, it would give direct encouragement to the reduction of wages to this level where they are now higher. The noble Lord smiles, but I would suggest for his consideration that the minimum would tend to become the maximum. There has been built up in this country a great body of voluntary negotiating machinery, by which wages are fixed by discussion between employers and workpeople's representatives on the basis of the circumstances of the industries concerned. In addition, there is a large number of trade boards for industries in which there is not sufficient organisation to permit effective regulation of wages by voluntary agreement.
There are doubtless large numbers of workpeople not covered by these arrangements, but is that sufficient reason for taking the backward step of fixing general minimum rates on the basis proposed in this Bill? On the contrary, is it not the more reason for continuing the policy of taking all possible steps to

497
widen the scope of the various forms of joint wage-regulating machinery, so that proper protection can be given to work-people not at present covered? My right honourable friend the Minister of Labour has shown himself to be willing to take action where it has been shown that the need exists, and surely it would be both unwise and inexpedient to do anything to discourage the trade unions from making further progress in the regulation, of working conditions, on the basis of the voluntary organisation of those whose conditions are in question.
The Government hazard the view that this Bill would be opposed by work-peoples' representatives as a step towards the destruction of the structure which has been built up by long years of effort, and this alone, I submit, is a reason for not supporting the Bill. If the noble Lord cared to consult work-peoples' representatives on his proposals, I think they would probably point out to him, in more robust language than I have done, the serious effects which would be likely to result from the passing of his Bill. Speaking with a full sense of responsibility, as a member of the Government, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government are in full sympathy with his desire that all workers should be fairly paid, and it is only because they believe that this Bill would tend to have the opposite effect that they are unable to give it their support. For that, reason, too, the Government cannot recommend your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
I submit that it is appalling to think of fixing the cost of living, in differing localities, upon which wages would be thereafter based and treated in a similar way to public assistance. I confess, too, that I cannot agree with the noble Lord when he says that it would entail no additional expense. I feel that my noble friend Lord Bertie made the truer case, for surely it would entail the setting up of a large staff of paid Government officials, and would thereby be an additional burden both on the taxes and on industry itself. Believing that the principle of this Bill is both unsound and incapable of adoption, I must resist on behalf of the Government its Second Reading, and ipso facto its reference to a Select Committee, which would, in the opinion of the Government, entail only waste of your Lordships' time.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, either I must be a greater fool even than I thought, or else Lord Bertie and Lord Rochester have not read this Bill. I leave it to your Lordships to judge which is the true case.
LORD ROCHESTER: I do not want to make any inference, but I have read the Bill.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I have not only read the Bill once but half a dozen times.
Loan STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I am glad that Lord Bertie should have been at least six times more attentive than Lord Rochester, but in my opinion they are suffering under the greatest misapprehension as to what this Bill proposes. We have heard at great length, from both noble Lords opposite, grave objections to this Bill which I should be the first to recognise and admit if indeed they were true, but in nearly every case they depend upon the assumption that this Bill is to set up a minimum wage. That it does not do, and has no intention of doing. All it does is to make wages which are less than a certain minimum notifiable. There is no compulsion on anyone to pay wages greater than the minimum sum determined. Therefore the objections of Lord Bertie must fall to the ground. He envisaged an alarming state of affairs—a Communistic Minister for Labour who might fix an absurdly high standard of living, even as much as £100, a week. If such a thing happened it would bring this Bill into disrepute, necessitate a return of all employees, and therefore render the thing of less force and value. We do not believe that that is likely to conic about. It is true that Lord Bertie, with his usual acuteness, discovered certain drafting errors in the Bill, but those can all be set right, and I think if my noble friends opposite will read the report of this debate to-morrow they will find that not once did I use the words "minimum wage." Therefore they are under a complete misapprehension.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: It does not make it a misapprehension because the noble Lord did not actually mention minimum wage. That is what it comes to.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): Does the noble Lord suggest that it ceases to

499
be a minimum wage when it ceases to be a compulsory minimum wage?
