asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the size of the largest submarine, built or building, of each of the five leading naval Powers, together with the cost in each case, along

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

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present —

The House is being asked to-day to consider another ecclesiastical matter, immediately after the historic Debate of yesterday, but there is this difference between the question which we are discussing to-day and the question which we have so recently debated, that to the best of my belief, no doctrinal issue is in dispute. But while this matter has a small direct importance as far as the Church of England in this country is concerned, it has very great importance indeed for the Church of England in India. In asking the House to give the Bill a Second Reading I can give the assurance as regards the Church of England in India, that its opinion upon this Bill is as nearly unanimous as it is possible to be in this imperfect world. The Bill is supported by all the Bishops of the Church of England in India and the voting upon it in the Provincial Council of the Church in India, which corresponds to the National Assembly in this country, in a House of 89 persons present, was 87 in favour and only 2 against. In addition, the Measure which was also required to give effect to the proposals contained in this Bill was passed unanimously by the Church. Assembly in this country and passed through this House about six weeks ago without a Division.

For many years past, notice has been directed to the fact that the status of the Church of England in India is markedly different from that of other Churches belonging to the Anglican Community in the self-governing Dominions or even to the Church of England in foreign countries like the United States, Japan or China. These Churches belong to the world-wide union of Federated Churches looking towards the Archbishop of Canterbury, but with their own independent life and organisation. The Church of England in India, on the other hand, is, in the eyes of the law, merely an extension of the Church of England separated from the rest of that body by nearly 6,000 miles, with the ecclesiastical law of England applied to it and with no representation of any sort in the National Assembly of the Church of England and in the Houses of Convocation in this country. That arrangement was natural enough in the early days when the vast majority of the members of the Church of England in India were Europeans, temporarily resident in India—mainly servants of the Crown together with some who were in India for private business reasons. To-day, the situation is very different. The Christian community in India is growing very rapidly. The numbers, I believe, are increasing at the rate of something like 100,000 or 200,000 a year and the total number of Christians in India is computed at somewhere in the neighbourhood of 4,000,000 persons. Of these, 500,000, roughly speaking, belong to the Church of England and of that 500,000, no less than 380,000 are Indians and 37,000 are Anglo-Indians—using the term in its present official sense—and the remainder are Europeans.

That shows clearly, to my mind at any rate, that the time has come to give the Church of England in India its proper-status—that is to dissolve its legal union with the Church of England and give it freedom to organise itself and develop along its own lines as a voluntary society legally entitled to manage its own affairs. The history of the relations of the Government of India and the Secretary of State with this matter is as follows. Five years ago the Government was tentatively approached with a view to this change, namely, the dissolution of union. They sympathised with the proposal but felt bound to assure themselves that the change was really and truly desired by those whom it would affect. That assurance was given by the voting figures which I have just mentioned, by the overwhelming majority in the Provincial Council and the support of all the Bishops of the Church in India. May I here interpolate the remark that when I speak of the Bishops of the Church of England in India it must not be supposed that all those Bishops are Europeans. One of them is an Indian. The very distinguished Prelate, who has been in this country this year and has spoken on behalf of this Bill, the Bishop of Dornaral, is an Indian, and, of course, those voting equally in the Provincial Council, and the Church Assembly of India were both Indians and Europeans. In addition to the opinion expressed by the Provincial Council, the Diocesan Councils—there are councils in each diocese—were also in favour of the Bill.

Now, how is the change of which I have spoken to be effected? Firstly, it will be brought about by the Church Measure to which I have already referred, which passed through this House without a division as a Measure under the enabling Act in this country. That will mainly effect the self-government of the Church after the change has been effected. Secondly, it will be brought about by this Bill, which repeals certain Sections of the Government of India Act and renders self-government possible. Notably it repeals a Sub-section which lays down that the Bishop of Calcutta, the Metropolitan Bishop in India, is subject to the general superintendence and revision of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The repeal of these provisions will take effect on what is called the date of severance, which will be fixed not less than two years or more than three years after the coming into operation of the Indian Church Measure. After this date, the Bishops will be appointed in accordance with the constitution of the self-governing Church, instead. of by the procedure which is necessitated at present, that is, by submission to the Crown.

Will the Noble Lord give us the date of the Government of India Act to which he referred?

When I speak of the Government of India Act, I refer to the Consolidated Act. The Government of India Act has been amended, as the hon. and learned Member is aware, on a great many occasions, and after it is amended a fresh copy of the Act is placed in the Library of the House. Some difficulty arose over an earlier Amendment, of which a copy was not immediately available, for which perhaps I was responsible, but now, on each revision of the Act, copies of the consolidated, altered Statute are placed in the Library. When I speak of the alteration of the Government of India Act, I refer to one of the provisions in the amalgamated Act, but I will give the hon. and learned Gentleman afterwards the actual provision.

There is one special matter with which the House will be concerned. In fact, it is the matter, I think, with which the House will be much more concerned than with some of the other questions which arise under the Bill, and that is in respect to what, I venture to assert with confidence, are the obligations which this House has, as it has always had, towards those who are serving in that country as servants of the Crown. From the earliest time, since indeed the grant of a Charter by William III to the East India Company, it has been the practice, in the first decade of the East India Company, and afterwards of the Government, when the Crown assumed responsibility for the government of India by the Act of 1858, to provide chaplains and churches for British born subjects of the Crown in India. It is evident that under the new arrangement that privilege ought to be maintained, together with the rights of the chaplains, now 138 in number, as Government servants, because they are Government servants.

It is quite obvious that the problem with which the Government of India and the Secretary of State were faced when they had to consider this matter as a result of the first submission made to them by the Church of England in India for severance, the problem of, on the one hand, giving the freedom to the Church of England in India which they desired, and, on the other hand, of making proper provision for servants of the Crown, was a very formidable one, but the manner in which it was finally decided appears to all concerned to be very satisfactory. Rules will be made under Clause 5 of the Bill. The draft Rules, a copy of which I presented to this House in May last, represent an agreed and balanced scheme, arrived at after long consultation between the Government of India and the Bishops, who acted strictly in accordance with the mandate received by them from the Provincial Council in India.

The Secretary of State was, of course, consulted at every phase of the negotia- tions, and I may say that I, as his representative, was present when every rule was under discussion by a Committee of the Council of India, the Metropolitan of India, that is to say, the Bishop of Calcutta, and the Bishop of Bombay being present and taking part in the discussion, though not in the voting; and I can assure the House that the very greatest care was taken by both parties to go through every Rule and to discuss almost every word in the proposed draft Rules. These rules, which, as I say, were presented to Parliament in May last, represent the agreement reached to which I have just made reference. In saying that, I must not be taken as implying that circumstances may not necessitate some verbal alterations, because it must be remembered that these Rules will not come into effect until the date of severance, which will not be for two years, but what I want to emphasise is that there is a well understood honourable obligation, on the part of both parties to the agreement, to ensure that no alteration in principle is made without the concurrence of both parties. It is extremely unlikely that any such alteration will be made.

Having said that, let me emphasise the points which the agreement actually makes. British-born servants of the Crown in India are not to be deprived of the Church of England services to which they have been accustomed. Rule 15 in particular lays this down by describing the churches that will be maintained by the Government, which are to be called the maintained churches. It is also laid down that they shall be available for the service of the Church of England as contained in any Book of Common Prayer from time to time authorised in England. I need hardly say that this means that whatever services are authorised in England will be open to worshippers in the maintained churches—no more and no less. The Rules further ensure, in regard to Government chaplains, that there must be equitable treatment in such matters as the refusal of licence, posting to particular stations, or proceedings before Ecclesiastical Courts. The chaplains are represented on the Provincial Council and the Diocesan Councils in India, and there is full confidence that they will naturally take their place as a body under the new arrangement and give the same valuable services as they have rendered in the past.

British troops will have available for their use the maintained churches in all parts of India where there are such troops, and the Army Council assented to the Bill in draft before it was presented to the House. Rules have been carefully drafted to ensure that the authorities of the Church of England in India, after it has become legally separated from the parent Church, shall not withhold their licence from a chaplain except upon grounds upon which a licence would be refused in England. Rules have been made to bring in the aid or arbitration of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and in the last resort the Government have power to resume complete control of all or any of the maintained churches. The Government consider that in this matter they are in the legal position of trustees and are bound to provide against every contingency, however remote it may be, to protect the spiritual interests of the European Church of England members of the Services in India.

I come to one other point in connection with the authority which is behind this Bill. I think I have made it sufficiently clear that, while this Bill is a Government Bill, and represents the honourable agreement come to between the Government and the Church of England in India, the Bill originated with the demand of the Church of England in India for self-government. I am not afraid to state the position, which is, that that demand was for the same independence as is enjoyed by the Church of England in every one of the self-governing Dominions of the Crown, and every foreign country in which there is an Anglican community. The support for the Bill in India, as I have shown, is overwhelming. The Bill, to the best of my belief, is supported by the heads of all political parties in this country. Indeed the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) is, I understand, going to speak later in the Debate in support of the Bill.

Only in my private capacity.

I should have made that clear. At the same time, I am given to understand—I believe it is rather a delicate subject—from private inquiries, that there is no official opposition on the part of hon. Members of the Labour party, and I received a similar assurance from hon. Members who normally sit below the Gangway. I want to make the position quite clear, and to be perfectly frank with the House. If there should be much opposition to this Bill, it would be quite impossible to get the Bill through in the present Session. If that occurs, no damage will be done, either to His Majesty's Government or the Government of India, except in so far as they are deeply concerned, with every one responsible for the government of India, that the Church in India should have what it wants, and is entitled to have in their opinion. But if the Bill be delayed for another Session, the Government have every intention to get it through next Session. It will, however, involve the Church of England in India in heavy expense—heavy, at any rate, in comparison with its resources, which are not large. I am told that the cost of putting off a conference which was going to be held in the early part of next year to give effect to the change, will alone be £1,000, and I would make an earnest appeal to those hon. Gentlemen who, I understand, are going to oppose the Bill, to reconsider their position.

I think I know the grounds on which they are going to oppose it, and I am the last person to attempt to suggest for one moment that they are not absolutely sincere in their opposition. I am sure they are entirely sincere, but if, as I apprehend, the ground of their objection is that the money of the taxpayers is going to be spent in the future to support the service of the Church of England in India, let me point out that the position will be exactly the same as it is now, with this very important distinction as far as the Church of England in India is concerned, that they will acquire more freedom and far more self-government than they ever enjoyed in the past. But it will be impossible for this House to say at the same time as we agree to the severance, that we are going to wash our hands entirely of the obligation which we have had in this House for 300 years—for, after all, the old John Company was to a great extent under Parliament—the obligation of providing out of public moneys in India spiritual ministration for servants of the Crown. In fact, I myself am quite convinced that if we were to take that attitude, we should find it impossible to get a large number of people, both in important and in humble capacities, from the highest positions in the Civil Service down to the private soldiers in the Army, to serve in India at all. They would say, "We refuse to serve in a country where you refuse to provide us with religious service to which we have always been entitled, and to which we knew we were entitled when we joined a particular service."

So that I must warn the House that if, which is most unlikely to happen, the House as a whole took up the attitude that it is not prepared to see this money spent out of the taxpayers' money for the service of the Church, the Government would have to say, "Then we cannot agree to this freedom which is being conferred on the Church of England in India as a whole." I should have thought that it was a sufficient answer to that point of view to say that the members of the Church themselves, including Indians—because, after all, Indian members of the Church of England in India are taxpayers—have adopted this Bill almost with complete unanimity. I would like to mention another very delicate question, I admit. I would like to pay a tribute to the attitude which has been adopted by the great communities other than Christian in India. As far as I know, none of them has taken any exception either to this money being spent in the past or to it being spent in the future. On the contrary, I think there is a general feeling in a country like India that it would be very wrong to curtail the activities of any one community in that way.

