House Of Lords
Tuesday, 31st March, 1925.
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Aire And Calder Navigation Bill Hl
Read 3a , and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Great Western Railway Bill Hl
Read 3a , and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Scotswood Colliery Disaster
With your Lordships' permission, I desire to ask the noble Marquess, the Lord Privy Seal, a Question of which I have given him private notice. It is whether he can give the House any information as to the progress and prospects of the endeavours to save the lives of the miners entrapped by the flooding of the Montague Colliery at Scotswood, Northumberland, and as to the origin of the disaster.
My Lords, I can only give the House the same information as has just been given to the House of Commons. The latest information telephoned from the divisional office is to the effect that water is still rising slowly, and is now thirty-five to forty feet below the level of the pit bottom. If it reaches the pit bottom pumping operations will be much more difficult. A large pump is being installed in pit bottom, and a portable pump will be put to the edge of the water to pump to it. Thirty-eight men arc trapped at present; either one or two other men, originally missing, have escaped. All the old workings that could be got into have been explored this morning. No one was found there; but as these workings are a long way from the point at which water broke in there was little expectation that any would be found. Further exploration can now only be made when the water is lowered. All possible action is taken to ensure full compliance with safety regulations. Since that answer was delivered in another place, inquiry has been made, but there is no further information.
Dogs Protection Bill Hl
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I should like to remind your Lordships that a similar Bill three times passed the Second Reading in another place, twice without a Division, and once by a considerable majority on a Division, and that on one occasion it passed the Committee stage in the Standing Committee without Amendment, was amended on the Report stage and was only rejected on the Third Reading owing to the action of Dr. Addison, who at that time was Minister of Health. The operation of this Bill will in no way prevent experiments being made on other animals; all that it will do will be to prevent experiments being made on dogs.
I would also remind your Lordships that the Royal Commission which sat in 1906 and reported in 1912, said this:—That is in paragraph 118 of the last Report of the Commission. They go on to say, with regard to the differentiation between animals:—"The representations made to us for the complete exemption of any class of animal from all experiments under the Act have been strongest in the case of dogs."
This paragraph goes on to point out that precedents are not wanting, even in law, for such a distinction, and then refers to the prohibition of the use of dogs for traction, and to other existing distinctions. Then the Commissioners say:—"Such differentiation, although admittedly difficult, we attributed on ethical grounds to the degree of association, with, or affinity or utility to, man, and in this connection we referred especially to the case of dogs and the higher apes."
And I believe I am right in saying—Lord Lambourne, who was a member of that Commission, is here and can correct me—that the exclusion of dogs was lost by one vote. I am aware that, many medical men are against my Bill. But on the other hand, many medical men are in favour of it. I have here an extract front a speech made by Sir Lambert Ormsby, past President of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, who, in April, 1922, at a public meeting in Dublin, is reported to have said this:—"In view of the variety of practice and the divergence of opinion as to the necessity of employing dogs for experimentation and demonstration, we find some difficulty in deciding upon this important question. Some of us regard the provisions of the existing law as sufficient; some of us would prefer that in the case of both experimentation and demonstration the further special protection given to horses, asses and mules should be extended to dogs; while some of us would exclude the use of dogs altogether."
I have quoted that statement before, and my noble friend Lord Knutsford wrote mo a letter in which he said he thought I must be wrong in attributing such a sentiment to such an eminent surgeon, and he asked me—quite rightly—to give him the proofs of what I had said, and I did so. I have here, in a newspaper which reported it, the statement made by Sir Lambert Ormsby, which I shall be happy to hand to my noble friend if he wishes to see it. Then there was a paragraph in the Lancet, which I quoted last year. I was immediately assailed by certain newspapers on the ground that I had only quoted a portion of what it said. That is quite true; I only quoted a portion of it because I did not wish to take up your Lordships' time, but I will now read the whole of it. It is from the Lancet of May 31, 1919:—"Experiments on dogs might now be discontinued. All that could be found out by physiological experiments for application to human beings has long since been discovered, and repetitions are unnecessary and cruel."
That is one of the points which I wish to make, that the use of dogs is unnecessary and that any knowledge which has been obtained by experiments on dog6 could be obtained in another way. The writer also says:—"The plea of the physiologist to retain the right of using the dog for experimental purposes in the service of man has been upheld by the House of Commons. For that is the plain reading of the large majority by which the Home Office Amendment was accepted on Friday last, as appears in our Parliamentary correspondent's report. The memorandum of the Medical Research Committee, which we also print in substance this week, demonstrates without reasonable pretext for gainsaying that the experimental use of dogs has advanced our knowledge and has been of benefit to suffering humanity. This is not to say that such knowledge could have been acquired in no other way."
What a statement! Because a dog has trusted man, and has become the friend of man, he is to be used, for that reason, as an object of experiment by these gentlemen. The article continues:—"The habit of mind engendered by the pursuit of medical research is not dogmatic. A further indisputable, if regrettable, point is that the dog, by virtue of his long domestication, has specially fitted itself as a test object."
This is a statement which I did not read before, but I wish to commend it to your Lordships' notice:—"We feel that the aggregate amount of suffering inflicted by animal experiment, as at present practised by physiologists in this country, is small, and that it is quite insignificant compared with the relief of suffering obtained by the experiments. But it is the right of experiment, and not the right to inflict pain, for which plea is offered."
There you have it. Pain is inflicted, and it is only regarded as an irrelevant factor, which time and skill are in process of eliminating from surgical operations. I have here a postcard written to me by Dr. Nash in 1919, in which he supports my Bill. I have also a letter from Sir William Collins, who was not only a well-known doctor, but a member of the House of Commons, and a member of the Royal Commission on Vivisection. He also was in favour of my Bill. Then there was an extremely interesting article in the Nineteenth Century of January this year, by Dr. Herbert Snow. There is an answer to it, which I see my noble friend is looking up, in March of this year, and I am going to read it presently. What does Dr. Snow say? He says:—"Pain is an irrelevant factor, which time and skill are in process of eliminating altogether from surgical operations and animal experimentation."
"The attitude of professed scientists towards any thought of humanity may be estimated by the well-known dictum of Magnan that 'consideration for the sensations of the animals themselves is a species of insanity.' Dr. Klein (Q. 3539) told our Royal Commission that he had ' no regard at all ' to the sufferings of the animals …
There are other cases which I need not read. Dr. Snow also refers to "the great Sir Frederick Trove's evidence on the subject" in the British Medical Journal of November 5, 1898. It is "1895" in the magazine, but it should be "1898":—"Sir John Pose Bradford is a distinguished physician and medical teacher, a member of the Advisory Committee under the Vivisection Act; was a recent Conservative Candidate for London University. The Journal of Physiology (XXIII, No. 6) records his experiments on forty-nine female fox terriers. Chloroform and morphia were used as anæsthetics for the operation itself, but could not, of course, affect the subsequent suffering, and Sir Henry Morris (late President of the Royal College of Surgeons) has expressed his opinion that morphia is not an anæsthetics. Pieces were cut out of the kidneys, and the animals were mutilated in various ways. ' In the case of one dog the operator cut a piece out of the kidney, and then tried to graft the piece and make it grow on another part of the inside.' Two terriers had their kidneys, mutilated three separate times after an interval. One lingered thirty-six days; the others perished after shorter varying periods."
Here is the answer that I mentioned just now. It appeared in March of this year in the Nineteenth Century. It is by Dr. Stephen Paget. After dealing with what took place in the House of Commons, as to which he makes several errors, probably because he does not understand the procedure of that House, he deals with the statement quoted from Sir Frederick Treves, and says:—"Many years ago I carried out on the Continent sundry operations on the intestines of dogs; but such are the differences between the human and canine bowel that when I came to operate on man I found I was much hampered by my experience, that I had everything to unlearn, and that my experiments had done little but unfit me to deal with the human intestine."
"The reference to Sir Frederick Treves must be compared with the letter which he published in the Times, April, 1902. It is worth printing here:
'Sir.—My attention has been drawn to a letter in The Times of April 9, signed by Mr. Trist as secretary of the London Anti-Vivisection Society. In this letter it is stated that I have testified as to the fallacy of vivisection.
Sir Frederick Treves docs not deny—in fact, he admits—that so far as experiments on the intestines are concerned, as a preparation for human operations they are useless." Last year I was not aware that I had a right of reply to criticisms made during the Second Beading debate on the Bill. My noble friend Lord Knutsford made, if he will permit me to say so, an extremely eloquent speech which, so far as my recollection goes, influenced your Lordships very much. But my noble friend fell into one or two errors. He made a mistake in stating one source of protection that dogs had and, in alluding to the certificates which are given, he mentioned one but left out the other. This is what my noble friend Lord Knutsford said:—'My solitary utterance on the subject of vivisection is contained in an address delivered in Birmingham in October, 1898 (Lancet, November 5, 1898). Speaking of the suturing of intestine, I said that I had found operations on the intestines of dogs were useless as a means of fitting the surgeon for operations on the human bowel.'
Then he went on to say—"May I tell you how dogs are protected to-day?"
"… or such an experiment on an animal a special certificate must be obtained, in addition to the licence, and if that animal is a dog a still further certificate has to be taken out. …
That is not so. That is a mistake. It is correct so far as horses, mules and asses are concerned, but it is not correct in regard to dogs. In the case of a horse, a mule or an ass you have, when applying for a licence for any operation, to state that unless the licence is granted the object will be frustrated because no other animal is suitable. But in the case of a dog you have only to ask for the licence provided you intend to perform the operation without anæsthetics. If you intend to perform the operation with anæsthetics then you need not make any special request, because the experiment is going to be performed on a dog. I draw my noble friend's attention to this, because I shall ask him whether he would be prepared, presuming this Bill obtains a Second Beading, to introduce an Amendment into it giving effect to that which he says is already in existence. I will tell your Lordships why I ask him that. When I introduced my Bill in 1919 and it reached the Committee Stage, Sir Hamar Greenwood, who was then Under-Secretary for the Home Department, actually wanted to introduce an Amendment of this sort, *but the Chairman of the Standing Committee ruled that it was out of order. On the Report stage, however, the Government succeeded in moving the Amendment, and it was carried. That rendered my Bill of very little use in my opinion and, though I could have got a Third Reading that day, I preferred to think it over and when later on it came to the Third Reading the friends of my noble friend, who are behind him in this opposition, had got hold of Dr. Addison and would not receive or support the very Amendment that the Home Office moved. That is the reason why I ask him—he had better not be rash in giving an answer when he speaks—whether he would support any Amendment of this sort. Then my noble friend said:—"More than that, when you apply for a licence for an operation on a dog you have to state the reasons why the object of any experiment will necessarily be frustrated unless it is performed on a dog, and also why no other animal is available for any such experiment"
And he went on to say:—"I have told the House about the two certificates, one allowing the animal to recover, and the other dispensing with anæsthetics."