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I do not understand the question of the noble Lord, because a minimum wage must be a compulsory wage. It is one set up by Parliament, or by a body to whom Parliament gives authority to set up that wage. Lord Rochester mentioned one or two other things which perhaps did not come under the heading of the assumption that this Bill was to set up a minimum wage. He mentioned the fact that juveniles do not come under the Bill. That omission was made with intention, because we are satisfied for the present to deal with adult labour. No doubt the Bill might be improved in Committee and juveniles included, but there are reasons why they are not at present included in the Bill.
The only other considerable objection which was made to the Bill was a passionate defence of the system of trade boards by Lord Rochester. It seems to me to be self-evident that for the class of labour which this Bill is designed to help, trade boards can be no good. If you are to have a trade board for the determination of wages there must be an organised body to deal with the Ministry of Labour, and much of this labour is unorganisable. I mentioned, for instance, charwomen and casual labourers. So far from this being an attack on the trade union system of this country, that again is a major misapprehension under which the noble Lord opposite is labouring, because this Bill has nothing to do with workers who work under the trade union system.
Lord Rochester was at pains to explain to your Lordships the benefit which the working man has received under the present Government. This is neither the time nor the place to argue that with him, and I am the first to recognise and be thankful for such benefits as have been conferred upon the workers, but the increases of wages and improvements of times which have been brought about by the action of the Government have been only in connection with those classes of labour which are organised under trade unions, or whatever it may be. Those are people who can help themselves, and it is not surprising therefore that Lord Rochester should say that this Bill has found no backing from workmen's representatives. It is exactly because these people are unorganised, and have no voice
500
to speak for them in Parliament, that I wish to put this Bill forward. So far from its being the fact that the representatives of trades do not want this Bill to pass, I have been inundated by communications from people all over the country, expressing the hope that something at last might be done for them—people having no trade union and no representative in Parliament to make a noise on their behalf. I hope that this Bill will be read a second time.
On Question, Motion negatived: Amendment agreed to, and Bill to be read 2a this day six months accordingly.

CRIMINAL LUNATICS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order); Amendments (Privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL):My Lords, the Bill this year contains three Amendments in Clauses 4, 5 and 6 which are common to both the Army and the Air Force Acts, and two in Clauses 8 and 9 which concern the Air Force only. They are introduced for the sake of simplifying administration or of clarifying the meaning of the Acts as they already stand; but I think your Lordships might wish to have them shortly explained. With regard to Clause 4, as the wording of Section 64 of the Army Act stands at present, a soldier serving in a Colony who is sentenced to imprisonment or detention for a term of less than twelve months may, for administrative convenience, undergo his sentence in any part of His Majesty's Dominions which may be prescribed under Rules of Procedure. But the wording does not cover the case of a soldier sentenced in Palestine or Cyprus, which are Colonies within the meaning of the Act, undergoing his sentence in Egypt, which is a foreign country within the meaning of the Act. In fact, there are no military prisons or detention barracks in Cyprus or Palestine, and unless the men can be sent to Egypt they will have to be sent either to Malta or back to the United Kingdom

501
(except in the case of short sentences which may be served in barrack detention rooms). The troops in Cyprus and Palestine are under the administration o the G.O.C. British troops in Egypt. Secondly, the clause is designed to amend Section 64 to make it clear that a soldier sentenced in a foreign country or in a Dominion shall, in accordance with the first proviso to subsection (4), be transferred as soon as practicable to serve his sentence in the United Kingdom (unless there are special reasons for not removing him). There is no doubt that this is the intention of the section as it stands already, but doubts have been expressed whether the present arrangement and punctuation of subsections (3), (3A) and (4) carry out this intention.
The purpose of Clause 5 is to define precisely what incidents of a person's service may be proved by documentary evidence in any proceedings taken under the Army Act. Under Section 163 of the Army Act a document purporting to be signed by or on behalf of the Secretary of State for War, or on behalf of the Army Council, or by the officer in charge of records, is prima facie evidence
"respecting the service of any person in, or the discharge of any person from, any portion of His Majesty's forces or respecting a person not having served in, or belonged to, any portion of those forces."
It has been doubted whether this provision extends to the proof of particular incidents in a person's service, for example, whether he ever attained a particular rank, or served in a particular campaign or foreign country, or whether he is entitled to wear medals or medal ribbons. The Amendment will save money and time in the conduct of proceedings when evidence of this character is required.