In conclusion, I would like to add that my noble Friend and the Government of India are confident that they have done right in asking Parliament to implement this agreement—an agreement which is honourable to both parties, which has been entered into between the Church of England in India acting through its authorised episcopal representatives with their authority based on the almost unanimous opinion of those whom they represent and the Government of India. The Government believe that, on the one hand, this arrangement will enable the Church of England in India to fulfil all its functions in the same way as the Church of England in the Dominions and foreign countries is doing, with a sense of more freedom and initiative than it has hitherto possessed, and that, on the other hand, the spiritual welfare of servant® of the Crown for which, in a lay sense, the Secretary of State is undoubtedly legally and constitutionally responsible, will be adequately assisted and maintained after the severance has been effected. I very much hope that the House to-day will pass this Bill without a division, and thereby show to the very flourishing and growing community of members of the Church of England in India that it has for them a feeling of good will and of encouragement in the great task which they have undertaken.

May I ask one question before the Noble Lord sits down?

The Noble Lord will be able to answer, I am sure, by the leave of the House. The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

I listened carefully to the Noble Lord's statement about finance, but I am not quite clear as to the actual position. The point I want to be clear about, first of all, is, can he tell us by whom was found the money which supplied the actual fabric of the churches or any endowments, if there are any? Secondly, who is supplying to-day the means for the upkeep of these churches, and could he give us a rough figure of what it is? Thirdly, who has controlled hitherto the expenditure of this money, and who will control it if this Bill becomes law?

It is difficult to answer all these questions in detail. The hon. Gentleman asked me who supplied the money in the first instance for the endowments, and things of that kind. Some of it was supplied undoubtedly out of Government money as far back as the 17th century. Other money was supplied by pious benefactors, some of them Europeans and others Indian people, who died and left money to the Church. The Government will provide the money for the upkeep of the fabric of maintained churches and the Chaplains—

The Government of this country or the Government of India?

The Government of India. The Government of this country only comes in in respect of the obligation of the Secretary of State to see that the agreement is carried out, and to see that the interests of servants of the Crown in India are safeguarded. The Government of India are solely responsible financially in respect of maintained churches. With regard to the churches which will pass to the Church of England in India, which were dealt with in the Measure which has been passed by the House, the money for them will be found out of the funds which the Church of England in India has at its disposal. Some of these funds will be made over to the Church of England in India, and others will be found from the pockets of worshippers and from supporters of the Church of England in India. I hope that satisfies the hon. Gentleman. It is impossible for me to give a detailed account showing where the money came from. I doubt if any living person knows. It is like the money in the hands of the Church in this country or the Roman Church or any other Church.

Before the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill standing in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) is moved, I wish to make my position clear. The Noble Lord is quite right in saying that the Labour party, as such, offer no official opposition to this Bill; it is equally true that the Labour party, as such, do not officially support the Bill. Therefore, my hon. Friends who have put down the Amendment are, so far as the Labour party is concerned, equally as entitled to move it as I am to support the Bill, because it is no party question at all. I wish, if I may, to join in the appeal of the Noble Lord and to ask the right hon. Gentleman when he has explained his position, as I am sure he will, to help us in facilitating the passage of this Bill. We know that, as a fact, in every one of the Dominions of the Crown there is now a self-governing Church, and I should have thought that my right hon. Friend, who desires so much self-government for India, would have been among the first to welcome autonomy to India in the matter of ecclesiastical government. That is all that this Bill does. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has frequently demanded that India should be given the same rights of self-government as the other Dominions and Colonies, and now comes along an earnest or instalment of this very autonomy and freedom in the form of self-government to the Church.

They have got to pay, whether they like it or not.

I will deal with that point in a moment. The shackles which tie India compulsorily to this country are severed by this Bill. By this Measure the Church is allowed to conduct its own affairs. I really think that, were it not for this unfortunate misunderstanding about the matter of the money, my right hon. and gallant Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) would not find it in their hearts to oppose the Bill. In fact, they would have welcomed it. By far the greater number of the members of the Indian Church are native Indians. This is not a case of supporting an alien Church in India, composed of persons who came originally from other countries. The Noble Lord gave us some interesting figures, from which it appears that the majority of the members of the Church are native-born Indians. Therefore, the last objection to allowing these Indian Christians and the Anglo-India Christians to conduct their own affairs seems to me to disappear. In addition, we are told that in the Episcopate in India you have Indian-born Bishops, and they also desire this Bill. We spent a considerable time yesterday in discussing the limitations of the powers and rights of the Church, but that was a case where the Church was disagreed. I have had a conversation with the Bishop of Bombay, and he assures me that the Church in India is absolutely unanimous in desiring this Measure. Really, in these circumstances, I should have thought that the Erastianism of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would have been sated yesterday.

In regard to the question of finance, the position, as I understand it, is that this Measure makes no difference whatever in the existing financial position. Not a farthing more will be paid in the future than is paid in the present. The only difference is that, whereas the money is now paid under conditions of which the Government here or in India are in control, the money given in future will be received by the Indian Church to spend at its own discretion; and I am amazed that. Members like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shoreditch should object that the Church should be freer to spend its money than it is at the present time. I never thought that I should have to come here and implore my right hon. and gallant Friend to allow a voluntary association to become free of State control. If I had been asked before we came here which Member of the House would be most anxious and active to see this Bill passed into law, I should have said the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for New-castle under-Lyme. His attitude seems inconsistent with his whole philosophy of self-Government, and I hope that on this minor financial point he will give us the Second Beading, and, if it be not too much to hope, that he will give us the remaining stages also.

There are two questions which I should like to ask the Minister. Will this Bill result in India in the remission of services in English in any scattered small communities, as apart from places where provision is made for the Army and the Civil Service? Does the Bill mean that any English residents in future will be more likely to have the Anglican service rendered into Hindustani or some other language instead of their own tongue? The other question which I want to bring forward is very much more important. This Church, which we are setting up by this Bill, is a very small thing indeed—a few hundred thousand members, of whom the greater number, as I understand the Noble Lord, are recent converts, and as we all very well know, these recent converts have been drawn in the large majority from very primitive elements.

Earl WINTERTON indicated dissent.

I know something about India. I was born there, my father was born there, and my grandson was born there, and, if the Noble Lord wants to imply that the majority of the Indian converts are not drawn from primitive classes and races, I must differ from him. Lastly, I would like to know whether the Noble Lord really thinks it is a wise thing to hand over for Indianisation a small community like this, after the experience which the centuries have given us of the position of small, isolated Christian Churches in the East? A small, isolated Christian Church in Eastern countries often falls into very strange ways. There is the case, for example, of the Abyssinian Church—I will not quote other cases in China, and elsewhere. We have a moral responsibility for this body in India. They were our missionaries who built it up, and it is upon our hierarchy at home that it depends at present. Have we a moral right to cut loose the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury and to say that this small Church shall be autonomous and go on to rule itself, knowing its component elements and knowing what has happened in the past to similar small bodies? It raises a very grave doubt in my mind. The fact that the Church Assembly passed this Bill without comment does not count for very much in this House, I am afraid, after yesterday. I have received criticisms of the Bill from English people from India, particularly one from the head of a large English training college there, who is very strongly against it. I do not know how far that feeling of opposition is widespread in India, but it would be a great mistake to represent feeling there as absolutely unanimous, and to say that this Bill is approved by all the English in India. It is a move towards the Indianisation of India, no doubt, but we are still responsible for the Church, and considering how small that Church is, and in face of the fact that there is yet no large body of learned clergy nor any large body of educated laity, I have the gravest doubt whether we have yet the moral right to cut off the connection with the See of Canterbury.

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."

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) said that yesterday the House spent a considerable time in considering another question which had been put forward by the Anglican Church. The House considered that question with a very happy-result, and I hope the Debate to-day will have similar happy results, although I am not exactly sanguine of it. This Bill proposes to create a self-governing, independent Church in India, and, at the same time, to take from the revenues of India certain moneys to assist in the maintenance of that Church. It is quite true, as the Noble Lord says, that in taking these moneys from the Indian Revenue it is merely continuing a longstanding practice, but the very fact that we are asked to give a statutory basis-to this practice affords us an opportunity of deciding whether it is desirable that it should be continued. My hon. and learned Friend said that an analogy might be established between this Indian Church and the Churches which exist in our various self-governing Dominions, but I submit that there is this vital difference between the proposed Indian Church and those other Churches, that in no case in the self-governing Dominions is any of the revenue of those Dominions taken for the purpose of maintaining those Churches.

I object to the very name of this Church. It is to be called "The Indian Church." What right have we to give a legal basis to a Church in India to be called "The Indian Church"? It will represent what is, after all, an alien religion in India. The Noble Lord said there are about half a million Anglicans in India at the present time. The total population of India is something like 300,000,000, which means that only 1 in 600 is an Anglican. How can we rightly and properly create a Church in India to be called the Indian Church on a basis like that? Suppose we were to reverse the position. Suppose some people were to bring to this country an alien form of religion and were to succeed, by great industry, in getting adherents to it to the extent of l-600th of the population, and suppose, further, that we had not got an English Church. Should we not consider it to be an outrage upon England if this alien religion, with an infinitesimal degree of support, were to ask this House for authority to call itself "The English Church"? We have there an exact parallel of what we are proposing to do in regard to India at the present time.

My main objection to this Measure, however, is in reference to the revenue which is to be granted to it from the poor people of India. It is said that the practice was begun in 1698; the Noble Lord said it had always been done. The argument of antiquity is never conclusive, so far as I am concerned. The fact that something has been going on for centuries is not necessarily conclusive that it ought to continue, and we ought to consider the question not on the basis of the practice having been in existence for three centuries but from the point of view of whether it is right and proper. Certainly it was done in the days of John Company, but many things were done in those days which have been abandoned since, and I think this is one of the practices established by John Company which ought to be reconsidered and, probably, changed. This money, amounting to £300,000, is to be taken from the revenues of India and devoted to two purposes, one the maintenance of chaplains and churches for the military forces in India, and the other the maintenance of chaplains and churches for the Civil Service in India The House should bear in mind that by far the greater proportion of the money is to be devoted to the Civil Service in India. Out of 310 maintained churches no fewer than 221 are civil churches, so that the great bulk of the money is to be used for the purpose of providing Anglican services for Civil servants in India. Really, there is no justification for expenditure of that kind. So far as the Army is concerned I beg leave to question the wisdom of spending money in India on services for the Army. I happen to have served in the Army, and I got to know something of the feeling of the rank and file about compulsory church services and chaplains, and my experience taught me that practically 99 per cent. of the men who were serving in the Army did not want any church services and did not want any chaplains.

Colonel APPLIN indicated dissent.

One always speaks, of course, from one's own experience, and I am speaking from the point of view which I learned from my experience in the Army.

You did not want to go.

I did not want to go, and certainly the great bulk of my colleagues did not want to go. I do not think that a strong case has been made out for spending all this money even on the military side, but there is absolutely no case for spending any of this revenue in maintaining an Anglican service for the Civil servants in India. I hope in a matter like this that I am as broad-minded as any hon. Member of this House, and if any man wishes to practice a particular religion I should be the last man in the world to interfere with him. If the British Civil servants in India wish to follow and practice the Anglican religion I would not dream of attempting to stop them, but if the degree of fervour amongst these Civil servants is so weak that they are not prepared to find the money to maintain their religion in India, they have no right at all to go to the poor poverty-stricken people of India and ask them to provide money for that purpose.

What a presumption it is to call upon the Indian people to provide money for the maintenance of the Anglican religion. Look at the number of religions which India has already. They are far more numerous than in this country, and. of far greater antiquity than the Anglican religion. Those Indian religions represent the faith of hundreds of millions of poor people as against 500,000 who hold the Anglican faith. What right have we to ask these people, whose religions are much more numerous and much older than ours, to provide money in order to maintain what they regard as an alien religion? This is not merely a question of the amount of money. I do not care whether it is 10 rupees or 10,000,000 rupees. The amount does not matter, but what we are concerned about is the principle of taking the money of the Indian people without their consent for the maintenance of an alien Church.

12 n.

When John Hampden objected to the payment of ship money, it was not the fact that he had to pay 20s. that he objected to, because he could have paid that amount without difficulty, and it would not have impaired his fortune seriously at all; but he objected to the payment of that money on principle. When the people of our American Colonies objected to the payment of a tax on tea, it was not the amount of the tax to which they objected. I believe, if my memory serves me right, the rebate that was allowed was only a paltry tax of 3d. on the lb. They did not object to that so much but they objected to the whole principle of the tax. That is what I object to in this case. Even if the amount had been £10,000 I would have objected to it in the same way because we have no right to ask the Indian people, to whom this religion is alien, to subscribe money out of their revenues for the maintenance of the Anglican religion.