That is true; but my noble friend did not read the other one—"… if, after the recovery from the anæsthetics, the animal suffers from severe pain, or any pain likely to endure, it must be killed painlessly."
only if the main result of the experiment has been attained—"If an animal, after and by reason of any of the said experiments under the said Certificate A or B, is found to be suffering pain which is either severe or is likely to endure, and if the main result of the experiment has been attained"—
These two certificates are, so far as I can ascertain, frequently used together, but they are absolutely contradictory. What they moan I cannot say. One says that the animal need not be killed unless the object of the experiment has been attained, and the other says that if the animal is suffering severe pain, or pain that is likely to endure, it must be killed. Those two things arc absolutely contradictory, and in forming an opinion I think it is necessary that both should be read, and not only one. I would ask your Lordships, who is to be the judge of whether an animal is suffering severe pain or pain likely to endure? Two inspectors only are appointed under the Act. I have here the number of experiments. In 1923 dogs and cats experimented on without anæsthetics, 505; dogs and cats allowed to recover after serious operations, 256; total of cutting operations on animals, 10,055; inoculations, 124,723. With regard to inoculations, it is quite true that no pain, or practically no pain, results during the operation, but the after results must be, and are, extremely painful. I have told your Lordships the number of operations. There are two inspectors and two only. How can those two inspectors be present at all, or any number, of these operations? And if they are not present, who is to be the judge as to whether any dog is suffering pain, or severe pain likely to endure, except the operator? Evidence was given before the Royal Commission by Dr. Pembrey, who held a licence to perform experiments, and who, in 1923, still held a licence. The Royal Commission, reporting upon Dr. Pembrey's evidence, stated:—"the animal shall forthwith be painlessly killed."
That is my whole contention—that it is the operator who has the power of saying whether the animal is or is not suffering pain. The Report of the Royal Commission on Dr. Pembrey's evidence goes on to state:—"The evidence of Dr. Pembrey calls for special remark Ho propounded to the Commission a theory of his own to the effect that pain from the physiological point of view is a protective mechanism, and is in that sense beneficent, and that therefore the modern idea of trying to abolish all pain is absolutely absurd. On the other hand. Dr. Pembrey stated that while he thought it right to inflict pain on animals he thought it not right to inflict unnecessary pain, and he claimed to be a judge of what was painful or not."
This is the Royal Commission's comment on that evidence:—"He stated that he had performed painful experiments upon animals both in Germany and in this country, because he regarded them as absolutely necessary. He mentioned such experiments as the transfusion of blood, performed in Germany, and the destruction of rats by sulphur dioxide performed in this country. Indeed, he deprecated the frequent employment of anesthetics alike on vivisection of animals, in surgery and in midwifery. He considered that their use was often liable to introduce complications to an experiment, and that it would be wiser to allow some operations for which anæsthetics are now required to be performed without anæsthetics. He explained that in his opinion if an animal is bound down on its back it often passes into a condition of hypnotism, and that in that condition anæsthetics could be dispensed with, and from such experiments made by him in Germany he held that animals so treated do not appear to feel pain even without an anæsthetics."
Before I sit down I should like to read a few short extracts from an article which I wrote to the Morning Post in 1919 upon what the Act of 1876 really does. What you have to consider is this. The only protection which a dog has is the Act of 1876. Home Secretaries may attach certain conditions, but that depends upon whom the Home Secretary is. Whether your Lordships agree with me or not, I feel sure that you would desire that the Act of Parliament itself should lay down what protection should or should not be afforded to animals. This is a portion of what I wrote in the Morning Post:—"We think that Dr Pembrey's application of a theory of pain as a protective mechanism in the scheme of nature to the case of painful experiments on animals led him into a position which is untenable, and in our opinion absolutely reprehensible, and we dissent entirely from the view that hypnotism should be regarded as a substitute for an anæsthetics in animal experimentation."
"Clause 3, Section 2, of the Proviso section: 'Experiments may be performed without anæsthetics on such certificate being given as in this Act mentioned that insensibility cannot be procured without necessarily frustrating the object of such experiment'; and
"Section 3: 'Experiments may be performed without the person who performs such experiments being under an obligation to cause the animal on which any such experiment is performed to be killed before it recovers from the influence of the anæsthetics on such certificate being given as in this Act mentioned that the so killing the animal would necessarily frustrate the object of the experiment, and provided that the animal is killed as soon as such object has been obtained.'
"Clause 5: 'Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained an experiment calculated to give pain shall not be performed without anæsthetics on a dog or cat except on such certificate being given as in this Act mentioned, stating, in addition to the statement hereinbefore required to be made in such certificate, that the object of the experiment will be necessarily frustrated unless it is performed on an animal similar in construction to a cat or dog and no other animal is available for experiment.'
"Licences granted at the present moment by the Home Office in cases where certificates A and B have been given provide as follows:—
At the same time, this follows:—'If an animal alter and by reason of the said experiments under the said certificates A or B is found to be suffering pain which is either severe or is likely to endure and if the main result of the experiment has been attained the animal must forthwith be painlessly killed.'"
Those two paragraphs are absolutely contradictory. I apologise to your Lordships for having been longer than I had intended, but it is impossible to deal with a subject of this kind very shortly. I would remind your Lordships of what a noble Lord, Lord Byron, once wrote:—"If an animal after and by reason of any of the said experiments is found to be suffering severe pain or pain which is likely to endure such animal shall forthwith he painlessly killed, whether the main result of the experiment has been attained or not."
"But the poor dog, in life the firmest friend,
The first to welcome, foremost to defend,
Whose honest heart is still his master's own,
Who labours, fights, lives, breathes for him alone,
Unhonoured falls, unnoticed all his worth,
Denied in Heaven the soul he held on earth,
While man, vain insect, hopes to be forgiven,
And claims himself a sole exclusive Heaven,
Ye who perchance behold this simple urn
Pass on, it honours none you wish to mourn,
To mark a friend's remains these stones arise.
I beg to move.I never knew but one and here he lies."
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a .—( Lord Banbury of Southam.)
had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, That the Bill be read 2a this day six months. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I intended to move the rejection of this Bill, but I am told that I cannot do so; that since 1809 there has been no Motion in your Lordships' House to reject a Bill altogether. I am, therefore, driven to proposing that it be read a second time six months hence. It is a year ago almost to a day that this same Bill was brought forward. Such was the consensus of opinion in this House that the noble Lord who moved it then, and the noble Lord who seconded it, did not even go to a Division. Had they gone to a Division on that day I do not think they would have got more than three or four votes. If this Bill is brought forward year after year simply to show that the noble Lord is of the same opinion still, we might assure him that just as nobody doubts his sincerity for a moment, so none of us think for a moment that his mind is open to argument. If this Bill is to be brought in year after year in the same words, when of course we must use the same words to answer the arguments put forward in favour of it, it would save us a great deal of trouble if we could have a gramophone record made and set up so that we could enjoy the arguments for and against, which arc now stereotyped, in the privacy of the tea-room. It would certainly save the time of this House and also save us backwoodsmen being called up from our sylvan retreats.
As it would be a mere waste of time, I do not propose to repeat now all the arguments I used last year, but I will try to sum them up in a few words. They are cogent enough, I think, to induce your Lordships to reject this measure again, though I rather hope we may have a Division in order to see the amount of support such a Bill as this can possibly obtain in a House of educated gentlemen. Your Lordships will remember this. This is not a Bill to say whether experiments on animals should be allowed or not, though the whole of the speech of the noble Lord has been on that one point, and emphasising what pain may be given not only to dogs but to all animals. His whole speech has been on that one point—namely, whether vivisection should be allowed at all. But the whole of the discussion, to-night, is whether dogs should be exempted from that which applies to all other animals, and you have only had one argument from the noble Lord for exempting dogs, and that is a quotation from a poetical Lord, Lord Byron. That is the only argument we have had.
Let me tell you some of the arguments for including clogs. Your Lordships understand, I am sure, that if this Bill is passed no dog can ever be used for any experiment, not even for dealing with that awful scourge distemper, which has killed so many of our friends amongst the dogs. I say without fear of being contradicted by any educated man in the medical or surgical world, that dogs are necessary and that a great deal of the knowledge we have about the heart, the digestion, and the pressure of blood, has been entirely gained by experiments on dogs. The whole physiological process of a dog is more nearly allied to man than the physiological process of any other animal, except perhaps a monkey, and monkeys are not very easy to get. Therefore dogs are really necessary for investigations.
In a matter like this I do not ask you to take my word; I would not venture as a layman to speak upon a scientific matter. I am going to give you again the answer of the whole medical and surgical world on the question. When the matter was last before Parliament the Royal College of Physicians met in full meeting and protested against the Bill, saying that if it passed it would "greatly retard the progress of our knowledge with regard to the prevention and treatment of disease." Retard progress!—I wonder whether that is the attraction to the noble Lord. I wonder whether there is a sort of sub-conscious awakening of the primeval instinct of obstruction which he possessed perhaps in a former life. Should this Bill pass, those who know say that it will "retard progress," and I cannot but think that that is where the attraction really lies. But the protests do not stop there. The Royal College of Surgeons passed a similar resolution, but more strongly worded, and the Royal Society of Medicine, the oldest in England, in a similar resolution declared that if the Bill passed their researchers would have to go abroad to carry on their studies. And last year my noble friend Lord Mildmay of Flete, speaking as a lay member of the Medical Research Council of the Privy Council—and he was backed up by the noble and learned Lord. Lord Parmoor—gave your Lordships the considered and unanimous opinion of that Council. It was to this effect:
"It is the considered and unanimous judgment of the Medical Research Council that the proposal of the Dogs Protection Bill would place an insuperable and permanent barrier across some of the important paths of this work."
I miss to-day two voices who spoke against the Bill on the last occasion. One is that of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, who is absent helping the underdog elsewhere, but who, as Chairman of the Medical Research Council, would have given their opinion. The other is that of the noble Marquess, the late Lord Curzon of Kedleston, whose death all England deplores and whose absence from this House we can hardly yet realise and it will be long before we can get used to it. The noble Marquess, speaking as the Chancellor of the University of Oxford, said he had been asked by the eminent scientific men connected with the University to protest against the Bill. And lastly, we have references to the Royal Commission which my noble friend had the hardihood to quote. He told us that the Royal Commission said that the argument for excluding any animal from vivisection was strongest in favour of dogs; and yet not only did they not exclude dogs, they actually included them; they actually recommended that dogs should be included among the animals submitted to vivisection, but should be safeguarded in the same way as mules, horses and asses. The actual Report which included dogs was signed by my noble friend Lord Lambourne. We are all reluctant to see a dog undergo experiments. There is no doubt about that. But we are compelled to do it because it is necessary for the advancement of knowledge, and those who have studied the matter, as did the Royal Commission, actually recommended that dogs should be included.
