I desire to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill, which is No. 6 on the Order Paper of to-day, and which consists of over 90 Clauses, is not yet available at the Vote Office? In these circumstances, I would like to know whether he intends to give an undertaking that the Bill will not be taken to-day.

Obviously, as the Bill alluded to is not yet available at the Vote Office, it is quite impossible for us to take it to-day.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The object of this Measure is to vest in the Government the legal powers necessary to enable it to carry out certain provisions of the two Naval Treaties agreed to at Washington. I do not suppose that it is necessary for me to explain those Treaties in detail to the House. They represent the greatest measure of practical idealism in international relations that has been achieved in our time, and the credit of that achievement will rest equally with the Government of the United States and the British Empire. Nor is it necessary for me to go into the details of the administrative measures which will necessarily arise out of the Treaties. I have already dealt with those measures in introducing the Naval Estimates some time ago; in fact, the execution of the agreement is writ large in every line of our Navy Estimates. We have thought it our duty to act in that respect as if the agreement had been ratified by all the contracting powers, and we have gone ahead with all the necessary measures for the reduction of our Fleet on the assumption that it was our duty to trust those who have framed these agreements with us, and give a fair lead to other nations in this matter.

There are several respects in which the execution of these Agreements demands fresh powers to be placed in the hands of the Government as against the private citizen. For example, we have undertaken under the Treaty for the Limitation of Naval Armament that our total tonnage of capital ships shall not exceed a certain amount. We have undertaken that our individual capital ships and ships of war shall come within certain limitations. Those are undertakings which we can fulfil by administrative action. We have also given certain other undertakings. If hon. Members will look at the First Schedule of this Bill they will see that in the Articles of Treaty for the Limitation of Naval Armaments we have undertaken that certain things shall not be done within the jurisdiction of the contracting powers. In Article V we provide that no capital ship excaeding 35,000 tons shall be acquired or constructed within the jurisdiction of any of the contracting powers. In Article IX we have undertaken that no aircraft carrier exceeding 27,000 tons standard displacement shall be acquired or constructed. In Article XI we undertake that no vessel of war exceeding 10,000 tons, other than a capital ship or aircraft carrier, shall be acquired or constructed. And there are a number of other articles of the same sort undertaking that certain things shall not be done within our jurisdiction.

We have also undertaken that, if any ships be built for the purpose of war in this country, for sale to other powers, even if they come within the limits of the treaties, we must keep the other contracting powers informed as to the tonnage of the vessels we are building, the date on which the keel is laid, and other particulars relating to the construction of such ships. The Government at the present moment do not possess power to prevent any private citizen or firm building ships of any size or character they may wish to build. Therefore, the first thing which is essential, if we are to fulfil our obligations under these Treaties, is to give ourselves power to prevent ships being built in this country in contravention of the terms of the Treaty.

The method which we are adopting in Clause 1 of the Bill is to lay it down that the construction of a ship of war cannot take place in this country without a licence from the Admiralty. This applies not only to the construction of a ship of war, but to the sale of a ship of war to any foreign country. This is provided for in paragraphs ( a ) and ( b ) of Subsection (1), Clause 1. At the same time, the following paragraph of the Clause makes it clear that the power of the Admiralty to withhold a licence to a private firm should only be used in connection with purposes arising directly out of the Treaties; that is to say, there will be no arbitrary power in the hands of the Admiralty to refuse a licence for any other reasons than those which are stipulated in the Treaties. I think that is essential.

It is equally necessary for the Admiralty to be in a position to see that, when it has given a licence, the terms of the Treaties are actually being fulfilled. This necessitates the power which is given in Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (3) of Clause 1, for the Admiralty to know the designs of the ship and other particulars, and, if necessary, to empower members of the Admiralty Naval Construction and Inspection staff to visit the shipyards in question, and assure themselves that the provisions of the Treaties are not being contravened. That really covers the machinery necessary for enforcing the Treaty upon private construction.

Clause 2 deals with the legal penalties for a contravention of this Bill. These penalties cover a very wide range. They include a maximum fine of £100, and imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two years, and there is also a liability that the ship and her equipment may be forfeited, which is a very substantial fine indeed. The penalties may extend to all persons, including every director and manager of a company or corporation concerned who has been privy to the contravention of the Bill. This wide range is obviously necessary, because the contravention of the Bill may vary from a deliberate conspiracy on the part of all the directors and managers of a company to violate the Treaty at one end of the scale, to some small technical violation, to be dealt with by a comparatively small fine at the other end of the scale.

The next Clause of importance is Clause. 3, which makes it clear that a licence given under this Bill does not in any sense absolve a ship owner or a ship constructor from the obligations of the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870. Under that Act, as the House well knows, no ship in time of war between two foreign Powers may be built in this country, or equipped and armed in this country for use by one of the belligerents. The only object of Clause 3 is to make it clear that a licence under this Bill, which allows the building of a ship within the limitations of the Washington Treaty, does not form any justification, if war should subsequently break out between two foreign Powers, for the sale of such ship, even if it conform in dimensions and armament to the Washington Treaty, to one of the belligerent Powers Those are all the legal powers necessary to implement the Treaty for the Limitation of Naval Armaments.

There was a further Treaty, which is defined in the Preamble to this Bill as a treaty to protect neutrals and non-combatants at sea in time of war and to prevent use in war of noxious gases and chemicals. Hon. Members may recollect that one of the endeavours of the British Delegation at Washington was to get rid of submarine warfare altogether, in view of the manner in which that warfare had been carried on by our enemies in the late War. That particular proposal did not commend itself to France, nor, I think, to some of the other Powers at Washington. But the feeling against the manner in which Germany had employed her submarines was so strong, both among the members of the Conference itself and in the general public in the United States, that the American Government brought forward the second Treaty, of which certain Articles are reproduced in the Second Schedule, and the object of which is to make it quite clear that submarines must conform absolutely to the ordinary-laws of war. Indeed, if laid it down further, as between the contracting parties, that the use of submarines as commerce destroyers should be abolished altogether, and that they should endeavour to make that part of the common international law. I think it might interest the House if I read to them the actual words used by the author of this Resolution, Mr. Root, in order to make it clear what is the purpose of the Treaty. He said: You will observe that this Treaty does not undertake to codify International Law in respect of visit, search, or seizure of merchant vessels. What it does undertake is to state the most important and effective provisions of the law of nations in regard to the treatment of merchant vessels by belligerent warships, and to declare that submarines arc under no circumstances exempt from those humane rules for the protection of the lives of innocent non-combatants, It undertakes further to stigmatise violation of these rules and the doing to death of women and children and non-combatants by the wanton destruction of merchant vessels upon which they are passengers as a. violation of the laws of war. which, as between these five great Powers and all other civilised nations who shall give their adherence, shall be henceforth punished as an act of piracy. It undertakes, further, to prevent temptation to the violation of these rules by the use of submarines for the capture of merchant vessels and to prohibit: their use altogether. It undertakes, further, to denounce the use of noxious gases and chemicals in war as they were used, to the horror of all civilisation, in the War of 1914–18. The House will notice that there are certain things in that Treaty which the contracting Powers undertake to observe as between themselves, and to endeavour to establish as part of the law of nations. One is the complete prohibition of the use of submarines as commerce destroyers, another is the use of noxious gases and chemicals. There are certain other things, namely, the proper conduct of interference with merchant vessels by any craft, whether submarine or surface craft, which are reasserted as part of the existing law of nations, and the violation of which it is proposed shall be treated within the jurisdiction of this country and of any other country as an act of piracy. The House knows well that piracy is one of those offences which, wherever committed and by whomsoever committed, can be brought into the Courts of this country or anywhere in His Majesty's Dominions, and punished, whether committed by a British subject, by an enemy at war with ourselves, or by a neutral; and Clause 4 of this Bill makes it part of the law of this country that we shall be able in future to deal with those who violate Article I of the Treaty in question in the same way as if they had been guilty of piracy.

It does not include the use of noxious gases, but only submarines.

No; I thought I had made that clear. The use of submarines against commerce and the use of noxious gases are things which we undertake administratively not to do, and which we hope to see established as part of the law of war. But the use of submarines as they were used in the late War, without a proper opportunity for women and children and passengers to get into safety, is laid down as a violation of the existing laws of war, and it is that violation of the existing laws of war which, in future, is to be treated in the law courts of this country and of His Majesty's Dominions as an act of piracy, liable to be punished in the same way as piracy. That, I think, really covers the whole of the provisions of this measure, except purely forma! provisions; and though there may be minor points that may arise in Committee, I think there is no doubt in the House as to the general agreement with which we carry out our undertakings in this respect.

The House may possibly wish to be informed how the position stands in regard to other nations. The United States, as I think the House generally knows, have taken a most important step in that direction, namely, the formal assent of the Senate. That was passed, I will not say with unanimity, but by an overwhelming majority, some time ago, and, subject only to some minor enabling legislation—I think of similar character to that which I am bringing forward this morning—we may consider that the United States have fully implemented their undertaking.

Have they actually passed a Bill like this?

I do not think that they have. I said there is some minor enabling legislation, but I am not fully informed as to how far they have to ask for the same powers as we have. At any rate, that legislation no doubt will very shortly be passed. In France and in Italy, I think, the Bill for Ratification of the Treaty is in each case before the Foreign Relations Committee. In Japan—the new Prime Minister, Baron Kato, was chief Japanese delegate at Washington—I understand ratification is to take place almost at once. In our own Dominions, I think we can assume that there is no doubt that both ratification and the passing of legislation on similar lines to those contained in the present Bill will take place without any delay. In Canada it is some weeks since ratification was unanimously agreed by both Houses. So we cannot claim that we are acting greatly in advance of our co-signatories. Whether that be the case or not, I think we should make it quite clear that Parliament and this country is fully behind the statesmen who signed that great Pact at Washington.

There is one point in this controversy on which politicians and the public of all shades and complexions of opinion are united, namely, that these two Treaties which were enacted at Wash ington two months ago are instruments that command universal approbation. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman that he has the privilege of being the first of the statesmen of all countries concerned in this Pact to introduce in his own Legislature a Measure to give practical effect to the Agreement arrived at at Washington. It is regrettable— but no one is to blame—that there has been as much delay as there has been in the ratification of these two great instruments, and in the passing of the necessary ancillary legislation. We may justly congratulate ourselves, however, on having shown no remissness in these respects. I am only going to say two or three words about this Bill, and they will not be in a critical sense, but their object will be to ensure that its real effect may be generally appreciated and understood. The Bill consists, as the right hon Gentleman has truly said, of two parts, one dealing with one Treaty, and the other dealing with the other Treaty. The first part is necessary to make effective the Treaty for the Limitation of Naval Armaments, and I should like, if I may, to call the attention of the House to one or two of the provisions in the first Schedule, which cite the Articles of Agreement in regard to naval construction. The House will find in Part IV that a definition was arrived at in Washington of the term "capital ships." I think it was wise that that vague phrase, used in a different sense at different times, should receive an authoritative interpretation. The definition is as follows: A capital ship, in the case of ships hereafter built, is defined as a vessel of war, not an aircraft carrier, whose displacement exceeds 10,000 tons or which carries a gun with a calibre exceeding 8 inches. Therefore, for the purposes of the Treaty, and the naval programme of the various Powers in the future, that will be treated as a capital ship. Now we come to another important provision. Article V, which also deals with capital ships, says: No capital ship exceeding 35,000 tons shall be acquired by, or constructed by, for or within the jurisdiction of, any of the contracting Powers. This is a great step in advance in the way of competition in naval construction. Article VI is, I think, equally important. It reads: No capital ship of any of the contracting Powers shall carry a gun with a calibre in excess of 16 inches. That will put a stop to the reckless and ruinous competition in the ever-increasing scale of guns and ammunition. Then Article XII, which certainly ought not to be passed without notice, provides that No vessels of war of any of the contracting Powers, hereafter laid down, other than a capital ship, shall carry a gun with a calibre in excess of 8 inches. This Bill will enable the Government and executive of the day, at any rate as far as this country is concerned, to prevent infractions of the Treaty by private adventure, and it is for that purpose, as I understand, that the first Clause is needed. No one will dispute that these provisions are essential for that purpose, or will criticise them on the ground of excessive rigour in the way of punishment.

Now I come to that part of the Bill which deals with the second of the two Treaties contracted at Washington—the Treaty to protect neutrals and non-combatants at sea in time of war, and to prevent the use in war of noxious gases and chemicals. If the House will look at the second Treaty on the last page of the Hill, it will see what that means. The rules which are specified in the first paragraph of Article I are, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated, no innovation. They are in no sense an innovation upon the established code of international law. We have always recognised in our Courts that merchant vessels must be ordered to submit to visit and search, to determine their character before they can be seized, and that they must not be attacked unless they refuse to submit to visit and search after warning, or to proceed as directed after seizure. That is, a standing rule in international law, and was so at the beginning of the late War.

I have always thought that the action of the German submarines was a distinct and flagrant violation of these well-established rules. The procedure adopted in the case of many of our merchant vessels, and in the case of merchant vessels, belonging to neutral Powers, constituted in fact an act of piracy of the worst kind, and ought to have been branded as such, and punished as such. I hoped we should have been able to obtain an agreement for the abolition of submarine warfare altogether; for even with the strongest paper safeguards such as we have here, it would be difficult to prevent these violations. If submarine warfare is to be allowed at all, everyone will agree that these provisions, to prevent such acts by submarines, are not in any circum stances a departure from the universal rules as to piracy, and are necessary to make logically complete the well-established principles of international law. I think, therefore, that in both respects, as regards these Treaties, the Bill ought to command, as it certainly will command, not only the assent, but the warm approval of every section of the House. I will only add what I am sure must be in everyone's mind, that it is high time that similar agreements were come to with regard to disarmament on land. Excellent as it is, and great step in advance as it is, that so many of the great Powers should come to agreement as to Naval limitations, it is necessary, for the purpose of the peace of the world, that similar arrangements should be come to in regard to armaments on land, and I am sure it is the fervent prayer of the whole House and the whole country that that happy consummation may not be long delayed.

In the consideration of Treaties such as these, it seems a little unfortunate that matters so vitally affecting the future of this country should be debated without the presence of any of the chief Ministers of the Crown, and, in particular—in the regrettable absence of the Leader of the House, owing to illness, with which we all sympathise— that the Prime Minister should be absent on an occasion such as this. These are executive steps to put into force one of the greatest international instruments or set of instruments which have ever been effected, They are the first fruits of co-operation between America and ourselves, in which, as none of us doubt, the only hope for the peaceable development of the world is to be found. In addition, they mean the broaching of questions which are more important to this country than to any other, namely, the power of this country at sea, and the voluntary limitation by this country of the provisions which have been considered necessary in the past DO defend the very bread of the people of these islands. In all these circumstances, it does seem very unfortunate that the Chief Minister of the Crown should not be here for the purpose of proving to the world that these problems have not been treated lightly in this Parliament, but have been taken with the utmost seriousness that it is possible for us to apply to them, and also because, when the British House of Commons is discussing sea power, it certainly seems that the best brains of the Government should be applied to the Debate.

These provisions are the first step towards a practical scheme of limitation of armaments, and they are the first step towards the solution of another problem, which has not been mentioned so far in the Debate, but which is also of vital importance to the future of the world—the abolition of the construction of armaments by private enterprise. This subject has not even been touched upon, as far as I can gather, either in the able though very short speech of the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill, or in the subsequent remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. Any limitation such as this involves an increasing responsibility on the Government, which, under this Bill, is thrown entirely upon the shoulders of the Admiralty. It certainly seems that we may find ourselves regretting in years to come that the whole of this great responsibility has been given to a mere Department of the Government, and is not, as far as one can see, subject to any revision either by Parliament or by the country as a whole. The decisions of the Admiralty arc to be final on all these points.