I hope that within the next few years there is going to be a change in the Government of India. We have been led to believe that, as a result of the inquiries of a Royal Commission which is about to investigate the Indian question, there may be very great changes in regard to self-government in India in the comparatively near future. I hope that may be the case. I would suggest that we ought not to regard this question as being urgent at the present time, and we ought to defer action in regard to it until the people of India have received a larger measure of self-government. At the present time the Indian people regard the Anglican Church as an alien Church, as the Church of their conquerors, and as being the Church of a Nation which dominates over them. For these reasons, I think that before we give this Church a national status in India we should wait until the Indians have become the rulers of their own destiny. When the Indian people are free to decide for themselves, when they have control of their own national fortunes and national finance, then, if they think fit to create an Indian Church which in fact is the Anglican Church, no one can object to that course. Until that happens I say that we ought at least, defer action in this matter, and under the circumstances we ought not to proceed with the Measure before the House.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do not believe that this Bill is quite such an innocent one as it appears to be on the surface. I am inclined to think that this Bill is very closely related to the Measure that was before the House yesterday in regard to which a considerable spate of literature was poured upon the Members of this House. My opinion on this point is strengthened by the fact that this Bill has received the support of the hon. Member for South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser). I do not know that the hon. Member has shown any particular interest in Indian affairs, although he may have taken a general in that subject. We have been told to-day that this Bill has the support of the great majority of the Bishops in India. Yesterday we were told exactly the same thing with regard to the Measure which was then before the House.

My real objection to this Bill is that it does not allow the democracy of India to express its voice upon it. It has been stated that this Bill is really in sympathy and unison with the idea of self-government in India, but I think that in the present circumstances that point of view cannot be upheld. We must recognise that India has not self-government to-day, and the voice of the democracy of India cannot be registered in regard to this Bill. We may pass this Bill through this House during the present Session, but we know that, if that be done, whatever India thinks about this Bill will not be registered in the Legislature of India. The Bill will be passed, whatever India may feel and think about it. The name of the Bill also comes into consideration. We are going to establish in India an Indian Church. Let us think what we are doing; let us remember the feeling that was aroused in the country and in this House yesterday upon the question of the Prayer Book. The Indian people are just as religious as we are, and the disputes that have arisen in that country recently between Mohammedans and Hindus are only a proof of the strength of feeling there on the question of religion. It is now proposed that we, the British people, should impose upon India what we call an Indian Church. That will mean that the only Established Church in India, the only Church that goes by the name of Indian, will be the Church of an alien religion.

Considering the relationship between this country and India, and what is to come before the Indian people during the next few months, the time for bringing in this Bill is very badly chosen. It is bound to create antagonism in India, and, especially if it goes through the Indian Legislature without the people of India having an opportunity to register their voice, it will very deeply prejudice the feeling in India against the Commission that is going out to consider the future government of India. We may say that these are sentimental matters, but it was admitted yesterday that we are sentimental. If I were an Indian and a member of the Hindu community, with its 220,000,000 followers, or of the Moslem community with its 60,000,000 or 70,000,000 followers, I should certainly feel very strongly opposed to the introduction into my country of a Bill to establish a Church which carried the name of my country and yet at the same time was the Church of an alien religion. In view of these considerations, and particularly in view of the fact that this cannot be considered to be a democratic Measure in India today, and that it is certainly an attack upon Indian sentiment, I feel that the least we can do is to oppose the introduction of this Bill until India has at any rate a very much larger measure of Home Rule than she has at the present moment.

The hon. Member who has just sat down is an awful warning of the way in which, if you once yield to suspicion, it spreads over the human mind—it corrupts it altogether. The hon. Member has now reached a point which reminds me of the well-known story of Lord Bowen, who said, about a colleague of his on the Judicial Bench, "The decision of Mr. Justice So-and-so is like going to sea on a Friday—not invariably fatal, but very unfortunate." The hon. Member feels very much the same about Bishops. He thinks that there is a certain presumption, in regard to the Episcopate, that, if the Bishops are in favour of anything, it is probably wrong. That makes things very difficult in dealing with episcopalian churches. I could not help observing that the opponents of this Bill seem hardly to have read its opening words. This is An Act to make provision incidental to and consequential on the dissolution of the legal union between the Church of England and the Church of England in India. It goes on: Whereas by the Indian Church Measure, 1927 provision is made for the dissolution of the legal union between the Church of England and the Church of England in India: And whereas for the purpose of giving effect to certain changes consequential on the said Measure it is expedient that the provisions hereinafter contained should be enacted by Parliament. The Indian Church Measure has passed; it has received the Royal Assent, and is the law of the land. Parliament, therefore, has adopted the principle of the dissolution of the legal union between the Church of England and the Church of England in India. As to its being called the Indian Church, it is not Parliament that calls it the Indian Church; it is the body itself that uses that name. All religious bodies choose their own title. The Church of Ireland is only the Church of a minority, but it calls itself the Church of Ireland; and there is a much smaller body which calls itself the Reformed Church of England, though personally I should not regard that as an appropriate title for that particular body. It is, however, part of the courtesy that passes among Christian people that they should be allowed to call the body to which they belong by any name that they please, and the Indian Church is so called because that is the name which has been adopted by the Bishops and other authorities who preside over it. My hon. Friend and colleague in the representation of the University of Oxford (Sir C. Oman) asked whether this would make any difference to the small scattered congregations. I cannot imagine that it would. They have to be provided for by the Church in any case. I am advised that there is the greatest possible anxiety not to do anything that would distress the ordinary English worshipper, and, at any rate so far as we are able now to foresee, there is no likelihood of any difficulty in that direction.

As to the question of money, this money is not to be given, as has been suggested, to maintain the Church; it is payment for services received. Religion, like other things, has to be paid for if you want it. The State has a large number of servants in India who need these ministrations. [ Interruption. ] We are happy in having, owing to the generosity of past ages, an endowed Church, but that does not exist in India, and, there- fore, provision must be made. Buildings have to be repaired, and chaplains who minister have to be paid for their services. The only purpose of this Bill is that the payments which are necessary, and without which, of course, those ministrations cannot be provided which are needed by the State for its servants, shall not be interfered with. A time may come when there are no Christian Civil servants in India, and, if that should ever be so, a new situation will, of course, arise; but at the present time there is this large body of State servants, and it is only reasonable and fair that the State needing this service should pay for the service.

The intention, both of the Measure and of the Bill, is that the Church should be absolutely independent, that it should be a voluntary association, distinct both from the State and also in law—though not, of course, spiritually—from the Church of England. Spiritually it is still to be united, of course, in full communion with the Church of England. Provision is made, rather quaintly, I think, for the contingency—and this, I hope, may satisfy my hon. Friend and colleague—of severance in the future. The Archbishop of Canterbury is to certify, and a good many other things are to be done, including the resumption by the Governor-General of the property which, as it were, has been loaned to the Church as long as it retains its present position. All that has been done in order—

On a point of Order. May I call your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the fact that there is not a quorum present in the House?

I recently counted the House, and satisfied myself that there are forty Members present.

On a further point of order. Will you declare to the House what interval it is necessary should elapse between one point and another at which your attention may be called to this fact?

That is in the discretion of the Chair.

When I was interrupted, I was saying that, as long as the State has in India persons who need religious services, it is only reasonable that the State should make a contribu- tion for such services. It does not increase the charge on the Indian taxpayer, and there is no analogy, therefore, with the charge on the American Colonies which led to their severance from this country. It is only paying for what you get. If you buy stationery in India you have to pay for it in a shop. If you get religion in England you have to pay for it.

Why do you not pay for it?

We pay the expense of government, and this is part of the expense of government.

That is what we object to.

That is part of the much wider problem how India ought to be governed, and we cannot decide that on this Bill. It is quite clear that what the Bill does is not at all to invade the rights of the Indian people. If anything it rather increases them. Many are Christians and are united in this Church and they will henceforth be entirely independent of the State and of English control. Last night we were told that we ought to have disestablishment. This is a measure of disestablishment. I am amazed to find that whatever we do is always wrong. The Church Assembly can never do right. When it tries to adjust its affairs consistently with establishment, it is wrong. If we assent to the separation of the Church, by which it becomes autonomous, disestablished from all connection with the State, we are wrong. May I read the words used in the Indian Church Measure, which must appeal to every convinced liberationist. They could not be more definite and more explicit: As in the respects particularly in this Section mentioned, so in all other respects the Church of England and the Indian Church shall, as from the date of severance, be legally severed, separate and distinct, and every law and custom shall, except as in this Measure expressly provided, be interpreted and applied accordingly. Again: Any rule of the Indian Church made by any synod, council, assembly or officer thereof shall not, after the date of severance, be subject to any legal limitation in respect to scone or effect (whether arising from the operation of an Act of Parliament or other- wise) other than such as would apply to the like rule if made by a voluntary association altogether distinct from the Church of England. This raises no question of principle. The principle has been raised and decided. This merely carries out the necessary machinery, which has to be dealt with by a Bill, and I earnestly hope the House will not be so foolish as to shrink from the consequences of the Measure.

The Noble Lord has given an admirable exposition of the advantages of disestablishment, but I cannot think it can have escaped his mind that this Bill as an example of disestablishment, of securing freedom from control, while yet retaining control over the cash—retention, shall I say, of the emoluments. I hardly think that is an exact parallel for the general argument in this country in favour of disestablishing the Church of England. He emphasised more clearly what he regarded as the advantages of establishment. He said we are bound, in India and in this country, to provide Church of England ministrations for the Civil Service, the Army, and indeed generally for the servants of the Crow6n throughout the world. I demur to that entirely. It indeed would be going beyond anything that has hitherto been suggested that the State should supply for Civil servants in this country Church of England ministrations. Many members of the Civil Service are Nonconformists; some are even Agnostics. Would the Noble Lord provide at the expense of the State ministrations for all the varieties of faith that go to compose the Civil Service?

I was interested in this Bill in the first place because, in spite of what the ex-Solicitor-General the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) said, apparently a large number of the members of the Church of England in India were afraid of this Measure because they thought directly the Church of England in India was severed from its connection with this country the disestablished Free Church would proceed to move along Anglo-Catholic lines and would develop on the Roman side of its character. That was the allegation of these people who wrote to me and of the 20,000 petitioners who sent in a petition against the Bill. I am satisfied, after discussing the matter with the Noble Lord, that there is no danger from that point of view, and indeed I think the whole House can see that, after the most emphatic vote yesterday of the Protestant under-world, there is no likelihood whatever of any Bench of Bishops, whether in this country or in India, ever again attempting to graft on to the Protestant reformed doctrine of this country the principles of the reservation of the Sacrament.

This seems to be renewing yesterday's Debate.

Perhaps I should explain how this is germane to the subject. We are setting this Church of England in India free. The principal opposition to it comes from those people who think that by setting it free they will move in the direction of the Roman Church, and I think we are justified in pointing out to these people who are objecting to this Bill in India that their fears, although they may have been justifiable before, are now no longer justifiable. The real criticism of this Bill must come not from those who object to it being set free from control—being subject to its own Bishops and laity—but from those who are doubtful as to whether we should continue indefinitely the practice of drawing upon Indian funds for the maintenance of this Church.

The main argument in favour of the Bill is that this has always gone on and therefore, on sound Conservative principles, because it has always gone on it always should go on. Let us realise that this is a question which every Member of Parliament must seriously consider. I do not remember any protests being made in the Indian Assembly against the moneys that are voted year after year for the upkeep of chaplains, not merely of the Church of England but Catholic and Nonconformist Chaplains with the Forces in India, but at any moment very reasonable objection to that may be taken, and I think we must face the fact that, this issue having been raised in this country, we shall in future have the matter raised in India. It is trifling with the matter to say, as the ex-Solicitor-General said, that this was merely giving to India the right of self-determination. Of course, if it were giving to India the right of self-determination as to whether they should find these funds or not. there would be no sort of financial opposition to the Measure, at any rate, but he knows, and we all know, that over the question of this fund, at the present time, India has no control whatever. To reduce the sum allocated to the Army is practically impossible. Really, the less we talk about self-determination in India at the present time the better, I think, for the subject is hardly one which comes with very good grace from us just now. We are in the position of trustees for not only the English Church but also for the Indian people on this question, and I would ask the Noble Lord, before he definitely asks us to vote for or against the Second Reading of this Bill, to tell us whether there have been any expressions of hostility from the Indian Legislative Assembly to the voting of this money in the past. If there have not been, I for one shall be quite content to support the Second Reading of this Measure. I do not believe that there are religious dangers, and as long as there have been no objections from India, from the people who pay, to the making of this payment, I do not feel that the matter is serious enough to force a Division. Do not let us attempt now to rush this Measure through the House. Do not let us attempt to take the Committee stage to-day. Do allow public opinion outside some slight opportunity of expressing itself on this question, which has never really seriously been discussed before in this House, and enable us to see more clearly, some day next week, whether we want to take the concluding stages of this Bill.

