I only desire to raise one matter this morning, but it is one of very great importance to the continuance of Lancashire trade with India. It is in respect of the Agency Company which has recently been formed in India to dispose of the existing stocks of cotton goods by re-exporting them from India to foreign countries.

During the last few days I have asked several questions on this subject, and, as a result, the Secretary of State for India has quite clearly informed me that this company would deal only with merchants who undertake definitely to refrain from having any future dealings in British cloth. The right hon. Gentleman added, in his most recent reply, that these merchants would be free to join the company, or refuse to join the company, as they pleased. In fact, the Secretary of State conveyed to my mind that no pressure at all would be brought to bear upon these merchants to join the agency company. I think that was quite plain. If it was not perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will correct me.

I at once join issue with the right hon. Gentleman on that. I believe that there must be pressure brought to bear upon the merchants by the very nature of the situation. Will the right hon. Gentleman place himself for a moment in the position of one of these merchants. Let him assume that he is a merchant possessing large stocks of cloth which he is unable to sell in India. Supposing that I, as a member of the agency company, go to him and say, "Will you join my company in order that you should have your existing stocks sold in foreign countries." The right hon. Gentleman would know perfectly well that the only chance he has of disposing of his goods at all, would be to accept my terms, and, if I told him that my terms included the fact that he would not be allowed to purchase any other stocks from foreign countries, or replenish from Britain the stock which the company sell for him, then he would be bound to accept my terms otherwise he would know that his existing stocks would remain unsold, and the result would be bankruptcy to himself. In these circumstances, it is quite clear that the formation of the agency company is absolutely certain to lead to pressure being brought to bear upon these merchants. Otherwise, the purpose of the agency company could never be achieved. That is my belief, and I do not see how I can possibly be wrong. If I am right, then this is a clear breach of the agreement signed by the Viceroy and Mr. Gandhi. If it is a clear breach of the agreement, then the Agency company ought to be compulsorily wound up, and I hope the right hon Gentleman will come to that decision himself before it is too late.

I have no desire to raise any other question this morning in connection with the cotton trade of Lancashire. The Secretary of State has much to ponder over during the Recess as the result, not only of the Debate which took place last Wednesday in this House, but also as a result of what has happened in Karachi since then, where there appears to be a determination to ignore British prestige in India and to disregard the authority of Great Britain. When the right hon. Gentleman is thinking of India—and of course it is his duty to do so—I hope he will not forget the claims of Lancashire, and that he will take into consideration the grave problems which confront Lancashire at the present time.

I would like to conclude what I have to say on this subject by quoting from a newspaper cutting placed in my hands this morning in connection with the pressure which has been brought to bear by the Indian mill owners. Speaking at New Delhi on 31st March, in a debate in the Legislative Assembly, Mian Shah Nawaz said:

When the Secretary of State returns after Easter, I hope be will have a much more satisfactory report to give to the House with regard to improvement in the trading conditions than he has been able to give up to the present moment. I trust that the boycott of Lancashire goods will have completely disappeared, and I hope that there will be a great deal more trade between Lancashire and the Indian Empire, not only in the interests of Lancashire working people but also in the interests of Indians themselves. If there is not a great improvement, I can promise the right hon. Gentleman that his Parliamentary life will be made somewhat uncomfortable by those hon. Members who sit for Lancashire constituencies.

May I, in conclusion, strike one other note. I understand that the Secretary of State has to leave this House almost immediately in order that he may be in time to say a final farewell to Lord Willingdon who is leaving shortly to take up the important position of Viceroy of India. I am sure the House will not think I am presumptuous when I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman to convey to Lord Willingdon the best wishes of all hon. Members. God speed him on his journey, and may he have much success—the greatest possible measure of success—in the almost superhuman task which lies before him.

Before my right hon. Friend replies, I should like to put one point. I am sure that we on this side of the House were very gratified to hear the gracious and well-turned phrases of the right hon. Gentleman opposite in wishing God-speed to Lord Willingdon, and that the whole House realises the stupendous and difficult nature of the new Viceroy's task and feels that he is the best man to deal with the very difficult situation. The point that I want to put is in the nature of a suggestion. This is not only a matter which affects Lancashire, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite knows. Yorkshire does a very large trade with India, and it is a fact that, in these troublous times, many industries which give employment in my constituency have been affected by the boycott. In the agreement between the Governor-General and Mr. Gandhi, it is stated that: I omit the intervening words—