The question of the limitation of the construction of armaments by private enterprise is not nearly so simple as it appears at first sight. When the Government forbids, the Government has the responsibility also of permitting. When the nations as a whole forbid. they have the responsibility as a whole of permitting. The signatories to this Treaty, to take a single concrete example, have bound themselves not to construct any ship, or to allow to be constructed within their jurisdiction any ship, of a tonnage exceeding 35,000. But there are great Powers, with great financial resources, entirely outside the limitations of this Treaty. Spain, for instance, is not a signatory; and, when these-Powers take upon themselves the obligation never to build any ship beyond the-limitations imposed by this Treaty, they enter on a serious responsibility with their populations when it is realised that Powers outside the scope of the Treaty may find themselves in a position to-construct warships on a scale vastly superior to anything that either the people of this country or of America may be able, under the limitations which they have themselves imposed, to build. There is no reason whatever why engineers from Germany should not set up in Spain dock- yards and arsenals capable of building ships for, say, a South American republic far above the limitations imposed under the stipulations of this Treaty. There is no immediate supposition that such things will be done, although it is not by any means impossible to suppose that Soviet Russia might find itself in a very profitable position where it is not bound by limitations of this Treaty, and might, to the order of some foreign Power, construct vessels on a scale which the big armament firms of this country had bound themselves not to undertake.

These problems are worthy of somewhat deeper consideration than discussion by a small sporadic attendance on a Friday morning at eleven o'clock, without the presence of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No doubt there are excellent reasons for their absence, but, as a junior Member of the House, I should wish to be assured that these great questions were going to be threshed out in the House this morning in some greater detail than seems probable from the cursory manner in which the right hon. Gentleman introduced this Bill. We are, for good or ill, entering on the path of limitation of armaments and abolition of the manufacture of armaments by private enterprise. These are steps of the utmost importance, not only, as I have said, to all the nations of the world, but in particular to this nation, which lives so vitally and immediately by the traffic borne to it across the seas, under the guard of those navies which we have constructed in the past. I do not know if it is the intention of any Members of the Government to give us some further information on these points, but is it not possible that this Debate is rather perfunctory, in view of the importance of the subject under consideration?

The abolition of the construction of armaments by private enterprise has not even been mentioned. The attitude of the Government towards other Governments, not signatories to the Treaty, who may possibly indulge in the construction of armaments on a scale greatly beyond the scope of the Treaty has not even been mentioned, nor has the attitude of the Government towards the other nations who are signatories to the Treaty, in regard to whether they will be satisfied merely with their declaration, or whether any joint commission of inspection is to be introduced under this or any other Treaty. It may he said, quite rightly, that the bona fides of the Powers who are signatories to the Treaty cannot be impugned, but I would ask the House to consider that we hope that this will be a preliminary step to a further introduction of the limitation of land armaments, and not only that, but to conventions with the ex-enemy Powers, and with other Powers who, although they were not actually enemies, are Powers with whom our relations are not nearly so friendly as they are with the great Republics of America and France. I would suggest that it is necessary for the House to consider whether some joint commission of inspection such as we have forced upon Germany in relation to disarmament there would not be worth while considering as a proof of bona fides by the countries signatory to this Treaty in the hope that later on, when we get belligerents in, we may be able to dissipate the atmosphere of suspicion which is undoubtedly one of the chief things in keeping up the race of armaments. Already, even with a Commission sitting in Germany, you have the suspicion of the French, which is fostered by great newspapers in this country. that depots of munitions and arms exist and secret armament manufactures are being carried on in that country. While if is all very well for the three or four Powers under this Treaty already to believe in each other's bona fides, if we get in enemy Powers the mere affirmation of these Powers will not be considered sufficient by great and important sections of opinion in this country, and therefore I would ask the Government to consider whether it would not be necessary in addition, when we wish to bring in further Powers, ex-enemy Powers and belligerents, whose bona fides are not nearly so well believed in in this country as are the bona fides of the Republics and the Powers signatory to the present Treaty, that we should actually allow in this country some form of inspection, voluntary and asked for, of the great dockyards and arsenals of this country in order that later on we ourselves might ask that some form of inspection of the dockyards and arsenals of the other countries who are coming in under this Treaty might be allowed in order that accurate information should be disseminated throughout the world as to the actual state of armaments in each of the countries which are coming under these great disarmament schemes.

The Treaties of Washington have generally been regarded as one of the greatest achievements of British diplomacy, and indeed of world diplomacy as a whole. I have no such optimistic illusions. There is no doubt the Treaties of Washington were largely for the limitation of capital ships. The other great problems of the future have been looked in the face and passed by on the other side. The problem of disarmament as a whole has scarcely even been mentioned. The state of opinion on submarine warfare has been reaffirmed, as it was reaffirmed at the beginning of this war, but these are mere paper affirmations. It is very difficult to believe they will prove very much more effective than they were at the commencement of the last war. The fact that we can, if we like, treat these as acts of piracy does not bring us very much further on. We all remember that during the last war an attempt was made to treat captured German submarine officers in a way to indicate that the opinion of the Allies considered that they had been guilty of acts absolutely on a different footing from ordinary acts of warfare according to the usage of civilised nations. That broke down completely, and it is my belief that any attempt to treat as pirates submarine commanders in future wars, engaged on similar acts, will again break down. Suppose, in some future state of war between Poland and Soviet Russia, Russia claimed that as they had not been consulted in the matter of submarine warfare they were not bound by the state of opinion of civilised nations. If Russian submarines took to sinking merchant ships at sight and the Poles took to hanging their commanders in the squares of Warsaw when they were captured, that attempt would break down as these attempts broke down in the past and will break down in the future. The attitude of the civilised Powers to problems of disarmament was, I think, brutally exemplified in the Washington conferences. The Powers went to the Washington Conference, as we went there, having voted for great ships which really, to be; perfectly honest, I do not believe this country intended to construct.

They wasted some money over them.

The intention has been and always was that these enormous megalosauri were not to be continued, and this huge expenditure was not to be gone on with. But the saving undertaken at Washington was not nearly so much a saving for humanitarian purposes as a saving for economic purposes, and, while hon. Gentlemen are very anxious to pat themselves on the back for saving for economic purposes, a saving for economic purposes is a saving after all of greed, and any great action committed on account of greed will not bring any very lasting spiritual reward. When we touched the real problems affecting what nations regarded as problems intimately connected with not their money but their honour, when we touched the question of land armies, when we touched the question of coastal defence, when we touched the question of air attack and defence, then the old spirit and the old prejudice arose again, and these were shelved and dismissed and relegated to some future date, when it might be that opinion would have less force in the matter than it has to-day.

Already all over the world people are clamouring for greater and greater air development. In France they have a strength of something like 200 squadrons to five, or it may be 10, in this country. In Italy, only two or three weeks ago, Gabriele d'Annunzio, the great poet, was urging, with all the force of his tremendous power over the Italian people, a greater and greater Italian air development. He urged in his great speech "The Creed of a Poet" that Italy-must find a Master Blacksmith to cut the Roman eagle from the shield and loose it into the skies. The power which has made Italy one of the great motor countries of the world, their skill in technique, their skill in aviation should lead them to enormous development in the air, and Italy should dominate the skies as once she dominated the earth. That is the spirit in which development in the air is being regarded, not perhaps by the mass of people, but by the vigorous, thrusting minds throughout the world, and this is the problem which the great Conference at Washington looked at, and passed by on the other side.

We have taken only one step to-day, but it is a step in regard to the voluntary limitation of armaments in good faith by the countries of the world. In the spirit in which we move to-day the greater and greater achievements which we hope to bring about in the limitation of land armaments and air armaments will eventually be entered upon. It is to be entered upon in the same small business spirit as we have shown this morning, saying, on the one hand, that there will be a great saving of money, and, on the other, the steps we propose to take are not really very important when you come to look into them. That creates a fear that the important problems in regard to the new field of activities will not be realised. Armies are leaving the ground, and leaping into the air. All over the world already the sky is beginning to hum with the come and go of these locusts of death, which we have seen over London in the last year of the war, and which already even the Air Ministry admit would probably make London uninhabitable as a great city in any future war even if it were to break out within 24 hours.

When, therefore, we are taking one step in the matter I think it is important that it should be regarded not as the completion of a passing agreement regarding the safety of San Francisco and Shanghai and the shores of the Pacific, many thousands of miles away, but that it should be regarded as a movement of the human mind towards a new orientation in this problem. Undoubtedly in Europe what concerns us more than anything else is air armaments, because we live in one another's lap, and within ten hours of the declaration of war, Paris, London, Berlin, or any of our capitals might be wrecked. The problem is quite different here from what it is in the United States, where the belligerents are separated by oceans which have scarcely been traversed till within a few score years ago. When one finds that the first step is treated with this levity and cursoriness by the Government of the day, it makes one despair of the question whether they are really applying themselves to it with the knowledge that Europe, which has been shaken but not wrecked by the last war, will be ground down into dust if the new war which we are fearing break out.

The mere fact that we have saved £5,000,000, £10,000,000 or £50,000,000 on these huge armed leviathans to sail about the Pacific and blow the rocks of British Columbia into powder, will be as nothing if we cannot bring about a new spiritual orientation towards the problem of wars in Europe. Unless we can bring that about, a European war will break out. These great aircraft which can already, within a few hours, cross frontiers as though they did not exist, and level the greatest of our cities into the dust, will begin to pass again, and we shall find that the mere saving of a few-millions of sovereigns which we make in this Treaty is absolutely dust before the wind when compared with the lack of spiritual appreciation and mental appreciation of the problem of war, as it is waged to-day, and the problem of the risk of Europe as it is run to-day.

These European problems are the main problems. The steps which we are taking to-day are only of importance as an earnest of the greater steps which we have to take to-morrow, and the still greater steps which we have to take later. If we continue in the spirit in which we have begun to-day, these great cities will fall, our civilisation will fail, and the savings that we have made and the buildings we have built by the money we have saved will go down in the common smash. London will be like St. Quentin and Peronne, and in a hundred years it will be like the ruined city of Byzantium in Asia Minor, because we could not realise that the spirit of man in civilisation was capable of destroying all his works with the utmost of ease, and that unless we develop the God in man against the brute, the achievement of humanity will be lost.

The speech to which we have just listened, with all its eloquence, seems to be the right accompaniment for this Debate, and I can only regret that the hon. and gallant Member continues to be a supporter of every adventure adumbrated and put through by the Government. He should sit on these benches, and then he would be able, with a single-minded spirit, to advocate what we all know to be the right cause of humanity against the old militarist spirit of Europe. The matter we have before us to-day will secure the united support of the House. Not only do we welcome the Measure itself, but we welcome, above all, the fact that we are the first country to implement and carry out in every detail that which was agreed upon at Washington. I hope that it will be noted at Washington that we have led the way, even though it involve some sacrifice in our own workshops to carry out the decisions of the Conference. When we are looking at the present Bill, we must look at it, not merely as it affects the decisions of the Washington Conference, but as it will affect the decisions of those future conferences to which we must look forward for limiting armaments on the earth and in the air. These arrangements will require amplifying when the new conferences take place. It is from this point of view that I want to look at the provisions to-day.

12 N.

By profession I am a designer of warships. I am certain that 10 or 15 years age had this Bill been presented, there would have been an out cry from all the great armament firms of this country. There would have been a sustained protest, and the Bill would never have gone through. Now, fortunately, we approach it in a different spirit, and from a different angle. Let us realise what is being done. In this Bill the Admiralty require every manufacturer of anything which can be called a "warship" to submit to the Admiralty their designs for approval before they go ahead with the work. They have to submit, also, to the right of the Admiralty to inspect their yards, and to see that they are carrying out accurately the designs which have been approved. I can imagine the howl that that would have produced 15 years ago. The Admiralty would have been charged with handing over the business secrets of one manufacturer to another, and of trying to extract from the yards the secrets of the success of Armstrong's or of Vickers'. Now it is accepted offhand. I want something more to be accepted. It is not merely inspection by the British Admiralty that is required, but inspection by an international body, which will satisfy international opinion, and not merely our own Government.

This is the first Measure to be brought forward, but presently other countries will bring forward Measures of the same sort. Everybody must realise that it will depend on how the inspection is carried out by the executive of the different countries whether it is satisfactorily worked or not. I am certain that in this country the Admiralty will prevent any sort of infraction. Everybody in England will believe that, but it is important that everybody outside England should also have faith in the inspection and in the carrying out of the Treaty. Is it not possible, therefore, to use the League of Nations to do that work? There you have the only body that will secure in future a general agreement. I should not object to having skilled experts, even if they were Frenchmen or Germans, going through our yards, and seeing that there was under construction no warships which were in any kind of way a contravention of the Treaty. I believe it would avoid a great deal of the suspicion that exists to-day if there were that spread of universal knowledge of what was being done. I hope that as soon as the other countries, not only the signatories to the Washington Treaty, but also countries like Germany and Russia, accept this position, we shall go the next step, and get international inspection and international authorisation.

That seems to be the next stage towards what all on these benches want to see—the abolition of the right to manufacture all instruments of war in private yards. If you are going in that direction, you have first to go through the stage of registration and inspection, and this Bill seems to be the first step in that direction. It is with some slight twinges of regret that I see the end of that great old battle between the gun and the armour, with John Brown producing a 16-inch armour plate and Vickers producing a 16-inch gun to pierce it, and next year Cammels producing armour which the 16-inch gun cannot pierce. So year after year the old battle went on. Now we are coming to an end of that, and a good thing too!

The whole point of this Bill is—can we extend it? In the old days before the War we had the naval scare. We were afraid of Germany because she was creating an enormous navy. Now an exactly similar scare has been started in connection with the air. Six months ago hardly a Member in this House knew how we were at the mercy of France so far as air power was concerned. Now nearly every child in the country knows that France has 140 squadrons, or whatever it may be. During these six months the air scare has been worked up. We are preparing the way in this country for a gigantic construction of aeroplanes. The only way to stop it is that we should have similar supervision and inspection and a convention dealing with the air. It is not creditable, when we are discussing vital questions like this, that we should have on the Front Bench not a single Cabinet Minister, because there is no country which is more interested at present in disarmament and putting an end to this air scare and getting the Washington Agreement extended to the other arms than Great Britain. The one sound financial policy is in disarmament. Yet we have not a Member of the Cabinet present at this Debate. That is unfortunate. It should be made clear that in welcoming this Bill we welcome it as the first stage towards a limitation of armaments which should extend to every one of the arms of the Service. I do not pretend that the Washington Conference, which merely prevents more than a certain number of battleships being built, and says that the sinking of merchant ships by submarines shall be considered as piracy, is doing much for disarmament, for which not only we, but the Prime Minister stands. It is only the first step, but on those lines much more can be done, and I hope will be done in future.

I notice that the second part of the Bill declares the sinking of merchant ships by submarines to be piracy. But the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Bill said that the signatories also agreed, though they did not put it into the Treaty, not to use poison gas in land operations against each other, and that, as far as future war between the signatories was concerned, poisonous gas was ruled out. That is all to the good. It cannot be embodied in this, I quite understand, but it does seem to me that if it be wrong to use poison gas against Europeans, against the troops of the signatories, it is just as wrong to use it against coloured people, as is being done to-day. And if it be wrong to use it against troops it is much more wrong to use it against non-combatants. It is incumbent upon us to carry out our principles and to see that if we refuse to use gas against organised armies of Europeans, we should not adopt it in operating against villages in Mesopotamia, or in these different places where earlier operations are being carried on against coloured people at the present time. I think the sacrifice of our power would be very small and it would add to our reputation, and also to the certainty that we intend to carry out to the letter the obligations into which we entered, if we cease to allow smoke bombs to be used on Arab villages or in Egypt, India or elsewhere. Let us stop ourselves some of the most offensive operations of warfare. If we do so we hope that the rest of the signatories will follow our lead, and put an end not only to the sinking of merchant ships without notice, but to the use altogether in warfare of poison gas.

The hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) instead of displaying that caution which I would expect to find in one of his nationality, deprecated that we did not go much further with this Bill. This Bill is limited both in its scope and application. The reason is that we have only a few Powers for signatories. If we had been fortunate enough to get all the nations of the world, the proposition put forward by the hon. and gallant Member would have been feasible, but as things are to-day, with this Treaty signed by only a few of the great Powers, no responsible Executive would have undertaken the risk to the State which would be involved if the Treaty were to be further extended. That is a consideration which the House must take into account. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said quite lightly that we have to go much further. Tie referred specially to the air and, with the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark, he urged that we should at once extend this agreement to cover the air. I do not think that we could get France to agree. I think we have got France to go as far as we can. We had to consider the susceptibilities of the Powers with which we were dealing. When we came to deal with naval Powers, France felt perfectly safe in reducing: her navy, but when we come to the air a very different state of affairs exists. Two of the great Powers, Russia and Germany, are not signatories. Russia and Germany to-day have a very small navy, but Germany has probabilities of having a great air force, and so has Russia. Before we can extend our Treaty, excellent as it is, to cover air warfare, we must work so as to get all the great Powers. Otherwise I do not believe that we shall get the signatories to the Treaty to extend it to the air.

With regard to submarine warfare, submarine attack on merchant ships without warning is to be regarded as an act of piracy. I welcome that view. These Clauses would have carried much greater force in the world had we insisted on the punishment of these Powers after the War. Had we enforced international law on these Powers after the War this would not have been a pious expression of opinion, but a continuance of executive policy which is a very different affair. Even the Germans knew that ruthless submarine warfare was illegal, because in their attack on commerce they pursued two different policies. When they sent out their cruisers and their men-of-war, Koenigsberg; Karlsruhe and Emden, they did not sink merchantmen without warning, but first called on them to stop. They took the papers and then they destroyed the ship. They carried out to a large extent what we have always accepted as the laws of international warfare at sea. When it came to submarines why did they not adopt that principle? Why did they have two different systems? They said, "It is too dangerous for a submarine to obey the same law." That is a confession that they knew they were wrong. I hope that it may still be in our power to enforce punishment on these submarine pirates, as determined by this House and by this country, and that we shall not have expressed a pious opinion on such acts, but that we shall see that they are fully punished.

The right hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill said, rightly, that this was a Measure embodying the first principles of idealism, and with that, in general, I agree. But I want to add certain qualifications. First of all, it is rather strange that a big Measure such as this, which is probably one of the most important Bills brought before this House since the Bill ratifying the Treaty of Versailles, is brought forward on a Friday morning with merely a quorum of Members present. I need only draw a comparison between the way this Bill is brought in and the Debate we had on the Genoa Conference. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, slips quietly out of the backdoor of the Admiralty and brings this Bill in on a Friday morning in an almost empty House. The comparison needs no comment at all. I regret that it probably shows that the inner Cabinet of the Government are going to treat the Treaty of Washington with the same respect that they have shown to the League of Nations, and other idealistic efforts of that sort. I regret that the principles which were brought forward at the Washington Conference were not brought forward sooner, and that, if the Government really intended to carry out those principles, they were not introduced through the League of Nations. The House knows that at Washington there were five important Treaties and a number of Resolutions carried. The Treaty we are discussing to-day deals only with two of those Treaties. The two Five-Power Treaties, the Limitation of Armaments Treaty and the Treaty relating to neutrals and poison gases. The three other Treaties—the Four-Power Treaty relating to insular possessions, the two Nine-Power Treaties, that regarding China, that regarding the Chinese Customs tariff—contain matters vital to the settlement of Asia and the peace of the world. They are not included in this Bill, and I shall be out of order if I discuss them. Those Treaties were carried out by our plenipotentiaries at Washington, but this House has no opportunity of expressing its opinion upon them.

If hon. Members will turn to the White Paper dealing with the Washington Conference they will find that in every one of the five Treaties a Clause was inserted to the effect that the countries concerned would ratify the Treaties in the manner usual to those countries. Why is it that, only these two important Treaties have been brought forward? The whole peace of the world is dependent on our policy. It is highly important that there should be a strong and enlightened public opinion regarding what is happening in China. There are difficulties in China which make for the disturbance of Asia, owing to the fact that at home no searchlight of public opinion has been thrown on what is being done out there. I cannot discuss the Treaties which are not included in this Bill, but the three Treaties cannot be taken separately from the two which are being ratified to-day. The three Treaties are the Quadruple Treaty, which may involve us on the side of Japan, should Russia attempt to recover Saghalien; and the two Nine-Power Treaties, which set forth the whole policy in China, both financial and political. Unless we can discuss the future policy of this country regarding China, and express an opinion as to whether China should be allowed to raise her Customs tariff or whether the Boxer indemnity should be commuted or be utilised for other purposes, such as educational facilities for the Chinese, these Treaties are to some extent nullified.

I tried to find in the White Paper, Command Paper 1672, any indication as to how the reduction of naval armament is to be carried into effect. How, for example, do we know that Japan is disarming her battleships, dismantling her guns and turrets and barbettes, and taking out her range-finders and torpedoes? Is any provision made for inspection to ensure that this work is being done, or is there any organisation set up to which reports will be rendered that the provisions of the Treaty have been executed? I should imagine that that was a matter which could be dealt with most suitably by the League of Nations. It is the sort of advisory non-executive function which a body of that kind might well be given, and it would add to the prestige of the League of Nations.

Then there is the Treaty regarding naval limitations. This Treaty gives enormous powers to Japan in the Pacific Ocean. It throws upon Siberia and upon China very great responsibilities in regard to the treatment of their territory. It does more than that; it gives Japan practically a monopoly of the Eastern provinces of China, where she already has enormous powers, and also over Eastern Siberia, where there is already a very large Japanese army of occupation. What has been the result up to the present of these negotiations?

At the Washington Conference the Japanese Delegates gave to the Conference a very clear declaration of their policy in regard to Eastern Siberia. The Japanese delegates said that they were authorised to declare that it was the fixed policy of Japan to respect the territorial integrity of Russia and to observe the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of that country. Hardly had the delegates returned from the Washington Conference when a conference was held at Dairen, in Manchuria. The conference was held on 15th April, 1922. The Japanese plenipotentiaries, fresh from the Washington Conference, where they had given these pledges, placed before the delegates of the Far Eastern Republic an ultimatum of seventeen clauses, including demands for the transformation of Vladivostock into a free port, an extension of Japanese fishing rights, the regulation of postal and telegraphic communication and a number of other very severe clauses in regard to that Republic. What is the Government going to about this matter? What steps are being taken to insure that the Japanese are really going to evacuate that part of the territory of Eastern Siberia to which they have no right whatever? They have spent up to the present in armies of occupation over £80,000,000, and the Japanese population in Eastern Siberia is, I believe, only about 8,000. They would be well advised to spend some of that money in indemnifying their population in that country, rather than going on with this senseless, military, Imperialistic intervention. We must not pass the question of Japanese intervention in Siberia and China without trying to understand the meaning of it. There are two schools of thought, one which says that Japan must expand in the East, and one which says there is no need for the Japanese population to expand. Before the question of the Pacific can be settled, with any degree of certainty, it is very desirable we should know whether it is necessary for Japan to expand in the East, and therefore I suggest this is a matter into which the League of Nations or some other body ought to inquire.

The full effects of the Treaties of Washington have, to some extent been nullified by the fact that no reference at all has been made to the limitation of air armaments. If we believe that the old battleships are out of date, then the Washington Conference simply means that the big Powers came together to scrap obsolete weapons. It may well be that the next war will be entirely—it certainly will be primarily—an air war. I do not believe there will be another big war as long as the people who fought in the last War are young and active and liable to have to fight again. But in another twenty or thirty years' time we may find ourselves in a new war where air development will be supreme. It may well be that the next war will start by a great attack of thousands of heavy bombing planes, each carrying two or three tons of high explosives, starting from a secret base somewhere in Central Asia, Bokhara or Beluchistan, where they have been secretly collected, and appearing over London. It would mean nothing more nor less than "hands up" for London. We have not got to go as far as Asia in our imagination. To-day France is in a position to say "hands up" to this country. Should we have to bomb Paris to-morrow, and I hope there will never be any cause for war between us and France, but if we had to bomb Paris, I should be surprised if we could send enough machines to run into two figures. I doubt if we could send ten machines, whereas France is in a position, in case of war, to send something like 100 machines over London at any time. Steps should be taken to extend the results of the Washington Conference to the air.

Regarding the Treaty provisions relating to neutrals and poison gases, I saw-in the Press that very soon after the Treaties were concluded at Washington, the United States of America set up an enormous poison gas factory capable of turning out 200 tons of poison gas per day at a place called Edgemore, near Baltimore. Has the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary any information about this factory, and can he say whether or not the Americans' have, as a result of this Treaty, decided to do away with it? This particular Treaty has a very important bearing on the omission of the Governments of the various countries to include the air question in the first Treaties. It may interest the House to know what Marshal Foch thinks about future warfare. In a preface to a book by Major Victor Lefebure on "Chemical Warfare," Marshal Foch emphasises that the ever increasing capacity of the aeroplane to carry heavier weight will supply a fresh means of spreading poison gas by the aid of ever more powerful bombs and reaching armies and populations far to the rear. Marshal Foch continues: Chemical warfare is thus able to produce more formidable results over greater expanses. On the other hand, it is beyond question that this extension finds a ready realisation in a country like Germany which devotes itself in peace time to the wholesale manufacture of chemical products which by a slight modification of the process of re-action, can be converted into war products I think I have shown that these two Treaties are very closely connected, and as to the question of the limitation of air armaments, and, of course, also land armaments, I should like to know whether there is any intention of bringing them up before the League of Nations or before another conference. If the Treaty of Washington is simply concerned with naval armaments it: is to some extent nullified, or at any rate it is reduced in potentiality. The House should have some assurance on these points before passing the Bill.

I did not quite follow my hon. Friend's attack on the Government for not having sent down their capital ships to see this Measure through. This Measure, as is realised on all sides of the House, is, to all intents and purposes, non-contentious, and I think the Government should be congratulated on showing a glimmer of common sense in not employing their capital ships to put it through. While I have no intention of raising any querulous arguments upon this Bill, it is fair to tell the House the other side of this matter. When the Washington discussions were taking place they were regarded nowhere with greater interest or more anxiety than in the Latin-American countries— throughout Mexico, Central America and South America. The peoples of those countries hoped that out of the discussions there would arise something which would be of benefit to themselves, which would assure them in the future, not only on the question of war between each other, but would also—which was more important from their point of view—ensure them against aggression from their powerful northern neighbour. The Press of South America reflected in no uncertain degree the disappointment that people felt at the outcome of the Washington Conference. One newspaper put very well the case from their point of view. They said, in effect, "When powerful trusts find that it is inexpedient any longer to compete against each other, it is their habit to combine, to turn round, and to rob the public. We are the public; the great Powers are the trusts. They have got together, they have made certain arrangements among themselves for the purposes, of saving their own pockets or of carving out for themselves a position in the world, and we, the smaller countries, have got to pay for it." If our consciences are clear in this respect, we need not, of course, pay too much attention to that aspect of the matter, but we have got to pay for it in hard cash.

May I explain myself in this manner? Politics and trade are very closely allied in South America. Political preferences for one country or for another carry with them, as a rule, advantages in trade which are very considerable. It has always been the privilege of this country to hold a very high position in the South American countries. Our name in Chile at one time stood as high almost as the Chilean. We have been respected throughout the South American Continent for the assistance that we gave in the early days of the revolutions in those countries to the revolutionary parties, and we gained for ourselves such a name and such a position as brought with them the reward of commerce. Everywhere where British goods were exported to those countries they were bought with preference in the markets of those countries, but I am sorry to say that the evidence is very strong that our prestige has fallen. I am not, of course, in a position to speak of such a vast Continent as South America in all its parts, but I have ventured, in a small and humble way, to keep as far as possible in touch with current opinion in the different countries there, and I am afraid there is no doubt whatsoever that our prestige has fallen. It has fallen because, as the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) said, this Treaty is the first fruits of co-operation between America and ourselves. It may be a very excellent thing indeed to have the closest possible co-operation with America. I am not going to quarrel with it, but I must point out the price that we are paying.

If we ally ourselves closely with the United States, we alienate South America, because the United States are exceedingly unpopular in all the Latin-American countries. They are unpopular for political reasons, into which I need not go at the present moment, but hon. Members may take it from me that there are very few countries in South America where the North American is not feared politically, and probably heartily disliked. The great difficulty that the British representative in South America has to contend with is the fact that we are classed with the Americans, and so surely as we are classed with the Americans so surely do we lose prestige. It is a lamentable fact, but it is so. Unfortunately, these Treaties which were signed at Washington have only turned into a certainty the suspicions which have been felt for some years past now in those particular countries, and, as I say, we have got to pay for it, but the disastrous part of it is that we are losing, not to France, not even to Spain, but we are losing to Germany all the time. Just recently it was reported—and it has never been contradicted—that there has been a large onrush of German commercial travellers into all parts of Mexico, Central America, South America, and the Latin-American Republics, Santo Domingo and Haiti. Not only that, but large orders have been placed with German firms from those countries and, worse still, the firm of Krupps have established a large factory near or close to Rio, so I am informed, and another one in Chile, where it is their intention, as they say, to turn out agricultural and other machines. The people who are going to suffer are ourselves. The competition in those markets is not between French and German goods, but between German and English goods, and it is we who are going to suffer.

I think the House should realise that we are paying a high price for these Treaties. I am not saying for a moment that it is not worth while, but I do not think we should ourselves imagine that by having signed these Treaties, or by passing this Bill, we have improved our position in all the world, at any rate, or that we have even succeeded in setting abroad a feeling of confide in our good intentions. There is & particular Article in the First Schedule to this Bill which, if I read it aright, is very pertinent indeed to the subject I have raised. It-is Article XVIII of the Treaty, which says: Each of the Contracting Powers undertakes not to dispose by gift, sale or any mode of transfer of any vessel of war in such a manner that such vessel may become a vessel of war in the Navy of any foreign Power. By far the largest market for almost, or entirely, obsolete warships is to be found in Spanish America. I am not talking for the moment of the Argentine, or of that great Portuguese Republic, Brazil, or indeed of Chile, but of the smaller Republics, which have to keep, for purposes of Customs and even of maintaining civil order in their countries, one or two smaller ships. This Article is going to hit them very hard, because there are very few of them that can afford to buy a brand-new warship. There are certainly none of them in a position to manufacture them for themselves. Where will they turn? It is not to be supposed that a country like Ecuador or Colombia will be a naval menace for many generations to come, if ever. Where are they to find them? They will go to the parties who are not contracting parties to these Treaties; they will go to Germany and to Spain, whose Navy is daily increasing. We are doing ourselves an injury, and while I welcome this Bill, which gives effect to the Washington Treaties that have been signed, I welcome it with the idea all the same that we have got to pay a heavy price for what we are doing.

The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) does not, as a rule, run away from his speeches, but I do not see him in his place after having made some very extraordinary remarks. To hear him, one would think he was not a fighting man, but a "conshy." Those who know him, however, know that not only has he distinguished himself in the Army, but that he has also distinguished himself in the Navy. He has sown his naval and military wild oats, and he now wants the rest of the world, this country included, to grow corn. He has designed ships. A friend behind remarked that they had all been sunk. That was, perhaps, unkind to the designer. So keen is he on these particular remedies, of his that he is prepared to allow even German experts to go round, and make sure that the nations of the world who signed this Treaty are acting up to their word. But there is one remark he made which I do not think-should be allowed to pass without comment, and that is, that we are using poison gas. He did not say we were using it against troops, but he insinuated that we were using it against coloured persons. I believe that to be an incorrect statement. For my own part, I did advocate, some months ago, that we should use tear-shells and mustard-shells against the savage people of the North-West Provinces—people who give no quarter, and kill the wounded. The suggestion was not accepted.

The hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. L. Malone) protested that there was not a single Cabinet Minister in the House. The real answer to that question is that there are very few people in this House who take any interest at all in the Navy. We see that in the Naval Debates. The country does not seem to take the interest in Naval affairs that it should. It does not seem to realise that the whole country is built on the Navy. What are we doing now? We are starving the Navy. We are putting men out of the Navy at such a rate that we shall not have the personnel to man the new ships. There was a great man (Carson), till lately a Member of this House, sitting below the Gangway, who told us not very long ago that "If you were going to allow this country to sink to a second- or a third-class Power, you should tell the country so." Nobody of any importance, I am sorry to say, has been to the country and told it what these things mean—that we arc starving the Navy and gutting the Government yards, throwing men out whom we cannot replace. And we call that economy. At the very first panic—and panics do occur—instead of spending hundreds of thousands, we shall have to spend tens of millions to put these things right. The private yards, which are built, financed and turned into companies for the purpose only of making money, were to get the super-Hoods, and (hey were cut down. Then they were to get the other three ships, and they were cut down. Now they are to get two ships as a kind of sop, while the Royal Yards, on which the nation depends, arc having men of 14 and 15 years' service turned out of them, and men who went into the yards during the War, so as to escape their proper duty in the field, are being retained. A great part of the world belongs to us. If we are there, it is not for our private gain, but because, as thousands of us believe, the British Government is the best Government we can give these people. So long as we have all those possessions, we must be in a position to defend them, and we are not in a position to defend them by starving the Navy and gutting the yards.

I want in a word or two to add my voice to those already raised in welcoming this Bill as a great step forward in the reduction of armaments generally throughout the world, which, I think, is the greatest question now before us. My mind reverts to the time when I first came to this House, and from then onward to the opening of the Great War. We were constantly engaged in talking about the rivalry between Germany and ourselves in shipbuilding, and I cannot but think that the rivalry and conflict, the general psychology both of this country and Germany, must have been affected to some extent as the result of the discussion. The country and House are to be congratulated upon the fact that, at all events, so far as shipbuilding is concerned, the Washington Conference has ended that rivalry between the big Powers of the world. That is a great step forward. It is said that we have not done what we ought to have done, and might have done, in regard to land and air armaments. I agree with the hon. Gentleman who has spoken in that sense, in regretting the fact that little progress has been made in that direction; but I cannot agree with him as to the responsibility. So far as my memory serves me, the delegates of this country expressed their willingness to discuss the question of limitation of land armaments, and also armaments in the air. It was not our fault that these things were not discussed. I hope they will be discussed in the near future, and that we shall have some such arrangement with regard to air and land as we now have in regard to capital shipbuilding. We have gone a little distance, not only in the matter of capital shipbuilding, but at all events in limiting the scope of the activities of the submarine.

Submarine warfare on merchant ships has been declared to be an act of piracy. I am glad of that. I agree with what has been said, that if we had done something more in the way of carrying out the expressions of opinion in regard to submarine warfare in the War, that this Bill would have had a better chance of being made really effective. I believe that we ought to have done a great deal more to punish those people who were capable and guilty of carrying out all sorts of acts, not only contrary to international law, but contrary to the dictates of humanity. I have been blamed—and I think there is a reference to it in Mr. Keynes' book—in reference to what I said or did about the Kaiser. I was not so much concerned, however, in hanging the Kaiser as I was in trying the Kaiser, so as to ascertain who was-responsible for the War. I say now that if, after trial, the Kaiser had been found guilty of causing the War, I should have hanged him nine times over if he had had nine lives. I think we were far too soft with the people who were guilty of acting in the War as they did in some cases—a war which under any circumstances was bound to be bad enough, but was made 50 times worse in consequence of these acts of submarine piracy of which the Germans were guilty.

I feel, therefore, that we might have done a great deal more after the War in the way of punishing the War criminals, and this would have made Bills of this kind more effective for the punishment of those people if such crimes occur in the future. I hope this Bill will be followed at no distant date by some other Bill in regard to land armaments. I am more anxious that that should be done in consequence of what we may now call the secondary position of the capital ship. Admiral Sir Percy Scott, I remember reading, has recently put a question as to what was the use of the capital ship, and he has answered that question himself definitely to the effect that the battleship was no good now. That, perhaps, is a matter of opinion. But the position is constantly changing. The relative merits—perhaps "merits" is not the word—but the effect of warfare between ships and aircraft is rapidly assuming different proportions. Whether Admiral Scott is or is not right altogether in his condemnation of the capital ship, it is perfectly certain that the air will be a greater factor in the warfare of the future than ever it has been before. Admiral Scott, in the course of his narrative dealing with this matter, has told us there were airships either under construction or constructed —aeroplanes he calls them—that will carry a bomb weighing 1,800 lbs. which if dropped, not on the battleship but within a hundred yards of the battleship —a battleship, it might be, costing £7,000,000 and carrying a complement of 1,000 men—would put the whole lot at the bottom of the sea. in five minutes. Whether that is true or whether it is exaggerated, it is perfectly certain that all reasonable-minded men, not representing dockyard constituencies, agree that in future aircraft will be a greater factor in warfare than they have been before.

1.0 P.M.

I, therefore, welcome statements made by hon. Members in the House that it is extremely desirable that arrangements such as are embodied in this Bill in regard to the capital ship should, as rapidly as possible, be brought also into operation so far as the air is concerned. I do not, however, agree with what has been said in condemnation of the Government in this respect, because I believe the Government are perfectly willing to enter into negotiations with other Governments to bring that about. In regard to the land armaments, that is the more obvious still, for the Government have always endorsed the Clauses that limit land armaments, so far as I know, and, at all events, that was done at the first meeting of the League of Nations Assembly at which I was present. We welcomed the setting up of the Commission in accordance with Article 9 of the League of Nations Covenant. We welcomed the provision made for the presence there of civilians as well as military and naval people, by which the view of the civilian population should be given effect to, if possible. I believe that only within the last week or so the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord It. Cecil) has been putting a definite scheme before the Commission now sitting, or which was sitting, at Paris last week, so that, at all events, we are contributing our share towards something being done in the way of the limitation of land armaments, such as this Bill has already done in regard to capital ships.

Poison gas comes into the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) in the course of his remarks seemed to have some doubt as to whether the prohibition or limitation of the use of poison gas would apply to civilians as well as to combatants in future warfare. As I read the Bill—the sentences are in brackets—the prohibition of the use of poison gas would be effective as against the use of it on the civilian population as well as on combatants. When, however, the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary gets up to reply I should like him to re-assure the House on that point. It is dealt with in the Preamble of the Bill. If what we think is not so, it ought to be so. Just a reference to what the hon. and gallant Member for Northern Cumberland (Major C. Lowther) said as to the price we were to pay for this Bill, and the relations, in consequence of the Bill, of the South American countries to us. We may have to pay some price, but it seems to me the right way to get over the difficulty suggested by the hon. and gallant Member is to bring all one's influence to bear into the agitation now going on to get North America, as well as South America, into the League of Nations. I agree with him that all these sectional arrangements between nations have a danger in them, though it may be that, under certain circumstances, sectional arrangements between two or more Powers may not be out of order. America attaches immense importance to the Munro Doctrine, and therefore it may be necessary to have sectional agreements between two or more Powers. It is perfectly true that such agreements may carry with them much danger, but the obvious remedy is to get, as soon as possible, all the big countries into the League of Nations, and then that danger will pass. I want to say, in conclusion, how heartily I welcome this Bill, and I hope it may be the forerunner of other Measures having a similar object. I am anxious that our own Government should give full effect to this principle and lead other countries to do the same.

During the passage of this Bill there has been a striking unanimity of opinion expressed in its favour on all sides, with one or two exceptions. The hon. Baronet the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle) was one of those exceptions. He referred to the hon. and gallant Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), and said the fact that he had served in the War, and had sown his wild oats was preventing him from enjoying war in time to come. In my view it is from the people who have served in the ranks that the great opposition to war in the future will come. It is to the men who have been through the Army that we must look for forming that body of opinion which will give real substance and spirit to agreements of this kind which attempt to lessen the risk of war in the future. I think they are precisely the people who are entitled to speak in assisting instruments of this kind to become operative.

Apart from that general observation I wish to refer to the question of air competition. On this question I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon his able speech in introducing this Bill, and I hope he will be able to say a word or two on this question when he comes to reply. I agree with everything that has been said about the ultimate possibilities of the Air Service as an offensive weapon. Perhaps I am inclined to somewhat anticipate the date when the full effect of our air policy will be reached. Some hon. Members are inclined to imagine that changes will come about a little more quickly than in fact they actually will do. We are face to face with a scare which is being fanned by the newspapers, and which is being supported by some hon. Members in this House. The scare is that our air power is very low, and should be immediately greatly strengthened. Surely the argument which has been used on this point is, to a great extent, a contradiction in terms.

Hon. Members admit that it must be many years before war on a large scale is likely to be entered upon in European countries—the Geddes Report says 10 years. The people who are demanding the immediate provision of aircraft on a larger scale ought to remember that such aircraft would be completely obsolete before it could be utilised in active operations. There is such a thing as conserving your financial reserves if ever they should be required to provide munitions of war, and it would be a queer kind of consolation to expend our money on the provision of large numbers of fighting aeroplanes which anyone who has watched the development of aircraft must know are likely to be obsolete before the next war occurs.

That is what makes it all the more interesting that this question of air power should be dealt with from the point of view of attempting to secure air disarmament, which is the real way to deal with the problem. Otherwise we shall be at the mercy of those who get up scares in newspapers, and urge what would certainly be a useless expenditure of public money. I believe that the League of Nations is considering schemes for air disarmament. I suppose that question could not be raised at Washington unless all the European countries were prepared to come in. I should be glad to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what steps the Government are taking in this direction, and I would like to have an assurance that the Government will do everything they can to promote some understanding between European countries in regard to this question of air disarmament. There is a peculiar difficulty in the matter, because nobody would desire to come to any agreement regarding the limitation of the production of war aircraft which would have the effect of limiting the development of commercial aircraft.

I think that is a very important point. I am more interested in the air as a civilian agency than as a war making agency. It is very important in both branches, but its capacity for conferring benefits on mankind, and obliterating barriers and divisions and misunderstandings which cause so much trouble makes it more attractive than on its fighting side. We should be very careful not to put hindrances in the way of the development of civilian aviation. I know that is a very difficult matter, and no doubt it is foremost in the minds of those who are working on these lines. I hope; the Parliamentary Secretary will give us an assurance that this country will not be backward in giving its fullest support to a Measure of disarmament as regards war aircraft.

I think it is only right that on an occasion of such importance as this some hon. Member representing the West Country should speak, because that country after all has a longer and more continuous naval relationship with this country than any other part of the community, and that is why I wish to give a welcome to this great Measure. A great deal has been said about the absence of certain people from the Front Bench, but all I can say on that point is that, as far as the Front Government Bench is concerned, we have had a remarkably able exposition of the details of this Bill. At one time during this Debate there was only one single Member of the Opposition present, and the most remarkable absence, in my opinion, is that of the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil).

He is sitting on a Disarmament Commission.

I think we are all anxious to admit the great success which the Noble Lord's relative (the Earl of Balfour) achieved at Washington. For the first time in history you had great Powers coming together, attempting to reduce the risk of war, and agreeing voluntarily to limit naval armaments. My only regret is that they were not able to go further because, as far as submarines are concerned, if the Government could find it possible to do something in this direction, I am certain that they would be supported by nearly every party in this House. I hope it will be the aim of the British people in the future to endeavour to abolish entirely the submarine as a naval armament. I would like to see it laid down here in the House of Commons, by the Government, supported by every party in this House, that we should agree, not only to abolish submarines, but also all forms of poisonous gas as well. I think almost anyone would support the Government if they laid that down as something which the British people would like to see carried out. We cannot, however, do it unless other nations come in with us. The British House of Commons and the British Empire, with their enormous responsibilities to other nations, cannot always take the lead in acting in these matters, but they can, at any rate, always be perfectly ready to meet other nations and:to enter into agreements which are carried out by everyone.

The hon. and gallant; Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) congratulated the House and the country on the fact that the great rivalry between armament firms who are making guns and others who are making armour was to be stopped, because there was a limitation of 16 inches laid down for guns. I would not like it to go out from this House that that limitation of competition is a real fact, because, although the size of the gun is no doubt a considerable and, perhaps, the major element in the penetration of armour, yet the power of penetration of the shell and other factors are very important as well. All that is done under this Clause is to prevent us and other people building larger and more expensive guns, in the same way as we have agreed to stop building larger and more expensive ships. We certainly have not stopped the competition between armour on the one hand and gun-power on the other. It may have been made more difficult, but it has not been stopped.

There is only one other point with which I would like to deal, and that is the sale of war vessels and our particular position as a nation in this respect It has been quite clear to almost every other nation that in the past the best place to buy ships for the purposes of war has been Great Britain. It has been held by a large number of people that it was our duty to stop them buying here and to stop this particular industry. I do not think that this country, except under limitations such as we. have here, could prevent the sale of vessels to South America, China, Japan, or any other place, but I do say very clearly that, just as you cannot prevent it if other nations are allowed to do it, so it would be a good thing if we could lay it down as a permanent part of British policy that we should, under the League of Nations, or under a Treaty of this kind, be prepared to enter into a general agreement to stop the sale of warships from one Power to another. Every other nation in the world, however, would have to agree, because we cannot handicap ourselves and allow, say, Spain to undertake these possibilities. We have shown our willingness to go a long way, and it is part of the Government's work and duty to try and extend the policy which was begun at Washington, both as regards the limitation of armaments and as to the possibility of doing away with submarines and gas, and, if possible, air forces. If that were made part of the British policy, I believe that in time—and it would take time—other nations would agree to it. Before I sit down, I should like personally to congratulate the Government on the very great work that they did at Washington and to express the hope that, always looking after the most essential interests of our people, namely, the condition of the British Navy, they will continue that work in other ways as well.

I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down should have struck a note from which I entirely dissent. The rest of his speech was confined more or less to technical points into which I do not propose to follow him. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. G. Barnes) and I, in the past, have had many contentions, and a great deal of discussion together with regard to the Navy. I was a little surprised to hear him talk about the reduction of armaments in connection with airships and bombs. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman desires to do away with capital ships and to substitute airships and bombs. I cannot quite see how that means a reduction in armaments, although, of course, it might mean a reduction in expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman has done so much, in the League of Nations, to promote a reduction of armaments, and he and that body have so signally failed to accomplish anything that one can quite understand the difficulty he finds in discussing a Bill which does deal more or less with the reduction of armaments. Certainly, this Bill does what the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have entirely failed to accomplish. I have a great deal in common with the hon. Member for Cumberland (Major C. Lowther) in what he says. There is no doubt that this Bill means a great loss of prestige for this country, and especially naval prestige. The House knows that ever since the days of Queen Elizabeth, right through four centuries of time, the British Navy has been our surest bulwark against world domination. That position exists no longer. We have now no Navy that can be said to be a bulwark against world domination. We have to depend upon the assistance of Japan and America. The national song, known for generations in this country—"Britannia rules the waves," commonly called "Rule, Britannia"—is now a myth. There is no such thing as Britannia ruling the waves. Britannia does not rule the waves. Britannia is only to have a Navy equal to two other Powers, and at the present time she has not even that Navy. The British Navy has played a very important part in the civilisation of the world. But for the British Navy the world would never have reached the high state of civilisation which it enjoys to-day. What has the American Navy or the Japanese Navy ever done for civilisation? Nothing at all. Yet, apparently, we have come to the conclusion that the time has arrived when we are in such a high state of civilisation that we can place our Navy on an equality with that of Japan or that of the United States. All I can say is that I regret the decision that has been come to in that respect. The hon. Member alluded to the loss of trade which this Bill will involve and he then went on to talk about commercial travellers going from Germany to South Africa. That is not by any means a new statement. I can remember that 25 years ago I wrote something to the same effect in the columns of the "Times," and it would appear therefore that the same difficulty with regard to-commercial travellers from Germany to South America exists to-day as then existed. I do not see, however, that that has very much to do with the question before the House.