I find myself in an extremely difficult position. I do not wish to do anything to embarrass the Noble Lord on a Measure which deals with the financial support of the Church in India, but I am going to speak on this subject as one who served in India, in the Army, for many years and who was a lay reader in the Church of England, with a licence from the Bishop of Nagpur, when I had to take services every Sunday morning and evening for nine months of the year until the Bishop could come up into the hills for three months and take the services himself. I feel that we soldiers in India break our connection with the old country in every possible way. We go to an utterly strange land, with a climate totally different from our own, among an alien people, leaving our families and everything behind. There is just one thing which we have, and it is the Church of England, to which we march on Sundays. When we get into that Church and have that old service we feel ourselves back at home again. I differ entirely from the hon. Member for Shore-ditch (Mr. Thurtle), who spoke of his experience in India and expressed an entirely opposite view. My experience is that 90 per cent. of the men who march to the Church of England on Sunday desire to go to that Church. What they may not desire to do, and I agree with the hon. Member, is to have to clean their buttons and put on their full dress uniform, and march out in the sun in the morning. They may have a natural desire in their hearts to kick a football rather than sit and listen to a prosy sermon, but I do say that 90 per cent. of these men would feel it a very great hardship if they had not the Church of England service to which they are accustomed, giving them that connection with the old country which is so valuable out there.

I feel that we are passing a Measure without realising the fact—and it is in regard to the Clauses of this Bill dealing with finances that I have any doubt—that it is the separation, or, as the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), in front of me, said, the disestablishment of the Church of England in India. We in the Army, and they are some 35,000 of us, and the civil servants—and I think I am speaking for the Anglo-Indians also—would much rather that the Church of India remained in the Church of England and kept its connection with it. For that reason, I feel bound to oppose the Bill.

I reluctantly feel compelled to support the Amendment that has been moved. I do so, because I feel that it would be a great mistake to rush through this very important Bill at the tail end of this Session. To-day is probably the last day when we have even the pretence of having the full numbers of the House present. Next week large numbers of members will be away. It is quite a mistake to regard this Bill as a trivial and unimportant Bill. I do not think that the Noble Lord himself would take that view. The more the Bill is studied the more we shall realise that it is important in itself dealing with most important principles, and for that reason I protest against rushing it through in these last few days and claim that it ought to be considered when the House is able to give full consideration to it. I do not share the view of the hon. Friends who sit behind me with regard to the proceedings of yesterday. The more I think over what happened then, the more I am convinced that we ought to have devoted longer time to a question of such great; importance. It seems to me that in devoting only one day to a matter which had been dealt with at such great length and with such great consideration by the Church was totally inadequate. My reason for saying that is, that I want to avoid falling into the same mistake on this occasion. We have vital principles at stake in this Measure, and we ought to give to them proper thought, proper debate, and only after we have done all that to carry, if we desire it, this Bill into law. On the merits of this question, I am very much more uncertain, because I have not discovered, though I have taken some pains to do so, exactly what we are doing in this proposal. It seems to me that the position of the fund is completely changed if the status of the Church is changed.

My right hon. Friend made a point which I think was not fully appreciated in this Souse. He said that if we were going to ask for State funds for the support of churches of the English Church in India for the purpose of ministering to civil servants who were Anglicans, he did not see why the same argument should not apply to the support of all other churches to which other civil servants might belong. That seems to me to be a very vital question. So long as this Indian Church is a State Church, so long as it is definitely connected with the English Church and is a State organisation, there is a certain amount of ground for seeing that any State funds that are found are legitimately used for maintaining the State Church. But the moment that connection between the "Church of India and the Church of England ceases, then, it seems to me, there are no grounds whatever for using State funds to support the so-called Indian Church, that would not equally be arguable in support of other Churches to which a body of civil servants in a particular locality belong. You may have a Civil servant in an up-country station, and he and one or two in the immediate circle may be the only people really concerned in attending Church. It would be a very difficult matter to prove that you are in any sense ministering to his requirements if he be a Nonconformist by supplying him with an English Church when the Church has already ceased to be the State Church, as we understand it. I would like to press this point that we are undoubtedly on the eve of very important constitutional changes in India —some of us hope that that will be so in any case—and it seems to me that this is not the right moment to make this very grave change. For these reasons, without saying that I am against the Bill, I do say that we ought not to rush it through in the last few remaining days of a short Session.

I hope the House will forgive my asking permission to speak a second time.

It is not necessary for the Noble Lord to ask permission in this case.

I am very much obliged to you for that assurance. I hope that I shall be in the pleasant position of being able to make some converts. I hope that the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), when he has heard my statement, will vote for the Bill, and I hope that the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), who put his views in a most moderate and reasonable way, although I think his premise was wrong, will also vote for the Bill. As I understand the hon. Member for West Leicester, his point was this; that the Church in India is to cease being a State Church; that so long as it remains a State Church there is reason for providing money and a case can be made out for providing money for servants of the Crown; but, when it ceases to be a State Church, there can be no such reason, because the people for whom we are intending to provide the services, European servants of the Crown, may not be members of the Church of England. The answer to that is two-fold. In the first place, provision is made for a very carefully chosen number of maintained churches in those places where there is a considerable Anglican community of servants of the Crown. In the second place, provision is made from Army funds and has always been made and will continue to be made for the spiritual ministrations of Roman Catholics and Nonconformists. That is to say, the chaplains are maintained out of Army funds for this purpose. In that way we provide for the members of practically every Christian community in India who are in the service of the Crown.

An equally serious point was put by the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) who moved the Amendment. His argument, if there was no answer to it, would be a powerful one. He said that the Anglican community in India, admittedly, only numbers half a million people out of a population of 300,000,000. The actual Christian community, as I have said on many occasions, is very much larger and is growing. He asked why should we provide any sort of State money, taxpayers' money for the needs of that Christian community. Apart from the fact that we have distinct obligations, despite what the hon. Member said, towards the servants of the Crown, the answer is that the Christian religion is not the only religion for which money is provided by the State in India. Probably the House is unaware that all the lands and sites belonging to the mosques and temples in India, and they are very numerous, are entirely free from land assessment. An enormous sum of money is provided in that way, and quite properly provided, if I may say so with all respect, for those great religions out of State funds.

Does that apply to the property of those religions in the Mosques and Temples?

The Mosques and Temples are entirely exempt from land taxation. That is a very valuable assistance to them. I think, I cannot say definitely, off-hand, that it applies to some extent to certain endowments. At any rate, the sum of money which they obtain in that way is enormous. The right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme asked a very reasonable question. He asked what has been the attitude of the Assembly in regard to this matter. I have made such inquiries as have been possible in the time at my disposal, and I learned that there has never been any Resolution passed or moved in the Assembly hostile to this Measure. There have been one or two questions on the subject. It naturally aroused curiosity on the part of Members when the Bill was on the tapis and was first mooted, but there has been no Resolution of any kind hostile to this proposal. I believe the reason for that is that there really is no opinion in India against assistance to the great religions of India, and I imagine that the Moslem and Hindu Members of the Assembly would feel that it would be a rather ungracious attitude on their part to object to this comparatively small sum of money being given in assistance of the Church of England in respect of the obligations of the Government to the European servants of the Crown, when at the same time their own religions were receiving great assistance in the way I have described.

My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) has been very effectively answered by his fellow Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil). The hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin) is under a complete misapprehension. He spoke as if the dissolution of the legal and not, as the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University pointed out, the spiritual union between the Church in India and the Church of England in this country was going to make the position of the soldiers in respect of their religious services far different from what it is to-day. Nothing of the sort. They will continue to attend the parade services, and I believe that not one in a dozen will know that there is any difference. They will be in exactly the same position as they are now, because at very great trouble and after long deliberation the Government of India, the Church, myself and others concerned in the negotiations in deciding which churches shall be maintained, have made most careful provision for the spiritual welfare of the troops.

I am sorry that I must end on a more controversial tone. There is a point to which I must take exception in the phrase used by the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Wellock) which if it were not answered would cause consider- able feeling among Christians in India. He said that Christianity was an alien religion in India. I can assure him that Christianity has no frontiers. It belongs to no one country more than another. Every Indian Christian will feel as wounded by that phrase, which I hope was used inadvertently by the hon. Member, as will his own constituents. "An alien religion" is not the term to apply to Christianity in any part of the world. It has no frontiers any more than the great religion of Islam has frontiers.

I only meant that it was an imported religion.

So is Christianity in this country.

I am sure the hon. Member used the phrase not in the sense in which the House took it. I am speaking on behalf of Indian Christians, who I am sure would be deeply wounded by the use of the phrase, just as a Mohammedan in this country would be deeply wounded if his religion was referred to as an alien religion because it is a religion which is follwed by millions of people in the British Empire. I think I have dealt with all the points that have been raised. The House has shown great moderation in dealing with this matter, and, although there is only a small number of Members present, it has shown a high sense of responsibility. I hope that we shall pass the Bill without a Division.

The Noble Lord has drawn an analogy between the direct payment for services of religion for military and Civil servants in India and the indirect payment in the form of remissions of taxation on the land in which the temples of other religions in India are built. It does not seem to me to be an altogether clear analogy. In any case, the land upon which the temples are built happens to be Indian land, and the people of India surely have the right, as have the people in this country, to make whatever assessment arrangements they please. The Noble Lord also takes up the use of word "alien religion." I do not think it is an offence to the Christians of India, or to anybody else, to call the Christian religion in India, alien. It is alien in the sense that there is establishment, just as much as the Church, when it was established in Ireland, was an alien church, to that country, and because of that establishment and the forcing of a different religion upon a nation in its state and financial relations, it came to be considered a hardship from the material and spiritual point of view. If we have a vote upon this Bill this afternoon, it implies that this House may not sanction the payment of the small sum of £300,000, and it does raise the question of principle which is behind the Bill.

The point I want to put is this: If it is necessary for the troops in India or the Civil servants to have the ministrations of the Christian Church, it is far better for this country, which is predominantly Christian, to pay the expenses of that ministration. If the civil servants cannot be expected to pay for their own religion, surely it would be far better and more reasonable for this country to pay the expenses rather than make the Indian nation pay them. As for the troops, and their appreciation of the compulsory or semi-compulsory religious services in India, or anyhere else, there is a world of difference between being an officer in the Army and being a private. I have been both, and I am perfectly sure that the average officer does not know what the average soldier thinks about compulsory religion in the Army. The reason why religion and religious services are objected to by the troops, and bitterly objected to in spite of the nonsense of the 99 per cent., is not because of an objection to religion itself, but because every form of compulsion in religion is objectionable. The whole essence of religion is self-sacrifice and its spontaneous expression. If it does not come spontaneously, then religion is worthless. That is the principle involved, and because this expenditure, or the sanction of it, does involve that principle I shall support the Amendment rather than the Motion.

Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next, 19th December.—[ Earl Winterton. ]

I beg to move "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."

I understand that the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Col. Wedgwood) who is not able to be here at the moment, agrees with me that in so far as they are not purely drafting Amendments they are an improvement in the Bill and, therefore, as we are now in complete agreement as to the form, I hope that we shall rapidly dispose of them.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Lords Amendments to page 8, line 2, agreed to.

I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment makes plain what I think we all assumed to be the law in this case. If a renter succeeds in the course of a year to the business of another renter he carries the quota rights as well as the quota liabilities of the man to whose business he succeeds. I was advised that the law was not quite clear without the insertion of this Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 16, line 31, agreed to.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

1.0 p.m.