We have on the one side, therefore, my noble friend Lord Banbury, who is supported by a dead veterinary surgeon whom he quoted last year and who was not a medical man, and also by Sir Lambert Ormsby, who is dead, and who was President of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. The noble Lord complained that I wrote him a letter, throwing doubt on the authority he quoted. The reason why I could not trace Sir Lambert Ormsby's name is that my noble friend gave him an "H" and called him Hormsby, instead of Ormsby. I know that his name was Sir Lambert Ormsby, and I think he must be turning in his grave to-day. Imagine any man writing in 1922 that "all that can be found out by physiological experiment for application to human beings has long since been discovered"! Imagine any man daring to say that every scientific fact connected with life has been already discovered! Bless my soul! Insulin as an alleviation of diabetes has been discovered since that wretched man was buried, and he said "all has been discovered"! Why, every day science is advancing, discoveries are being made, and poor Sir Lambert Ormsby must, I should think, have died in a lunatic asylum.
Who shall decide if doctors disagree? is a conundrum that is sometimes put to us, but there is no difficulty in deciding when doctors are all agreed, as they are in this case. I must go back one moment to another quotation given by my noble friend, a quotation from Sir Frederick Treves. We who have to go about, for our sins, to these anti-vivisection meetings always hear this quotation from Sir Frederick Treves. Ho was a great personal friend of mine, and he took the opportunity of explaining that what he said when he stated that he had learnt nothing from animals was in reference to one special operation, and he wrote this letter which my noble friend must know of. It is in Sir Frederick Treves' own writing, and my noble friend must have heard it quoted often at meetings. I had the words ready because I knew that Sir Frederick Treves' remarks would be quoted, as they always are. He says:—
"No one can be more keenly aware than J am of the great benefits conferred upon suffering humanity by certain researches carried out by means of vivisection."
And yet my noble friend quoted Sir Frederick Treves as being against vivisection! It is not fair.
We have now heard the authorities—the dead veterinary surgeon, the dead Irishman who said that nothing could over be learnt from the study of animals, and my noble friend Lord Banbury. Those are the three. It seems almost unthinkable that the members of this House should venture to put their opinions against the whole medical and surgical world who have taken the trouble to meet specially to record their opinion against this Bill. They do not interfere with politics, but their opinion is worthy of respect in this House when they are speaking of a subject upon which they are the greatest authorities in the world.
I will not deal with the question of pain. I explained it last year. Perhaps I made a mistake regarding a part of the Act, just as I dare say I shall find, when I come to look at that which my noble friend has said, that he has made a number of mistakes. It is a complicated Act. But we are not dealing with the Act or trying to reform the Act. We are merely discussing whether dogs are to be excluded from the Act, and we have not yet heard any reason why they should be.
Let me pass on and ask your Lordships whether our decision of last year has been justified. We decided that we would not exclude dogs. Was that decision justified? Let me tell you. Insulin, which, as your Lordships know, is used as an alleviation for diabetes, has stood the test of time. There are many discoveries in the medical and surgical world which, when they come to be tested and tried, sometimes show some error and do not justify our hopes. But insulin has more than justified our hopes. Only a, few years ago the son of a very dear friend of mine was out hunting and broke his leg, and the doctor came and said to me: "I have had to pass sentence of death upon that boy because he has diabetes." Only a few years ago a boy or girl had no possible chance of recovering from diabetes. Now, through the use of insulin, diabetes is no longer a sentence of death to boys or girls, and no longer an intolerable burden to adults. And this result is solely due to experiments on dogs. That example alone—though I could give many more—is sufficient to condemn this Bill and should prevent its ever being brought again into this House
Then, again, we have made considerable progress during the year in the investigation of distemper, which I have described as the scourge which has killed so many of our best friends among dogs. I was surprised last year, and also rather amused, that my noble friend Lord Lambourne, in seconding the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill, seeing that the argument concerning distemper was carrying considerable weight with many of your Lordships who had dogs, said that he was quite sure that it would be easy to amend the Bill so as not to exclude dogs from experiments made in the investigation of distemper, and he was quite sure that his noble friend Lord Banbury would agree. So, forsooth,
experiments on dogs are justifiable and to be allowed when it is hoped to cure dogs of distemper, but they are unjustifiable and to be absolutely forbidden when they are designed to prevent disease and suffering amongst women, children and men ! He would be a bold man who would dare to put such a proposition as that to a debating society in an elementary school—the proposition that you may experiment on a dog to cure distemper but you may not experiment upon a dog in the hope of saving human life.
If we have a chance of lessening suffering and benefiting mankind, it seems to me to be gross cruelty to refrain from gaining that knowledge. Surely we must agree that, whatever our walk in life, may be, our duty is to lessen suffering as much as we possibly can, but that duty of lessening suffering does not only apply to the pain which we may have to inflict ourselves or which is inflicted by others. Surely it applies equally, and indeed more strongly, to the pain and suffering which we may prevent, and which is far greater than the limited amount of suffering which we or others may cause. England would be the laughing stock of the world if she were to lose an opportunity, which the best of our medical researchers say is necessary, to lessen suffering. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and insert at the end of the Motion ("this day six months").—(Viscount Knutsford.)
My Lords, I venture to ask leave to address to you a very few words in support of the Second Beading of this Bill. Lord Knutsford has used extremely violent language towards those who have dared to oppose their opinions to his and has said that we should be ashamed to speak to an educated assembly, such as I hope your Lordships are, on such a subject as this. I am not ashamed, and there are many others who are not ashamed, to address your Lordships in the hope of gaining sympathy for a cause which we shall always believe in as long as we live. I am an old man, and I cannot hope, in the ordinary course of nature, that I shall be allowed to fight the battle of my old friend, the dog, on many more occasions, but I do hope to see the time when this protection will be afforded to dogs. I confess that my enthusiasm for many things wanes as I grow older, but there are two things for which my enthusiasm grows day by day and hour by hour. One is the hope to sec proper punishment—by which, of course, I mean corporal punishment—for offences against young children, and the second is protection for the dog against experiments on the living body.
It is to my mind an iniquity, and a blot on the fame of England, that experiments on the living body of the dog should be carried out, I would almost say daily, in the name and under the protection of doing good for science. I admit that some few of these experiments have been successful, but the majority of them have been totally unsuccessful and useless. We are accused by the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, and by everyone who differs from us, of wishing to hinder the progress of science—with wishing to impede the progress of the greatest profession in the world, the profession of surgery. In that profession I have many great friends, to whom I owe a debt of gratitude for kindness received, but I would like to remind your Lordships—and of this there is no contradiction—that the same objections that are brought forward to-day by the noble Viscount in the strongest language at his command, which is saying a good deal, have been invariably held forth, for the public to digest, by the leaders of that profession and others as well. They have always told us, at the time when any Act has been passed to mitigate the suffering of dogs and other animals through operations, that the profession would be injured and its progress would be stopped, that they would be left behind in the race for fame, and that English surgeons would have to leave the field because they were unable to obtain all the rights over animals that were obtained by surgeons in other countries. I ask your Lordships if there is any sign of our surgeons being second in the field, or of their progress having been obstructed, and yet several Acts have been passed, which have been opposed invariably by the surgical profession, but which have obtained some mitigation of the sufferings of animals under experiments upon their living bodies. We always hear from our opponents, and amongst others I may include the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, that they are great lovers of dogs. I will rot dispute it. I believe many of them are, but I cannot help thinking that their idea of loving a dog is to look upon it as a highly-skilled bit of mechanism for retrieving game or performing tricks. They do not look upon the, dog as a friend and companion, and in the same way as the real lovers of dogs do. I hope I am not maligning the noble Lord or accusing him of not being educated if I ask whether the Rontgen rays, or chloroform, were discovered by experiments on the living animal. They are great discoveries, but they were not discovered through operations on living animals. I am not attempting to enter into the professional side of operations because, as Lord Knutsford remarked, the subject has been brought before you several times and I fancy that your Lordships are as well acquainted with the facts as I am. I confess, however, that I do think the House of Commons at the present time is looking upon this Bill, or a Bill like it, with very much more favour than it has done for some years past, and I should only regret when this Bill passes, which it will do some day, that it should not have found favour in your Lordships' House. I am not in the least ashamed of bringing it forward from year to year. However ridiculous it may seem to Lord Knutsford, and those who think with him, I am quite indifferent to their ridicule if I can save one friend of my boyhood, and I believe the boyhood of the noble Viscount, from these experiments.My Lords, obviously there is very little fresh to say on the subject matter of this Bill after so full a debate of its provisions as we had a year ago. I have always the greatest respect for my noble friend Lord Banbury, and for the motives that influence him, but I must confess to a feeling of astonishment that he should have ventured once more to bring forward this Bill, in view of what happened last year, and in view of his action on that occasion, which has already been referred to. Your Lordships will remember that a very full opportunity of stating their case was afforded to him and to my noble friend Lord Lambourne. They were listened to by a full and representative House. Their representations were gravely heard, but so heavy was the weight of authoritative and considered opinion against the Bill that my noble friend did not dare to divide. And it does seem to me that he is almost treating your Lordships' House with scant respect when he asks you to give your time once more to the consideration of his Bill.