With regard to the Navy, let us look for a moment at what this Bill has done. To use the words of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, it has "cut the Navy to the bone." I hope the House will thoroughly understand that that is a result of the Washington Conference. It has cut the British Navy to the bone, and that is the admission of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. Then, again, where are our ships? What is to be the future of the great dockyards; of this country? I am glad that the cheers which that statement has elicited show that the House appreciates the point. We know what these great dockyards have done for this country in the past. I do not wish to emphasise the great work done by the dockyard which it is my privilege to represent—Devon-port, but I do say that ail the great dockyards have done good service for the Navy, and I ask, What is their future position to be? Men are being discharged. The fine mechanics who have built up a Navy on which the civilisation of the world has depended are being cast out into the streets, with their wives and children, without sufficient money to live upon and without a roof to cover their heads. That is one of the results of this Convention, and I should like the House and the country to realise that our Navy has been cut to the bone, that we have lost a great number of our sailors, that we are losing the men who have built our ships, that we shall not get those men again, that we shall not get back the sailors, neither shall we get the officers. These men cannot be replaced in a day or in a year. One thing is very certain. The League of Nations cannot stop war. We in this country shall never see absolute peace, and therefore I regret very much that this Convention was not a little more considered, and that the country was not told at the time exactly what would be the result, of putting this Act on the Statute Book.

I hope I may be permitted to reply briefly to the Debate, which has ranged over a very wide field. I do not propose to follow hon. Members over the whole of that field from Vladivostok to Chile, nor do I propose to traverse even the shorter space that separates the competitive voices from Portsmouth and Devonport. But I should like to say a few words about the note which was struck, in the first instance, by the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot), and which was followed up by one or two other Members. My hon. Friend complained that the Government had treated this matter in a spirit of levity, because this Measure had been introduced in a brief matter-of-fact speech by the Minister responsible for the particular Department most intimately concerned, and not by an array of all the talents of the Cabinet. Surely the real test of taking the matter seriously is whether you take prompt action. In this Measure.—small and un controversial as many think—we are taking definite action on the lines of the Washington Treaty and showing the world that we, at any rate, mean business. Surely a small, effective shell shot at the mark from a gun of minor calibre is very much more effective than many salvoes of blank ammunition from all the heavy ordnance of the Front Bench. My hon. and gallant Friend seemed not only to complain of the spirit in which we had dealt with this matter, but he also made a great mistake in attempting to belittle the results achieved at Washington. He suggested that they were governed by a mere spirit of economy, that the mere consideration of dollars and pounds sterling had led to the results achieved. I think that anyone who followed what was done at Washington will fully realise that, while the ultimate results were expressed in terms of battleships, they were, at any rate, well worth achieving, because, after all, the principle underlying, the foundation, was the establishment of a feeling of trust and mutual understanding between great nations.

My hon. and gallant Friend spoke of the Washington Conference as not really having relieved us of the necessity of completing four great battleships, because those ships were only bluff, and because we had no real intention of completing them. I can assure hon. Members that, as the position stood before the Washington Conference, we would not only have been bound to complete those four ships, but we should have been bound to build, at whatever cost, four other ships, and yet another four ships. And I, for one, would not have been prepared to recommend Admiralty Estimates to this House on any other basis had it not been for the immense practical results achieved by the Washington Conference. Of course, the Conference is only the beginning of the new policy. All practical work is done by steps. You cannot achieve all your ideas at one move. We succeeded in getting an agreement of immense importance between five of the most important naval Powers. There is no reason why other Powers should not join in the agreement. Indeed, there is a strong movement in the League of Nations for other Powers to accept the Washington pact, and if they do that, and implement it with the same sort of legislation as we have introduced into this House to-day, then the particular point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend, namely, the construction of ships outside the limitations of the Treaty in other countries, will fall to the ground. I could also give another answer to the objection that there is nothing in the Treaty to prevent ships being built outside the country bound by the Treaty. It takes a long time to build capital ships, and long before they could be completed the signatory Powers would be able to enter their protest. Moreover, the Treaty provides that under circumstances of that sort, there should be a fresh Conference to consider the new situation which had arisen.

I now come to one or two minor points. The hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Malone) wished to know how the agreement was enforced—how it was possible to find out whether it was being observed. In this matter we have relied upon the readiness of each Power concerned to enable the Naval attaches of the other Powers concerned to inspect the progress of work at private dockyards and elsewhere, and, substantially, to trust each other's honour. The hon. Member also asked for information with regard to the poison gas work that has been carried on at the Edgewood Factory in the United States. I understand that the work which is being carried out there is mainly work of a research character, necessary, in no small measure, in order to provide for anti-gas measures, in case at any time any of the Powers should not accept the conditions of the Treaty.

I can also give my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals the assurance that the undertaking we have given in the second Treaty, to make no use of poison gas, is a quite general one. My right hon. Friend, and also the hon. and gallant Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Sir R. Hall) raised the question of the punishment of those who violate the rules of war, and they both expressed the wish that the German officers who violated those rules in the submarine campaign had been more effectively punished. I should like to draw attention to one provision in this Bill, which alters the whole situation from what it was before the War. It was a commonplace, not only in Germany, but also in our own Manual of Military Law, that the orders of a higher authority were a defence to a subordinate officer for committing an act which was otherwise a violation of the laws of war. But, if hon. Members will refer to Clause 4 of the present Bill, they will see that it provides that Any person in the service of any Power who violates any of the Rules contained in Article I … whether or not such person is under a governmental superior, shall he deemed to have violated the laws of war. We are making real progress. We have armed ourselves with more effective powers for punishing those who violate the rules- of war than we had when the German war criminals were tried at Leipzig.

I think that that is all I need say on the Bill itself, but a number of hon. Members have raised the very necessary question whether we mean to proceed with the same policy in regard to other aspects of armaments. The only answer to that is that, as far as we can, we certainly mean to endeavour to achieve by negotiation and conference—as soon as other Powers are ready to confer with us—an extension of what we achieved at Washington. We shall certainly still wish to secure the complete abolition of submarines, and generally, if it were possible, to secure effective limitation of armaments both on land and in the air. I should like to remind my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) that the question of the limitation of air armaments was discussed very fully by a special Committee of all the Powers concerned, at Washington. My hon. and gallant Friend will find, in Command Paper 1627, on the Conference, some 15 pages of a most interesting Report on the feasibility of such limitation, ending with this Resolution by the Committee: The Committee is or opinion that it is not at present practicable to impose any effective limitations upon the numbers or character of aircraft, either commercial or military. I should not like to say that this conclusion of the Committee represents the last word on the subject, by any means, but, at any rate, it docs show that this Committee, which examined the question with the best of good will, did come across immense difficulties in separating the functions of military and civilian aircraft, and were not able, at any rate at Washington, to come to a conclusion. That, I think, is all that I have to say, and I hope that the House will now give us the Second Heading of this Measure, which, though small in its immediate scope, is of immense significance as the first instalment of what may be a great world policy.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer my question as to the other three Treaties which are not included? Will this House have the opportunity of discussing those very important Treaties"

I would much rather that the hon. Member asked that question of the Leader of the House. I have been confining myself to the Bill, which is necessary to implement the provisions of two of these Treaties. All the other Treaties can be wholly carried out by ordinary executive action on the part of the Admiralty, or of the Foreign Office, as the case may be.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next (10th July).—[ Mr. Amery. ]

The Home Secretary assured me that the five or six last words of the second Clause should be omitted, and he asked me to raise it on the Third Reading. The point was raised in Committee, first of all on the Preamble, and secondly on the first Clause. The Home Secretary said he would change it, but when the amended Bill was brought before the House, the matter had not been changed. There is no necessity for these words. It is customary, when an Act of Parliament which mentions the Channel Islands is passed, to send it to the islands by Order in Council, and it must be sent by Order in Council whether the House order it or not. The whole point, of course, is that the islands have a Legislature of their own, which is anterior to this Parliament, and their affairs are managed through His Majesty, not by the direct orders of this House.

It is not now possible to move any Amendment. The only way now to effect a change in the Bill, which I understand comes from another place, would be to move its re-committal. Perhaps the better plan will be to move the Adjournment of the Debate, to consider the position.

I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

It is rather an unusual position. Apparently the Government gave a pledge that they were going to move an Amendment.

No; I said I would accept one, but it was not moved.

The Home Secretary was not present at the Report stage to accept the Amendment. The hon. Member wishing to move it did not move it, and now the time has passed for the redemption of what was tantamount to a pledge.

I beg to second the Motion.

I hope the House will not adjourn this Debate. The Government are not in fault in this matter in the slightest degree. It is a pure matter of sentiment whether these words be taken out or not. The reason for the words is that it may be advertised in the Channel Islands that this is the law. I knew they did not matter more than that. I know the average person in the Channel Islands wants these things advertised and I said to my hon. Friend, "If you really care about this at all, I will not oppose it. I will accept your Amendment if you put one down." No Amendment was put down and I, not unnaturally, concluded that he cared no more about it than I did. I hope the House will not adjourn the Debate and so delay the passing of the Bill, which is most important.

The right hon. Gentleman's memory and mine do not agree at all. We were in Committee, and I was trying to ask that the Channel Islands should not be mentioned at all, inasmuch as they govern themselves. They have a law of their own, and do not require this one.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now speaking to the merits. The question is whether the Debate should be adjourned or not.

I was promised that these words should be deleted in Committee, and I see no reason why I should not have what was promised carried through. I should not have allowed it to go through Committee without a protest. This is not a matter which is only being urged before you. It has been urged for a considerable time.

That is not the point. The whole point is not whether this law should apply to the Channel Islands or not. I should never have dreamt of giving a pledge on that point. Had I been asked to give a pledge that the law should not apply to the Channel Islands, I should have flatly refused.

I do not ask for that.

The whole point is whether certain words should be omitted which simply enact that the new law shall be advertised in the Channel Islands. Really the matter is not of the least importance, and I hope the House will not delay the Bill merely for the sake of an unimportant matter of that sort.

These words are of the greatest importance to the Islands. I have a pledge that they should not be put in, and I must certainly hold the Government to it. These things are customarily done by Order in Council, and they must be done by Order in Council.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is again speaking to the merits, and not on the question of the Adjournment.

I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not persist in the Motion for the Adjournment. The Bill is most urgently needed by industrials and by agriculturists, and if the matter be delayed, in view of the condition of the Government programme, it will cause very great concern and much uncertainty in industrial areas. The holiday season is now commencing, and it has a bearing on the holiday season for the workers. They have not the opportunity of choosing their time for recreation, but are compelled, by the customs of the towns and cities in which they reside, to take their holidays at a certain period.

The hon. Member is debating the merits. The Question is that the Debate be adjourned.

I hope the Motion will be withdrawn, because the matter is so urgently needed on all grounds.

The hon. Member has suggested that agriculture is very anxious that this Bill should come into operation. I join issue immediately on that point. I am not prepared to support the Motion for the Adjournment, but I certainly wish, in the name of agriculture, to protest wholeheartedly against the extension of the period of Summer Time. In Scotland especially, September is of importance to agriculturists. It is not a matter of sentiment. The men who have to make their living by agriculture know that a very great injustice is being perpetrated by the continuance of the Summer Time Bill during September. Having made this protest, I am content.

If the Motion to adjourn the Debate be withdrawn, I find that I can move to leave out the word "now," and to move that the Rill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House The Committee of the whole House can then sit, and consider the Amendment straight away. We can then proceed to the Third Reading and get the Bill through.

I am quite prepared to withdraw the Motion "That the Debate be now adjourned," if the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth North (Sir B. Falle) agree. This shows what comes of Cabinet Ministers ignoring the House of Commons, and not being in their place at the proper time.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed, "That this Bill be now read the Third time."

I beg to move to leave out the words "be now read the Third time," and to insert instead thereof the words "be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House."

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into Committee on the Bill."—[ Mr. Shortt. ]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Are we to have some explanation of the changes which have taken place in Committee? I understand that the period has been changed and shortened. Both from the urban and rural (standpoint, it would be advisable that an explanation of the curtailment should be made.

Perhaps the Home Secretary will explain the actual meaning and effect of the words omitted on the Re-committal of the Bill.

2.0 p.m.

The words that have been left out on Re-committal represent a matter of sentiment. These words are usually put in, to ensure that the people of the Channel Islands are informed of any change in the law. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Sir B. Falle) has great interest in the Channel Islands, I was glad to meet him in the matter. With regard to the shortening of Summer Time, it is very slight, if you take as the standard the recommendation of the Departmental Committee in 1917, but not if you take as the standard the Summer Time adopted this year, which is abnormally long. The Summer Time this year was fixed by agreement with France. France went in for a very long period of Summer Time, so long, indeed, that there has been an almost complete revulsion of feeling in France in regard to Summer Time at all. Who had a great number of negotiations with France in order to try to synchronise the Summer Time of France and this country, for the purpose of cross-channel traffic and so on, and we agreed this year to a much longer period of Summer Time than was recommended by the Departmental Committee.

From the period of Summer Time adopted this year we have taken off about six weeks, but, compared with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, we have only given the agricultural interest an additional seven days. The Committee in 1917 recommended that the period of Summer Time should be from the second Sunday in April to the third Sunday in September. The Bill fixes the period as from the third Sunday in April, the day after the third Saturday, to the third Sunday in September, the day after the third Saturday. Therefore the shortening of the period so far as the recommendations of the Departmental Committee are concerned is very slight. However, it helps the farmer, and it was agreed to on both sides in Committee upstairs, by those representing the urban districts and those representing the agricultural districts, as a fair compromise. It did not please either party, and therefore it was probably just. At any rate, they agreed to accept it and to allow the Bill to go through in the form in which it now stands.

I should like to know whether any steps have been taken by the Department to ascertain the views of the people of this country in relation to this Bill, now that we have had some experience of its working. Personally, I am in favour of the Summer Time Bill, but I was very surprised at a conference held in South Wales of the miners from the whole of the South Wales coalfield, at which this matter was discussed a fortnight ago, that we had a unanimous vote against the continuance of Summer Time. Every delegate who spoke, spoke strongly against it, and I have been wondering whether any representations have been made to the Home Secretary from the industrial workers who have to rise very early in the morning. There is a very strong feeling on the matter. I was surprised to find that there was so much feeling in the Welsh coalfield against the Bill.

I do not remember any representations from South Wales. We have had very few representations from urban and industrial areas with regard to summer time. We have had an overwhelming number of representations from industrial areas in favour of it. But at the same time, it was put to us that it might be perhaps necessary to have further inquiry, and we had a Committee appointed in 1917. They had not many years' experience to go on, it is true, but they finally recommended making Summer Time permanent. In order to meet the necessity which there may be for further inquiry, I myself moved an Amendment making this an annual Bill, and not a permanent Bill, so as to have it put into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill of the year, and it can be raised every year if continued experience show that it is not desirable.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The object of this Bill is to bring into conformity with modern conditions to some extent, and to improve, the provisions relating to the general and professional education of solicitors. Solicitors hold a very high and responsible position. Their education, and the conditions under which they obtain the qualifications enabling them to practice, are safeguarded by a number of Acts of Parliament. One of the most important is the Act of 1877. The development of modern education, and the establishment of the new Universities afford an opportunity of meeting the needs of the present time. This Bill has the warm support of, and is recommended by, the Law Society, who have control of the conduct of solicitors, and are very anxious to get the Bill passed. It is a matter, largely, of domestic arrangement made among the solicitors, in order to secure that their members have the opportunity of a good education, and also have sufficient freedom to take advantage of modern institutions, and of the new Universities which provide degrees. At the present time a solicitor has to pass a preliminary examination, an intermediate examination, and a final examination. In Clause 1 there are provisions for giving a wider alternative than exists at present, by extending the number of institutions whose examinations will be taken in lieu of the preliminary examination. Clause 2, which applies only after the passing of the Act, requires that before any candidate is admitted to the final examination, certain requirements shall be fulfilled, and there shall be an attendance at a course of legal education. It may be difficult to enforce that course, particularly in the country, and therefore there is a proviso that the society, in their discretion, may exempt certain persons who have not the advantages which other may enjoy, and from the society there is an appeal to the Master of the Rolls. Who is, by ancient tradition, the authority entrusted with the final decision in matters concerning solicitors. Clause 3 provides that there shall be a larger number of Universities and other bodies, whose examinations shall be treated in the way which was limited, by the Act of 1877, to a smaller body of Universities.