The object of Clause 6 is to subject to military law Reserve or retired officers who, under the authority or with the approval of the Army Council, are employed with their consent outside the United Kingdom in any military capacity. Officers on the active list and Militia officers are subject to military law at all times, but Reserve or retired officers are only so subject (1) when they are employed on military service under the orders of an officer of the regular forces who is subject to military law; or (2) when they are ordered on any duty for which as Reserve officers they are liable. It is considered necessary that
502
Reserve or retired officers who accept military appointments such as A.D.C. to Governors-General or Governors, or membership of military missions abroad, should be subject to military law. Clause 7 applies the Amendments in Clauses 4, 5 and 6, whose purpose I have just indicated, to the Air Force Act, with the necessary adjustments.
I now turn to Clauses 8 and 9 which affect the Air Force Act only. Airmen are enlisted initially for twelve years or some shorter period and, if for a shorter period, the initial period of service may be "extended" provided that the total of the first period of service does not exceed twelve years. At present an airman who has completed nine years service may be re-engaged for such further period as will make up a total of twenty-four years, but may not be re-engaged for any shorter period. Clause 8 of the Bill alters the conditions of re-engagement in two respects. Subsection (1) authorises re-engagements for any shorter period than the legal maximum, and also allows of part of the re-engaged service being spent in the Reserve, which is not provided for at present. Subsection (2) permits re-engagements to complete a total of twenty-four years service or for some shorter period to be contracted at any time after the completion of eight years instead of nine years service on the initial engagement. The sole purpose of both these Amendments is to simplify administration. Clause 9 of the Bill is intended simply to improve the terminology of Section 146 of the Air Force Act, without affecting its substance. The present terminology, although technically not incorrect, is thought to be unsuitable. The two Schedules to the Bill call for no remark. The first is the usual schedule containing the billeting rates, in which no change is proposed this year. The second contains minor Amendments to the Air Force Act consequential on those provided in Clause 8 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

IRISH FREE STATE.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT had the following Notice on the Paper:—To ask His

503
Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the Irish Citizenship and Nationality Bill now before the Free State Senate, which lays clown a new definition of Free State citizenship, and purports to deprive Free State citizens of their rights as British subjects; and whether note has been taken of Mr. de Valera's repeated declaration to that effect; and further, whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to the Aliens Bill which has been recently read a second time in the Dail, and which in effect makes all British subjects aliens in the Free State and subjects them on entering the Free State to degrading and harassing restrictions and disabilities whereby (amongst other things) they will be compelled to register as aliens and to be subject to police control, and will, when they engage in trade in the Free State, be liable to be subjected to an Aliens Order, made by a Free State Minister, involving summary arrest and search of their premises. What protest, if any, have His Majesty's Government made against these grave irregularities, and what steps have they taken to ensure that loyal subjects of His Majesty resident in the Free State will not be deprived of their rights as British subjects, and that British subjects entering the Free State shall be protected against unconstitutional restrictions on their liberties. And to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question and to move the Motion standing in my name. I desire to draw the attention of your Lordships to two Bills which are now before the Free State Parliament, both of which contain grave illegalities and infractions of the liberties of British subjects. The first of these Bills is the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Bill, which has passed the Dail and is now before the Senate. The other Bill is called the Aliens Bill, which passed its Second Reading in the Dail on February 14 last. The first Bill, broadly speaking, deprives British subjects residing in the Free State of their rights as British subjects. It lays down a long elaborate code as to what constitutes a Free State citizen, partly natural born, partly in consequence of naturalisation; but your Lordships will observe that this code is seriously at variance with the legislation of the British Parliament on the subject of the nationality
504
of aliens in 1914 and 1918, and it is also at variance with the Common Law of England, and in order, I suppose, to justify in some sense or other this legislation, the Citizenship Bill purports to repeal the Acts of this Parliament of 1914 and 1918, and also—and this is a somewhat larger order—to repeal the Common Law of England bearing on this subject. The effect of that legislation, if it is sound, is to set up a position of irreconcilable difference between the position of the British subject under our laws and the position of an Irish Free State citizen under the laws of the Dail, and, further than that, to deprive British subjects of their rights in Southern Ireland.
