Lords Sitting of 30 May 1911

CHARLES SHEILS CHARITY BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
RHYMNEY VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee that it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (DURHAM, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
MARPLE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL GAS BILL.
WIDNES AND RUNCORN BRIDGE (TRANSFER) BILL.
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND DERBYSHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

SLIGO CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, without amendment.
WESTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) SEWERAGE BOARD BILL.
Read 3a; and passed.
RHÔS-ON-SEA PIER BILL. CLYDE NAVIGATION BILL. CHESTERFIELD GAS AND WATER BOARD BILL.
Read 3a; with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL .METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL. WOKING URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (BASINGSTOKE CANAL) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
ELY RURAL DISTRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY BILL. BLACKBURN CORPORATION WATER BILL. METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
The order made on the 11th instant appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bill, discharged.

MACCLESFIELD AND DISTRICT RAILLESS TRACTION AND ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.] LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 11) BILL.
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; (viz.),

E. Scarbrough,

E. Lytton (Chairman),

E. Ancaster,

L. Vaux of Harrowden,

L. Monckton (V. Galway);

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 27th of June 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.

RAILWAY TRAFFIC CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill for the better regulation of Railway Traffic and for consolidating in one Act the provisions of various Acts relating thereto—Was presented by the Lord Barnard; read 1a; and to be printed. (No.92.)

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Second Report of the Select Committee to be printed, and to be considered on Thursday next. (No. 93.)
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]

NATIONAL GALLERY AND ST. JAMES'S PARK BILL. [H.L.]
PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a; (according to order).

SALES FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, this Bill which I now ask your Lordships to read a second time is for the purpose of amending the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act of 1906. It is brought in under its present name because it includes matter which has not been included before and could not properly be included under the older name. The Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act of 1906 was an amendment of the original Act of 1893, and it was the result of an inquiry by a Departmental Committee which sat for some time upon the subject. That Act has, I think, on the whole served a very useful purpose. It has checked, at all events, some of the bad practices which prevailed at that time, and has had the very important effect of making farmers generally more accustomed to the necessity and the real advantage of having their material analysed. But while this Act has been of value, it has not, I think, carried out all we hoped or expected it would do, and it has not been so fully taken advantage of as it ought to have been, partly through defects in the drafting of the Act itself. The result of our five years' experience of the Act shows that there still remain several loopholes for fraud which we hoped had been closed. We find also that it has not checked all of those practices not in themselves fraudulent and yet which are very detrimental to the interests of farmers and which do cause them enormous loss.
972
This Bill has been drawn up by the Central Chamber of Agriculture, a body thoroughly representative of agricultural opinion in the country. It has affiliated chambers in every county, and the large majority of them have been pressing us for some time to take action in the matter. The Bill has been before the council now for close upon two years, and has been reported upon by a committee of the council; and in July of last year the final report of that committee was accepted unanimously by the council itself. The Bill is drawn, as we intended it to be drawn, in the interests of the farmers. At the same time it is in no way a declaration of war against the trader, because I certainly acknowledge that as regards the great number of people who trade in the articles to which this Bill applies their method of trading is above suspicion. We expect to get from them fair and honest trading, and with regard to the majority of them we get it. At the same time the Bill is aimed at the suppression of certain practices which must be stopped if agriculturists are to get the full value of what modern science can do for them in connection with these artificial manures and feeding stuffs. It is aimed more particularly at those men who do not carry out their trade in the best possible way, but who put stuff on the market which is frequently, I am afraid, not worth its carriage from the station to the farm, and who advertise with very high-sounding names many articles totally unfitted for the purposes for which they are intended—mixtures and compounds which may actually comply with the letter of the Act but offend very greatly indeed against its actual spirit.
The provisions of the Bill are very clearly explained in the Memorandum on the front page, which goes very closely into the Amendments and additions which we propose. Some of these Amendments are of a very technical character, and I do not want to trouble your Lordships with them more than I can help, but I shall probably have to say a word or two upon them. In the first place, I should like to speak of the probably more general Amendments. In the first place, under the Act of 1906 the Board of Agriculture has a veto upon all prosecutions. Under the former Act of 1893 individuals, farmers' societies, and others could not institute a prosecution under the Act except with the consent of the Board of Agriculture, but county