Not that I fail to recognise the gravity of the issue, but I do resent the implied imputation flung by the promoters of the Bill against those of us who cannot agree with him, that we are lacking in humanity. To an even greater extent than Lord Lambourne himself, I believe, I owe my enjoyment in life to the hound and to sporting dogs generally. I have not looked upon them, in a phrase which has been used, as a piece of intricate mechanism. Their faithful and trusting companionship has meant everything to me all my life; and, if I thought for one moment that there was substance in the charge that those engaged in research were guilty of cruelty, I should be up in arms at once in defence of the dog. But, after conscientious investigation, I indignantly resent methods of controversy which, outside this House, have been based on unfounded assertion and mere abuse. This is an age of gestures, and my noble friend made a most impressive gesture in pleading the cause of the dog, but we all know that, when legislation is in question, we have to come down to bedrock facts. Last year the noble Lord told us—and I think he has repeated it to-day—that dogs were unnecessary for research purposes. Frankly, I prefer to take the opinion of great medical authorities on this subject, and let me say that, notwithstanding that here and there an opinion among those gentlemen has been found in a contrary sense, nine out of ten, I am bold enough to say, of medical authorities throughout the country are opposed to this Bill. I call to mind how, a year ago, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, speaking on behalf of the Government, stated that the Government could not approve of the provisions of a Bill "which would put an end to some of the most essential research that has taken place." The noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, spoke in the same sense, and what was said by the late Lord Curzon has also been described. There is therefore no reason for me to speak at considerable length. But now that Lord Curzon, unfortunately, is no longer with us, and the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, the Chairman of the Medical Research Council, is absent in Palestine, I am the only member of that Council in this House at the present time, and there lies upon me the duty of conveying to your Lordships the strong opinion of that important body, containing as it does ten of the highest authorities in the world of medical science, and entrusted by the Government with the superintendence and encouragement of medical research throughout the country, with the assistance of a considerable grant from the Government. It was only last Friday that I had the honour of presiding over a meeting of the Medical Research Council, and I was asked and authorised to make known to your Lordships how strong and unalterable was their opposition to this Kill, as a measure likely seriously to impede the progress of medical science, and greatly to retard the successful treatment of disease. May I allude very shortly to some of the points which the supporters of the Bill have tried to make? I believe it was last year that the noble Lord, Lord Lambourne, said that very little real benefit had resulted from experiments on dogs in connection with rickets, and he added that sunlight was equally important for the cure and eradication of rickets. How childish to talk of continuous sunlight for the dense populations of the smoky cities of England! How can a Manchester child be always living in the sun? It is common know ledge that we owe to experiments on dogs the all-important discovery that rickets is a dietetic disease which is easily controllable by diet, irrespective of sunlight. These experiments on dogs have been quite painless, merely feeding experiments, and to experiments on dogs is due the fact that rickets is now a completely preventable disease. Whereas until a short time ago one in three of the children in our great cities was weakened, if not crippled, by rickets, it was reported to us last Friday at the Medical Research Council that the disease has been so overcome that it is difficult in London at the present time to find a single case for a student to observe. What an inestimable boon! And let it be remembered that hundreds of children owe their health, if not their lives, to feeding experiments on puppies. Are you going to call a halt to all such progress? I am not going to enlarge on the subject of insulin, after what has already been said, and after what I said last year. True to their policy, the advocates of this Bill have sought to belittle the value of insulin, and they have said that insulin is not a cure for diabetes. Insulin is a cure for diabetes exactly in the same sense that food is a cure for hunger, and, just as food averts death by starvation, so has insulin rescued vast numbers from death by diabetes. As has already been said, to dogs is due this discovery. But it is in the interests of dogs themselves that I oppose this Bill. I spoke last year of the very great efforts that are being made by the Medical Research Council at their farm at Mill Hill, with the assistance of the Field Distemper Fund, with the object of for ever banishing the scourge of distemper. I am not going to repeat myself. How appalling are the ravages of distemper at present, entailing immense suffering, and often a miserably painful death. What percentage of dog life is every year victimised in this way? And what dog-lover has not watched with acute pain the look of reproachful misery in the eyes of a dying puppy, as paralysis gradually creeps over him, and has not bewailed his powerlessness to help? Are our efforts to alleviate this suffering to be arrested, as they will be arrested, if this Bill passes? The noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, alluded to a suggestion which had been made by the noble Lord, Lord Lambourne, last year, in which he said that experiments might be allowed on dogs for the sake of alleviating distemper, and Lord Knutsford very rightly poured ridicule on that suggestion when, if such experiments were calculated to mitigate disease and suffering in man, then the individual who conducted them rendered himself liable to heavy penalties. With all respect to my noble friend, could there be a more ridiculous and more indefensible suggestion than that? It is due, as it seems to me, to its author's lack of close acquaintance with his case. He is apparently unaware of the interdependence, of medical research upon human and animal diseases. You cannot keep the two branches of research in watertight compartments. We of the Medical Research Council have undertaken this distemper work at our farm at Mill Hill because the malignant agent in the case of distemper is a filter-passing organism of infinitely small proportions, closely akin to the malignant agent in the case of influenza. There are some protagonists of this Bill who suggest that little progress has been made with these distemper investigations; but let me assure your Lordships that the work is continually going forward with good promise. You do not hear much of it because these great research workers—and they are the greatest in the world at their job—are resolutely determined not to allow each step in their advance to be made the subject of a Press stunt. Distemper investigations must take time in view of the necessity of breeding at the farm in fly-proof kennels a third generation of puppies for experimental purposes which shall be completely immune from any possible contact with distemper in the outside world. Infinite care has been taken. In passing, may I explain that these dogs are looked after by kennel-maids? Every kennel-maid has to change her clothing on going in and out of the kennels. Let me say with confidence that filter-passing organisms, as a tribe, are being hunted from various directions with a remarkable promise of success. I cannot say more. Real success in one direction is very likely to mean a flood of light in many directions, not only upon the causes of distemper, foot-.and-mouth disease, and swine fever, but upon such human diseases as smallpox, chickenpox, whooping cough, rabies, not to speak of rheumatic fever and scarlet fever. That being so, your Lordships will understand what I mean by the "interdependence" of research work upon human and animal diseases. I have one thing more to say. My experience on the Medical Research Council and as a member of the board of the Middlesex Hospital, has convinced me that in no walk of life will you find finer, nobler, more admirable qualities than are to be found amongst those engaged in medical research work. Their character has been a real revelation to me. It would seem as though contact with suffering, so far from hardening them, had endowed them in an ever-increasing degree with the most wonderful sympathy for the sufferers, with a spirit of altruism and self-sacrifice which is beyond all praise. How otherwise can one account for the real beauty of character which is constantly revealed in them? I have been moved to make this comment by a letter which appeared in The Times on Saturday last from a supporter of the Bill, a well-known man, who is, perhaps re pensible for the drafting of this Bill.No.
I accept that from my noble friend This well-known man, a protagonist in support of the Bill, made one of his periodical appeals to prejudice, professing to write in the name of morality and ethics. As they cannot defend themselves, I am irresistibly impelled by that letter to record my admiration of the personal character of those scientific men whom I have come to know on the Medical Research Council. I know how unselfishly they work, with a single eye to the increase of knowledge, and with the one object of diminishing pain and suffering and making life fuller and better for all. I know what senseless blasphemy it is—I cannot put it at less than that—to describe men of that kind, who are doing such beautiful, skilful and strenuous work with the utmost consideration for the animals which they use in their painless experiments, as "pedling in entrails with bloodstained fingers," and guilty of "dreadful doings." That is pretty language, and I hope that by this time the writer of that letter, having seen his words in print, is ashamed of them.
I do not speak as a scientific man, but merely as a layman, and from a layman's point of view. I know something of the character of the men who are doing this work, and the spirit in which they are doing it. Such men as the writer of that letter have no right to pose as champions of mercy. It is the physiologists who are doing the merciful work. They are steadily reducing pain and suffering in men, women, children and animals and already most wonderfully have they reduced it. There are those who, like the writer of this letter, are trying to stop this merciful work, and, in so trying, they do not scruple to malign the men and women who are engaged in it. I beg your Lordships not to lend yourselves to those purposes, not to retard for years, and perhaps indefinitely, the progress of medical science.My Lords, there is much in this debate about which one might say something, but I will confine myself to a few words only. I would like to sum up, if I may to some extent, the question as to what is the opinion of the medical profession. The protagonists of this Bill always open their remarks by mentioning several medical names, and create by that means an impression that there is something like a respectable minority of the medical profession in favour of their proposal. If we consider controversy in general, I think we must admit that absolute unanimity is a thing which is very difficult to secure. When once a question has become a matter of controversy one hardly ever gets completely away from it. For example, it is widely believed at present, on grounds that most of us consider very good, that the earth is round. For all that, men are to be found, even in our own times, who are prepared to maintain the contrary, and it would by no means be true to say that those men were fools or men of no capacity. In some cases they have been men of great ability. President Kruger, for instance, was of opinion that the earth is flat. He was a very astute man and was on the side of the minority. One cannot, in controversies of this kind, regard the fact that a few names can be cited as carrying any real weight, or as really detracting from the substantial unanimity of the medical profession. We can only regard those opinions as psychological curiosities. It is very hard to explain them and men ought to know-better, no doubt.
It might be urged that the gentlemen whose names have been cited are an enlightened minority who are organising a new movement and that eventually everyone will come round to see as they do. The medical profession is a large profession and a great variety of different kinds of men are to be found in it. It is only a small minority of the profession that ever attempts to do anything that can be called research work. To begin with most of them are much too busy. If you think of your country practitioner you will know very well that he is not occupied with research but with very different matters—the daily routine of his profession. The people who carry out research are, as I say, a small minority. They are connected with academic institutions or with hospitals, as a rule. I have had an opportunity since last year of going over the names which the noble Lord then brought forward as being on his side. So far as I have been able to learn, and I have had the advantage of consulting many eminent men in the physiological and medical worlds, not one of those men has ever made a discovery of any kind. Are they the men to lay down what means are necessary for the purposes of research? Surely we should ask the people who have done it to tell us that, and not the people who have never done it. I think, for that reason, no serious attention should be paid to these names. It may be easy enough to reel them off, and if one has never heard of them before one perhaps receives the announcement of the names with a certain respect, but I can assure your Lordships, after going over them, that that attitude meets with no confirmation whatever. I should like to answer one or two points which were made by Lord Lambourne. He mentioned the opposition made to the previous restriction of vivisection, and said that research had gone on all the same. No doubt it has. But surely none of us will seriously contend that official regulation and restriction of our work is not an intolerable nuisance? Take the Income Tax. We all continue to live and to spend our incomes in spite of the fact that we have to fill up endless forms, and to consider endless vexatious problems in filling up Income Tax papers. It may be borne with, although it is a grievous burden. It is just the same as that with all the restrictions and forms and regulations and fussinesses, if I may use an uncoventional term, which those engaged on animal experiment have to put up with. They groan under them, but they get on to a certain extent, all the more because nothing has yet been done sufficiently drastic absolutely to put an end to all progress. Lord Lambourne asked two questions—whether X-rays were discovered by vivisection, and whether chloroform was discovered by vivisection or experiment on animals? I make my noble friend a present of the case of X-rays. No one ever said that there was no other means of discovery than by experiment on living animals. I may say, by the way, that I should imagine that the first bones that were seen by X-rays were those of a living animal—namely, those of the discoverer himself. So far, it was an experiment on an animal. However, I do not press that. The case of chloroform is more to my purpose. Let me say a word as to how the use of chloroform was introduced. It was made in the first instance purely as a chemical product, and without any view to medical applications, by the celebrated French chemist, M. Dumas. The notion of using it as an anæsthetics originated with Sir James Simpson. He wished to find something better than other for that purpose, and looked over fill the chemical substances of a likely kind that he could find, such as the volatile compounds of the hydro-carbons, and among them chloroform was brought to his notice. He used to spend the evenings, I have been told, inhaling these various substances himself, and very often he sank under the table in a profound stupor, and waited until he came round again and then tried the next substance. Your Lordships see that in that case the experiment was made on a living animal—namely, Sir James Simpson, who falls under that term used in its biological sense. I have detained your Lordships longer than I had intended, and in conclusion I will associate myself with the words spoken by my noble friend Lord Mildmay. I beg earnestly that your Lordships will not put this great obstacle in the way of medical research.My Lords, I cannot speak upon this subject with the authority of the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford. That authority has been gained by a life that has been unstintingly devoted to the noblest of all causes. I cannot speak with the special knowledge possessed by Lord Rayleigh, who has just sat down. There are few, if any, members of your Lordships' House who could do so. I only desire to say a few words upon this Bill from the point of view that I think must be held by many of you—the point of view of a man unlearned and unlettered in special scientific knowledge who is keenly anxious to consider whether or not existing laws need, in the interest of humanity and fair dealing, to be modified or swept away.