I do not propose to go into the clauses of that Bill. It is a very long and complicated Bill, but I will summarise it by quoting the great authority of Mr. de Valera, who said, in the Dail, on November 28 last:
"No Irish citizen will be a British subject when this Bill is passed."
The unfortunate residents in Southern Ireland are to be deprived by this Bill of all their rights and status as British citizens. Such a thing was never done in the legislation of the Dominions or anywhere else before. There is a still more startling statement made by Mr. de Valera in connection with this Bill. It was made in the Senate on the Second Reading on January 17 last, when he claimed that the people of Northern Ireland were Irish Free State citizens. I should like to know what the people of Ulster will say to that. I know they treat with contempt such legislation, but at the same time it is not pleasant to be told by the people of Southern Ireland that they are no longer British citizens but Irish Free State citizens with all the disabilities and, I may use a stronger word, objectionable features attached to that status. This attempt to deprive British subjects resident in Southern Ireland of their rights and status as British citizens has been declared illegal by the Secretary of State for the Dominions in another place and was so declared most emphatically in your Lordships' House by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, speaking on behalf of His Majesty's Government in December last. So much for the Citizenship Bill.
The Free State Government, not content with this grievous illegality, have recently introduced an even more indefensible Bill which they call the Aliens Bill. The effect of this Bill is to declare, with a few relatively unimportant exceptions, all British subjects whether resident in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Dominions, or elsewhere who are not Free State citizens according to the definition in the previous Bill, aliens in the Free State. Again without going into the details, may I quote Mr. de Valera, who declared on February 14 on the Second Reading of this Bill:
"Every person who is not a Free State citizen is an alien."
It is really difficult to find adjectives adequately to describe a Bill of this sort. Nothing like it has ever been proposed in any Legislature in the world, and it is indeed strange that a country which calls itself, in name at any rate, a Dominion of the British Empire should have ventured to bring in a Bill of this character into their Parliament. Yet it is almost humorous to find that Mr. de Valera, with his strange cynicism as to the intelligence of the audience whom he was addressing, described the Bill on February 14 last as a "liberal Bill." I should like to know what a Bill which is riot a "liberal Bill" would be like if this Aliens Bill is in his opinion a liberal Bill.
The text of this Bill is well worth studying by those who desire to explore some of the amazing products of Free State legislation. Let me summarise very shortly some of these provisions. In the first place the Free State Minister may make Orders prohibiting British subjects from entering the Free State and, what is even more startling, make Orders prohibiting them from leaving the Free State, so that if any of your Lordships, for reasons of pleasure or business, should desire to go over to the Free State you may find your entrance barred or your departure prohibited. Is that a restriction which we or any British subject ought to submit in any part of the world at the instance of a Parliament such as that of the Irish Free State? May I add this I and I dare say many of your Lordships are continually being invited to go and enjoy the pleasure of being a tourist in the Free State. I wonder how many tourists will be induced to go over and enjoy
506
the happiness of the Free State by reason of the passage of a Bill of this sort?
But that is not all which the Bill contains. It provides that the Minister may order British subjects entering the Free State to reside in a particular place, register with the Police, and inform the Police of any change of address, occupation, and the like. I do not think that needs comment. There is one other provision which I ought to mention and it is this. The Minister may, under the Bill, either himself make Orders or empower Customs and Excise officers to make Orders, and empower military and Police officers to make Orders. And what is the nature of these Orders? By these Orders they may subject British citizens entering the Free State to search both as to their person and their premises, where they are residing, and to detention and arrest. Again I say what an inducement for tourists to go and take advantage of the pleasures of the Free State!