973
councils and borough councils had freedom to take the initiative in the matter. The Act of 1906 did away with that freedom, and at the present moment they cannot institute a prosecution unless they first obtain the consent of the Board of Agriculture. There is a very strong feeling indeed among county councils that that power to prosecute should be restored to them. I believe that almost every county council would agree to that. There are members of the County Councils Association in your Lordships' House who, I hope, will be prepared to speak upon the advantage of this power being given back to them, and I believe it is the perfectly unanimous opinion of the agricultural world generally that the power should be restored. That view is probably largely based upon certain cases where the Board of Agriculture have refused permission to prosecute but where there has been a strong expression of opinion that prosecution ought to be allowed.
I do not wish to quote any cases of that kind. The President of the Board has probably been sufficiently worried about them already. But the chief reason I do not quote them is this, that although I believe they would constitute substantial ground for making the request that I am now making, I much prefer to base my argument for the power to prosecute being returned to county councils on the broader ground that those bodies are the right bodies to have full control over the Act. County councils and borough councils have full charge at present of time administration of the Act except in this one particular. They have to bear the whole expenses of administration, and, in the event of a prosecution undertaken by them being unsuccessful, they have to pay the full costs of that prosecution. In addition, the county council is bound to appoint an official agricultural analyst and official sampler. The appointment of those officials has to receive the approval of the Board of Agriculture, and so it may be taken as tolerably certain that the men appointed are good men. Furthermore, many county councils keep up very well-equipped laboratories, and have the whole responsibility for carrying out the measure in the best way they can. They, of course, would never attempt a prosecution except on the advice of their analyst. Their own analyst is a man of responsibility and reputation, and I do not think it is in the
974
least likely that he would ever recommend a prosecution if there was much risk in his own mind of the analysis which he had made being upset or if there was any chance of the prosecution being unsuccessful; and bearing in mind that both the county council and the analyst have a reputation for fairness to keep up, it is exceedingly unlikely that they would consent to frivolous prosecutions being undertaken.
I do not know whether the Board of Agriculture desire to keep this power in their own hands. I expect at times they find it a somewhat inconvenient power. For when they feel bound for their own reasons to take a different view from that taken by the county councils and refuse an application to prosecute, they place themselves in antagonism with a very large body of agriculturists. I think county councils are for many reasons in a much better position to judge of the fairness of a prosecution than the Board of Agriculture. It can only be in the interests of the traders that this power should remain with the Board. Although I am very willing that the interests of traders should be safeguarded in every possible way, I think this is an unnecessary safeguard, both for the reasons I have stated and also because under the Act there is a chief official analyst set up by the Board of Agriculture and power is given to the trader or to any one connected with the prosecution to submit a sample of the disputed article to that official analyst; and I think it is quite certain that if he disagrees with the analysis of the analyst to the county council there will be very little chance of a prosecution being undertaken, or if undertaken, of being successful. I hope, my Lords, you will think those are sufficient reasons why you should consider this point.
There is one other Amendment of a general character. Formerly no prosecution could be undertaken unless time sample of which the analysis is disputed was taken within ten days of its delivery. We want to extend that ten days to twenty-eight days. I do not think there has been anything in this Act which has militated more against its being taken full advantage of than this ten days' limit. The regulations for sampling are laid down in most concise and clear language. They are complicated, because they are in themselves so stringent. They are in many cases almost too complicated