After all, I understand that a better atmosphere is prevailing in India, and that there is obviously a desire on the part of Mr. Gandhi to make a further effort to come to a peaceful decision on these grave matters by negotiation; and he will surely see, if it is brought to his notice, that the formation of this agency, and the way in which it is operating, is bound to create a bad atmosphere in this country in the forthcoming negotiations. Would it not be far better, if it is absolutely necessary to buy up these stocks, that we should provide the money ourselves, and that it should be properly under Government auspices? Then we can make a fresh start, and there need be no coercion or conditions placed upon vendors. If these stocks have to be removed for the sake of peace, and in order that we may make a fresh start, I say that the Government should undertake the responsibility. I think that this would remove many of my hon. Friend's difficulties, and I would ask him to consider it. I do not expect a considered, reply from him now, but I put forward this suggestion with a desire to help in the matter, and I hope that something of the kind I have suggested will be effected.

I have no complaint to make that the right hon. Gentleman should refer again to the matter of this export company. I would only say that people who know the interests of Lancashire intimately are probably convinced that those interests will be best served by silence, and I do not consider that the contribution of my hon. and gallant Friend is really serving the end that he desires to serve. There are hon. Members of this House who know Lancashire trade very intimately, and who have come to the conclusion that it is by the promotion of a better spirit of goodwill between the two countries that they can best serve, and, indeed, are best serving, the interests of their constituencies. To that preliminary observation I would merely add that, as I think the right hon. Gentleman will realise, one can give estimates, hopes and aspirations, but to give realised figures does require a certain lapse of time, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman and the House to allow that time to elapse, so that I may be in a position to give to them, as I certainly will at the earliest possible opportunity, the realised results of this agreement. A great deal has been said about coercion and pressure, but I believe that those who are parties to this agreement intend to carry it out, and there is much evidence of that, in the spirit and in the letter. My hon. and gallant Friend has himself drawn attention to this very important sentence in the agreement:

"Those who have given up during a time of political excitement the sale or purchase of British goods must be left free, without any form of restraint, to change their attitude."

I believe that that sentiment will be carried out in the spirit as well as in the letter of these words. Finally, if I may, I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the Viceroy-designate, and I shall not fail in a short time to give to him what I am sure will be the very encouraging message which was voiced by the right hon. Gentleman.

The matter to which I desire to call the attention of the House is the recent down-grading of ex-service civil servants, particularly in the Ministry of Pensions. I have a number of constituents who are employed in the branch of the Ministry at Acton, and who are very adversely affected by the new policy which is being adopted in the Ministry, and, therefore, I take a particular interest in this question, apart from the interest which anyone who served with these men for some time naturally takes in their cause. I think we are apt too soon to forget these men who bore the heat and burden of the day in the years of the War.

In 1926, there were 1,742 "P" Class men appointed to the Ministry of Pensions, and since then only 138 have been appointed to the clerical class. Of course it may be said that none were appointed before 1928, but the Southborough Committee was reporting, and what is known as the Guinness agreement had not been made. That only came into operation at the end of 1927, and thereafter, of course, people had to be appraised for promotion to the clerical class, so that none could be promoted before 1928. However, I am not concerned with those who have been promoted to the clerical class, but with 336 men who are in what is called Grade I and Grade II of the "P" Class of ex-service men. There are 109 in Grade I, and 227 in Grade II. As I understand it, the duties of those in Grade I are quite responsible duties of assessing pensions and making awards subject to final approval; and Grade II men have a supervisory status over a group of Grade III, who merely do routine work.

What has happened is that quite recently 24 of these Grade I men have had notice that they are to be down-graded to Grade II, and 67 Grade II men have had notice that they are to be down-graded to Grade III. Of course, apart altogether from the loss of position, this means a considerable reduction of salary for these men—16s. 11d. a week in the case of the Grade I man reduced to Grade II, and 12s. 9d. a week in the case of the Grade II man reduced to Grade III. But these 24 and 67 are not the only ones affected, because, in a memorandum which was circulated in the Department on the 29th January, the following words occur: a very large proportion of the Civil Service of the clerical class would come to retire at about the same time.

To me it seems that experience in the job is perhaps far more useful than the mere passing of a one-day or a two-day examination. In fact, I seem to remember, when we were discussing the question of the university franchise, some hon. Members opposite saying they thought hard experience in the university of life was a far better qualification than any passing of examinations at universities, but that does not seem to be the opinion taken by those at present responsible for these new entrants into the Civil Service. It seems to me that, if originally it was thought that 350 in the first year, 100 in the second year, and 600 in the third were sufficient young blood to be taken into the Civil Service, they might well have given some of the 956 other places to ex-service men.

12 n.