I do not think that I need refer to the other Sections. I am conscious of the fact that a certain number of these matters will require examination in Committee, and I hope especially to have the assistance of the solicitors who are Members of this House, in examining those matters before the Committee. I have myself undertaker to look into one or two matters which are Committee points. But the general purpose of the Bill is to improve the conditions in which profes- sional education is secured by a solicitor, and to bring them more into conformity with modern times. I do not ask the House at the present time to give me more space in which to enlarge on the purposes of the Bill. I suggest that the Bill should go to a Committee, and I think that the House probably would desire to retain any further points which may emerge in the Committee stage for the Report stage and the Third Reading.

I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."

I do not suggest that it will be necessary to take this Amendment to a Division, but I move it in order to bring out the highly controversial character of Clause 2 of the Bill, which is really the main point in the Measure. This Clause has the effect of depriving managing clerks to solicitors of the statutory right to sit for their final examinations which they have enjoyed ever since the year 1860, without having to satisfy the condition precedent of attending a recognised law school. This Clause destroys that cherished privilege, and the managing clerks are bitterly opposed to having it taken away. The Bill seeks to apply the same rules of admission to a young man fresh from a school or University as to the solicitor's managing clerk who is usually over 30 years of age and has had many years' professional experience in a solicitor's office. The distinction is recognised by the Act of 1860, by which managing clerks, who in these circumstances receive articles from their employers, need not give more than three years' service under these articles. Ever since 1860 they have had the right to sit for these examinations, without the examiners being concerned as to how they acquired the information to enable them to pass. The test has been whether or not they can pass the examination. It is no concern of the examiners whether they have acquired the knowledge in the practical course of their business or by going to a coach, or by working at home, or by going to a law school. The effect of the Bill is to impose an entirely new condition precedent on men in this position taking the examination, and they have to attend every year a course of instruction, which is no doubt very necessary for younger men, at certain recognised schools of law.

Before the House deprives a considerable body of men of privileges which they have enjoyed for over 60 years, we ought to know the reason why. The Attorney-General has given no reason why these men should be deprived of their statutory right. Taking the experience of the legal profession of the existence of this statutory right ever since 1860, I believe that the class of men, the type of intellect, and the standard of education of the solicitor's managing clerk, who has entered the profession during this period, have all been steadily rising. We have not heard whether any complaint has come from the solicitors or from the employers of these men that the standard has gone down in any way. If the standard has been satisfactory and the result of the enjoyment of this statutory right has been satisfactory, I cannot see how the Attorney-General can ask the House to deprive men of vested rights which they have enjoyed over a long period of time.

The effect of this alteration in the law would be to add considerably to the burden which these men feel in passing these examinations. That burden is already great for the man who has left his school years far behind and has occupied the whole of his working days in the routine of the profession. He has not that elasticity of mind or freedom of time to devote himself to working for examination that is enjoyed by the younger man not professionally occupied. It would be difficult for such men to find the necessary time to attend a law school. It would make it dearer for them to become solicitors. What is a school of law? It is left largely to the discretion of the Law Society to determine what these schools are. At present most of these men are not free until about 6.30 in the evening, and it would add greatly to the burden of their lives during their work for their examination to have this attendance imposed upon them. It is quite true that the Law Society, under the scheme of this Bill, has power to exempt men in such cases from attending the law school. But that power can be exercised at their absolute discretion, subject to a right of appeal. The effect of that is to substitute for a statutory immunity simply the right to ask for an act of grace entirely within the discretion of the Law Society, whose interest it is, no doubt, to build up a profitable and successful school of law and to force the largest possible number of men into the orbit of that school.

Before we do this we ought to know what is the view of solicitors who are employing managing clerks, what is the view of the managing clerks themselves, and what amount of consideration has been given to the claims which they sent forward for consideration. Last week the Solicitors' Managing Clerks' Association submitted a detailed memorandum to the learned Attorney-General, stating what was their position on the matter. It is very difficult to reconcile the propositions which they put forward then with the provisions of this particular Clause. I cannot think that the House will carry Clause 2 in anything like its present form, without the consent of the only people whose interests are affected by it, and without giving infinitely more consideration than has been given hitherto to their claims.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I submit to the Attorney-General that it is impossible to give anything like fair consideration to this Bill to-day. I saw on the Order Paper yesterday a reference to the Solicitors Bill. Being interested in such subjects, I inquired at the Vote Office for a copy of the Bill, and found there was none available. I inquired later from a solicitor, prominent in his profession and a Member of this House, what was the Solicitors Bill. Although he was as well qualified to speak upon the affairs of the profession as, I suppose, most men in the country, he told me that he understood that the Bill was one to give to solicitors the same power as was possessed by barristers of charging without notifying what were the particulars of their fees. One can imagine, therefore, my surprise this morning in receiving with the Orders for to-day a Bill which is of the utmost consequence, a Bill which is very much more important than the introduction of the Attorney-General would lead one to believe. He spoke of it as being simply a domestic arrangement, or something of that sort. I cannot recall the adjective he used. It is a great deal more than that. It con- cerns not merely the solicitors who are now practising; it concerns thousands and tens of thousands of youths who are looking to the profession or will be looking to it in later years. In every Clause it effects considerable alterations in the law.

It may be difficult for those who are Members of this House and are not acquainted with the more intimate circumstances of the legal profession, to appreciate the position of the managing clerk. It sometimes happens that a boy goes into a solicitor's office from a poor home, and in the course of years exhibits alacrity of mind, intelligence and mental grasp, which, in the opinion of his employer, entitle him to the full advantage of admission to the profession. It is all to the good that the way should be made open for such lads. We want to secure that the legal profession, like every other career, shall be open to talent, without restrictions limiting the profession to those who are in the possession of means. I understand that between Scotland and this country there is a difference of method. I am told that in Scotland it is possible for a poor boy to become a member of the legal profession more readily than in England.

We have to take into consideration the fact that when a lad's articles are signed there is £80 to be paid on the stamp, and that there follows upon that the loss to his people if he should be for five years unable to earn anything. There are, in addition, the expense of obtaining his books and apparatus, the expense consequent upon sitting for his examination, and generally there is associated with it the premium to be paid to the solicitor, which in the country districts is generally about £200 or £250. It is obvious, therefore, that at present, in the case of a lad who enters the profession, parents have to undertake a liability which may amount to nearly £1,000. There ought to be a full opportunity for the boy whose father cannot provide any such sum. I suppose it is known to hon. Members that practically in every town, as well as in many smaller country districts, there is no premium for the articled managing clerk, and that many of the most distinguished members 0? the profession to-day are those who entered the profession after having been clerks. This Bill, in every one of its Clauses, makes the difficulty greater. In present circumstances it is possible for a youth to be exempted from the preliminary examination if he has passed the Oxford or Cambridge local examination. As far as I can see that privilege is taken away.

The privilege is enlarged. The effect of Clause 1 is to give the youth a greater choice of examinations, which will relieve him from the preliminary law examination. The Clause is to help him by giving him an opportunity of taking other educational opportunities, instead of restricting him as at present.

A large number of examinations are referred to in the earlier Statute. I quite agree to the list being extended, but will the Attorney-General give an assurance that if a youth, after the passing of this Bill, sit for the Oxford or Cambridge local examination, he will, without question, be entitled to exemption from the ordinary legal preliminary examination?

Is it not a fact that the matriculation examination of any university is accepted as an entrance examination?

If the Attorney-General reads Clause 1, and particularly Sub-section (5), I think he will see that there should be an answer to my question as to whether or not, apart from any discretion or decision of the Law Society or any other organisation, or any officials, however highly placed, a youth who has passed the Oxford or Cambridge local examination shall be entitled, as of right, to become articled immediately to a solicitor. As far as I can see, there is a limitation of two years in Sub-section (5).

That arises from the alteration of the old Act.

I know the old Act has been changed in one or two material particulars, and I am perfectly ready to associate myself with those who want to bring about such alterations as the passing of 60 or 70 years require. All will be agreed that we want to have available for the legal profession the best in the country. We are also agreed that no youth should be shut out because of his poverty. The profession should not be limited to those who come from the more wealthy homes. This career, like every other career, should be open as far as possible to talent. There is at present, in the Stamp Duty, a certain restriction, and I have no doubt the hon. Member who has just intervened will himself recognise that there are cases where that Stamp Duty is an absolute bar. Some who might have become distinguished members of the profession have been prevented from entering upon a life suited to their capacity, because of the condition requiring that £80 should be paid into the coffers of the State. A very important change is suggested in the Bill as far as law schools are concerned. Will the Attorney-General explain from whom this comes; what pressure there has been in this respect? Of course, boys or youths who desire to become solicitors vary in talent. There are some who could sit for the intermediate examination and the final examination without any help at all— youths of capacity and gifts who could, without the aid of any law school, meet all the requirements of the examination. By imposing the necessity for attendance for 12 months at a law school, we may be inflicting hardship upon those who live in country districts.

Take the case of a lad, in a village, articled to a country solicitor and living many miles from a town where there is a law school. It is not intended that in every provincial town there is to be a law school. If such a boy is required to attend school regularly he is placed in a very great difficulty. I know it is suggested that where there are certain geographical conditions, exemptions may be given by the Law Society. I think the applications for exemption will be very numerous. Either the examination which is now imposed is a sufficient examination or not. If it is not a sufficient examination, why not let those responsible extend the examination from two days to four days or six days? Let us have any examination which is necessary, to thoroughly and exhaustively test the capacity of those who are sitting for it, and if the tests thus imposed are satisfied, why should we concern ourselves about the- means by which the knowledge is obtained? The knowledge is the main thing. Why should we prescribe the processes by which it is obtained? It is an entirely new theory that such a thing should be done. My experience is smaller than that of many other legal practitioners who are Members of this House, but I have had youths articled to me, and I have noticed the marked differences which exist. One youth must go to London and attend his classes in order to sit for his final. Another young man of much greater grasp needs no help at all: he has a natural gift for the profession and for the acquisition of legal knowledge. All that he requires can be gained from the many text books which are published. If he went to a law school it might only be a hindrance to him. If at the end of five years such a lad can satisfy the examiners in every particular, why should we pass a Measure which takes him away from the ordinary work he can do day by day in an office, where he is acquiring a practical knowledge worth a hundred times as much as the theoretical knowledge which would be imparted to him in a law school? Why should he be taken away for 12 months from his articled service? If there is any necessity for this let the necessity be shown.

I presume my hon. Friend is a member of the Law Society. Clause 2 represents the considered view of the Law Society, who had the interests of solicitors in all parts of the country before them. They have deliberately come to the conclusion that Clause 2 embodies views which they think wise and prudent. I really care nothing about the Clause at all, but I understand that it represents the views of the Law Society, and it is from their demand that Clause 2 comes.

I am a member of the Law Society, but am bound to say I have no knowledge of this. I am just an ordinary member of the society, and not a member of any of its committees. After all, I am here, not as a member of the Law Society, but as a Member of Parliament, and I am entitled to bring to bear upon this Bill or any other Bill what criticism I can.

I only desired that the hon. Member should know whence this Clause came.

I am glad to know that it did come from the Law Society, but the fact that it came from the Law Society is not final so far as I am concerned.

Hear, hear!

I am anxious to see the legal profession open to every intelligent lad in this country, as every public career should be open. A Bill of this kind. which requires reference to earlier Statutes, cannot be properly discussed in the course of an hour. We only received the Bill three hours ago, and we cannot be expected even to express an opinion upon it, let alone to vote upon its Second Beading, after such brief time for consideration. Whether the Bill be good or bad, it ought to be the considered work of this House. If it be passed on the Second Reading to-day, it is sent to a Committee, and there cannot be given to it on Second Reading that careful consideration which any Bill of this character demands. I therefore associate myself with the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Lieut.-Colonel Hurst).

I am sorry I was not present when the Attorney-General introduced this Bill, but by a curious coincidence this is the day of the annual meeting of the Law Society, and I happen to be on the Council of that body, and so had to be present there. But they have asked me to come here to ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading. I should like to answer one or two of the questions put by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot). He spoke about the expense of becoming a solicitor, but, as a matter of fact, J think a man can become a solicitor more cheaply than he can qualify for any other of the learned professions—certainly more cheaply than for the medical profession, or the clerical profession, or to become a stock broker. It must be remembered that solicitors are in a peculiar fiduciary capacity in regard to their clients, and therefore it is essential that members of the profession should be persons of a certain standing.

Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that, because a boy comes from a more well-to-do home, he is therefore more reliable?

No, I do not say that at all; but it is a fact that the solicitor's profession at the present time is one of the cheapest professions to enter. This Bill, I may say, has received a tremendous amount of consideration at the hands of the Lord Chancellor and the Law Society. It is not an idle Bill that was suddenly produced, but it has been the work of several years, and it is really a domestic Bill of the profession, bringing the conditions at the present time up to date. It is from the students that the demand for Clause 2 comes, and also the demand that there should be an easier way of getting degrees. I do not know that I personally attach much importance to the legal degrees; I do not know that they have very much influence, but we know that a great number of these students do prefer to have degrees after their names. If that very laudable ambition is to be brought about, it will have to take the form proposed in the Bill, and that is why we have suggested this Clause. We are very keen indeed that members of the profession should be able to increase their knowledge by means of these schools of law, and we think that the short time that has recently been introduced is hardly long enough to give a thorough legal training, and therefore all those who can take advantage of a school of law and take a year's training there should be able to do so, while there are many opportunities for anyone who cannot do so to obtain exemption in the ordinary way. We want to increase the fees payable from 5s. to £l, the difference of 15s. to go to the cost of legal education, and I am sure the House will sympathise with that In regard to Clause 9, that Clause defines the universities which are included in the list and enables the Bill to extend it to the new universities. Under the old Act these new universities were not in existence, and we want therefore to include the new universities which now send representatives to this House. I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. The small details which have been criticised can be thrashed out in Committee, and I am sure the representatives of the Law Society will be very pleased to meet and confer with anyone who wishes to make any alteration in the Bill.

I have only had the opportunity of seeing this Bill within the last few minutes, and I am not therefore in a position to discuss any of its details very carefully. I think the Bill should certainly have a Second Beading and go to a Committee, where possibly some Amendments may be moved, but I want to ask one or two questions concerning it. I am in very great sympathy with the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot), who is opposing this Bill, in refer- ence to Clause 2. I realise the difficulties to which he has referred. At the same time, I cannot help feeling that for anyone who is to enter the learned profession of a solicitor it would be a very great advantage to have had one year's attendance at a school of law. The numbers of schools of law, I take it, will have increased with the numbers of universities which have in recent times been added to the older universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and London, but, at the same time, it must be recognised, in the case of a boy living in the country at some little distance from a town where any university exists, that this Clause would tend to prevent him to some extent from entering the profession. Exemptions may be obtained, but I am afraid the exemptions are likely to be very numerous, and they might cause some difficulty to those who have to grant them. At the same time, it must be admitted that it would be a considerable advantage to any youth to have the opportunity of going to a university or a school of law, wherever such may be found, and of attending the lectures at that school for one year before being admitted to the profession. I want to ask a question in regard to Clause 4 of the Bill, which states: Section two of the Solicitors Act, 1860 (which enables persons who have taken degrees at certain universities to be admitted after three years' service) shall bare effect as Though— (a) any reference to a degree of Bachelor of Arts included a reference to a degree of Bachelor of Science, and (b) the universities to which this Act applies were substituted for the universities referred to in that Section." That is a very desirable Clause, but I would like to ask the Attorney-General whether any youth who is articled for three years because he has obtained one of these degrees will, notwithstanding, be required to have passed at least one year at a law school before he will be able to be admitted to the profession. It might even happen that he had taken his degree in law at a university, and, notwithstanding that, would he have then to attend any other school? Even if he had only taken his B.A. or B.Sc. degree at a university, it would certainly seem that, having obtained a special university education, it should not then be necessary that he should have to spend a year at a law school. As the hon. Member for Bodmin has said, in a lawyer's office he will learn a great deal of law and obtain practical experience, and I take it that the main advantage of this Clause is not that he may be able to obtain a wider knowledge of law, but that he shall have attended at a recognised law school under qualified professors. If he has taken a degree at a university, the same advantage will be obtained, and it should no longer be necessary that he should qualify for his final examination by having to attend a course of lectures in law at a law school. I should be glad, therefore, if the Attorney-General would assure us that a man, having taken a degree at a university, shall be exempt from the course at a law school. If he can do that, he will remove one of the abjections which I feel to this Bill.