Approaching the subject from that point of view, the first thing that I feel bound to ask is this. Last year your Lordships, after a much more full and elaborate discussion than that we have had this afternoon, rejected this Bill without a Division. I should have thought that it would have been incumbent upon the the noble Lord who asked you again to consider the same arguments within twelve months to lay before you some new ground, to bring before you some new matter, to justify in some manner the appropriation of your Lordships' time in the hearing of what, in many cases, has been nothing but a vain repetition of old and stale extracts from papers. Has anything of the kind been done? I have listened anxiously. There was not one single new argument. There was not a single new fact placed before you for consideration. Not only that, but what I should at least have expected was this. Last year there were two special matters that were mentioned which I cannot help thinking must have made a great impression upon you, as indeed they did upon me. The one was the fact that one of the most insidious and most deadly of the diseases which afflict mankind, the disease of diabetes, had been held at bay as the result of experiments made on dogs. It would have been possible for the noble Lord to have come down and said: The whole of that was a profound mistake; no such thing resulted from experiments on dogs; it is not accurate. But he has not ventured to contradict it. Nor has he ventured to contradict that another disease, equally formidable to little children, the disease of rickets, has been cured by the same means. If that is so, what does this Bill mean? It means that while you leave at large the right of man to make experiments upon living animals you are to exclude from the area of those experiments a particular animal, the use of which has been found to be the means of making one of the most beneficent discoveries of recent times. The truth is that the real appeal of these Bills is an appeal to people, who object to vivisection altogether. Unless you can succeed along those lines you cannot succeed at all. When that is put forward, I should think-that your Lordships would hesitate a very long time before you attempted to limit the area of investigation into the means by which it may be possible for us to extend the wide boundaries of our great empire of learning, to check the progress of disease, and even to stay the swift and stealthy foot of death. That is the real meaning of experiments by means of vivisection. How you can enlarge, strengthen and render more secure human life—that is what is struck at by all Bills that attempt to stop these experiments, and, in a lesser way, by the Bill which the noble Lord introduced this afternoon. I hope sincerely that your Lordships will reject it so emphatically that we shall not be troubled with it again.My Lords, I only rise for the purpose of saying one word with regard to the view of the Home Office upon this Bill. I cordially agree with the noble and learned Lord who has
CONTENTS.
| ||
| Minister, E. | Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.] | Lambourne, L. [Teller.] |
| Leigh, L. | ||
| Bertie of Thame, V. | Hatherton, L. | Tenterden, L. |
| Hood, V. | ||
NOT-CONTENTS.
| ||
| Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.) | Cecil of Chelwood, V. | Marshall of Chipstead, L. |
| Chelmsford, V. | Mildmay of Flete, L. [Teller.] | |
| Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.) | Churchill, V. | Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.) |
| FitzAlan of Derwent, V. | Muir Mackenzie, L. | |
| Haldane, V. | Muskerry, L. | |
| Argyll, D. | Knuteford, V. | Newton, L. |
| Sutherland, D. | Novar, V. | Olivier, L. |
| Wellington, D. | Younger of Leckie, V. | Oriel, L. (F. Massereene.) |
| Playfair, L. | ||
| Bath, M. | Annaly, L. | Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) |
| Lansdowne, M. | Arnold, L. | |
| Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.) | Balfour of Burleigh, L. | Raglan, L. |
| Belhaven and Stenton, L. | Rayleigh, L. | |
| Biddulph, L. | Riddell, L. | |
| Beauchamp, E. | Buckmaster, L. | Saltoun, L. |
| Birkenhead, E. | Carson, L. | Sandhurst, L. |
| Bradford, E. | Cottesloe, L. | Shandon, L. |
| Clarendon, E. | Darling, L. | Shuttleworth, L. |
| Eldon, E. | Desborough, L. | Sinclair, L. |
| Fortescue, E. | Fairfax of Cameron, L. | Somers, L. |
| Iveagh, E. | Gage, L. (V. Gage.) | Southborough, L. |
| Lovelace, E. | Gisborough, L. | Stanmore, L. |
| Lucan, E. | Glenarthur, L. | Stewart of Garlies, L.(E. Galloway.) |
| Malmesbury, E. | Hardinge of Penshurst, L. | |
| Midleton, E. | Hemphill, L. | Stuart of Wortley, L. |
| Onslow, E. | Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L. | Sydenham, L. |
| Sandwich, E. | Kylsant, L. | Templemore, L. |
| Stanhope, E. | Lamington, L. [Teller.] | Thomson, L. |
| Strafford, E. | Wargrave, L. | |
Resolved in the negative and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
just spoken that not one new argument has been brought forward to-day. The argument has been the same, the speakers have almost been the same, as on the last occasion; and the attitude of the Home Office is the same, too. It is this. They have had the fullest opportunity of reading and digesting the voluminous evidence which has been brought forward on this matter, and they have also had the experience of carrying out the safeguards, which I have before me under seven different heads, but with which it is unnecessary to trouble your Lordships at this moment. I merely say that the Home Office is as opposed to this Bill now as it was last year.
On Question, Whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 8; Not-Contents, 77.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Bengal Ordinance
had given Notice to ask the Secretary of State for India for information as to the outcome of action recently taken under the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1924, and, in connection therewith, under Regulation III of 1813, in Bengal, and as to the results of the investigation of the cases of persons arrested under that Ordinance or that Regulation; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a few days before the late Government went out of office there was promulgated by the Governor-General of India in Council, under the authority conferred upon him by Section 72 of the Government of India Act, an Ordinance entitled the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, a copy of which has been laid on the Table of the House, together with certain memoranda and copies of the statements made by the Governor-General in connection with the Ordinance. These statements, and the Ordinance itself, sufficiently explain the grounds on which the Ordinance was introduced, but I should like to detain your Lordships for a few moments while I give you a little preliminary history as to how the Ordinance came to be introduced in the form it was.
Last July the Secretary of State for India received from the Governor-General a communication indicating that the Government of Bengal were becoming dissatisfied with the powers it had for dealing with conspiracies for criminal violence. This criminal violence was organised by one or more secret societies, and some reference has been made to it in the White Paper that has been issued. There had been a series of robberies with violence, and there had been two murders and several attempts at murder directed against the police. One of those murders was that of a police witness. Later there was another murder of a witness who had given evidence in a case brought against one of the perpetrators of a criminal outrage. The Government of which I was then a member received from Lord Beading a communication asking what were their views upon this subject and indicating his own very strong reluctance to take any action outside the ordinary law. His Majesty's Government wrote back entirely sympathising with him in that view and urging that he should assist the Government of Bengal, if necessary, to reinforce their police, and that sooner than bring in any exceptional legislation the Government of Bengal should use whatever powers they might have for dealing with this special form of crime.
There the matter rested for some weeks. Towards the end of August, however, the Governor-Genera again telegraphed the Secretary of State at some length stating that he was now convinced by the representations made to him by the Government, of Bengal that the ordinary powers of the law, and even the extraordinary powers which the Government of Bengal have by virtue of what is known as Regulation III, were not sufficient to deal with these conspiracies for criminal outrage, and that the Government of Bengal desired to bring in a special Ordinance practically, as we should say here, dispensing with the Habeas Corpus Act, for the purpose of dealing with these conspiracies. He intimated that unless such measures were taken he could not find himself in a position properly to exercise his responsibilities for the prevention of crimes of this character and for the protection of his police officers and other individuals from assassination or intimidation, or from otherwise being subjected to duress and violence for the purpose of fomenting disorder in India and bringing the Government into a state of powerlessness.
Consequenly, we entered into correspondence with the Viceroy, who submitted an Ordinance, as drafted by the Government of Bengal in complete accord with the Governor-General, and the form of that Ordinance so settled is that which you have before you at the present time. It was agreed very precisely between the Governor-General and ourselves that the Ordinance should not aim at any kind of political activity, whether that activity might or might not be described as seditious or revolutionary or as likely to destroy public tranquillity. The Ordinance was to be carefully drawn so as to apply only to the commission of acts of violence or intimidation or the organisation of such acts, as specified in the Indian Penal Code. The whole Ordinance legislates by reference to that Code and sets up in its Schedules only such offences as may be dealt with under the Ordinances which are already included in the Penal Code. You will find in the First and Second Schedules on page 12 of the White Paper a number of sections, numbering thirty-four altogether, beginning with Section 148, which concerns rioting armed with a deadly weapon, and ending with Section 506 which deals with criminal intimidation; and also a reference to "any offence under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908; any offence under the Indian Arms Act, 1878; and any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or any abetment of, any of the above offences." That Ordinance, as we understood from the Governor-General, was sufficient for his purpose and we authorised it to be introduced.
It was not immediately introduced, and here I should perhaps point out to your Lordships that, as those who have read the Ordinance will see, it is an Ordinance which gives very unusual powers to the police and to the Administration and which really takes away from any one who is charged or proceeded against under it any protection for liberty which the history of our criminal law and jurisdiction has established for ourselves. I should like to quote—I could not put the matter more concisely—the words in which Blackstone has indicated our own position in that matter. He says:
"To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole kingdom. But confinement of the person"—
that is precisely what this Ordinance aims at—
"by secretly hurrying him to gaol, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government, and yet sometimes, when the State is in real danger, even this may be a necessary measure. But the happiness of our Constitution is, that it is not left to the executive power to determine when the danger of the State is so great as to render this measure expedient. For it is the Parliament only, or a legislative power, that, whenever it sees proper, can authorise the Crown, by suspending the Habeas Corpus Act for a short and limited time, to imprison suspected persons without giving any reason for so doing."
The Ordinance provides a special Court for the trial of persons accused or reasonably suspected of any of the offences set out in the Schedule, and the special Court is constituted of three Commissioners, two of whom must be either Judges of Sessions or persons of the rank of Sessions Judges, or persons who have qualified for appointment as Judges of a High Court. Judges of Sessions in India are not judicial officers, but are only Indian civil servants, or executive officers, and I think that all of us would rather be tried by a Judge of the High Court than by an executive officer, who, however fair-minded and just he may be, is nevertheless a subordinate of the Government. Further, in this Ordinance there is a provision that persons who are interned, or directed to live under control, cannot be heard, before the two Commissioners who may be appointed to try their case, by counsel or pleader.
Further, among the many anomalies of this Ordinance, there is a provision that within one month of the issue of an order by the Local Government, enabling the persons accused to be assigned certain places of residence, or to be placed in gaol,
"the Local Government shall place before two persons, who shall he either Sessions Judges or Additional Sessions Judges having in either case, exercised for at least five years the powers of a Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge, the material facts and circumstances in its possession on which the order has been based or which are relevant to the inquiry, together with any materials relating to the case which may have subsequently come into its possession, and a statement of the allegations against the person in respect of whom the order has been made and his answers to them, if furnished by him, and the said Judges shall consider the said material facts and circumstances and the allegation and answers, and shall report to the Local Government whether or not in their opinion there is lawful and sufficient cause for the order."