I ought to explain that when an Amendment for the same purpose was moved in this House on Report the purpose was agreed to but the form in which it was moved was not agreed to. I gave an undertaking that the words would be reconsidered favourably if put in a very strict form which showed that there could be no general relaxation and relaxation only under very strict conditions. This Amendment complies with that arrangement.

This Amendment reduces more or less the amount of money that has to be spent on British labour in the making of British films. My opinion is that it leaves a loophole for Continental or American labour to be brought in, whether films are made here or elsewhere.

I cannot help agreeing with the hon. Member who has just spoken. I regret that this relaxation has been permitted, and that there is now a possibility of less emolument for British labour.

Question put, and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

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

This Bill embodies an agreement between the Irish Free State and this country which is designed to meet an administrative problem resulting from the establishment of the Irish Free State and the legislation consequent thereon. As a result of that legislation, the General Medical Council, which had previously been charged with the duty of supervising the medical profession in regard to the whole of the United Kingdom, ceased to exercise any authority or control over the profession in the Irish Free State, and also ceased to be able to place on the register here students who obtained their medical qualification in the Irish Free State. That position was regarded on both sides as unsatisfactory, and negotiations have been taking place for some time. In the meanwhile, by an interim arrangement the General Medical Council have agreed to accept for the Medical Register here, students with qualifications obtained in the Irish Free State. One of the objects of the Bill is to validate that arrangement.

An agreement was reached in the early part of this year in the form of the signed agreement which is set out as Part I of the Schedule of the Bill. I may say that in this matter the British Government has been assisted by Sir Donald Macalister, the President of the General Medical Council, and the agreement has the concurrence and support of the Council. The terms of the agreement are briefly these. On the one hand, so far as the Medical Register in the United Kingdom is concerned, the General Medical Council will continue to admit to the register all persons who, prior to the establishment of the Irish Free State, would have been admissible in respect of qualifications obtained in the area which is now the Irish Free State. Secondly, they will have all the power formerly possessed by them of controlling the examinations giving the right of such admission, so far as is necessary for the purpose of keeping the United Kingdom Register. On the other side, the Irish Free State will establish an Irish Free State Register, and will have complete control of that register and of the profession in the Irish Free State. Provision is made for the admission to the Register on equal terms of all persons on the United Kingdom Register.

The position with regard to the Dentists Act is practically similar, and it is embodied in Part II of the Schedule. I may say that in that matter we have been assisted by Sir Francis Acland, Chairman of the Dental Board of the United Kingdom. The agreement requires legislation both in this country and the Free State. I am glad to say that in the case of the Free State legislation has been passed to give effect to the medical part of the agreement, and I believe it has received the Royal Assent. The legislation in regard to the dental side in the Irish Free State will, I think, under their procedure involve a separate Bill, and I understand that legislation is now going through. I think this is a happy solution of the difficulties which have arisen, and I have no doubt the House will be prepared to give a Second Reading to the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[ Sir K. Wood. ]

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

The first Clause of this Bill makes it compulsory for any nursing home in the future, if the Bill is passed, to have in charge of it a qualified medical doctor or a qualified nurse. Hon. Members are no doubt aware that the method of healing disease as practised by those who profess the faith of Christian Science is entirely different from that practised by the medical profession. It is obvious, therefore, that if there is to be a qualified medical man or a qualified nurse at the head of these homes there must be a period when either he or she will disapprove of the methods adopted in the homes to which the proposed New Clause refers. I should state here that these homes do not take maternity cases, cases requiring surgical operations, or cases of infectious diseases. There are, at present, 30 or 40 of these homes spread about the countries of England and Wales. If they cannot obtain exemption under this Bill the result will be that those who profess the faith of Christian Science or who desire to be healed by its means, will be subjected, in my opinion, to an intolerable degree of persecution merely for their religious convictions. That I declare to be quite contrary both to the traditions of this House, and the objects of the promoters of the Bill.

The only other alternative is that these homes should be closed. No attempt is being made under this proposed New Clause to evade any of the rules and regulations in regard to ventilation, sanitation or such matters. These homes are prepared to submit to any degree of inspection and registration which may be thought desirable and necessary by the Ministry of Health. These homes would, of course, have to satisfy the requirements of the Ministry in these respects, and in other matters, before they could gain exemption. Now the object of the Bill is presumably to close undesirable establishments and not to interfere with well-conducted homes where hundreds of our fellow citizens today are seeking and finding comfort and health. In face of these facts, we place our position before the Ministry of Health. We have accepted this proposed New Clause which, I understand, conforms in every way with the requirements of the Ministry of Health. I feel sure that no one in this House, and in particular none of those who represent the medical profession in this House, desires to interfere with the free right of any individual in this country to think upon religious matters as he or she desires nor does anyone desire to interfere with the right of the individual to seek relief from his ill-health and his troubles as he or she may think best. If this Clause be rejected, however, it will, in my opinion, constitute an intolerable interference with the right of the individual in these respects, and, therefore, I trust that this Clause, which is agreeable to the Ministry of Health and which is satisfactory to those most intimately concerned, will be accepted by the House.

I beg to second the Motion.

I feel bound to say a word on this Clause, as a member of the Select Committee which took evidence. We took evidence specially of the representative of Christian Science, and I think this Clause does raise some difficulty. The main object that the Select Committee had before it, and which is indeed embodied in the Bill, was to ensure that in all institutions which held themselves out as nursing homes, there should be qualified nursing service for the public who went to those homes and who paid the fees required of them. We were not willing to make any exemptions whatever, except those which are contained in Clause 6 of the Bill, and those are cases where people are in institutions of the nature of nursing homes for which they do not pay; but in all cases where there is payment made, we held very clearly indeed, after all the evidence that came before us, that there should be no exemption. We had, amongst other cases, the cases of medical men who keep nursing homes in various parts of the country and where they receive patients for fees, and a very great deal of evidence was given before us, and a good deal of pressure was brought to bear upon the Committee, to induce us to make a recommendation that in all cases where nursing homes were run by a medical man for gain there should be exemption from the provisions of the Bill. We were told that the General Medical Council would ensure that such homes were properly run and that we need have no fear whatever in cases of that kind that the homes would not be properly provided with qualified nurses. The evidence, however, that came before us showed us that some of the very worst cases of neglect occurred in these nursing homes which were run by doctors, and we found it quite impossible, under those circumstances, to make any recommendation for the exemption of such homes.

Now we are met with the suggestion that there should be exemption in the case of a particular religious body. We are not dealing here with a religious question at all, but with a medical question, a nursing question, a question in which the House desires, through this Bill, to protect the public, and, therefore, we should be very chary of making an exemption in the case of this particular religious body, which wishes to conduct treatment in homes of its own of a special character, entirely and absolutely distinct from what is generally known as nursing treatment. We have defined in the Bill what a qualified nurse is, and we have said throughout the Bill that qualified nurses are to be employed in these homes. The only little relaxation we have made of these rules is in connection with nursing homes actually in existence at the present moment, and which will be carried on under the Regulations under the Bill when those Regulations are made by the local authorities, and we have given a certain time for these existing nursing homes to get a better staff than they have at present. I do not think they ought to be thrown out immediately because they have not got the necessary staff which ought to be provided under the Bill, and so we have made a little exception in their case, but in all other cases we feel that no exception should be made. The evidence that a nursing home should have qualified nurses on the staff, even if it does not have for the moment a qualified nurse at its head or a qualified man at its head, was conclusive.

Therefore, I think it is extremely difficult for me, as a member of the Select Committee, to agree with this Clause, which, as even the Under-Secretary said in Committee upstairs on a similar Amendment, would drive a horse and coach right through the main provision of this Bill, which is to provide qualified nursing, or rather to assure that qualified nursing is provided, in all nursing institutions which are registered by the local authority under the Bill. Therefore, I am afraid I must vote against this Clause, although I do not do so with any idea in the least of wanting to injure this particular body of religious persons. Let them carry on their religious work in their own way as much as they like, but I do not think they ought to come to the Ministry of Health and say that the Ministry is to take the responsibility, for that is what it comes to, for the nursing service which is given in these institutions, when we know that that nursing service would not be the nursing service of qualified nurses as provided under the Bill.

I agree with the observations of the last speaker with regard to the qualifications of medical nurses in nursing homes, but this Clause raises a religious difficulty, and I have no desire, any more than has any other hon. Member, to interfere with the religious views of other people, but I cannot help thinking that the form in which this new Clause is being moved raises the religious issue in a very half-hearted way by the people who believe in it. If people really believe that exemption should be granted, why do they say that only permissive power to exempt shall be granted to the Ministry of Health? The Clause says: "The Minister of Health may grant exemption," but if he is satisfied that these homes are Christian Science homes he can even then refuse the exemption. It is merely a permissive power, and it seems to me to indicate a position in which even the supporters of it have no clear belief in their own case. There is another objection that I see to the Clause, and that is this, that it is taking the Minister of Health away from his proper duties and, instead of being primarily a Minister of Health, it is turn-him into a theological expert, because the first part of the Clause says: The Minister of Health may grant exemption from the operation of this Act in respect of any nursing home, as respects which he is satisfied that it is being or will be carried on in accordance with the practice and principles of the body known as the Church of Christ, Scientist. He is to examine the practice and principles of the Christian Science Church, and to see that all the principles of that Church are being carried out; he is to find out that they are not heterodox in any way, but that the proper orthodox practice and principles of the Christian Science Church are being observed. This is a new duty to cast upon a Government Department. Why should the Minister of Health be the high priest of the Christian Science Church and see that their homes are properly conducted? This is a new form of Popery. As I understand it, the Minister of Health is to be converted into a new kind of Pope, and I object to that doctrine. I do not pretend to be familiar with the doctrine of the Christian Scientists, but if I am more or less accurate in saying that they believe in faith healing as against other methods, I do not see what is the necessity for a home at all.

There is nothing in common between what is the accepted idea of faith-healing and the doctrine of Christian Science.

How are you going to ascertain, and keep the Minister of Health informed as to any modification that might take place in the doctrine? The Clause says "in accordance with the practice and principles."

They do not change.

There is another very great objection in the second part of this Clause which says: It shall be a condition of any exemption granted to a nursing home under this Section that the nursing home shall adopt and use the name of Christian Science nursing home. Many homes might adopt that name. You are opening a new loophole. How are people who have adopted the name to prove, or how are the supporters of this Bill to prove, to the Minister of Health that these people are qualified Christian Scientists? It opens up a mass of difficulties, and upon these grounds I hope this new Clause will be defeated.

Also as a member of the Select Committee, I wish to oppose this Clause, and I do so for several reasons. The first has already been referred to by a Member on this side who was Chairman of the Committee, and it is that when we were taking evidence before the Committee, we had applications from two sets of nursing homes for exemption under this Bill. One was from the medical profession, that is to say, from those members of the medical profession who had nursing homes of their own, and the other was from the representatives of the Christian Science Church. When all the evidence had been taken, it became perfectly evident that it was not wise to grant exemption to those homes which were under the charge of a medical man, and that has not been given in the Bill. It would therefore, be very unfair that an exemption should be given to any other body who are claiming on very much the same grounds. That seems to me to be a very genuine reason for not granting this concession. The Mover of the Clause has stated that there are something like 30 or 40 of these nursing homes in the country at the present time. That is not at all in accordance with the evidence we received from the representative of the Church in question before the Select Committee. At that time, he said there were only three Christian Science nursing homes in the country, that there were other kinds of places to which patients could go to receive their treatment, but which could not in any way be called nursing homes. He gave them the name of a kind of boarding-house. There has either been an enormous growth in nursing homes between last year and now—they have been multiplied by 10—or else the boardinghouses are now being included among nursing homes.

If that be so, and if the great majority of those homes are such as need not come under the name of "nursing home" at all, but are really boarding houses in which patients can see their own professor—I do not know exactly what he calls himself—who treats these cases, there is not any very great hardship in closing down the few ones which are definitely nursing homes. If they are really to become what is definitely a nursing home, there should undoubtedly be control over them, to see that they keep up to the standard which is going to be exacted from nursing homes of any other kind. Another reason is that under this Clause there seems to be no proper guarantee that the homes which are going to be exempted by it will be properly inspected. The Minister does not take the responsibility of inspecting them. All he does is to say that he will exempt them if it is definitely shown that they are homes belonging to a particular church.