No one, of course, wishes to keep inefficient men in their jobs. No one will say that, because a man happened to fight through the War, therefore he should, whatever he becomes, be employed by the Government for the rest of his life. But these men to whom I am referring are as liable to dismissal as anyone else. They are liable, if they are inefficient, to the ordinary penalties that affect inefficient civil servants. But all these men have for some 10 or 12 years been actually doing the same job as the junior clerical officers. In a letter written from the Department to the Association of Ex-service Civil Servants on 25th July, 1929, it was said: That means a reduction, in the case of the Grade I clerk, of 29s. 8d. a week in his wages. Very little has been done to offer these men posts in other Departments. On 3rd March, 1931, it is true that 13 were offered transfers, but only six from the Ministry of Pensions, so that, in fact, all these men, who have served well for 10 or 12 years doing these clerical jobs in the Ministry, are faced with a sudden reduction of 29s. 8d. a week. If we compare what is going on with the pledges that have been given to these men, the two things do not seem to me to square at all. In 1927, the then Financial Secretary in the Conservative Administration said the appointment of successful candidates in Civil Service examinations would not restrict the promotion of "P" Class clerks. It seems to me that it is the duty of any Government in these routine matters to carry on pledges given by their predecessors. Indeed, I can go further than that, because on 31st October, 1929, the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield), said:

There is one other matter on which I wish to touch. Apart from the immediate loss of salary and the status which these men will lose, it also means this. Under the Guinness Agreement, as it is called, if the "P" class clerks are promoted to the pensionable clerical classes, they were to enter those classes on the same basis, on what is called a "mark-time" basis. They came in on the same salary under which they were, and wait until the salary to which they may be entitled in the new status comes up to what they were receiving. It is obvious that if you down-grade a man by 29s. 8d. per week, and then promote him, he is on a very different kind of status when he gets—if ever he gets—into the permanent clerical class. It is interesting, in this connection, to note what was said in answer to a question before Lord Tomlin's Commission, when three gentlemen, I think on behalf of the Ministry of Pensions, Sir George Chrystal, Mr. C. J. G. Tate and Mr. C. R. Leak were giving evidence. They were asked, in Question 9940:

The questions I wish to ask the Minister are these: Are these men efficient, or are they not? If he says that these men are not efficient, then it seems to me it is a confession that the Department over which he presides is not an efficient Department, and it is a confession, too, that for some years we have been dealing with our disabled ex-service men's pensions by an inefficient staff. So I rather fancy that he will not reply "No" to that question. But if he replies "Yes, they are efficient," then I want to ask him why have not some steps been taken by him to see that those efficient men in the Department get a fair chance of promotion to other Departments? Personally, I think it is the duty of the Minister to see that those under him who have worked well in his Ministry shall have a fair chance of being transferred to some other Department to do the same job that they have done well in his Ministry.

Another question I wish to ask him is this: Will he use his influence to see that in regard to the number of people taken as a result of the recent Civil Service examination—I believe there was one in January of this year—that a lesser number of new entrants are taken? After all, a very large number of new entrants have come into the Civil Service during the last three years, and it seems to me that we could quite well take fewer in that competitive examination this year, and that some of these men, who have been doing the job efficiently for 10 or 12 years, should be promoted to the permanent clerical rank, and so get to their proper status without any need to be down-graded. This could be easily done if fewer recruits were taken into the Civil Service owing to the examination which has just taken place. I do urge the Minister to make these efforts on behalf of these men who have served his Department loyally and well, to see that they are not just turned out or have their status suddenly reduced in the Department, but shall have a fair chance to carry on their work in other Departments, for their work in the Department as well as in the fighting forces, seem to me to merit their being put into the Department at the outset.

There is one point upon which I would like to add a few words, and that is with regard to the number of new entrants by examination into the Service. The Southborough Committee, of which I was a member, considered that point very carefully, and we were extremely anxious to get as many as possible of the men outside on to the establishment, but, after hearing the evidence, and considering the matter with all due care, we came to the conclusion that it was necessary to keep up the supply of new entrants in order to ensure continuity of service in the administration. If new entrants are not admitted, there comes a time when there is a gap, and continuity of service is not ensured. But it seems to my hon. Friend and myself that the number of new entrants might be greatly curtailed in order to admit to the establishment as many as possible of the men for whom my hon. Friend speaks, and I would ask the Minister to ensure that the number of new entrants is a minimum, and that as many as possible of the men who are outside the establishment should be placed upon the establishment.