That is to say, these Commissioners are not even confronted with the accused, but are confronted with the written statements made by the police, and the prisoner's written answers, if he has made any. That cannot be a judicial inquiry.
What were the reasons for the Government of India considering that this drastic Order was required? It comes to this, that whereas under our own law any person may arrest and prevent any one whom he sees bent upon committing a crime, they had had experience that in India it was practically impossible to obtain conviction in these cases. It was also the fact that, where any person was suspected of giving evidence, that person ran great danger of losing his life. Practically, the criminal law did not operate to prevent these things. They could only be prevented by such action being taken by the police as could not be justified by evidence, because witnesses would run serious danger of being assassinated. Those were the particular circumstances which justified the Government of India in making the representation which they did—that they could not prevent these acts of crime without these special powers.
However, that relates to only one part of the matter. After the promulgation of the Ordinance a question was asked in Parliament, I think in December last, as to the number of persons who had been arrested under the Ordinance, and Lord Winterton gave the information desired. I have not the statement at hand, but I think he said that fifty-nine persons had been arrested under the Ordinance, and about forty-six under Regulation III of 1318. That rather surprised me, because we had been informed by the Governor-General, before we authorised the framing of the Ordinance, that Regulation III of 1818 was not sufficient to give the Government of Bengal the power which they required for preventing these crimes. Accordingly, we gave them the stronger measure, which we presumed was sufficient to cover all cases. Nevertheless, a certain number of persons were arrested and interned under Regulation III.
Now I want to remind your Lordships, for a moment, of what Regulation III does. I will read the preamble. It is as follows:—
"Whereas reasons of State, embracing the due maintenance of the alliance formed by the British Government with foreign Powers, the preservation of tranquillity in the territories of Native Princes entitled to its protection and the security of the British Dominions from foreign hostility and from internal commotion, render it necessary to place under personal restraint individuals against whom there may not he sufficient ground to institute any judicial proceedings …"
they may in those circumstances be interned and kept under restraint, subject to a report being made from time to time to the Governor of Bengal, of any representations made by the person so interned and confined. Your Lordships will see
that the scope of Regulation III only applies to the danger of internal commotion, and has been resorted to on former occasions when there has been reason to believe that it was necessary, in order to avoid internal commotion, that certain persons should be arrested under it. But, as I have said, it was not, as we understood it, the desire or intention of the Government of India, in October last, to take action against certain persons for fear they were engaged in internal commotion, but solely on the ground that they were believed to be engaged in acts of physical violence or intimidation.
Reading the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly on January 28 last, I see that a question was asked of the Home Member, Sir Alexander Muddiman, with regard to the cases of the men arrested under Regulation III. His reply was:—
"As regards the persons recently arrested under Regulation III of 1818, the evidence was scrutinised by two Judges of the standing of Sessions Judges, who were satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe that all these persons were members of a revolutionary conspiracy and that their being at large involved a danger to the State.'
But that is not the purpose of the Ordinance, nor is it at all the purpose for which the late Government, as I under-stand, approved of that Ordinance being introduced. "A revolutionary purpose" is a phrase very widely, or perhaps I should say very stringently interpreted, by persons connected with the Government of India, the Government, of Ireland, and the Government of this country. Anything which aims at altering the Constitution of this country is constantly denounced as being a revolutionary purpose. But the idea of the Government to which I belonged, in sanctioning such proceedings, was solely that such proceedings should be addressed to repressing outrage and crime, definitely defined in these sections of the Code to which the Schedule of the Ordinance refers.
I see that yesterday a Question was asked in the House of Commons by the hon. Member for Mile End. He asked the Under-Secretary of State for India this Question, which I had wished to ask of the noble and learned Earl opposite:—
"Whether there is any distinction between the men arrested under the Bengal Ordinance and those arrested under the Bengal Regulation III of 1818; whether orders of detention under the Ordinance have been substituted for those under Regulation III in respect of all prisoners arrested in October, 1924, whether it is intended to use Regulation III again so long as the Ordinance or the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which takes its place, are in operation; and whether all State prisoners are now under the Ordinance, with the exception of those who were arrested and detained before the Ordinance came into operation."
To this Lord Winterton replied:—
"All the persons recently arrested in Bengal under the Regulation of 1818 are now treated as arrested under the Ordinance, which permits less rigid treatment of individual cases, and authorises the grant of allowances to their families."
Lord Winterton's answer did not answer the Question which was put to him, a Question which I want very definitely to put to the noble Earl opposite; that is to say, whether all persons who are now detained in Bengal, owing to the action taken in October last, are persons who are definitely detained under orders made within the scope and intention of the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, or whether there are a certain number of persons who are more or less vaguely detained under Regulation III of 1818, on the charge of their being occupied in some kind of revolutionary agitation, or some kind of intention to produce commotion, to the danger of the State, which is an entirely different thing from the purposes for which the Ordinance was sanctioned?
Very severe attacks have been made on this Ordinance in India on the grounds on which they would naturally be made, in the first place, because, from the political point of view, it is a very good point d'appui for an attack on the Government, on the pretext that it was introduced for the purpose of repressing political agitation; and therefore the late Government was the more desirous, and I should be the more desirous, that any excuse whatever for saying that this was aimed at any kind of political agitation should be without foundation. The Ordinance was justified in the view of the Government of India on its merits, and was justified in the view of His Majesty's Government on the recommendation of the Viceroy and of his advisers, in whose judgment as to its necessity we had absolute and entire confidence.
But when we come to the question of Regulation III that is a little different, because I find that among those who were arrested under the provisions of Regulation III are three gentlemen who are very conspicuous politicians. One of them is Mr. Subhas Bose, the Chief Executive Officer of the Calcutta Corporation, and a man who has been commonly spoken of as Mr. C. R. Das's right-hand man, Mr. Anil Baran Roy, a member of the Legislative Council and secretary of the Bengal Provincial Congress Committee, and Mr. Satyendra Chandra Mitra, also a member of the Legislative Council. The allegation against the Government of India is that these men have been arrested on political grounds under Regulation III and were not liable to be arrested under the provisions of the Ordinance. The names of one or more of these gentlemen were mentioned to me in correspondence before the question of the Ordinance came up at all, and the operations in which it was represented that they were engaged were definitely of a character which, I should have said, fell absolutely within the four corners of the Schedules of this Ordinance, and there should have been no need whatever, if these representations were correct, to go outside the provisions of the Ordinance and to arrest them under Regulation III.
Your Lordships have read the Ordinance, and you know that it provides for certain reports to be made to the Government and to the Governor-General. I want to ask the noble Earl, as I have told him I should ask him, first of all, if he can tell us what has practically been the upshot of the operations that have been carried out, either under Regulation III or the Ordinance, in demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Government of India that all the persons arrested have been actually engaged in criminal conspiracy to commit outrages or to commit intimidation, as was intended by the Ordinance?; secondly, what was the reason originally for the discrimination in the arrests, as between Regulation III and the Ordinance, and whether that discrimination has or has not yet been done away with?—because, as I have pointed out, Lord Winterton's reply in another place was entirely ambiguous on that point. He simply said they are treated as if they had been arrested under warrant under the Ordinance. I want to know whether, so far as their detention is concerned, their cases are absolutely covered by the Schedules of the Ordinance. And, generally, I hope that the noble Earl may be able to tell us whether, to his satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the Government of India, the passing of the Ordinance has justified itself in the bringing under restraint of persons against whom criminal intentions have been proved, and in the prevention of further outrages. I beg to move for Papers.
My Lords, the noble Lord, in a tone and temper of which I have no right to complain, has asked me a number of questions to which I must give some circumstantial answer, not only out of respect to the moderation with which he has asked them, but also to the responsible position which he so recently held. The noble Lord has told your Lordships, and quite rightly told you, that he and his colleagues made themselves responsible for an innovation upon the ordinary methods of criminal trial in India which has seldom, in its drastic character, been exceeded either in this country by what he quite rightly called the suspension of Habeas Corpus, or by what, in Continental systems of jurisprudence, is more commonly known as the declaration of a state of siege.
The noble Lord did not in any way exaggerate the severity of the course which he and his colleagues authorised the Viceroy to take. I have been brought up, as most of those who have spent their lives in the profession of the law have been brought up, in these matters in an atmosphere of constitutional correctitude, and I must make it plain that when I first became aware of the drastic nature of that which the noble Lord and his colleagues, after the fullest possible discussion by correspondence, had sanctioned, I felt it my duty to examine with some care the justification that was alleged before powers so remarkable, almost so unprecedented in India, were authorised. I am bound to say perfectly candidly that the result of the investigation which I undertook has been to satisfy me that the noble Lord, extreme as was the course which he pursued, was absolutely justified, having regard to the nature of the evidence which was before him. Indeed, I think he would have been lacking in his duty, painful as it must have been to him, shattering as it must have been to the prepossessions of some of those who were his colleagues, if he had not authorised the course that was adopted. One or two facts must be a little more elaborately recalled, I think, if I am to give a full answer to the noble Lord. Revolutionary conspiracy existed in Bengal between the years 1912 and 1917, which was only successfully repressed when the leaders were confined under the provisions of Regulation III of the year 1818 and many of its subordinate members dealt with under the Defence of India Act. Most of these persons were released after the Royal Proclamation of 1919. From the point of view of the psychology of sedition, it is worth while observing that many of those who were released in 1019 have since abstained from revolutionary crime. To the remainder an amnesty was gradually extended, but a large, number of these speedily returned to their old methods and reorganised their old associations. Your Lordships will ask, and are certainly entitled to know, how far this had become formidable at any period which is relevant to the noble Lord's Questions. By the end of 1922 two main terrorist organisations, each of them very formidable, had been revived and new members recruited, arms and ammunition mostly smuggled from abroad were collected, a new type of bomb was manufactured, and beyond all question elaborate and carefully conceived projects for assassination were devised. During the year 1923 a series of outrages was perpetrated, including a dacoity with double murder at Kona near Howrah, and the looting of the Ultadingi Post Office in May, a robbery with murder in July, the Sankaritolla murder, and others which I need not more particularly mention. In January, 1924, Mr. Day was murdered in Calcutta, and an attempt was made to murder Mr. Bruce in April, in both cases, as it appears, in mistake for a most courageous and undaunted public servant, Mr. Tegart, the Commissioner of Police. In March a bomb factory was discovered, and other activities directed to the manufacture of bombs and the illicit collection of arms were detected. Other crimes were planned and projects of assassination continued to be devised. Your Lordships may reasonably ask what steps were being taken by the responsible Government faced, as they were, by a deliberate and most formidable outbreak of crime. Here let me make the only real observation of dissent or doubt that I shall attempt upon the speech of the noble Lord. I did not follow him with the complete precision which I should have desired in the distinction which at one time I suspected him to be drawing between violent crime and revolutionary outbreaks. It seems to me that the line must be very finely drawn. I have no doubt in my own mind as to the distinction which any precise speaker would draw. If a man, merely in an abstract way, reflects favourably and indulgently upon the idea of revolution he would not fall, in my judgment, either under Regulation III of the earlier Act or under the Ordinance for which the noble Lord was responsible. If such a person, after reflecting favourably—I did not say revolutionary outbreaks. I should imagine there might be outbreaks in all political affairs. The words I quoted were "revolutionary conspiracy," and I quoted them from Sir Alexander Muddiman. I was distinguishing between a revolutionary conspiracy and crime.