That does not cover the ground. It does not guarantee that they will be inspected. It does not give the users of those homes any sort of guarantee that the homes are being run on proper lines, and, that being so, any guarantee that would be left would be that which would be provided by the managers of the homes themselves.

The evidence we obtained before the Committee was that, at the present time, or at that time, at any rate, there was absolutely no body which controlled these homes in any way. In fact, the representative of the central body who gave evidence knew extraordinarily little about the homes at all. He said it might he possible to set, up a central body which would control the homes under directions from Boston, but at the time there was no such body in existence. That is a very nebulous state of affairs. If they are going to be exempted, they are going to be exempted by a certificate from the Minister that they are Christian Science homes. There is to be no form of inspection or any kind of control other than a nebulous one not yet set in being by their own body. There seems to be one further extreme danger in allowing this Clause to go through. There are many other methods of treatment in vogue in this country besides that of the orthodox Christian Science. There are, as we have been informed, many unorthodox methods of treatment. What is to prevent, in the case of any one of these other methods, the setting up of homes, and if this exemption be given, how can the present Minister, or any Minister in the future, justly claim to refuse exemption in those cases also? We are setting up a very dangerous precedent which will be very difficult to resist in the future, and I hope that the House will not agree to this Clause.

I think it would be convenient if I were to intervene at this moment to say what is the attitude of the Ministry of Health towards the Clause which the House is discussing. It is all the more necessary, because I do not think that the House has yet had before it some of the considerations that ought to be taken into account in deciding a matter of this kind. My hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment spoke of Christian Science as a religion, a form of faith. I do not know that it is necessary for me to say that I am not a Christian Scientist. I do not profess even to know what are the tenets of Christian Science, but so far as it is the practice of Christian Science to substitute for medical and surgical skill some other methods I entirely disapprove of it.

It is faith.

Having said so much, I want to ask the House to consider what would be the effect of rejecting the Clause which has been moved, and consequently bringing institutions carried on by Christian Scientists under the provisions of the Bill. One is bound to consider that we are not now concerned with the doctrines of Christian Science. What we are concerned with in this Bill is to see that no member of the public is deceived, and that no member of the public shall enter one of these institutions under the impression that he is entering it as a nursing home in the sense in which that term is generally used. Christian Science is not carried on as medical treatment; it is not a species of quackery which pretends to be something it is not. You may agree or you may not agree with it, but there is no pretence that such treatment as is given by Christian Scientists is offered as a variety of medical treatment. It is in fact an alternative to medical treatment.

Having got that clear, let us consider what is going to be the effect of bringing these institutions under the provisions of the Bill. Without some form of exemption, there is little doubt that they would come within the provisions of the Bill, and, if so, they would be required, as a condition of their continued existence, to appoint a qualified nurse to be resident in the home as the superintendent of the home. But they cannot do it; it would be contrary, as I understand it, to their beliefs to do it. It would be a case of camouflage, and I put it to hon. Members who feel that it is a danger to leave the homes out of the Bill, that if, as a result of bringing them in, this piece of camouflage were introduced so that it could be said that they are nursing homes, you would be doing the very thing which some of my hon. Friends want to prevent. You would be deceiving, or likely to deceive, the public. On that account, I suggest to hon. Members who are alarmed about these things, that they are unwise to attempt to bring them within the provisions of the Bill. Suppose they refused to appoint a qualified nurse. The home would be closed. Can we contemplate the possibility of doing that? That, however, would be the effect, because they could not exist without registration, and they could not be registered without having a qualified nurse.

Only if they are nursing homes.

In Clause 1, on page 2 of the Bill, you find that the authority may refuse to register the applicant if they are satisfied— ( d ) in the ease of a nursing home (other than a maternity home) which was in existence at the commencement of this Act, that the nursing of the patients in the home is not under the superintendence of a qualified nurse who is resident in the home; That is the Clause to which I am referring. It says the authority "may" refuse to register, not "shall," but in practice the "may" might mean "shall."

This Bill refers to homes which are nursing homes. If the Christian Scientist refers to them as homes of rest or homes of treatment, they will not come under the Bill at all, and will not deceive the public.

That is not a matter in which a layman can decide. It is a legal question. It all depends on whether institutions of the kind we are discussing would come within the definition of nursing homes in the Bill, and I am advised that they would, and certainly I do not think my hon. Friend can give us an assurance that they would not. Therefore we have to contemplate the possibility that they would come within the definition. If there is any dispute, no doubt in practice the matter would be taken to the Courts, and it could be finally decided whether they come within the definition. We must therefore contemplate the possibility; and I ask the House to consider this. How can we say that the principles and the practices of Christian Science shall be lawful in this country so long as they are not carried on in an institution? What is the logic in that? This would leave it perfectly free and open for any persons who desired to obtain Christian Science treatment to obtain it in their own homes, and it seems to me that there would be great force in the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend that this would be regarded as a piece of persecution for religious opinions for which opportunity had been given by this Bill in one direction, but which had not the courage to come out and fight the main question as to whether Christian Science should or should not be permitted to be carried on in this country. These are considerations which have led me to think that the inclusion of these institutions under the provisions of this Bill offers difficulties so serious that I cannot contemplate it with complacency.

I have, therefore, had to consider what was the other alternative, and, in doing that I have had in mind all along this main consideration, which is the only one which concerns me, namely, to see that the public, if it enters one of these institutions, shall do so with its eyes open, knowing precisely what it is that it is going there for, and shall not be liable to be misled or deceived by the fact that such a home has been inspected by some Government or local authority. Provided it were possible to isolate these particular institutions, separating them from such homes as might be set up by unqualified persons posing as medical practitioners; provided one could get some test by which they could be separated, and could ensure that they could not call themselves by a title which would give rise to misunderstanding; and if one could also provide a safeguard so that on any change taking place in the situation an exemption could be withdrawn, then the objects which I have in view would be secured. I think with one exception the Clause which has been moved by my hon. and gallant Friend carries out my ideas. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Sir C. Cobb), who was chairman of the Select Committee, spoke all the time in his speech of nursing homes, and protested against the exemption of any kind of nursing home, and I think I agree with him there, but the whole point is that these are not nursing homes. This seems to me to be the weak point of the Clause as it stands upon the Paper, that they are still to be called nursing homes, and I am going to ask my hon. and gallant Friend if he would consider amending his Clause in that respect.

What part of the Clause?

In Sub-section (2) it says: It shall be a condition of any exemption granted to a nursing home under this Section that the nursing home shall adopt and use the name of Christian Science nursing home. I ask the House not to approve that name, which would bring such homes under the general description of nursing homes. I suggest that he should use some other title which would separate those institutions entirely from nursing homes and afford no excuse to anyone to say that he had gone there under some misapprehension. I think they might possibly be called "Christian Science Houses," a term which does not, I think, involve any suggestion of medical practice. I suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend that if he could adopt that title in place of the one which is in the Amendment, it might go some way at any rate to meet the objection.

Would that apply to the first part of the Clause as well where it says

"In respect of any nursing homes,"

so as to make it read, "In respect of any homes"?

I do not think it would be necessary to qualify every reference in the Act itself to the institutions as "nursing homes." I dare say it might be possible in another place to make some further alteration; but I am concerned with what the public will think. The public will not read this Act; they will read the title which is put up on the door of the institution, and that is where I think it is important to have the alteration, and the course I have suggested would really bring about that end. This would indicate quite clearly the reasons why we are making a special exemption in this case, because, as I say, these are not really nursing homes.

May I suggest that we should leave out the word "nursing" making the phrase "Christian Science Homes"? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think that would emphasise the protection of the public, just to leave out the word "nursing."

I do not think that would quite meet the objections of other hon. Members. The fact is that in their minds even the word "home" suggests something in the nature of nursing home. As it really does not matter to the Christian Scientists what they call their institutions, for all the people who enter them quite understand what they are going there for, I think it would be better to substitute the words which I suggest.

I think if ever there was an illustration of the magnificent atmosphere which seemed to permeate the House yesterday it is to be found in the speech of the Minister of Health. I do not think I have ever heard a case more fairly stated on both sides. To sum up, I would say that the Minister of Health approached the question somewhat in this way. He said that yesterday the House of Commons was very much divided on certain phrases and formulas and interpretations; but yesterday the House was absolutely united in saying that whatever be the religious belief of any individual, it is not for us to dictate to him. It is for us to say "This is a matter as between the individual and his conscience," and to pay a tribute to his sincere belief. That appears to be the spirit in which the Minister has approached this question. It is no good to disguise the fact that there were apprehensions. Large numbers of people when they saw this Amendment put this interpretation upon it—this may be all-right for a particular body, but however well-intentioned that particular body may be, look how easy it will be for someone else to create abuses by all manner of quack institutions opened here and there. I know that a number of my friends had that very natural apprehension.

The first thing the Minister has made clear is that no body, under any name, whether Christian Scientists or otherwise, can come to the House with any hope that we should concede the right of any institution to be able to say, "No matter what we do, no matter what we practise, we are independent of any inspection." The House of Commons would not listen to any such claim. Therefore, the Mover of the Clause and those responsible for it, make it perfectly clear that no such claim was ever intended or ever made. Then the Minister of Health, approaching the question quite fairly again, puts forward this difficulty. He says the one thing we ought to avoid is saying to some particular body, "We refuse to allow you to do it through the front door but there are a 101 ways in which you can get through by the back door"; in other words, to say that if they comply with the provision as to a qualified nurse, all will be well. We know perfectly well that those responsible for this new Clause would feel straight away that they were being asked to do something that was a travesty of the whole thing. Frankly, I feel sure that they would say, "Rather than have this back-door method, we would close down altogether." For these reasons, I feel that those responsible for the new Clause would be well advised to take the advice of the Minister. I would like to ask whether it is worth while now insisting upon the importance of the determining words. I am sure that we should all prefer the best words to be used for this purpose, but if we draft them too hastily they may turn out to be wrong.

There is no difficulty in the case, because, whatever form is decided upon, the altered form of words can be inserted in another place. I think that course would be better than asking the House to agree hastily to any form of words at this moment. I make that suggestion. I thank the Minister of Health for so clearly and accurately explaining the position. I am sure that it would be much better for all concerned in our controversies if we refrained from making debating points, and endeavoured to get at once at the real facts. In this case, the Minister of Health has enabled us to get at the facts, and for that I thank him. I suggest to the Mover of this Amendment that he should alter the words in the way which has been suggested, in order that they may be inserted in another place.

We put down the new Clause in its present form because we were told that was the best way. Of course, we are willing to take any name to effect our purpose which the Minister may suggest, and which is agreeable to the wishes of the House.

I thank the Committee for the splendid work which they have done in regard to this question. Since this new Clause was moved, I think all our minds are a little clearer, after the statement which has been made by the Minister of Health. I was most anxious that all nursing homes should be registered, and I think that a great difficulty will be removed by the Mover and Seconder of this new Clause agreeing to the suggestion which has been made by the Minister of Health. I think there would be a great danger if Christian Science homes were exempted, because that would only mean a loophole for any other bodies doing the same thing. We know what might go on all over the country in this respect, and I think it will be a benefit to everybody if the Christian Science homes come under the Bill. I am anxious, not only from the point of view of the medical and the nursing profession, but also from the point of view of the public, that all these homes should be registered and should come under the control of the Minister of Health.

I was told by the chairman of the Christian Science Church that the members of that Church were perfectly willing that their homes should be registered, and, if that course is taken, there will be no loophole for anybody setting up a nursing home for any other purpose. If they were exempted, homes of this kind could be run for any other purpose while declaring that they were practising Christian Science. Therefore, if we can come to some arrangement on this point, it will be much better for all the parties concerned. I have no desire to question the sincerity of the Christian Science movement or their religion, but I do want to see this Bill passed into law, and placed upon the Statute Book to protect the nursing profession, as well as the public. I feel sure that those interested in this Bill will do their best to come to an agreement, and I hope that the Mover and Seconder of this new Clause will not insist upon any course which will jeopardise the passing of this Bill.

2.0 p.m.