I was rather surprised to hear the hon. Member for Bodmin say that he had not an opportunity of making himself fully acquainted with the contents of this Bill, seeing that it was introduced in the House of Lords a few weeks ago, and that all the stages of the Bill there were recorded in the newspapers. I am not a solicitor, but from the reports I saw I took sufficient interest in the Bill to get hold of a copy. I should have thought if I could do that, the hon. Member could have done it.

I did apply at the Vote Office.

I saw it several days ago. The whole purport of the Bill was fully explained when the matter was discussed in the other place. The discussion this afternoon has turned more especially upon one Clause, which, I think, to some extent, does appear to limit the possibility of a young man getting into the profession with the same facility as to-day, but, taking the Bill as a whole, I think it must be admitted that it contains Clauses which will be of very great value to the profession. Everybody is anxious to see the profession maintained at as high a level as possible, and I, personally, think there is great value attaching to that Clause which ensures that an articled clerk shall, if possible, attend a course of study. It is possible for a young man to find himself in a small office which confines its work, say, to conveyancing, or he may find himself in a large office where work of all kinds is done, but where he himself is relegated to one department. I know of young men who have been articled clerks, and the result of their articles has been that they are very well informed, say, about conveyancing, but when it comes to general practice, and particularly the procedure of Courts, even at the end of their articles, they have very little knowledge of those matters. I should have thought that any man who is concerned with the welfare of the profession would have been only too glad to encourage these young men to attend classes, where classes are available. Clause 2 is very cautiously worded, and gives the society power to exempt, from the necessity of attending these classes men who can show, not only geographical reasons, but other reasons, for not being able to attend these lectures. Although it may be necessary to amend the Bill in one or two of the particulars referred to, I do think the whole purport of the Bill not only helps to improve the profession itself, but is really of great advantage to articled clerks who seek to enter the profession.

Taking the Bill as a whole, it facilitates, rather than hinders, the opportunities of a man who wants to enter the profession. It removes, instead of increasing, some of the existing obstacles. Clause 1 enables certain people to enter the profession without having to undergo the preliminary examination. I know men—not young men—-who have started work in trade, or some other profession, and then thought they would like to enter the legal profession, and I know more than one case where a man has been hindered from doing so, although he possessed many of the qualifications for a. solicitor, because it would be necessary for him to learn Latin, mathematics, and some other subjects required in the Law Society's preliminary examination. Clause 9 also comes to the assistance of young men, because it extends the number of Universities where a degree will give special facilities to those who are wishing to enter the profession. In the past, the tendency has been to confine these privileges to Oxford and Cambridge, and one or two other Universities. I wish to support what was said by the hon. Member who spoke last, in desiring to have cleared up the position as to whether a man who is a graduate of a University will have to go through a year's course as a law student. It does seem ridiculous that a man, with, possibly, First-Class Honours at Oxford, should be compelled to go through this year's course. Subject to that, and certain other Amendments, I hope the House will give this Bill a Second Beading.

From the short perusal I have been able to give this Bill, and from the discussion I have heard, the Measure appears to me to be a trade union Bill for the legal profession. I have no personal objection to the principles of trade unionism being applied to any profession, or any particular section of the community, but, from what I can gather, this Bill places a distinct impediment in the way of the poor young man. The clerk in the solicitor's office, or the son of a docker, like myself, would have no opportunity of getting into the profession if the principles in this Bill were accepted by the House. Therefore, the profession would become an absolute monopoly. The difference between the ordinary trade union, in the legitimate sense, and this suggested trade union of the legal profession is, that while we place no bar to any man, high or low— and even in the Dockers' Union we have barristers without briefs, and all sorts and conditions of men—this Bill creates an obstacle in the way of any poor man entering that profession. So far as the principle embodied in this Bill is concerned, if it were applied all round to everybody, there would be something to say for it.

Who have been subject during recent weeks to the fatherly interest of the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayrshire (Sir G. Younger) in the matter of the trade unions to which we belong. He and his colleagues, in Committee upstairs, have expressed on every opportunity their desire to give liberty and freedom to the trade unions of this country. I notice he is singularly silent on this Bill, We do not hear him to-day. And there are exceptions amongst the working classes in the way of rising in the world. In spite of all that has been suggested, in spite of the obstacles put in the way, there are exceptions, and one is in this House. I refer to the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. A. Shortt) who commenced his life inside a boiler. [ Laughter. ] I mean his industrial life, and who by sheer ability has forced himself into the legal profession. We are proud of it. It would appear, however, to be much more easy to get into the barristers section of the profession than it is to get into the lower class, the solicitors'. To become a barrister you have to eat a certain number of dinners, and dinners are not always the repository of the wisdom of the country. Dinners and wisdom do not always go together. What, however, I do want to point out is that the principle of conserving to members of any profession all that that profession will give is one which we adopt ourselves. But when it puts obstacles in the way of intelligence and ability—and the legal profession has not got the monopoly of either intelligence or ability—it is the duty of every Member of this House who wants fair play for the youngsters of this country to enter his protest by claiming a Division on the Bill.

I would point out, firstly, that the speech to which we have just listened suggests that the hon. Member quite misapprehends the object of this Bill. The primary promoter of the Bill is the executive of the trade union to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. The law is organised as a trade union in both its branches and the head executive of the solicitors' branch is the Law Society.

I accept that principle, but, of course, the control of the executive of the trade union over its members will not be the same.

3.0 p.m.

It is not to make it difficult to get into this branch of the profession. That is what has been misapprehended by hon. Members. The object is to regularise the qualifications which a man must possess before he gets in. There are two sets of persons whom this Bill will affect. There is the young man beginning his career, and who becomes an articled pupil to a solicitor. There is another class of men whom the Bill will, no doubt, affect; that is the class of managing clerks who have been a long time in a solicitor's office, who have never gone through any particular examination, but who, we all know, in many cases are qualified men and deserving of the right which their employers now have of granting them their articles to become members of the solicitors' branch. In their case, I am sure, no one would wish to affect their statutory right without being very, very careful about it. When, however, you look at the way Clause (2) is framed, you will see what it really does is this: To a certain extent it transfers the discretion of a single employer to the Law Society, the object being to make it certain that the man shall be sufficiently informed and efficient and qualified otherwise to become a member of the solicitors' branch of the profession. Paragraphs ( a ) and ( b ) of Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 contain ample safeguards, and as similar powers have been exercised by the Law Society with discretion, I think we may have no fear that under this Bill they will not exercise a similar discretion.

Will additional educational requirements be asked for by the Law Society—I mean in addition to what are here?

That I am not here to answer for on behalf of the Law Society. But I can say it has carefully controlled solicitors in the past and with very great discretion. What I am now pointing out is that they are well-fitted for that discretion. The criticisms we have heard to-day are very largely, may I suggest, Committee points. With the principle of the Bill I thoroughly agree. Although as a member of the other branch, I would not wish to interfere unduly, of this I am perfectly certain: It is a Bill which will commend itself to the other branch, and, therefore, I have very great pleasure in supporting it.

I was not as fortunate as my hon. Friend who spoke just now in having seen a reference to this Bill in the newspapers. The first time I heard there was such a Bill was last night. Then I discovered it was not yet printed and one could not obtain copies till to-day. I do, therefore, think the House has a real cause of grievance in being asked to carry the Second Reading of this Bill now. I listened with very great interest to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hammersmith (Sir W. Bull). His speech had very great importance, because the Attorney-General himself practically abandoned the sponsorship of, at least, Clause 2 of the Bill, and said it was a matter he did not care about: it was one which the Law Society wanted, and consequently—

I hope I did not convey a wrong impression. It was suggested, I think, by an hon. Member that the Government was responsible for Clause 2, and I was disclaiming any desire on the part of the Government under that head. I merely said it was a matter for the profession itself—that it was the Law Society who asked for the Bill, and for this Clause in particular.

Quite so. The Attorney-General says the Government is not very anxious about this Clause. He says it is the Law Society who want it. That is my point. Therefore, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hammersmith, who did speak on behalf of the Law Society, assumed very considerable importance.

Hear, hear!

I listened to that speech to hear reasons in favour, particularly of Clause 2. I am afraid the reasons given were not very convincing, to me at least. There was one argument the hon. Member used which did appear to me to be very convincing in favour of the Adjournment of this Debate. He told us that this matter has been under the consideration of the Law Society for many years, and evidently it was a matter that they thought required a great deal of consideration. This Measure has evidently raised a good deal of discussion and difference of opinion in the Law Society itself, and now we are asked to pass this Bill after it has been in our hands only for a few hours. The whole modern tendency has been in the direction of opening wider the portals and the avenues to all the professions. It is undoubtedly true that in many respects Clause 2 raises a new barrier to entrance to the legal profession. We are all in favour of students about to enter the profession having the advantage of entering a law school. I suggest, instead of this Clause being made compulsory, that it should be made optional.

No doubt we shall be told that there are ample safeguards, but I doubt very much if they are adequate. They are left entirely in the hands of the Law Society with an appeal to the Master of the Rolls. I say that such a power as that ought not to be left in the hands of the Law Society, and the Clause ought to be-optional. The hon. Member who put be- fore us the case for the Law Society did not give sufficient reason why it should be made compulsory. He did not attempt to establish that point at all. If we had been assured that the present examination and the present standard had proved not to be high enough that might have been a very good argument in favour of this Clause, but he made no attempt whatever to do that.

It has been said in this Debate that many of the most distinguished members of the profession are those who obtained their articles in the usual way without having either the advantage of a university education or of going to a school of law. After all, the advantage of spending a year in a law school is open to argument when it involves having a year withdrawn from the student's experience in the office. In the country a student generally likes to spend the last year of his articles with London agents. I do not think that we have had sufficient evidence to show that there is any case whatever for making Clause 2 compulsory, and if this Bill is going forward I hope the Attorney-General will give us an assurance that he will permit that Clause to be amended in Committee.

I agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down that it is very unfair that we should have to consider this Bill now without having had a better opportunity of seeing what it contains. I saw this Measure for the first time this morning, and it is too early to consider it on this occasion. I do not propose to follow the argument which has been used as to trade unionism, because it appears to me to be irrelevant. What we have to consider is whether, in regard to a profession in which you must acquire a qualification of knowledge, as you must in the legal and the medical professions, or any other profession of that kind, you ought to impose an additional difficulty in the way of a young mar. who wants to enter. It is true to say that the only tangible asset of a great many of these young men desiring to enter this profession is their brain, and it is beyond question that a great many of them satisfactorily pass their examinations and do work at the same time. It is their only means of getting through and of earning their livelihood meanwhile. They have no financial resources, and no parents who can provide for them. Therefore, they go to a solicitor's office and work for their articles on small pay. That a young man thus situated should be called away at some hour of the day, possibly most inconvenient to his employer, to attend these lectures is most arbitrary and unjust. What does it all mean? What is it all done for? Is it done in the interests of these young men? Not a bit of it. If the Bill said that if one attended these lectures he should become a solicitor, that would be ridiculous enough, because no one would say that attending these lectures would qualify a man to become a solicitor. But to say that, though one passes his final examination entitling him to become a solicitor, he must attend these lectures, whether they are of use or not, is absolutely absurd It means money.

I listened to the right hon. Member for Hammersmith (Sir W. Bull), who said that he came down to the House at the instance of the Law Society. It is strange that a gentleman of his high position in the profession should not have taken more interest in the Bill, and should have required to be urged at the last moment to come down and support it. Let hon. Members look at Clause 8. You begin with a fee of 5s. for a certificate. Surely that is enough, but it is going to be increased to £l, and they are going to apply the increase to their law schools. Will any member of the solicitors' profession say that these lectures are going to be given gratuitously? I undertake to say that there will be fees for attending them, and they will be an additional charge. I believe that I am right in saying that in every Inns of Court attendance at lectures is optional. One has to pass his bar examination, and to become a solicitor one has to pass his final examination. Many a young man goes in the evening to a coach and gets far better training than he would at these lectures. That can be done without inconvenience to his business, and he can earn his livelihood and articles too. Why should we pass a Clause making this more expensive? It is bad enough now to pay £100 when you are called to the Bar and £80 for your articles as a solicitor, and I object to every penny of expense that is added. Has the Law Society really come to a just or wise conclusion? We are told that they have been considering the matter for three years. If this matter has required consideration for three years by the Law Society, how is it that we have only had this Bill in our hands a few hours? It is not right. Let me ask a practical question. What is to happen under Clause 5? Apparently there is to be an approved school in London, and under Clause 8 it is provided that the difference between the 5s. fee for a certificate and the increased amount of £l shall be applied in such manner as the Law Society may think fit towards the expenses of the society's school in London, and making grants to approved law schools elsewhere. Where are these approved law schools elsewhere? Where do they exist? Suppose they do exist. Assume that the great cities of Liverpool, Birmingham, and Manchester and other large rich centres of that kind are provided with approved law schools. Who is going to undertake to find the necessary fee for the lecturers? They will be sweated out of those who attend the lectures. Look at the absurdity of the position. Are we going to have approved law schools in country towns? I could name some towns where there are solicitors miles from a railway station. Is not the young student employed in an office there to have open to him this avenue to the law? Why should he have to go hat in hand to the Law Society and try to get exemption from attending the lectures? They tell him it is practicable for him to attend. They may not consider the matter from the point of view of pounds, shillings and pence. They may say it is necessary for him to attend in the interests of the maintenance of the school. That, so far as I can gather, is how the money for maintenance of the school is going to be obtained. It is going to be got out of these young men and it is going to make their career more? difficult and much more arduous.

Let me continue my point as to country towns. I doubt whether, in the whole county of Kent, there will be an approved law school set up anywhere. They will say that the students can go to London, and that there is a good railway service to London of which they can avail themselves. How many days in the week are they to go up. Two, three or four? All these things ought to be considered. It is no wonder that the society have been debating this for three years. Apparently outside members on the governing body of the society do not know anything about this, and I should like to hear the views of a country solicitor or of his society on the question. I am pointing out what I consider is most unjust. Is it proposed to set up approved law schools in every county in England? Of course not. The fact is, people will be forced to attend in London. They will be told it is quite practicable for them to do so. I have, however, mentioned cases in which it is impracticable. We have to consider the poorest of the poor, men with ability and brains, who ought not to be denied an avenue to this profession. If this is essential to ensure ability in the men who are going to practise the law. then the provision ought to be universal. There ought to be no ground for exemption. But it cannot be made universal, and therefore it is proposed to excuse men where, in the opinion of the Law Society, it is geographically impracticable for men to attend the lectures. I believe that in Kent at this moment there are some 20 towns as to which it would be deemed impracticable, from a financial point of view, for young men studying for the law and seeking to enter the profession to come to London for the lectures. It would mean a whole day for him and to this his fare must be added. Would any solicitor take an articled clerk on those terms? He would say, "Of what use are you to me? Yon may be away two or three days a week in London, unless you can get exemption. I cannot give you articles on those terms."