The noble Lord is surely aware that conspiracy is a criminal offence. That must have occurred to the noble Lord in the carrying out of his responsibilities. Am I to understand that the doctrine of the noble Lord now is that a man who enters into a revolutionary conspiracy, which must mean a criminal offence, to overthrow and destroy the Constitution by means of a revolution, is not to be brought within the terms of the noble Lord's Ordinance? I assure him that the terms of his own Ordinance would cover such a case.
That is just my point. If it was a conspiracy the arrest should have been made under the Ordinance.
I will tell the noble Lord how that arises in a moment. I was on a rather more important point, because it is fundamental. If I may refer to it, I would most earnestly advise him to study a little closely the criminal law relating to conspiracy, because it has a very great moral importance. Let us at least understand one another, because if there is no difference of opinion it is not very useful for me to waste my time in discussing it. If there is a difference of opinion, I will endeavour in a few words to show that, consistently with the principles laid down by the noble Lord himself, it cannot survive any impartial and competent discussion. Conspiracy is a criminal offence. A conspiracy to subvert the Constitution by revolutionary methods is a very grave criminal offence; few graver offences are known to the law. Men have been beheaded almost within the precincts of this building for that offence in this country. If the noble Lord and I are agreed upon this point, I must honestly confess that I do not think much of his distinction between revolutionary conspiracy and those specific offences which he has alluded to more compendiously as crimes.
At the moment when I diverged upon that topic I was dealing with the view which was taken by the Government of Bengal. The Governor, a distinguished member of this House and well known to many of us, Lord Lytton, took from the first what in my judgment was an enlightened view, and I am the more encouraged to make that statement plain by the fact that it was the view which was ultimately accepted by my noble friend who asked me this Question. The view taken by Lord Lytton, who was in the immediate centre of the gravest of these events, did not immediately recommend itself either to the Viceroy or to the Government of the day. I am bound to make it plain that in my judgment Lord Lytton, who was on the spot, gave wise advice at the time when he gave it. Certain of the ringleaders in the early part of 1924 were arrested under Regulation III of the Act of 1818. This did not, in fact, check the movement, and it became necessary to devise special measures which ultimately, in the circumstances quite accurately spoken of by the noble Lord, resulted in the issue of the Ordinance. Mr. Das, of whom the noble Lord has spoken, admitted, rather more than a month before the issue of the Ordinance, that there was undoubtedly an anarchist movement in Bengal, and stated that it was much more serious than the authorities realised and that it was growing increasingly difficult to suppress it. Before passing to an account of the action taken under the Ordinance, for which the noble Lord has asked, I ought, I think, to emphasise one point and that is that one of the main necessities for employing special measures to combat conspiracies of this kind instead of resorting to the ordinary provisions of the law, is the terrorism of witnesses and juries resulting in a failure of justice because the juries are terrorised from returning verdicts in accordance with the evidence, and resulting, also, as the noble Lord I believe would agree, in the murder of witnesses and persons who confess or turn King's evidence. This formidable fact is the real, and in my judgment in a civilised country is the only, justification for withdrawing from persons accused of crime the protection of the ordinary course of law. If it be indeed established that such is the state of feeling in the country in which this exceptional method of trying crimes is adopted, that no witness can give evidence without his or her life being endangered, that no jury can give an honest verdict without at once becoming a target for the dagger of the assassin or the bomb of the incendiary—if that, indeed, be established, you have gone a great way to justify your exceptional legislation. Let me give two comparatively recent illustrations of the reality of this risk. In the Alipore conspiracy case, in which members of the revolutionary group were put on trial but were eventually acquitted, the relatives of the approver were subjected in Calcutta to various forms of harassment, and boycott. During the course of the trial, his brother died. Owing to social ostracism, the family were unable to get people to carry the dead body to the burning ghat. Further, his sister, who was engaged to be married, was thrown over by the bridegroom as soon as the relatives heard that her brother was an approver in the case. The approver himself was cross-examined for weeks on end by five different counsel for the defence in circumstances which practically drove him to the verge of insanity. He was unable to sleep in the gaol, and was suffering towards the close of the trial from nightmare and hallucinations. It is no exaggeration to say that from the moment that man, doing his duty as an honest and fearless citizen, gave evidence which the elucidation of the truth required, he and everyone belonging to him were treated like pariah dogs, and none of them could have gone about with any feeling of tranquillity or security in the more vital matters of life. On August 22 last a bomb was thown into a shop in Mirzapur Street, Calcutta, which belonged to an individual who was suspected by the conspirators of being a police informant and who had been indicated by one of the conspirators as the person from whom he had received a revolver for the possession of which he had been prosecuted and convicted shortly before. The suspected informant was in the shop at the time but escaped. His companion was killed. Two persons were arrested and charged with the offence, one of whom was Santi Chakravarti. These two persons were tried in September, and the jury found both not guilty. The Judge agreed as regards Santi, and acquitted him, but ordered the re-trial of the other accused. On October 3, the body of Santi was found on the railway a short distance outside Calcutta, shockingly mutilated, with the head entirely severed. Let me answer the specific Question addressed to me by the noble Lord as to the action under the Ordinance and under the earlier Regulation, and as to the reasons for the discrimination, such as it was, at the time of the promulgation of the Ordinance. Not realising at that moment—and the noble Lord, I think will agree that there was some discussion, controversy and doubt about the point in this country—that the Ordinance was so soon to receive the sanction of His Majesty's Government, those responsible in Bengal confined twenty seven Bengali terrorists under Regulation III of 1818. Before the promulgation of the Ordinance warrants of arrest under this Regulation had already been issued by the Governor-General in Council against nineteen of the ringleaders, and were being held in readiness as it was thought it might be necessary to use them at any moment. When the Ordinance was promulgated on October 25, 1924, these nineteen were arrested, but, as a matter of convenience, they were arrested in the first instance under the warrants already in existence under Regulation III instead of under the Ordinance. But on January 19, 1925, it was decided to transfer all these nineteen to detention under the terms of the Ordinance, the provisions of which are more restricted than those of the Regulation. I believe that was completely technically accurate, but whether new-warrants were ever issued—I am not sure whether this was technically necessary—or not, the noble Lord may rest satisfied that the persons detained—I will not say that they are in a favourable position—are being treated under this Ordinance and not under the old Ordinance, for which he is not responsible. That, I think, deals with the matter which probably causes anxiety to the noble Lord. He did, indeed, use one phrase or argument which I was not able completely to follow. If I understood him aright, he said his anxieties were increased by the circumstance that he noticed that the names of three very well known politicians occurred among the list of these nineteen who were arrested under Regulation III of 1818. On this point I did not completely follow the argument of the noble Lord. Did he mean that politicians could not commit any crime?Not at all. I thought I made it clear that it was unfortunate if these men could not be arrested under the Ordinance, because political capital was made in India out of the fact that they were politicians and had not been arrested under the Ordinance, but under the Regulation.
The noble Lord will, therefore, be content with this answer—namely, that the warrants for their arrest were already in existence, not on the ground that they were politicians but that they had committed these grave offences in relation to which every requirement of his own Order had been satisfied in dealing with these very people. Among these nineteen—I had better add a word about this—three, as the noble Lord says, were persons of considerable prominence. They were Mr. Subhas Chandra Bose, Chief Executive Officer of the Calcutta Corporation and a close associate of Mr. C. R. Das; Mr. Satyendra Chandra Mitra, a Member of the Legislative Council, and Mr. Anil Baran Roy, secretary of the Bengal Provincial Congress Committee and a Member of the Legislative Council.