May I, in the first place, assure the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Major Llewellin) that this policy which is now being carried through with regard to the staff of the Ministry of Pensions in particular, is not, as I believe is suggested, any kind of new policy, but is one which was brought into operation some years ago, and has been consistently and generally carried through. Further may I give him this assurance, if it be necessary, that we in no sense are overlooking the interests of the ex-service men, and, as far as we are concerned, we shall endeavour to protect them and serve them as best we can.

May I make one or two observations of a general kind? It will be as well, perhaps, to look at the position of ex-service clerks in Government employ in their proper perspective, in order that Members may appreciate what the Government and individual Ministers in charge of Departments have done to improve their case. What I have to say will, of course, more particularly concern the Department for which I am responsible. Every Minister of a Department since the War has been faced, as regards staff, with a two-fold problem. He has had, on the one hand, to see that the best staff procurable is available to deal with those branches of the work which require something more than ordinary routine. On the other hand, he has had to meet the claims of ex-service men which have been properly recognised by successive Governments. These claims have been met by successive Governments in a very substantial degree. Ex-service men were offered, some years ago, a special qualifying examination of a comparatively simple character, and those who passed this examination were placed in the ordinary established pensionable ranks of the Civil Service. A large number either did not elect to enter this examination, or failed to pass it. The Government of the day, a few years ago, made a further concession in their favour, resulting in the establishment of a new class in the Service, that is, the "P" or permanent class, non-pensionable, but permanent in their employ. These were selected, not by written examination, but in accordance with selected tests of their service and general qualifications.

The hon. and gallant Member has referred to the down-grading of temporary ex-service clerks in the employ of the Civil Service generally, and in my Department in particular. In the Ministry of Pensions there are two distinct classes of male graded clerks, the first, temporary, and the second, permanent unestablished, known as "P" class. The first class, that is, temporary, is now of very small dimensions, having been reduced from many thousands to some 39. Many have passed the Clerical Officer Examination and become permanent clerical officers; other have been absorbed into the "P" class, and have so obtained security of employment until 60 years of age, provided, of course, as in the case of the established clerical officers, that there still remains work for them to do. The small number remaining in the temporary class are employed entirely outside the London area, and arrangements are in force whereby, as and when they become redundant in my Department, they are generally able to be found employment in other Government offices through the local committees of the Ministry of Labour. The second class, namely, the "P" class, numbers 971. These clerks have a promise of employment, under certain conditions, until they reach 60 years of age, but they are not pensionable.

It is to the down-grading of a number of the Grade I and Grade II clerks in the "P" class that I think the hon. and gallant Member more particularly refers. I will explain the necessity to some extent for the down-grading. The necessity for down-grading is the reduction in the volume of work in all grades consequent upon (1) the natural decline of the work as we get further away from the War; and (2), improvements in the methods and machinery for doing the work that remains. I am assured that the legality of the down-grading is beyond doubt. When the "P" class was formed and temporary clerks were appointed to it, no guarantee of employment in Grade I or Grade II was given or implied. Paragraph (2) of the letter of appointment stated specifically that, in the matter of grade, the "P" class clerk would be subject to the regulations applicable to temporary graded clerks. The retention of "P" class and temporary clerks in Grades I and II has always been dependent upon the requirements of the Service. In this Department, the diminishing volume of the work has involved down-grading over many years past. I am sure that the House will join with me in regretting the necessity for this down-grading, but I am equally certain that hon. Members would not countenance for one moment expenditure of public funds on the retention of staff at rates of pay superior to those agreed upon for the duties to be performed.

A number of inaccuracies have crept in regarding the rates of reduction which take place, and I will quote a few of the figures which have been supplied to me for the purpose. The scales of pay of "P" Class and temporary clerks are as follow:

In London, for a 42-hour week, a Grade I clerk rises from 66s. 4d. to 96s. 4d.; Grade II, from 59s. 5d. to 79s. 5d.; and Grade III from 49s. 2d. to 66s. 8d.

In the Provinces, for a 44-hour week, Grade I rises from 62s. to 79s. 6d.; Grade II, from 54s. 10d. to 72s. 4d.; and Grade III from 49s. 11d. to 67s. 5d. In the second Class "P," Grade I, the scale rises from 59s. to 76s. 6d.; Grade II from 51s. 10d. to 69s. 4d.; and Grade III from 46s. 11d. to 64s. 5d.

The Grade I, and Grade II clerks under notice of down-grading are at the maxima of their scales, and will suffer as follow:

From Grade I (96s. 4d.) to Grade II (79s. 5d.)—a reduction of 16s. 11d. From Grade II (79s. 5d.) to Grade III (66s. 8d.)—a reduction of 12s. 9d.