One may well ask what is the meaning of legislation of this character which seems, on the face of it, not only so grossly unjust to British subjects but so grievously detrimental to the interests of the Free State itself. I cannot say. I cannot penetrate the occult minds of Mr. de Valera and his supporters, but let me say this, that the financial position of the Free State is extremely grave. I am not saying anything now which is not known to all the world. The financial position of the Free State itself and of the county councils is extremely grave. Do the Free State authorities think it likely they will improve that financial situation by legislation of this sort? The value of property in the Free State, as anyone who knows Southern Ireland will tell you, has gone down absolutely to zero in some cases. There was a case brought to my notice the other day in which the owner of a house and 100 acres of land wanted to get rid of his property because he could not stand the burden of the rates and taxes, which were exceedingly high. He put the property up to auction, but there was no sale, and eventually, in order to get rid of it, he had to accept the sum of ten shillings—for a house and 100 acres of land! I should have thought that was a fact worth considering by the Free State authorities.
Has not the time come when His Majesty's Government should devise some method of bringing these injustices to British subjects to an end? What has happened already? Let me give your Lordships the shortest possible summary. The Oath of Allegiance has been abolished. They have attempted to abolish the right of appeal to the Privy Council, and whether they do it or not is now under consideration of the Privy Council itself. The Senate is under sentence of death and will expire shortly. His Majesty's Governor-General, the representative of the Crown in Southern Ireland, has been humiliated and degraded to the position of a clerk, and he is made to register the assent of the Governor-General of Ireland to a Bill by putting a stamp across it. This has all been done in violation of the Treaty, and up to now His Majesty's Government have been unable to prevent what I call these outrages occurring. I have told your Lordships what has happened already, and now come the further two Bills, preposterous Bills, to use the most limited language I can.
The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, I understand, is going to answer for the Government. He is a classical scholar. I am glad of it. I say that with the utmost respect. He probably remembers what Cicero on a famous occasion said to a supporter of Catalina when he asked him: Quousque tandem abutere patientia nostra? Could not that question be equally well put to Mr. de Valera? How long is he going to be allowed to abuse our patience, our benevolence, our kindness? I trust that the time has come when that patience will be no longer abused. The present state of things—and this is almost the last word I shall say—is absolutely intolerable. The Treaty has been violated over and over again, and the rights of British subjects in Southern Ireland, in England, Northern Ireland and everywhere else, are swept away so far as the Free State can attain that end.
His Majesty's Government are rightly regarded, and I am sure nowhere more than in your Lordships' House, as the custodians of the rights and privileges of British subjects, and their solemn duty is to protect those subjects from injustice and from wrong. I now ask His Majesty's Government to take action before the two Bills which I have described
508
have passed into law. I ask them, in the first instance, to make the strongest possible protest in their power to induce the Free State Government to excise the more objectionable portions of this Bill. I ask them to do something further. I ask them to discover and put into operation some effective mode of protecting British subjects from injustice and from outrage at the hands of the Free State. I beg to move.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I only rise for one moment to address a question to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for our future guidance. I want to know to what extent this House can discuss projects or measures that are before the Parliament of a self-governing Dominion. Such matters would appear to me to be properly outside our discussions here. I am not referring to Acts passed by a self-governing Dominion, but to projects which are still under discussion in the Parliament of that Dominion.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I wish the noble Lord had given me notice of that question.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I apologise.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I would not like to give a considered opinion when I obviously have not had time to consider the subject. I should think it would be rather difficult to say that in no circumstances could it be proper for your Lordships' House to consider prospective legislation. Let us take an extreme and impossible case. Let us assume that there was legislation brought forward for deliberately inflicting an injustice, possibly even capital punishment, upon some British citizen in a Dominion. I cannot think that it would be outside the competence of your Lordships' House to call the attention of the Government to that proposal, because if you allowed it to become an Act it might be too late to undo the harm that would be done. Therefore, speaking without investigation of the precedents—and I am very anxious not to say anything which may turn out to be inaccurate—I should think that there was no rule which prevented our discussing these matters; but it is, of course, manifest that it would be in the last degree inconvenient if we were to make a practice of having debates on

509
Bills which are introduced in a Dominion Parliament and which are presumably, at any rate, matters primarily for the concern of that Parliament rather than for ourselves.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, I shall not detain you more than a few minutes, but I should like to enforce what has been so ably put by my noble friend Lord Danesfort. He has told you what the situation is, and has asked His Majesty's Government what they are going to do, not in any spirit of hostility, but genuinely seeking to ventilate a very important subject which affects the lives of many thousands of His Majesty's subjects. It seems to me there are three classes of people to be considered in this matter, those so-called loyalists resident in the Irish Free State, those who, like myself, have interests in the Free State and are resident here, and, finally, the very large number of people who are Free State citizens, if I may put it in that way, and who gain their livelihood in this country.