I have received, in the course of my duty, and have examined, the proceedings of the Government of India on which warrants of arrest under Regulation III were issued against the nineteen, including the three persons named, and also the reports of the two Judges on each of their cases, and I have personally satisfied myself that none of these men were arrested for the purpose of restraining political activities, however extreme, but because of their connection with conspiracies to commit crimes of violence or to collect arms and explosives for such purposes. The Ordinance, as the noble Lord has pointed out, requires that two Sessions Judges shall review the facts. I was not quite sure whether the noble Lord was complaining of this provision. He said that most of us would rather be tried by a High Court Judge than by an executive officer, but a Sessions Judge cannot be quite described as an executive officer. If it was indeed in the mind of the noble Lord to make any complaint that these matters should be referred only to Sessions Judges, I would remind him that this is his own provision. It was not I who provided that these matters should be referred to Sessions Judges. As a matter of fact, perhaps the noble Lord has forgotten why, but he was quite right in doing so. If he had said that these matters should be dealt with by two High Court Judges you would have been exposing yourselves to the risk of a very inconvenient conflict of jurisdiction when demands were made by habeas corpus or quo warranto to move the High Court. You would have had the fact that there would have been a conflict of jurisdiction between Courts of equal authority. The noble Lord was entirely right in adopting the course he did, and I think he should speak with benevolent kindness of those to whom he gave this function. The Ordinance requires that two Sessions Judges should review the facts and circumstances under which any order has been issued against a person under the Ordinance and report to the Local Government whether in their opinion there is lawful and sufficient cause for the order. The Ordinance then provides that the Local Government, on receipt of the report, shall consider and pass such orders thereon as appear just and proper. I have made it my business, as was my duty, to ascertain the view taken by these Judges. I have discovered that the Judges have reported, in the case of all persons against whom the Ordinance has been used, that the Government of Bengal were, in the opinion of the Judges, justified in applying the Ordinance. I have also ascertained, as was equally my duty, that the Bengal Government, after an independent examination, has satisfied itself that the Judges were right in the view they took. Therefore, we find the child of the noble Lord functioning in every way as he must have desired and conceived if everything went satisfactorily. I can assure him, so far as I am concerned, that the dice have nowhere been loaded against these men, and nowhere has there been any critical suspicion or any tendency towards inhumanity. The only desire has been to see that the conditions which the noble Lord rightly accepted as necessary conditions to action, should be completely satisfied. The Ordinance, which was promulgated on October 25 and had force only for six months, has now been replaced by two Acts. A Bill to continue its provisions for five years was placed before the Bengal Legislative Council in January, but leave for its introduction was refused. It was certified by the Governor as being essential for the discharge of his duty in the administration of justice, and the Act was assented to by the King in Council on March 17, after it had laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament for eight days, during which I am sure it attracted the attention of the noble Lord. There were two clauses in the Ordinance which could not be enacted in the Bengal Council. One gave persons tried under it the right to appeal to the High Court, and another deprived the High Court of the power of issuing a writ of habeas corpus in the case of persons detained under the Ordinance without trial. A Bill containing these provisions was introduced in the Indian Legislative Assembly. It was rejected by the Assembly but passed as recommended by the Governor-General in the Council of State. The Governor-General, I may inform your Lordships, is about to bring this certified Bill into force as an Act at once. I have only one or two brief observations to add. As regards the general effect of the measures taken, it is significant that the promulgation of the Ordinance coincided with a marked improvement in the situation in Bengal, and it is clear that for the moment at all events the terrorists' plans and associations have been disorganised. I give the credit for that to the noble Lord, the Government of India and the Government of Bengal, but I must make it plain that attempts are still being made to recruit and collect arms and to carry on propaganda in favour of violence. These activities require, and they will receive, unremitting vigilance. The powers conferred by the Ordinance must at present be continued. The existence of these powers, apart from their exercise, operates as a powerful preventative. One notable feature is that the morale of the police has been strengthened and the forces of law and order feel that they can take effective initiative. There has, as the noble Lord knows well because he had to face it when he was in office, been considerable agitation in the Press and among politicians against the Ordinance, but there are no indications of any deep and widespread resentment amongst the general public, either in Bengal or elsewhere. It has been reported in the Press that Mr. Das has issued a statement which every true friend of India believing it to be sincere must warmly welcome. I have not had a full report of that speech, but founding myself on the fullest report which the Press has made available, I understand that he has expressly and formally dissociated himself and his Party entirely from all forms of violence and that he has given utterance to a plea to the youth of Bengal to abandon the adoption of all such methods. Mr. Das asks us, according to the fullest report I have obtained, to "lay aside undue suspicion." There is nothing which I am more anxious to do, in dealing with the responsible trust which I have to some extent in my hands at this moment, there is nothing that I would more gladly do, than to lay aside any suspicion. I shall watch for the results of this appeal to those who accept his guidance and act under his advice, with hopeful interest. If I see that the revolutionary societies begin to atrophy for want of monetary and moral support and that the channels of communication between the political and the anarchical world are effectively closed, then indeed a new era in Bengal will have begun and the need for what Mr. Das calls "repression" will have disappeared. But let there be no ambiguity about this. When Mr. Das speaks of "repression" he apparently means the repression of political opinion, and he seeks to put this interpretation into our mouths also. But His Majesty's late Government, who sanctioned this legislation, and the present Government, and the Government of India, and the Government of Bengal, have constantly and justly repudiated any such intention and any such practice. The repression which the Bengal Act contemplated is the repression of crime, and no one who is not a criminal is entitled to express a grievance against that legislation. I invite Mr. Das—and I have not used in the course of this debate a harsh word about him—to take a further step. He has publicly dissociated himself from "political assassination and violence in any shape or form." I make allowance for the difficulties of his position, but I suggest that a conscientious citizen cannot quite stop even there. I ask him to go forward and co-operate with the Government in repressing the violence which he deprecates. If he will do that he will find that the way is open and easy for that which we all of us desire—co-operation between the British Government and Indian political Parties with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible government in British India as an integral part of the Empire upon the understanding of a real and honest partnership. That road still remains open to be trodden by the population of India, but never will the goal be reached upon roads of violence attended by desperate crimes.My Lords, I am very glad to have been the occasion of eliciting from the noble Earl both the reply to my Question and also the concluding part of the observations that he has addressed to you. With regard to the substance of his reply to my Question, I should like to say this: He referred to my having criticised the restriction of the jurisdiction of these cases to Sessions Judges, for which I myself was, as he says, re sponsible. I simply pointed out that Sessions Judges do not always enjoy in India, or even here, so much confidence as members of the High Court, and that consequently it was the more necessary that we should have, and that India should have, an assurance from so high an authority as the noble and learned Earl that he personally, following the personal examination of that high judicial authority, Lord Reading, had examined these cases and was satisfied that all of them—and I take his assurance as a personal assurance—strictly came within the intentions of the Ordinance as being cases where a criminal intention had been proved. That, is what I wanted to elicit. I am only rather sorry that I cannot, I suppose, with any success press him for facts. I would have liked some definite statement as regards the precise character of the offences that had been gone into and had, in the opinion of the Government, been proved against those arrested. I do not know whether he can give any indication—
The noble Lord will realise that this is too important a question to answer on the spur of the moment. If he will write to me I will consider it.
I am much obliged to the noble Earl, and beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Management Op Public-Houses
had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will have an inquiry on the different systems of disinterested management of licensed houses, and in particular on the licensing system in Carlisle, as was agreed to by His Majesty's Government last July and accepted by this House without a Division; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will do no more than ask the Question which stands in my name. I had not in any case, apart from the lateness of the hour, intended to raise a debate, but I added a Motion for Papers because last July, when I asked a Question of similar purport, it led to a rather prolonged debate, and in case such an eventuality occurred again I wished to give myself a right of reply. As circumstances are, I will ask my Question without moving for Papers.
My Lords, my noble friend is, I think, quite right in saying that it is not necessary to trouble your Lordships at great length upon this matter, which was very fully discussed last year. He will not be surprised to learn that His Majesty's Government are prepared to grant this Inquiry. I had almost hoped that I might be ready to submit to your Lordships this evening the terms of reference which they were prepared to accept. This is not yet quite possible, but I should like to say that it will be appropriate to limit the Inquiry to the specific matters which my noble friend mentions. He will remember that in the debate last year a view was held in certain quarters of your Lordships' House that the Inquiry might be enlarged, but I think the general feeling of the House was expressed by those of us who were then sitting upon that Bench and resisted anything like an extension of the Inquiry on every ground, and notably that it would lead to quite unnecessary controversy and that if you burdened the Inquiry with a very large reference, the result would be to suffocate it. Consequently I desire to say, in order to prevent any misunderstanding, that when your Lordships see the terms of reference you will recognise that we have practically limited them to the actual matters which my noble friend mentions in his Question. With that very small explanation, I merely have to say that the answer to my noble friend's Question is in the affirmative.
My Lords, last summer, when this matter became practical, the noble Marquess and I were at one upon the desirability of this Inquiry, and I think we had some communications about its wording. There is only one point I wish to make with regard to his remarks. I quite agree with him that to have this Inquiry in a form which would lead it to run into everything all over the field would be disastrous. It will die away if you give it too much body. But on the other hand, it may he that disinterested management, as you have it, for instance, in Carlisle, might be too narrow a subject if you kept to it altogether. You might want to know about other forms of disinterested management and whether there were certain minor improvements which you could add to it. Accordingly, I would express the hope that when the noble Marquess proposes his terms of reference they will be drawn in such a way as not to tie the Committee too tightly, but will leave them free to consider these improvements without going into the whole subject-matter of the field.
My Lords, I think that it would be very desirable that the Inquiry should be as limited as possible. As regards disinterested management in Scandinavia, and elsewhere, we have abundant material already upon which to form a judgment. I should hope that the Inquiry would not be specially directed to the Carlisle area, because there is an excrescence there on Government control in the shape of the manufacture of liquor, which I think it will be well that the Government should avoid doing. In Scotland you have two areas where the manufacture of liquor is not a part of the undertaking, and where you find, as in Carlisle, an example of disinterested management as compared with management for private gain.
There has been some movement towards bringing pressure upon the Government to dispose of the Carlisle area, and probably other areas under their control, and to dispose of them to the trade. That, I think, would be undesirable, because these three areas afford most valuable object lessons, and it is in order to point the results of these three interesting experiments that it is so desirable to have an Inquiry. I am very glad indeed that the Inquiry is to be undertaken, because it would be a great misfortune if these three areas disappeared without an inquiry into the results. I think that these three areas will afford a very substantial field for inquiry, and that it would be quite easy to compare the results obtained Tinder Government control with the results under the ordinary system of retailing liquor for private gain in the surrounding district.I am glad to hear the reply of the noble Marquess. I am, however, not quite sure, with reference to Carlisle, whether the noble Viscount wished to have excluded the Government supply of liquor.
No, I was only pointing out that in the Carlisle area the question of Government control was complicated by the manufacture of liquor, which I think most of us regard as an unnecessary excrescence.
I am glad to hear the explanation of the noble Viscount.
Standing Joint Committee On Indian Affairs
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, the Earl of Birkenhead, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Paper in his name. There is only one correction, which I would like to point out. The name of Lord Newton appears among the names to be elected on the Committee. That is a mistake, and the name of Lord Meston should be included instead.
Moved, That the following Lords be appointed to serve on the Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs, and that the Committee have power to agree with the Commons upon the appointment of a Chairman:—
- Earl of Midleton.
- Viscount Chelmsford.
- Viscount Willingdon.
- Lord Harris.
- Lord Ampthill.
- Lord Islington.
- Lord Hardinge of Penshurst.
- Lord Southborough.
- Lord Clwyd.
- Lord Meston.
- Lord Olivier.
—( The Earl of Birkenhead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to appoint eleven members of that House to be joined with the said Committee.
Valuation (Metropolis) Amendment Bill
Brought from the Commons; read 1a ; and to be printed.
Northern Ireland Land Bill
Brought from the Commons; read 1a ; and to be printed.
Business Of The House
May I ask when it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the two Bills which have just been brought from the Commons and read a first time?
Not until after Easter.
House adjourned at a quarter after seven o'clock.
From Minutes Of March 31
London And North Eastern Railway (Nottingham And Retford Railway) Bill Hl
London, Midland And Scottish Railway Bill Hl
Leave given to the Select Committee not to sit again till Friday next, for the convenience of parties.
Ecclesiastical Committee
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that, by virtue of the powers invested in him by Section two of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, he had nominated the following fifteen members of the House to be members of the Ecclesiastical Committee established under that Act, and to serve for the duration of the present Parliament:
- The Marquess of Bath.
- The Earl of Midleton.
- The Viscount Falmouth.
- The Lord St. John of Bletso.
- The Lord O'Hagan.
- The Lord Sudley (E. Arran).
- The Lord Gorell.
- The Lord Charnwood.
- The Lord Wren bury.
- The Lord Muir Mackenzie.
- The Lord Stuart of Wortley.
- The Lord Gainford.
- The Lord Phillimore.
- The Lord Ernie
- The Lord Banbury of Southam.
Mid-Glamorgan Water Board Bill Hl
PONTYPRIDD AND RHONDDA JOINT
WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL
BILL. [H.L.]
MANSFIELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select
Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; namely:—
- M. Bristol (Chairman);
- L. Wharton,
- L. Redesdale,
- L. St. Audries,
- L. Glenarthur,
agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Wednesday, May 13 next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
West Cheshire Water Board.
Also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for Additional Provision in the following Bill:
Mid-Glamorgan Water Board. [H.L.]
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Westminster City Council (General Powers) Bill
Supplemental Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Law Agents (Scotland) Bill Hl
To be read 2a on Thursday next.
Dundee Harbour And Tay Ferries Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read 1a ; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a ( Lord Balfour of Burleigh), and reported from the Committee.
Leicester Corporation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read 1a ; and referred to the Examiners.