As I said a moment ago, no one cares to face what is generally and commonly known as an Irishman's rise, but I am satisfied that, in the carrying out of this distasteful duty of reducing the grades of the ex-service clerks, the officers responsible have exercised all possible care and consideration consistent with the proper execution of their duty. The "P" class clerks are paid weekly, and the terms of their appointment appear to indicate that down-grading could be carried out at one week's notice. In my Department—and I believe it is common to all Departments—I am happy to say that this has not been necessary. I understand that one month's notice of down-grading has always been given from us, and in the cases under notice at present a general warning was circulated on the 29th January last, and in most cases some six or seven weeks' actual formal notice was subsequently given. Indeed, the earliest date upon which any of the notices take effect is the 25th of the present month.

The hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge made a further reference to the "P" class men. He very rightly said that he could not advocate that men should be kept in employment if there were no work for them to do, but he made a particular reference to the promotion of established clerical class men. It has been advocated before in some directions that it would be advisable to promote those men whether there were vacancies or not. I know that the hon. and gallant Member has not made that suggestion. I feel sure that the House will agree that that suggestion, if it were put forward seriously, is not one to which any Minister could subscribe. To suggest that as soon as a man in a subordinate grade is fit for promotion he should be promoted whether or not there is a vacancy in the next higher grade is a proposal so unbusinesslike that it has only to be stated to be very properly condemned. The Civil Service has to be staffed to perform certain duties. In the interests of efficiency, the staff must be adequate. In the interests of economy, it must not be excessive. The duty of the responsible Minister is to see that the staff of his Department is so maintained that he can carry on the primary work which has to be performed.

It has been put forward that all Grade I and Grade II "P" class clerks should be made established clerical officers because they have been doing work which, in the absence of "P" class clerks would be done by clerical officers. It is admitted at once that the duties assigned in the Ministry of Pensions to clerks of Grades I and II are those which would usually be done by clerical officers in the early years of their service, but it does not follow that, because a clerk can do the more elementary duties of the clerical class, he is fit to be promoted to it. Many Grades I and II clerks have not the ability or education to do all the duties of a clerical officer and so are not qualified for establishment in that class. Only by a reasonable adherence to the standard of efficiency common throughout the Service can that efficiency be maintained. In the Ministry of Pensions, any lowering of the standard of efficiency might inflict hardship on the vast body of pensioners, and I am sure the House would not wish that for one moment. There are one or two other points which the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge raised. He spoke, I believe, of "P" class men as being the only ex-service men reduced.

I did not mean to do so.

I want to assure him that that is not so. The figures given to me show that 95 per cent. of the whole of the male staff of the Ministry are ex-service men and the "P" class are only one section of the ex-service men. So far as my own Department is concerned, we have taken on no new male clerks, and for the last two years no women clerical officers and for the last year no new women writing assistants.

With regard to the question of efficiency raised by the hon. and gallant Member, I agree with him that the staff has been efficiently carrying on the work, and I would point out that the "P" class men have had a number of opportunities to become established civil servants by means of the qualifying examinations. The opportunities thus afforded during the past years have been three in number. I am further informed that in the Civil Service as a whole 2,300 "P" class clerks have been promoted to the ranks of established clerical officers. These facts show that we have not been unmindful of the interests of the men who have given good service to the Department for a number of years, and as far as we can we shall seek to follow out that line of policy which is in the best interests of the Departments concerned and is likely to serve best the interests of the men who are taken into our employ. On the question of new entrants, that is a matter which affects the Civil Service appointments as a whole, and all I can say in that connection is that I will see that the observations which have been made are brought as soon as possible to the notice of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

So unsatisfactory is the position of ex-service clerks in the Civil Service that not only at the Christmas Adjournment, but again at the Easter Adjournment, we find it necessary to bring forward their grievances. My hon. and gallant Friend has brought up a different issue from that which we pressed on the Treasury in December. The position to-day is entirely consistent with the record of indifference and hostility to the interests of ex-service clerks which I am sorry to say has been noticeable during the present Administration. Of course, these matters of Civil Service grading are extremely complicated, and I suppose that hardly any of us are able to understand them in their details. Formerly, when the War was nearer to us and the debt which we owed to the service men was more vivid in our minds, there was great public and political interest taken in the conditions of those engaged in the Civil Service. We had the Southborough Committee, of which my hon. Friend was a Member, and the Government of the day, the Coalition Government, were, I think, defeated on one occasion on this very issue. Memories are very short, but I feel sure that if the public could be made to realise how by administrative action the guarantees which were given, as the result of repeated inquiries, to the ex-service civil servants are being steadily whittled away, even now public opinion would be aroused, and a great outcry would take place.