I should accept this new Clause at once if I had simply to consider the point of view of helping the work of Christian Science nursing homes so far as they were relieving people, and so far as this question is concerned with liberty of conscience and freedom for experiments, as we are bound to look upon the Christian Science movement. But I hope the House will recognise how grave is the position of medical men in being called upon to make such an exemption. The attitude which we have taken all along in this House is that these matters are not questions of kindness, humanity, charity, or liberty to the persons concerned. What we are concerned with is the protection of the public. Again and again, when questions come up affecting our profession, we try to bring things round to the point of view as to what is the public interest, and not the interests of the particular exemption to be served.

The arguments which we have heard on this new Clause have been almost entirely from the point of view of these particular homes. I have nothing to say against them, and I know nothing about them. The Minister of Health knows nothing about them, and we have not been informed in this respect. At first, we were told that there were three of these Christian Science Homes, but since then we have been told that there are 37. Now we are being asked to give a blank cheque, not only to these homes, but to any others who come along with the same credentials. What are those credentials? They are to be certified as coming under the Christian Science faith. I understand that there is no body in this country representing that faith which can certify these homes. Therefore, it seems to me that the House is being asked to give a blank cheque.

I am now looking at this matter from the point of view of the public. The public will say, "Here is a house which is not to be called a nursing home." If the Christian Science movement, with all its resources has been able to increase; its number of nursing homes from three to 37 in 12 months, what is to prevent them going ahead at the same rate? These places will be well equipped, because they will belong to an affluent community, and we shall soon know whether they are really nursing homes or not. Of course, if they are rest homes they will attract people to them. They will attract people who have diseases, and it will become practically impossible to know whether they are nursing homes or not.

The general public do not know the difference between Christian Science and any other science—I am speaking, of course, of the more ignorant portion of the public. I am afraid, therefore, that this would be opening the door to the wide deception of the public against which the Minister thought he was providing. If we open the door to this extent, how could we prevent opening the door to, let us say, the much older and more widespread cult of homeopathy? If the homeopathists come to this House and say that they have an equal right to exemption for their houses, surely it could not be denied them, and yet the proposed new Clause does not provide for such exemption. It would be the same with regard to the osteopaths, of whom Sir Herbert Barker, whose reminiscences have just been published, and who has so much influence, is at the head. I think that the exemption proposed is most dangerous. It is said that an exemption under this Clause may be withdrawn by the Minister "if it appears to him," and so on. We have not been told in what way it may appear to him, and I cannot help wondering how he is to have that knowledge which obviously the public have a right to demand and which would make it appear to him that these homes are or are not being properly carried on. Possibly we may have some reply before we are asked to go to a Division on the Clause. We should like to know whether the Minister and his officers will have the right of inspection. If so, should not that be put into the Clause? The Mover of the Clause said, very rightly, that he was prepared to admit any amount of inspection, but, if that be so, it should be put into the Bill, and we should have an assurance from the Minister that he intends to do whatever may be necessary to keep himself acquainted with what is going on. We have not had that assurance, and, unless we have it, I personally feel—I do not know whether my hon. Friend is with me who is in such close touch, as I am not, with the British Medical Association—I personally feel that I cannot vote for this Clause unless we have some definite understanding of how it is going to be carried out, and how the position stands in relation to the very much larger field of the safety of the public.

I came here with a view to opposing this Clause, but the concession which has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Clause seems to me to remove absolutely all the suspicions and distrust which its opponents entertain. Once a Christian Science nursing home adopts the term "Christian Science house," it cannot be said to contravene the main principle of the Bill, which is that a nursing home should connote something definite, and something which ensures to the public that the nursing given by the home shall be, in the ordinary sense of the word, qualified nursing. That objection having been met, my only object in rising is to make two suggestions to my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Clause. I think he will agree with me that, having regard to the substitution of the word "house" for the words "nursing home" in Sub-section (2), it is no longer necessary or desirable that a Christian Science nursing home should be classified as a nursing home in Subsection (1), and I suggest that the proper word to use in the second line of Subsection (1) and the first line of Sub-section (3) would be the colourless word "institution," instead of "nursing home." We do not want it to be implicit in the language of this Clause that the Christian Science house is a nursing home at all, and, if my hon. and gallant Friend would be willing so to amend the Clause as to substitute the word "institution" for "nursing home," he would get exactly what he wants, and the Clause would cease to have the repugnance which now exists between the language of Sub-sections (1) and (3) and that of Sub-section (2). I would also suggest that in Sub-section (3) the words "that house" should be substituted for the words "that home." These are quite obvious improvements on the Clause as drafted, and I think we ought to take the making of these Amendments into our own hands, rather than leaving it to another place to make them.

I came to the House to-day with the definite intention of voting against this Clause, and I am afraid I have not yet departed from that intention. I must confess that I am very suspicious of people with these peculiar ideas, and I have the notion that, if any registration or control is necessary in nursing homes or anywhere else, it is necessary in places carried on by these peculiar people. Unless, therefore, these places can be taken altogether outside nursing homes as we know them, I think we ought not to agree to this Clause. The Minister says that if the wording of the Clause is changed it will be all right, but I am not sure that even then it will be all right. Sub-section (1) says that the Minister may grant exemption to a home if he is satisfied that it is being or will be carried on in accordance with the practice and principles of the body known as the Church of Christ Scientist. The Minister has not to determine whether the thing is right or good for the community, but whether the place is carried on in accordance with these principles. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) seemed particularly anxious to get this Clause through. I am afraid that religious scruples are not his strong point. Why should he be so anxious to get it through? It is not an uncommon thing to read in the papers of cases in which people have died for want of medical skill and in places carried on by these peculiar people. I do not want to say anything against people with religious scruples. That is not my point at all.

There is also religious toleration.

I believe in giving people the fullest liberty to carry out what their conscience dictates, but, if it is a question of nursing homes which are carried on for the benefit of the public, that is a very different thing, and I think that, if these places are to be carried on as nursing homes, they ought to be definitely under the registration proposed in this Bill. I am still very suspicious. If the Minister can invent a form of words which takes these places altogether outside, I have no more to say, but it will not satisfy me, at any rate, unless they are very definitely taken outside. If that cannot be done, I shall vote against the Clause, as I voted against the Measure that was before the House last night. We seem to be in for religious scruples this week, and they provoke a fighting spirit such as is not in evidence in the case of many other matters which are considered by this House. If it is not possible to take these places definitely outside, I shall oppose the Clause.

I am grateful to the Minister for the suggestion he has made, because I think that the alteration of the words "nursing home" to "house" gets over a very great deal of difficulty. Although I speak as a medical man, I cannot associate myself fully with the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle). We have to recognise in this country that people have a right to their own opinions, and that, if they are adults, they have a right to do what they like with their lives. If a certain section of people in this country believe that the principles of Christian Science are such that they can get a better effect from them than from the ordinary medical and surgical skill that is available, they have a perfect right to hold and act upon that view; and, if it is necessary that homes or houses should be provided for that particular kind of treatment, they have a right to go into them. I do not think that we, either as medical men or as Members of Parliament, have a right to interfere, provided that we are assured that the public are safeguarded and are not being deceived.

If a place is described as a "Christian Science house," the majority of people in this country will know that it is a house to which people go for Christian Science treatment, and they know that Christian Scientists have absolutely no belief or faith in anything medical or surgical. Therefore, I say that it would be impossible for a person of adult age to go into one of these homes in ignorance. Whether, when they get into the home, they will be well or ill treated, is not the concern of the community. They have gone there of their own free will. So that I think hon. Members can with safety accept this new Clause subject to the redrafting suggested by my hon. and learned Friend. I do not think the public would have any right to complain, this House would have no right to complain, and it is a way out of a difficulty, although not satisfactory from the medical point of view, because we are totally and absolutely opposed to it. We do not know where in the world you have got your ideas from. Still we recognise that you are entitled to hold them. We honour you for sticking up for your beliefs, and I think we have no right to interfere with your principles and practices provided the public are not deceived. Therefore, I think the House can with safety accept my right hon. Friend's suggestion and have the Clause amended accordingly. I should like also to make a suggestion, for the Minister to be satisfied that it has been carried on in accordance with the principles of the body known as the Church of Christ Scientist, that he should require that the head of that religion in this country should actually certify that it was one of their houses carried on according to their principles and put the onus on him.

As regards the last point, that will be the case, and the head of the Church will give that certificate.

Is that the head of the Church in England?

No, in Boston.

Will that be put into the Bill?

I do not think there will be any necessity for that. There is a good deal of common agreement about the matter. What I suggest is that at any rate to-day we insert in the second paragraph the word "house' and I will undertake between now and the Bill going to another place to consider the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend behind with a view to substituting the word "institution"—I do not think anyone will object to that—and also in paragraph 3 to the same effect. That will meet very much the views of hon. Members opposite but naturally we should like, before inserting a word of that character, to have an opportunity of considering it and consulting the legal advisers of the Crown. With these three alterations the Committee can be satisfied that everyone's view is met.

As a member of the Select Committee on the registration of Nursing Homes, I am very anxious indeed that this Bill should go through, but I am also anxious that we should know exactly what we are doing with this Amendment. With the general principle of religious toleration I am in entire agreement, and I think there is always room in the medical world for experiment. The difficulty has always been, if I may say so with due respect to the British Medical Association, that that body has attempted to set a stern face against it, but it has had to face a great deal of public indignation and is learning better nowadays. We know the terrific fight Sir Herbert Barker had. I should on principle support any experiment in the whole science of healing or any experiment that tended to widen the possibility of bringing comfort and health to any human being, but with all that, we have to realise that there is no more profitable way of making money in this country than having some way of curing people that is different from anything that has been discussed at all. I am sure it is in the interests of Christian Scientists themselves that there should be no loophole which will allow bogus or quack organisations which are merely run for profit at the expense of people who are, either for themselves or for their loved ones, seeking health and healing and will almost do anything and go anywhere to get it. I was amazed to hear the extraordinary doctrine propounded that individuals are able to do as they like with their own lives. If the hon. Member, bored with the proceedings of the House, went out and tried to commit suicide the law would very sharply remind him that he could not do as he liked with his own life. The same thing applies when you are dealing with mothers and their children. A woman may be the most devoted mother and yet be very dangerous when she is seeking healing for her child. She may be led away by specious advertisements or wrong advice and might find herself entirely in the wrong hands. An hon. Member opposite asked whether the certificate would be given by someone in this country or someone in Boston, and the Under-Secretary said, "I suppose so."

The head of the Church in this country is perfectly well known and he will be recognised so far as the Department is concerned.

If we are going to have the Clause re-drafted in another place we ought to know definitely who is going to certify these homes, and we ought to have the fullest safeguards that they will make themselves responsible.

The Minister of Health has to be satisfied that it is being, or will be, carried on in accordance with the practice and principles of the body known as the Church of Christ Scientists.

We all know what religious bodies are. We can take an example from yesterday, when we had the Primate of the Church and his most, notable ally and supporter very violently quarrelling as to what exactly are the principles and practices of so well established a body as the Church of England. When you are going to have questions of nursing and healing and medical practices you may have the possibility of divisions in the church and of two sets of people claiming to be the sole repository of the practices and principles of the Church of Christ Scientist. The Noble Lady the Member for Plymouth has said these practices and principles never change. I am a little dubious about practices and principles that never change, but while I do not want to oppose it, and have the utmost sympathy with religious toleration, I do not want the public to be deceived and I want them to have the very clearest guarantee—after all we are the only people the public looks to in this matter—that they are going to get what they came for. I should like some indication from the Minister that we can have some guarantee that there will be some definite body who will certify these homes and will be held responsible to the Minister if anything goes wrong.

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

Clause read a Second time.

Amendment made to proposed new Clause: In line 7, leave out the words "nursing home," and insert instead thereof the word "house".—[ Captain Cazalet. ]

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 37, after the word "some" to insert the word "qualified nurse or".

This Amendment makes no change at all in the legal effect of the Clause as at present drafted. The only effect of the insertion of these words in the Clause is that it will emphasise to those who have to administer the Measure that when the medical officer of health deputes some officer to inspect and visit these nursing homes he shall bear in mind that the official primarily qualified to deal with questions of nursing is a qualified nurse. The effect of this Amendment will be that when it is necessary to inquire into the character of the nursing in a home, or the credentials of the nurses, or the conditions under which the nurses live, the official of the local supervising authority to make that inspection will, normally speaking, be a qualified nurse. That is desirable because a qualified nurse is the best person to undertake that task.