With respect to the first class, the so called loyalists, it really is about time we did something for them. We promised them protection when the Treaty was put through. Most of us thought when the Treaty was put through that they would never get any protection, and we were right. But surely, if anything can be done—I do not say it can be easily done—they ought to have the very first claim upon our sympathy and our help. I commend that to the notice of the Lord Chancellor, who will reply. Then there is the class which deserves less attention, of which I am one. Apparently, from what the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, has said, if in the future, when the Bill he referred to becomes law, I go over to visit my property in Ireland, such as is left to me, and it is not much, I shall be liable to be stopped by the Customs and turned back. If I do get there, I shall be liable to domiciliary visits, to have my business interfered with by the Home Minister, and to have my place of residence prescribed for me, and I shall not be allowed to leave that place of residence to go more than a certain distance. In fact, I shall be treated as people are treated in Germany or Russia to-day. Finally, if I want to get back to England, I shall not be able to come if
510
the authorities think it desirable to keep me there.
And who is being treated in this way? A British subject, a British subject in Ireland. I do not want to make too much about that. You may say: "Well, that is all true; what is going to be done?" Here, frankly, it is much easier to say something ought to be done than to prescribe what could be done. But there is this to be considered. There is a large class of people who have come to this country because they think they can fare better here, get a better livelihood, get old age pensions and unemployment benefit and all the sweets of our social system. These people have come over here to get their livelihood at the expense of Britishers and they are keeping Britishers out of jobs. I put that forward with great respect for the consideration of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. It does seem to me that in the last resort we must do something to prevent ourselves being exploited by the citizens of a country who are hostile to us. If we do, possibly we shall get something done and at any rate we shall have protected our own people in this country.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, we know the great interest which the noble Lord always takes in Irish affairs and how anxious and solicitous lie is for the position of his friends in Southern Ireland. Therefore, I do not at all complain of the Question which he has asked, or of his putting it in the form in which it appears. But I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that the position of anyone who replies to the Question is a somewhat delicate one, for these Bills are not yet Acts. These Bills are still before the Legislature of the Irish Free State, and therefore I am extremely anxious—and I am quite sure the noble Lord will be extremely anxious—that the whole of the picture should be presented to your Lordships and not merely one or two excerpts from clauses of the two Bills. I propose therefore, with your Lordships' permission, although it may detain you for a few minutes longer than I had intended, to try to put the whole picture before you, and it will then be for your Lordships to say, and no doubt for the Government to say later, what should be done in the circumstances.

511
The noble Lord is perfectly right in saying that at present the Legislature in the Irish Free State is engaged in the consideration of two Bills. I have both of them before me in the state which they have at present reached. The first Bill is known as the Citizenship Bill. 1934, and the other Bill is known as the Aliens Bill, 1934. The position with regard to the first of these two Bills, is that it was introduced into the Dail as far back as June 27 of last year, and after it had been discussed in the Dail it aroused very considerable controversy both in the Free State and in Great Britain. Upon November 27 last the Secretary of State for the Dominions, Mr. J. H. Thomas, made this statement in another place as to the attitude of the British Government with regard to these two Bills. He said:
"His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are in correspondence with the Irish Free State regarding the Irish Free State Citizenship Bill. They have informed the Irish Free State Government that the Bill cannot be regarded as making provision for the maintenance of what is known as the common status' of subjects of His Majesty on the basis of common allegiance to the Crown as contemplated in the conclusions of the Imperial Conference, 1930, relating to nationality. At the same time"—
these are important words—
"I am advised that the Bill does not purport to, and could not in any case, deprive any person of his status as a British subject."
That statement was made in another place, as I pointed out, on November 27, and a few days later, on December 1, the Secretary of State for the Dominions made a similar statement in a public speech at Derby. I do not propose to read that speech to your Lordships, but it proceeded upon the same lines as the statement to which I have already referred, although at rather greater length.