The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the practice of degrading, to which my hon. and gallant Friend alluded, is not a new policy, but the point which causes us to make an appeal for reconsideration or readjustment is that it has been applied, and necessarily applied, in the Ministry of Pensions so much more intensively owing to the shrinkage, and very grave injustices have resulted. I am not in any way suggesting that the Minister of Pensions is particularly to blame. I think it is far beyond the power of any one Department to find a remedy, but when these big shrinkages take place if we are to avoid injustices to individuals, the only solution is to arrange for transfers within grades on inter-Departmental lines. I am not disposed to quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman's opinion that his action is entirely legal. I know that established civil servants have no legal claim to permanence of employment, but permanence of status and stability of pay is so well established in the Civil Service generally that it would be looked upon as a very great injustice if men who had looked forward to a life of employment and promotion, earned by merit, should suddenly be put down in their grade and reduced in their salary. This method applied within the Department, without any possibility of transfer by the Joint Substitution Board has reached a pitch which has really become extremely oppressive and unjust.

Our trouble is that the Departments are helpless. The Treasury ought to find a way out. On the last occasion when we raised these matters the Financial Secretary to the Treasury came down to the House and delivered a homily as to Parliamentary proprieties. He told me that I was unworthy to be his predecessor, and he went on to wash his hands of the whole question and to say that it was purely Departmental. That was not the attitude adopted by the present Prime Minister when he wanted to get votes. In answer to a questionnaire in 1924, I think it was, he said: should be established to deal with these injustices. This issue does not only affect the "P" class, to which the Minister chiefly alluded, but there is a very great hardship in the case of salaried officers. I think it is a breach of the spirit of the Agreement of 1925 to put these men back to clerical work. The agreement in the case of temporary salaried officers made it clear that they were quite apart from the new "P" Class, who were equivalent to the clerical class. The agreement states:

They are always doing it outside.

Do I understand the hon. Member to say that they are cutting down by half the pay of men who are as close to the subsistence line as those to whom I am referring?

Yes.

Perhaps the hon. Member will tell me of a case outside where, by a stroke of the pen, men who have been promoted for their efficiency and ability, with nothing against them, have been brought down from £90 a year to £60.

Some have been dismissed.

A great many ex-service men have been dismissed; but the point is this, that these men by long service were given the expectation of permanency and were also given in this agreement the expectation of this permanent non-pensionable status in exist-in grades. What does that mean if you are arbitrarily going to cut down their pay in this way? Last year there was I think a further agreement made by the Government, that where these permanent classes or salaried officers are established that that establishment would involve no loss of pay. This system of down-grading completely defeats the object of that agreement, and if the-Government were contemplating this large scale of down-grading it is amazing that they should try to delude the ex-service men by giving them any such agreement. This method of down-grading as a preliminary for an eventual establishment on merit is an unworthy subterfuge, and having professed to make a concession to men that they would not lose by going from a non-pensionable status to the established and pensionable grade it is mean and unworthy to take away that concession.

May I add one word to what has been said on this subject? The case has been very well stated by my right hon. and gallant Friend and also by the right hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness) and there is very little more to be said. The Minister's statement will strike dismay into the hearts of the people outside, and it will be received by them and understood by them as setting the seal upon an action which is as unworthy as it is unjust. It may be that the action of down-grading these men is strictly legal, but I suggest to the Government that the contract with these men is something more than an ordinary contract which can be construed purely in terms of strict legality. Not only this House but the country as well owes these men a debt of gratitude and any contract entered into with them should be construed in the widest possible terms, indeed, in terms of gratitude and as generously as possible. Nobody can believe that it is honouring the bond made with these men that, having reached a certain grade, they should be arbitrarily removed from that grade, although it may be strictly legal to do so.

The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions referred to the fact that many of these men had had an opportunity of getting a permanent basis by means of examination but that a very small number had availed themselves of the opportunity. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of what was said by the Prime Minister. His statement has been referred to already by the right hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, but the full answer to the Prime Minister was this. He was asked whether he would support the principle that all competent ex-service men at present employed in a temporary capacity should be appointed to the permanent establishment without competitive examination and that all future vacancies in the permanent Civil Service should be reserved for all ex-service men at present temporarily employed. The Prime Minister's reply was: considerable numbers of "P" class clerks, although recommended by their chiefs as capable of performing the highest duties in the clerical class, have been passed over. They have been passed over for only one reason, and that is that the vacancies have been filled by junior entrants. As long as there is one ex-service "P" class clerk in existence, competent to do the job, you have no right to put one new entrant or woman clerk into the service. The treatment of this very deserving body of men, deserving not only by reason of war service but deserving because of their efficiency, stands out in strong contrast to what has been done to those men who, by reason of their conscientious objection did not take arms in the War and have been restored to their full Civil Service status. Those men have been given everything back. The "P" class men, who have given up everything and who, nobody can say, are inefficient, have been down-graded and are to suffer considerable loss. It is an act of injustice which the Government have no right to perpetrate.