I beg to second Amendment.

I want to do so for certain very definite reasons. When we were discussing this question, it was recommended by representatives of nursing organisations, that in addition to the medical inspection of the homes, it might also be necessary to have a qualified nurse to go into all the work and the organisation of the homes which would not normally be dealt with by a medical practitioner. There have been, undoubtedly, and there are now, some very serious scandals connected with nursing homes. There are many nursing homes that possess quite good premises, have charmingly-attired nurses, with flowers in the public rooms, giving a general air of freshness and beauty on the outside. They present a very different view when one goes inside. We appeal for a qualified nurse to be able to go in and see the back premises, to see the nursing side. We had one case before us, and another case has been brought to my notice since, of a nurse going into the kitchen of one of the homes where the food of the invalids was being prepared and finding in one corner of it masses of dirty linen, much of it from septic patients, being stored pending removal to the laundry. In some cases septic and dirty material was placed in the bathroom, and in other cases the lavatory accommodation was extremely bad and dirty. While, no doubt, it might be said that it is as much a part of the doctor's job to see that these things are looked after, a busy practitioner cannot go into such details. They are jobs for nurses. Moreover, a nurse is accustomed to looking after this sort of thing. I hope, therefore, the Minister, who has shown himself so gracious in the previous Amendment, will also give us this concession in this Clause. I know that it might be argued that the words or some other officer duly authorised by them. might be taken to include a qualified nurse. We want to be quite sure that the position of the nurse is safeguarded in this Clause and that it is possible—the fact should be emphasised—for a qualified nurse to go and visit some of these nursing homes.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 1, after the word "Act," to insert the words: the council of every county as respects that county and the council of every county borough as respects that borough shall be. Clause 8 of the Bill deals with the local supervising authority and defines it. There has been a rather chequered history of this Clause. The local supervising authority was, in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee, the, council of the borough or of the county, and the Committee upstairs decided also that a district council whose medical officer was not otherwise employed might also act. Since the proceedings in Committee, there have been discussions with representatives of the various classes of local authorities concerned, and they have all come to an agreement upon the Amendment which now stands in my name. I think, therefore, that under these circumstances it is quite unnecessary for me to detain the House with a speech on this subject. We go back to the original county borough or county council as the local supervising authority, but there are powers given to the authority to delegate their powers to the minor authorities, and the minor authorities have the power of appealing to the Minister if their application for such delegation be refused. The present Amendment deals with these points. There are some other Amendments, which are consequential, dealing with the way in which the expenses are to be distributed. I understand that technically, because of the fact that the incidence of rates will be somewhat varied by these Amendments, it is not possible to move them on Report. Therefore, I shall propose, when we come to those Amendments, to move that the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House for their consideration. After those Amendments have been made in Committee, we shall resume the Report stage.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this Amendment has been accepted by the County Councils Association?

My information is that it has not. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us who represented the County Councils Association?

The Chairman.

My information is quite the contrary. It is that the Chairman represented himself and not the County Councils Association. In any event, I have a resolution which has been passed by the County Councils Association stating that in the circumstances the Committee are not prepared either to abandon or to pursue their opposition to the Clause. My information is that the County Councils Association have never met from that day to this, and that what is being done is being done on the individual authority of the people concerned. In any event, some of the members of the County Councils Association are still as adamant in their opposition to the Clause as they were on that date. They state that this compromise has been reached without any authority from the County Councils Association, and that only the individuals themselves have taken the responsibility. I do not propose to vote against the Bill or to cause any trouble, but I was asked to bring this matter forward and make a protest and to say that in so far as a compromise had been reached the individuals concerned would have to take the responsibility.

I have been in close touch with the County Councils Association and certain county councils. Although the association ha, not had a full meeting, I understand that their constitution and arrangement such that the chairman has power to act and he was assured that he would gel sanction and approval at the next meeting. I agree with the hon. Member that the whole compromise is questionable I have been very much concerned about it and very doubtful whether we ought to give way. The Bill as originally introduced left the inspection entirely to the county councils and the county borough councils, and I am certain that that would have been the best form of administration; but we were faced with the fact that certain boroughs felt very strongly that they should have responsibility in the matter, and that they were prepared to block the Bill at all costs rather than that it should go through as it was. I am afraid that, as in the last Bill, we are liable to deal with these questions in the interests of certain parties concerned and not of the public.

I was responsible for introducing last year, with the support of the Minister of Health, a Bill which became the Maternity Homes Act, and which is working perfectly well at the present time. That Bill, with the strong support of the Minister of Health, gave the whole power of inspection to the county councils and the councils of the county boroughs. When the present Bill was introduced, it seemed to me only natural to follow the same course. Some opposition was raised last year, and opposition has been raised in connection with this Bill with the result that we have this compromise. I would ask my hon. Friends who feel with me so strongly as regards the desirability of having the larger authority responsible for dealing with this matter, to realise that we are confronted with the alternative of losing the Bill or accepting the compromise. I ask them to accept the compromise. I do so with great hesitation, but in a matter so urgent as the inspection of nursing homes, and the scandals which have been revealed by the Select Committee, I suggest that we accept the compromise. I would ask the Minister to be most careful to see that the bodies to whom the power is delegated shall carry out the powers so delegated, not in the interests simply of themselves and of their credit but in the interests of the public, which are liable to be lost sight of when we are making this kind of bargain.

I wish to add my protest against the compromise which has been arrived at, not as the result of the decision of the County Councils Association but through the action of the chairman and secretary. I think it is a thoroughly retrograde step and it may do a great deal towards limiting the good that might otherwise have been done by this Bill. We all know what happens. If you allow inspection by these small authorities, especially in the rural dis- tricts and the smaller urban areas, there is always the possibility of intrigue and influence and the fear of people losing their jobs, and it is only by entrusting the inspection to the wider authority, where the inspector is free from any economic difficulty and the fear of losing his job, that you can really get adequate inspection.

The public have a real grievance in this matter. The question of the registration of nursing homes was not taken up until it had become a public scandal. Everybody knows the intolerable conditions that exist in many nursing homes; homes which are charging very high fees. It is not simply a question of homes which have not good financial backing, but homes charging 20 guineas a week have been responsible for some of the worst scandals, and homes which have had medical practitioners at the head of them. After so much public indignation and after the Report of the Select Committee, surely it was the duty of the Minister to see that the Bill was carried through with the fullest possible protection for the public. I submit that the Clause making the inspection the duty of the larger authorities was the only safeguard that the public had that inspection would be properly carried out. I have had a series of resolutions from the National Council of Nurses and from local bodies in my constituency against the idea of inspection being carried out by these smaller bodies.

I suppose we have to accept the compromise or lose the Bill but I, nevertheless, feel that the Minister has been lamentably weak in the matter and that he ought to have forced the Bill through. The Minister smiles, but I would suggest that the Government of which he is so shining an ornament has forced through much more contentious matters. If he was genuinely concerned in protecting the public he would have seen that this Measure, which everybody on the Select Committee agreed was much the best, would have got through rather than accept a compromise which may destroy a certain part of the value of the Bill. I wanted to make my protest and to say that we regret that this compromise has been made, although we cannot vote against it.

I wish to make my protest. I feel very doubtful about this Measure, largely because it will bring the midwife under two authorities. If the Minister will give us an assurance that the midwife will not be under two authorities with regard to inspection when the minor people are doing it, I should be completely satisfied. That is a very important matter and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some assurance on the point.

We are apt when discussing a question of this kind to overlook the fact that there are exceedingly large urban areas. I am speaking now as one who has had a request from the Middlesex County Council and from the Willesden District Council, who differ on the question. The county council has appealed to me to support the Bill as it stood, and the urban district council, representing a population of 170,000 people, claim that on a matter of such importance, and being responsible for such a large population, they should have the right to have a say in the administration of the Act. I have no doubt that there are other areas equally as large nd equally as important. I hope the House will support the compromise. When I received information from the County Councils Association that a conference had taken place and a compromise had been arrived at, I hoped that the House would be prepared to accept it almost without discussion. If this compromise is not accepted the Bill will be lost, but if it is accepted the Bill will be able to go through, I hope, unopposed. We must not overlook the fact that there are quite a number of urban districts which have their own medical officers, and in that case the administration will be far more up to date and efficient than if it was left to the county council, which has to cover such a large area.

I can only speak again by leave of the House, and I would have said more in moving the Amendment if I had supposed there was likely to be any considerable discussion upon it. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) considers that I have displayed a lack of interest; that is perhaps due to the fact that I have not had my lunch. I would certainly not put my name to a compromise of this kind, even to secure the passage of this Bill, unless I was satisfied that it was a good one and would work out in practice. I would ask the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin) to look closely at what this delegation covers. It says: The council of a county may, on the application of the council of any county district within the county, delegate to the district council, either with or without any restrictions or conditions as the county council thinks fit, any of the powers or duties of the county council under this Act. I call his special attention to these words, and I feel certain they will avoid any possibility of the duplication of inspection. What would happen would be this. In some cases the county council will refuse to delegate at all. It may be on the ground that these maternity homes have been inspected by them and that they see no reason for making any alteration in the practice. The municipal authority will have the right to appeal to the Minister, but I do not imagine he would make any change in a case like that. In another case the county council will agree to delegate to a body which is a capable one and which has a competent staff already undertaking some of the work in connection with pre-natal conditions. It would be quite easy in that case to make arrangements between the two authorities which will avoid any duplication of inspection. The county council may delegate the inspection of these homes to them, and may say: will you, therefore, take from us the inspection of the midwives, and act as our agents. It will be quite possible to make arrangements of that kind. I am quite sure there will be no friction or inefficiency in the administration.

Might not that lead us to this position? The Minister said on the Maternity Homes Act that he wanted the larger authority, now he leaves a loophole that the county council may delegate their authority—

The hon. Member has exhausted her right to speak. She can ask a question if she desires.

I am not making a speech; I was only asking a question.

If the hon. Member wants to ask a question will she put her question?

I am endeavouring to do so to the best of my poor ability. Is not the effect of what the Minister has said to make it possible for the county council to hand over to the smaller authorities the supervision of midwives, which they could not do under the terms of the Maternity Homes Act?

They cannot delegate responsibility. They may make arrangements for the inspection to be carried out by the officers of another authority, if that authority cares to lend them for the purpose. It is not a question of the delegation of responsibility, but merely a question of the particular individual who will make the inspection.

Is it not the case that in reference to the Midwives and Maternity Homes Act the evidence of his own Department was to the effect that it was working badly?

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, leave out from the word "authority," in line 2, to the end of line 13, and insert the words: (2) The council of a county may, on the application of the council of any county district within the county, delegate to the district council, either with or without any restrictions or conditions as the county council thinks fit, any of the powers or duties of the county council under this Act. (3) If any district council by which an application is made under Sub-section (2) of this Section is aggrieved by the refusal of the county council to delegate any of its powers or duties under this Act or to delegate any such powers or duties otherwise than subject to conditions or restrictions the district council may make a representation to the Minister with respect to the matter, and the Minister, after consultation with the county council may direct the county council to delegate to the district council either with or without restrictions or conditions such of its powers and duties under this Act as the Minister thinks proper, and the county council shall comply with any direction so given."—[ Mr. Chamberlain. ]

The next four Amendments to Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Clause 8 involve a charge and cannot be taken on consideration.

CLAUSE 11.—( Short title, extent, repeal and commencement. )

I beg to move, in Clause 11, page 9, line 22, to leave out the word "January" and to insert instead thereof the word "July."

Obviously, there is not enough time to get this organisation by next January, and it is proposed to postpone it until next July.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 8, Sub-sections (2) and (3), standing upon the Notice Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for the Ladywood Division of Birmingham.—[ Mr. Chamberlain. ] put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

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

I would take this opportunity of thanking Members of all parties for the way in which they have helped in passing this Bill. That the Bill was really necessary there was not the slightest doubt in the minds of the Members who sat on the Committee. I feel sure that the Bill will be a great benefit not only to the nursing profession but to the public.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3, until Monday next, pursuant to the Order of the House of 8th November.

Adjourned at One Minute before Three o'Clock.