975
for the farmers to work, but I am not suggesting that they should be altered. They are laid down purposely stringent for the protection of the trader, but I think it is obvious that sufficient time should be given to the agriculturist to work them out. The limit of ten days is quite insufficient. If a man decides at the moment he orders his goods that he will have them sampled I have no doubt he could do it in ten days, but we do not carry on our trade in that way. We do not carry it on under a constant suspicion that we are being done by these traders, and if we delay for a few days while we are finding out some reason to believe that the manure or feeding stuff is not what it is intended to be, then we are prevented from prosecuting by the operation of this ten days' limit. It very often happens that a farmer who has some doubt of the material which is delivered to him will get a partial analysis taken privately, and it is when his doubt has been confirmed by some other private analyst that he wants to take proceedings against the trader, but the limit of ten days precludes this being done. I believe that twenty-eight days is the least time in which the farmer would be able to do it. I am very anxious that we should have an extension, as I am quite certain that until the period is extended we shall not get the Act taken advantage of in the way it ought to be.
There is an important addition to this Bill in this direction, that agricultural seeds are brought within its scope for the first time. Clause 3 gives power to samplers to take samples of seed. Clause 5 gives power to appoint an agricultural seed tester, and Clause 6 deals with the power of the purchaser to send his seed to the agricultural tester to be tested. Seeds have not been dealt with in England since the year 1869, when an Act was passed preventing under a very heavy penalty the killing or dyeing of seeds. An Act was passed to protect the Irish farmer the year before last, and it is on those lines, with one important exception, that we are proposing to deal. I believe it is very important indeed that we should get control over the seeds sown. There is a very much greater knowledge of agricultural seeds now than there used to be. Farmers are beginning to realise the actual place in every mixture of the different varieties, and are beginning to realise, too, the importance of getting exactly the right seed
976
for particular parts of their soil. But in spite of the efforts of a large number of our best seedsmen there is still a great deal of bad seed on the market, seed which comes of a bad stock, seed which has disease in it, seed which is old, and seed which has a great variety of adulterants.
Under the Irish Act seeds might be tested for purity and for germination. We translated those words into this Bill as I introduced it into your Lordships' House last year, but the Bill in that shape proceeded no further, and having introduced those words into the Bill we found that it raised a storm of indignation. We were accused of setting up a standard of germination. I do not think the Bill did set up a standard of germination, but, if it did, it was a wrong thing to do in this country. None of us wanted a standard for many reasons. One reason is that germination must vary from year to year and be dependent entirely on the climatic conditions and the time in which the seeds were harvested. But more important still, the germination of foreign seed is almost always higher than English seed. We get many samples of clover grown in France which will germinate regularly at 95 per cent., whilst a good sample of English clover would not germinate at more than 85 per cent., but we get a hardier crop off the English seed than we do off foreign seed.
Under Clause 1 and partially under Clauses 2 and 4 an invoice has to be given with every article showing the percentages of the ingredients which the article contains. Under Clause 4 the invoices are taken to be an absolute guarantee of the facts stated. Under the old Act they were taken as a guarantee only within certain limits of error. Those limits were fixed by regulation of the Board of Agriculture, and, generally speaking, the limits were placed at something like one-tenth. It works in this way, that supposing a man sells you a feeding cake guaranteed to contain, say, 9 per cent. of oil and 20 per cent. of albuminoids, he is entitled to supply you with a cake containing a little over 8 per cent. of oil and 18 per cent. of albuminoids. He is protected because the analysis would not deviate more than the limit laid down by the Board of Agriculture. The farmer has to accept the loss of those very valuable units of feeding stuff and has no redress. We say he ought to have redress. He buys