I do not want to delay the House long from its well-earned rest, but I wish again to refer to a matter which contains a very important principle, and, if I am to judge from the letters that I have received on the subject, it is a matter of lively concern to the whole of the countryside where the game laws are administered. Certainly it is a matter of very vital interest to the unfortunate men involved. The House has been already furnished with the facts of the case, which the Under-Secretary for the Home Office was kind enough to say the other night that I had stated with moderation. I think, however, there was a slight misconception of the facts, because the Under-Secretary in his reply said: did not adjudicate, but the point that I wish now to put to the Home Secretary is this: That being an interested party she came to the Court and conferred with the Chairman, whom she took from the Bench. I am not suggesting, and it would be improper to suggest, that any influence was used with him during his absence. I suggest that the procedure was itself improper, and I am asking the Home Secretary now whether it is within the purview of the Lord Chancellor to deal not only with the Chairman of a Bench who leaves the Court to confer with an interested party during a hearing, but with this landowner, who is herself a magistrate, and who, as I say, conferred with him.

On the occasion of the Adjournment of the House, a day or two ago, when this matter was raised, the Under-Secretary for the Home Office promised to give further consideration to the case. The boy was sentenced on 26th January, and over two months have now passed since the time when he went into gaol. I ask the Home Secretary to-day whether he can say that an order has been given for the release of the boy, Jones, pending the inquiry which I understood him to promise. After that, it will be time for us to consider whether there is any means within the power of this House of revising that sentence, so that this boy can take his place, as he is only too anxious to do, as a good citizen of this country. We are leaving this House in a few moments for a well earned holiday. We are going home, I hope, for a very happy Easter. I put it to the Home Secretary whether or not he will say now that he will give orders for this boy's release, so that he, too, may enjoy a happy Easter. I am not asking for mercy; I am merely asking for hard justice.

I would like to say a few words before the Home Secretary replies. I know your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I shall do my best not to transgress it. I realise that it would be quite impossible to criticise and rehear the case and to consider whether the magistrate came to a right conclusion upon the evidence. Apart from the fact that it would be a transgression of the Rule of the House, I think the Rule is based upon common sense. It would be quite impossible for this House to retry every case and decide whether magistrates were right in believing one witness or another. Therefore, I shall not in the least try to get behind your Ruling. But I must say, as an old lawyer and as a magistrate and a chairman of Quarter Sessions—I do not say where my sympathy lies, but I shall do my best to suppress my natural instincts and my youthful proclivities—that it is shocking and must be to any magistrate and to any lawyer, to conceive that it is possible, while a case is being tried, that the presiding magistrate should be called out of Court to enter into a private conversation with one of the parties to the case.

It does not really matter in the least, from that point of view, whether the party is a landowner and a prosecutor. It would be equally outrageous if the defendant had called out the chief magistrate and entered into a conversation behind the scenes. I have never heard of such a case. I served my articles in the office of a firm who were clerks to the magistrates in two separate Divisions. I went very often to the courts to take notes. But I never heard of such a case as this, and there was not a magistrate there who would not have regarded it as an outrage if anyone had suggested that he should have gone out for consultation. I have never met a magistrate who would have done it, and I am bound to say that. As far as my knowledge of this case is concerned, I think that this is something quite exceptional, and fortunately so. Steps ought to be taken to make it clear that it is regarded as something which is quite unworthy of the judicial position. It is not merely that an ordinary magistrate did it, but the chairman of the bench. Such a thing is unheard of. If it had been done in the High Court here I know what would have been said. Why should it be less outrageous and less scandalous because it is done in a humbler court where you are dealing with the lives of the people?