Then we have to consider how many are going to be exempted. Supposing that the Attorney-General, speaking on behalf of the Law Society, says: "We will exempt all of these people." That means that two different standards will be set up for the same profession. Was anything ever so ridiculous and absurd? In my judgment it is not in the interests of the men who are going to be called to the profession. It will operate as a financial bar to the man who has nothing but his brains to depend upon. There will be two standards set up. and the result will be that really and truly there will be a law school provided in London, which will be an impediment to these managing clerks, out of the fees thus to be raised, and that such small grants as still remain will be sent here and there throughout the country. I say that it is an absolutely retrograde Measure, and I shall certainly vote against it. This provision is to be made absolutely compulsory, so that no man, even though he have the most brilliant abilities and excellent qualifications, will be able to get into the profession unless he has attended these lectures. It is a retrograde Measure, and when we find that it is brought in almost by a back door, being handed to us at eleven this morning and called on somewhere about half-past two, I think it is quite time that we protested.

I want to say a word or two, not as instructed by, but from the point of view of, the country solicitors. I myself, until 18 months ago, was a country solicitor in the North of England. I happened to look through this Bill this morning, and as soon as I saw it, Clause 2 struck me as perfectly ridiculous. I do hope that the Government will not simply take what the London Law Society says, but will take the Measure back and send it to the country solicitors and let them state their views on it. I should like to tell the House one or two things that cams to my own mind in regard to Clause 3. I have a nephew who is an articled clerk in the city where we were practising. There was a law school there, and he went to a certain number of the lectures, but he told me that they were no good, and he took a correspondence course from the neighbouring town of Halifax. With this he got through his examination quite satisfactorily, and was at the same time able to stay in the office and learn office work, which practical knowledge was far more useful to him than the theoretical knowledge he would have got at the law class. Now let me refer to my own case, and say how this provision would have affected me. Before I was articled, I was at Cambridge University, and took an Honours Degree in Law. Then I was articled. Under this provision I should have had to go to the elementary law lectures at the University of Sheffield, and it does not seem to me that there would have beer any possible exemption from that. That, again, is perfectly ridiculous. I hope that the Bill will be withdrawn altogether, and brought in again after the country solicitors have had time to consider it.

Like other Members, I am at a disadvantage in not having had very much time to consider this Bill, but I hope my hon. Friends who have criticised it so severely will at least allow it to have a Second Reading.

Why?

I am proposing, if the hon. Member will allow me, to try and explain why I think it should have a Second Reading. One reason is that one of the most important parts of the Bill is that which concerns exemption from law examinations by reason of other examinations which have been passed at the newer Universities. That, undoubtedly, will be very much to the advantage of a number of very deserving students.

I know of my own knowledge that managing clerks are opposed to it. Last evening, though I had not seen the Bill, I was approached by them and asked to oppose it on their behalf.

I am not referring to managing clerks. Comparatively few managing clerks become qualified solicitors. They are a special class of their own. I spoke of articled clerks, students who propose to enter the profession in the usual way. With regard to expenses, there are very few indeed of the articled clerks who do not themselves go to the expense of going to an unofficial crammer in order to learn the law they have to learn. As I understand it, these proposed schools of law are to relieve them from that and to put that side of their education on to a more satisfactory basis than it is at present, when they have to rely entirely upon an unofficial crammer. With regard to those in the country I have a rather strong view to the effect that it ought not to be made too easy for a man to become a fully qualified solicitor without any experience at all outside his own small provincial town where he may be articled and proposing to practise, and indeed it is most unusual that that should be so. Certainly in my time it was practically unknown for a man to go through his five years' articles without spending at least one year of that time in London. If it be the case that some are to be exempted by reason of the fact that they are serving their articles entirely away from a town where there is not a school at all, may I point out the very different position there is there, and the oppor- tunity which such a man would probably get, which is denied to the man who is articled to a large firm in London. I do not use the word "small" in any derogatory sense, but the comparatively small provincial solicitor, practising by himself in a small country town, or perhaps with one partner, knows his articled clerk well. He is presumably living close by. If he is not a relation, he is the son of a client or a neighbour, and the solicitor and the clerk are constantly meeting entirely outside office hours.

The solicitor in a case of that kind is usually much more a student of law than a busy practising solicitor in London, and he would have the opportunity of giving the articled clerk instruction and assistance in the evenings or at times when he is not actually employed in office work. The need for some schools of this kind is shown, not only by the fact that these clerks generally have to go to a crammer at present, but also, I regret to have to say, by the lack of legal knowledge which characterises a large number of members of my branch of the profession, not even excepting myself, because I always feel very strongly that the lower branch of the profession in the past have not had and afterwards had not got the opportunity to have that training in the real learning of law and jurisprudence which is the only thing which can make a really satisfactory foundation upon which they can build up the knowledge that is necessary to make them efficient practising solicitors hereafter. I suggest very seriously that even if my view be wrong and even if those who have opposed this Clause so strongly should be in the right, they should nevertheless give the Bill a Second Reading and deal with this as a Committee point. We shall have more opportunity in Committee to learn about the Bill, and I hope to learn that some of my hon. Friends are wrong in thinking that those to whom this Bill will apply do not wish for it, and would not welcome its passage into law.

The main purposes of the Bill in Clause 1, Clause 3, and other Clauses, are to enable us to give a wider range to young men wishing to enter the solicitor's profession, and to secure for them exemption from the preliminary examination if they are able to offer in lieu of it a certificate that they have passed some examination at certain universities At the present time, the universities through which that immunity and exemption can be obtained is very limited, and in order to give a wider range and to bring the list up to date, the universities to which this Act applies are defined in Clause 9, as Any university which, at the time of the passing of this Act, is entitled to representation in the House of Commons whether alone or jointly with any other university. It is also provided that the Board of Education, after consultation with the Law Society and with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, or any two of them, may add any university in the United Kingdom to which the Act shall apply. First of all, we give, by Clause 1, a far wider range and choice, and a great number of persons who have not had the means or opportunity of going to Oxford, Cambridge, or Durham, but have had the opportunity of going to some of our important but modern universities, will not remain under the disadvantage to which they are subject at the present time. They will not be able to say that they have to go through a preliminary examination because they have not had the advantage of going to one of the older established universities. We, surely, want to remove that disability from those young men who have not been so fortunate as to go to one of the older universities. In Clause 3 there is power to grant admission in certain cases after four years' service, so that a man may become qualified after four years instead of five years. The object is to bring the system of admission to the solicitor's profession up to date.

Objection is taken to Clause 2. During the last hour I have realised what an advantage it is to attend a, course of legal education. I have listened to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) and other hon. Members opposite, and I feel that I have attended a course of legal education and instruction. I have been instructed, and I mean to pay attention to the instruction I have received. I had already intended, as I stated in my first speech, at the solicitation of the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Lieut. -Colonel Hurst), who introduced certain matters to me, to look into the question between now and the Committee stage. I said that I would see a deputation from a very important body, the Solicitors' Managing Clerks' Association. The hon. Member asked me if I would receive a deputation. I am writing to-day that I will receive a deputation, and we can discuss Clause 2 in all its bearings. It is clear that the Clause must receive careful consideration in Committee, but are we not to have the Bill at all, and to grant the exemptions provided in other parts of it, because of Clause 2, which can be modified out of all recognition, if need be, in Committee? It would be unfortunate to refuse to pass this Bill because there is opposition to Clause 2, which opposition is probably more serious because the safeguards introduced are not appreciated fully. If these safeguards are not sufficient they can be strengthened. At any rate, the whole matter can be discussed in Committee.

This Bill contains parts which by common consent are good, parts in the interest of the more humble entrant to the legal profession, which were intended to remove difficulties, and it might fairly be considered in Committee. When we are dealing with a Bill of this kind we often find considerable opposition manifested. The general practice of the House is to say, "The Bill has got merits. Let it be examined carefully before a Committee, and on Report and Third Reading the House may exercise its full judgment." I want to have the opportunity of meeting the Solicitors' Managing Clerks' Association, and of giving careful consideration to what they say, and also of considering carefully the suggestions made in this Debate, and I shall certainly afford hon. Members a full opportunity of considering the matter. The hon. Member for London University (Sir P. Magnus) has raised a very important point which I shall also consider. I trust that those who are going away for the week-end will do so with the feeling that this Bill, so far as it is good, shall have the opportunity of passing, and in so far as it is bad shall have the opportunity of being amended, and I hope that it will now receive a Second Reading.

As the Attormey-General has met our objections so fully, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

The points of this Bill seem to me to merit further discussion. I have never known a Government insisting on the Second Reading of a Measure like this after they had taken such Orders as they have taken to-day. From the machinery point of view, in spite of the Attorney-General's declaration that he will do this, that and the other in Committee, and even will delay the Committee stage in order to consult people who have not yet been consulted, it is improper to ask the House for the Second Reading to-day. I wish to deal with the suggestion that this Bill in any way makes it easier for the poor man to become a solicitor. If there is any more difficult task for any youth leaving school to enter the professions, I should like to know what it is. I know hundreds and thousands of young men who, having left the schools and universities, are at this moment in possession of all the qualifications required for such professions as the solicitor's profession and the Bar, but they are unable to take their places in either of these professions because of the barrier of money erected between them and the profession. There are no two closer professional trade unions than the professions of solicitor and barrister. What does it cost? The learned Attorney-General was careful to say nothing about it. He talked a great deal about exemptions from examinations. I am amused at some of the exemptions. I have never attempted to sit for the preliminary solicitor's examination, but I imagine that it is an examination in general knowledge, such as the London University has for matriculation. But look at the impertinence of the solicitors' profession, which says that any man who has taken a Degree at a university, so long as that Degree is not an Honorary Degree, is sufficiently well informed to be exempt from the preliminary examination for a solicitor. It is really ridiculous that a profession should come to this House and ask us to exempt such men.

As it cannot be done in any other way, why not do it by Statute?

I am talking about the ridiculousness of a profession wanting to raise the standard of their preliminary examination, which is a mere paltry examination in general knowledge, to such an extent that a man who has a university degree may be exempt.

I would point out that unless some provision of this sort is passed the Law Society has got no power to exempt a man from this examination. This is an enabling Bill; not a restricting Bill.

It seems to me, if the Law Society has no power in this matter they ought to put the profession into better hands.

The society would be very glad if only Parliament would give them these powers. The point is that Parliament has seen fit—considering solicitors as officers of the High Court— to keep them very strictly under Act of Parliament.

That is going beyond the point as to the general knowledge examination. [ Interruption. ] The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General can move the Closure, if the Government so desire, but in the meantime I am entitled to discuss the Bill as long as time permits. The point I wish to emphasise is, that this Bill is supposed to open the portals of a close profession, but we are not dealing with the real reason why the doors of this profession are closed to the ordinary boy leaving school. I know all about it, because I have been through the mill myself. Many years ago I could have been a member of one of these professions, so far as educational tests were concerned, if my father had been able to put down the money to pay the fees of the society which otherwise keeps people out of the profession. The English Bar, the Scottish Bar, the solicitors' profession—all erect a money barrier, and in spite of the fact that a boy may be absolutely qualified to enter one of these professions, he cannot do so because of economic considerations. If the Attorney-General and the Government had devoted their attention to the real obstacle instead of to the paltry considerations of this Measure, then one could have believed they were in earnest. The ordinary way of entering this particular profession is to become a law clerk. This usually requires a premium, and the average premium is £250. Then the boy has to serve five years as an articled clerk, during which time he receives nothing, unless he gets the premium back in some form of weekly wage. Then he starts passing his examinations, and he has to find the money to pay the fees of admission. I am told that is £80.

The stamp on the articles is £80.

The sum required on admission is £30.

Then there is £30 on admission and £80 stamp duty.

Compare it with other professions.

We are discussing, solicitors now, and if I compared it with other professions the Attorney-General would say I was wasting the time of the House. Therefore, all this hollow pretence of hon. and right hon. and learned Members opposite that this Bill is making it easier for a poor boy to enter this profession is so much camouflage. It is not the case, and this Bill in no sense at all-makes it easier and more convenient. There are plenty of criticisms from Members opposite about the tyranny of trade unions, but there is no greater tyranny in this country than the tyranny of these professions, with their money barriers to prevent the sons of working men from entering them. It is a hollow pretence and a farce, and hon. Members opposite know it.

I cannot allow the speech of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge to go unanswered. If the hon. Member will help me in making the entrance to the profession cheaper, I shall be very glad of his assistance, but I would point out to him that a great many of the sums of money which he has mentioned are not payments to the profession, but to the Exchequer, which, in my judgment, entirely unreasonably exacts an undue fee from the articled clerk and in other ways imposes a burden on those who enter the profession. When the hon. Member says the solicitor's profession is the exclusive preserve of the rich, I, who have been through the mill to a greater extent than he has—through the mill itself, and not through something like it —say it is and always will be a poor man's profession. It is one of the great professions in which ability, from wherever it comes, can get to the top. The hon. Member speaks as though these restrictions were imposed by the profession itself to keep its ranks select. That is entirely untrue.

In regard to the hon. and gallant Member's first point, if Mr. Speaker could give some indication that we could do the kind of thing he suggests and relieve the profession from the payment of these stamps and so on, I would withdraw my objection to the Second Beading. I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, when the Bill has left this House and gone to a Committee, we could deal with the question of stamp duties and admission to the profession in order really to widen the admission?

I do not wish to encroach on the jurisdiction of the Chairman, whoever he may be, of the Committee to which the Bill goes. All I can do is to ask the hon. Member to read the Title of the Bill— An Act to make further provision with respect to the qualifications of persons proposing to become or to practise as Solicitors. I think it is fairly wide.

I am glad to hear that, and I hope my hon. Friend opposite and I can meet upstairs, and combine in an attack on the Government to make this Bill wider. He spoke as though all these restrictions were imposed by the profession itself in order to keep people out of it, but the contrary is the case. These restrictions—the necessity of five years' articles, or three in certain cases —are imposed by Act of Parliament, and they are imposed because Parliament found great evils existing, due to the fact that men who were not qualified as lawyers could practise as solicitors, and it is entirely untrue to say that the profession itself is trying to close its doors. I served for many years on the Council of the profession, and I spent the whole of my working life as a member of the profession. I have the highest opinion of it. I met men there who had devoted themselves to the service of the law from the highest motives, and with great ability, and it has always been the great pride of the profession that its doors are open wide. There are certain points which I may suggest in Committee, or get somebody else to raise, but I do hope the House will pass this Bill. It is entirely an enabling Bill, and if it be rejected or postponed now, the very object the hon. Gentleman opposite wants to serve will be obstructed.

I join in the opposition to this Measure, and my chief reason is that this Bill ought to have been in our hands long ago. Another objection is that the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge are mentioned specifically in Clause 1, and I am wondering why the new Universities are not included there by name. And still another objection I have to the Bill is that in Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, it says that the Board of Education, after consultation with the Law Society, shall do certain things. I object to any society of this kind having the right to say that the Board of Education shall not proceed to lay down a curriculum for young boys in any branch of education without consultation with this Law Society, because the Law Society, so far as I know, is made up exclusively of lawyers and solicitors. Clause 2 is the most objectionable of all. It reads: A person articled to a solicitor after the passing of this Act shall not he admitted to the final examination, unless ho satisfies the Law Society. Strangely enough, in another Clause of the Bill, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Bolls appear to be entitled to lay down Begula-tions, but in this Clause you have it very definitely stated that the Law Society itself shall determine certain things. Then the Bill states that the schools which teach law to young people, shall be such schools as are approved by the Law Society. Where do the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Bolls come in, when the Law Society itself is the only authority that shall determine which law school shall be approved? For those reasons, I hope that the House will not agree to the Second Beading of this Bill.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." put, and agreed to.

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

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at Four o'Clock till Monday next. 10th July.