There was a debate in your Lordships' House in answer to a Question put by the noble Lord on December 20 last, to which the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, made an answer which will be found reported in Volume 95 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. At that time the Government were not in possession of the whole report of a debate which had taken place the previous day in Ireland, that is to say upon December 19, when Mr. de Valera made a speech upon the Third Reading of this Bill. I
512
must refer your Lordships now to two clauses of the Bill, in order that you may see the whole picture. The Citizenship Bill is a very long and a somewhat complicated Bill. It describes as the citizens of Saorstát Eireann those persons who, by virtue of Article 3 of the Constitution, become Irish citizens. Then it goes on in a very long clause to describe who are natural-born citizens, citizens born since the date of the Treaty. That is a very complicated clause.
There is also a very big clause to which I must draw your Lordships' attention. It is Clause 23 of the Citizenship Bill. In order to present the whole of the picture to your Lordships, I must just indicate briefly what Clause 23 provides. The marginal note of the clause is:
"Mutual citizenship rights between Saorstát Eireann and other countries."
It says—I am not going to read the whole clause because it is very long and very complicated—that
"Whenever a convention made, whether before or after the passing of this Act, between Saorstát Eireann and any other country or between the Government of Saorstát Eireann and the Government of any other country -provides for the enjoyment in such other country (either absolutely or subject to compliance with conditions) by citizens of Saorstát Eireann of all or any of the rights and privileges of citizens of such other country…."
there should be reciprocity, and that the citizens of that State should enjoy similar privileges.
In the debate on the Third Reading of this Bill on December 19, this is what Mr. de Valera is reported to have said:
"We are then in these mutual provisions"—
that is, in the clause to which I have referred but of which I have not read the whole—
"saying: 'We are not going to say why it is you give them to us, but we admit that our citizens are, in fact, getting certain privileges in Great Britain, and in Canada, Australia and South Africa by the law of these countries; we say that, in so far as our citizens are getting privileges in these countries, we are prepared to give the citizens of these countries, with the exception mentioned'"—
I need not refer to them at all—
"'similar privileges. One of the first Acts of the Executive Council when this Bill becomes law will be, by Order, to confer on the citizens of those countries privileges akin to the privileges our people get in those countries.'"

513
It is a reciprocity clause. The position with regard to that Bill is as follows. I have read Mr. de Valera's statement on the Third Reading, and that Bill has passed through all its stages in the Dail. It has passed Second Reading and Committee stage in the Senate, but I am informed that the final stage was deferred until progress had been made with the Aliens Bill.
I now turn to the Aliens Bill to see how the matter stands with regard to that Bill. The Aliens Bill was introduced into the Dail on November 22 last year. I have it before me, but all I have is the Bill as amended on Report. This is a very technical matter, but when the Bill was originally introduced on the First Reading it contained two clauses to which I must draw your Lordships' attention. It contained a definition of an alien in Clause 2, and it also contained a reciprocity clause similar to the reciprocity clause in the Citizenship Bill, in the clause which at that moment was Clause 9 of the Bill but which has now become Clause 10. I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 2 and Clause 10 of the Bill as it stands at. present.
Clause 2, if I may say so without offence to our Irish friends, is fortunately an extremely simple one. It is the simplest of the lot:
"In this Act the word 'alien' means a person who is not a citizen of Saorstát Eireann"
We know who the people are who are citizens, because we have that in the first Bill. The important clause, now again, is however the reciprocity clause, which was Clause 9 and has now become Clause 10. It is a short clause, of which the first subsection is the only one which I want to read:
"The Executive Council"—
that is, of the Irish Free State—
"may by order exempt from the application of any provision or provisions of this Act, or of any aliens order, the citizens of any country in respect of which the Executive Council are satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances and in particular the laws of such country in relation to immigrants. it is proper that the exemption mentioned in such order should be granted."
That is the reciprocity clause, of the sort that is in the other Bill. When Mr. de Valera spoke on the Second Reading of
514
this Bill in the Dail on February 14 last, he said this:
"We are making full provision for the maintenance of any rights or privileges to which members of one State of the Commonwealth, travelling into another, are entitled. We are doing that by Order. Once this set of Bills is passed, we can, by Order, make available all those privileges in virtue of the fact that, by law in some of those States, similar privileges are allowed to our citizens. But if any of those privileges are denied to our citizens, we would be free to deny similar privileges."