It is vital that the people of the country should have complete confidence in the fair play of the administration of justice. As a matter of fact I think they have that confidence. In the main it is for that reason that you have respect for law in this country, and that decisions are accepted even when a man feels sore because a verdict has gone against him. In the main, public opinion accepts the verdicts. But if this sort of thing happens there would be a revolt against the law as such and against the Courts of Justice. In the one minute that I had available when I addressed the House last on this subject, the Under-Secretary replied. Although I have found the hon. Gentleman always very fair, naturally he has not the authority of the Home Secretary. I am glad that the Home Secretary is present now, not because I think his lieutenant is in the least incapable of dealing with the case, but because no one can do it with the authority of the head of the Department.

I am not going into the merits of the case. I cannot pretend to know anything at all about them, but on the mere fact that a thing of this sort has happened, the Home Secretary ought to indicate his disapproval, in the first place, by releasing this young fellow because there will be a very strong feeling that he has not had fair play, for that reason among others. What did the magistrate do? As I understand, there was a conflict of evidence, as there always is in these cases. First, there was the witness for the prosecution, the gamekeeper. On the other hand, there was the witness for the defence, and it was entirely a question of which was believed. I do not say that the magistrates did not come to the right conclusion, but obviously they ought to be above suspicion in that respect. There ought to be a feeling that they were not biased by anything except what happened in court, because that is where you have to judge when you see what is before you. But there must have been a feeling that the chairman of the bench of magistrates was influenced by something said in the absence of the defence, and whatever evidence there is, it is an essential part of the jurisprudence of every civilised country, that whatever evidence is given to influence the court should be given in the presence of both parties. Something must have been said in private. It may be that the thing said in private was the thing which influenced the chairman for the time being. If so, it ought to be something which the defendant heard and which he had an opportunity of rebutting and refuting.

I am not one of those who believe that the voluntary magisterial system is not a good one. I am in favour of maintaining it in the main. I think there is a rougher sort of justice done by it than by stipendiaries. That is my observation. But it is essential in the interests of the magistrates themselves that there should be confidence in the magistrates, and there are two things which I would urge on the Home Secretary. As I say, in the first place, he ought to indicate his disapproval in this case by letting out this boy. The whole sympathy of the nation seems to be with him in this case. The second thing is that representations should be made to the Lord Chancellor, who has the right to communicate with the bench of magistrates and demand an explanation of this extraordinary conduct. It ought to be made clear, first, by examination, and then, if the facts are as stated by my hon Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Owen), by public rebuke, that this sort of thing must not go on. I hope the Home Secretary will be able to give a satisfactory answer.

1.0 p.m.

At the close of the discussion of this subject on the Adjournment Motion a few nights ago, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary stated that I was prepared to give further consideration to this matter. I have further considered it, and I would like briefly to remind the House that on two or three other occasions the facts of this case have been closely before my mind, and whatever conclusions I may have reached upon it, I trust I shall not be suspected of any less degree of sympathy and consideration for the difficulties of young men in the country than other Members of this House. I think my conduct in all respects meets the appeal which has been made. I would like to say that I do not in the least under-value the ardour and sincerity of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Owen) who has twice raised this case in the House and has communicated with me on two or three occasions. As the right hon. Gentleman has said it is no function of this House to re-try a case of this kind nor is it the business or the right of the Home Secretary to call into question decisions of courts unless of course something new has transpired, and some fresh factor can be brought to his notice justifying him in tendering advice, or seeking a review of matters not before the Court for the time being. But the very severe terms of censure in which the hon. Member indulged a night or two ago did make me feel that I was disabled from further considering this matter.

The Under-Secretary stated that I made my case with moderation.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary referred to the fact that the Home Secretary's position was one of considering points of mercy in this matter, but that the demand that was made was a demand for justice. Let me say that this was not an offence of an impulsive or sudden character. It was a premeditated act of continued illegality on the part of the man in question, and he had been twice warned over a period of two years.

By whom was he warned?

By people in the neigh-bourhood. By the gamekeeper. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I hope that hon. Members will listen to the facts. He had been twice warned, and once he had been given employment and assistance by the lady to whom reference has been made. On another occasion he had been fined for being in possession, improperly, of a gun without a licence. So I say that this is not an instance of a youth suddenly indulging in an act of poaching, and I am quite unable to express the view that the sentence was excessive, or that the magistrates did not act according to the evidence. Indeed, the plea of this young man was not a plea of not guilty. He pleaded guilty.

To poaching.

Yes, to the offence of poaching, and the evidence showed what I think was an extremely serious feature that this young man had pointed the gun at the gamekeeper. This reckless use of the gun which might have resulted in sudden loss of life or injury is a very serious matter indeed. I have not turned a deaf ear to the suggestion that this is a matter for consideration, with regard, at any rate, to the conduct of the chairman of the bench in leaving the place as he did, and consulting with others outside the court.