Let me stop for a moment, if I may. That is how the matter stands at present. The Bills have not yet become law because, with regard to the second of those two Bills—the Aliens Bill—the position is this. The Second Reading was, as I have said, on February 14, and that Bill remains now, as the other Bill remains, to be completed. Of course I cannot prophesy—no one can prophesy—what will be in the Bill upon completion, but there is no reason to suppose that either of those two clauses will not find its way into the completed Act.
LORD DANESEORT: Might interrupt the noble and learned Viscount for one moment?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly.
LORD DANESFORT: It is to point out that Clause 9 does not say that the reciprocity shall take place. All it says is that the Executive Council may exempt if they think fit. Now there is nothing to force the Executive Council to pass this reciprocity, and therefore it may never come into operation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I quite agree. It appears, therefore, that the intentions of the Irish Free State Government are that, as long as the present practice continues whereby citizens of the Irish Free State are not subjected in the United Kingdom to the disabilities imposed by law upon aliens, the Irish Free State will be prepared, or rather—I certainly accept the correction—they will have the power under Section 9 of the Aliens Act to issue an exempting Order in respect of British subjects belonging to the United Kingdom.
Now the views of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom as to the principle underlying Clause 2 are

515
similar to those which have already been expressed by Mr. Thomas with regard to the Citizenship Bill. I called attention to Clause 9—as it was; it is now Clause 10—under which they have power to make these reciprocity Orders. How then does the matter stand? The position that the Government take up is this. The established policy of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is that all peoples of His Majesty, of whatever origin, should be treated alike in this country as regards admission and residence. The view of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is that Irish Free State citizenship does not deprive any person of his status as a subject of His Majesty. As I have already explained, His Majesty's Government propose to reserve their position until they see what form the Bills take when they become Acts of Parliament, and if, as is assumed, an Order is made under Clause 10 of the Aliens Bill—that is the reciprocity section—then no situation seems likely to arise which would call for any variation of the established policy of His Majesty's Government, to which I have already alluded. Therefore, as far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, we do not like to use the phrase "Wait and See," hut we shall see what happens to those two reciprocity clauses when the Bills become Acts. It will be time enough then for us to consider, as I have already indicated, what will be the position.
With regard to Papers, I have none that I can lay before your Lordships' House. If the noble Lord has not seen the full text of these two Bills—namely, the Citizenship Bill and the Aliens Bill—I shall be very pleased to hand him the copies which I hold in my hand. As I pointed out, however, the position at present is that the original first Bill has got as far as the Second Reading and
516
there it is waiting. The Aliens Bill will no doubt in the course of time become an Act. It will then be possible to see what the real position is. I regret that I can answer the question at no greater length, and I really have no Papers that I can give to the noble Lord.
LORD DANESFORT: Will the noble and learned Viscount say if they have informed the Free State Government of the importance which His Majesty's Government attach to these so-called reciprocity provisions, and to the necessity for those being embodied in the law, in possibly stronger form than at present? Have they in particular informed the Free State Government that it must not be left to the Executive Council of the Free State to say whether or not the Aliens Bill is to apply to British subjects—that they must have a definite statement to the effect that British subjects in the Free State shall enjoy the same liberties and privileges as Free State subjects in this country? Further, if already such communications have not been sent, will His Majesty's Government do so?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The answer to my noble friend is this, that I will convey his very important remarks to my right honourable friend the Dominions Secretary, and I have no doubt that he, having had great experience of the whole of the negotiations with the Irish Free State, will do what he thinks right in this matter.
LORD DANESFORT: At this stage I do not press my Motion for Papers, but I gather that if there are communications such as I have indicated we shall be entitled to see them.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past seven o'clock.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation,

Great Western Railway,

Reading Corporation.

And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for the following Bill:
London Building Act (Amendment).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

NEWCASTLE AND GATESHEAD WATERWORKS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
CITY OF LONDON (ST. PAUL'S CATHEDRAL PRESERVATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
BURY AND DISTRICT JOINT WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.