977
on the units which are guaranteed to him. He knows quite well the market price at the moment of those units, and he pays for the article at that price, and what he pays for he is entitled to have delivered to him. The traders object to this limit being taken away mainly on the ground that they analyse their manures and feeding stuffs in large bulk, and that owing to errors, mistakes in mixing which they cannot always avoid, the actual consignment sent out will differ in some degree from the analysis. We admit that to a certain extent. We know quite well that mixing is not an exact science, and that there may be occasional small errors. Consequently we propose that, while the limits of error shall be done away with in ordinary cases, they shall remain in cases of prosecution. We think it quite fair that a man should not be prosecuted merely because he has made a mistake which he cannot avoid. Therefore when a prosecution is undertaken a man will be able to rely upon the limits of error, but for ordinary cases his civil liability will remain, and he will be bound to supply all he has contracted for or give compensation. Many firms give compensation now. We want under this Bill to make that compensation compulsory.
In paragraph (b) of Clause 1 we enlarge the number of constituents which we require to have guaranteed. This is of very considerable importance to us. In more scientific stock-breeding we feed our stock on what is called the albuminoid ratio. For effective and successful stock-breeding that is, I believe, almost necessary; but to do so we must have a statement of the amount of carbohydrates. There is another reason. Formerly certain feeding cakes used to be sent to us practically without any of these carbohydrates. Now a very large amount is added, and I think it is reasonable that we should ask that particulars should be given to us. No doubt the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture will recollect that this matter was brought up and discussed before the Departmental Committee which sat upon this subject five or six years ago, and they decided that while they could not compel manufacturers to give these carbohydrates yet traders should be encouraged to do so. We want in this case to make it necessary that the carbohydrates should be given. In paragraph (c) we provide that, in regard to any article whose value depends entirely or mainly upon the presence of one particular
978
constituent, the invoice shall state what is the percentage of such constituent contained in the article. I had sent me recently from a county analyst the analysis of the last six samples which he had analysed of ground lime. The lime in them varied from 45 per cent. to 92 per cent.—an enormous variation. The purchaser of the material was probably told in the analysis that it contained a certain amount of potash, ammonia, or whatever it might be, but he was not told how much lime it contained. But what he wanted to buy was lime. Consequently if the amount of lime could be shown, as it would be under this Bill, it would be a very good guide as to the price the purchaser should pay for it.
We see the same constantly in regard to feeding stuffs. I resisted the temptation just now of quoting instances to the President of the Board of Agriculture of cases in which his Board had refused permission to prosecute, and I only quote this now as an illustration. The noble Earl will recollect a certain case of a cattle food compound which was found, on analysis, to contain over 40 per cent. of sawdust. The Board of Agriculture, I think, rather like sawdust as a feeding stuff. At any rate they would not allow us to prosecute. If this clause which I am recommending to your Lordships had been in the former Act the analysis would have shown the purchaser in this case how much sugar was contained amongst that sawdust. All the analysis did show was that there was a certain amount of oil and albuminoids; but the only thing the purchaser wanted to buy was sugar, and we think it is important that the provision in this clause should be adopted. I have felt it necessary to make this somewhat long statement in moving the Second Reading of the Bill in order to show that there is good reason for amending the former Act, and that as far as we are able to do we have attempted to make no more than the necessary amendments. I hope your Lordships will be good enough to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Clinton.)
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I wish to say, on behalf of the County Councils Association, that this Bill has been before them and that on the main lines they entirely support it. It is a Bill

979
full of details, and for that reason it will require careful consideration in Committee. There is one point particularly to which I wish to allude, and that is the necessity of obtaining the consent of the Board of Agriculture to prosecutions. This particular consent of the Board has been found not to meet with entire favour on the part of county councils, and I think the Bill deals with this question very fairly and well. County councils have no objection to the action of the Board of Agriculture in strengthening the hands of county councils and in seeing that the analysts they appoint are efficient and capable of doing their work; but they do think that the restriction regarding prosecutions put upon them by a superior body is one which, to say the least, is misunderstood in the rural districts in this country.
Clause 9 brings forward another question which bears on the subject. It gives power to county councils and borough councils to publish the results of the analyses they have made, and this brings up a point which I think is very much needed. Whereas local authorities are restricted in bringing the law to bear upon manufacturers of feeding stuffs and manures, there is no power to control the analyses and the advertisements which are put forward by these traders. I think this is a point of very great importance. There was the case, alluded to by the noble Lord, where the analysis showed the presence of 40 per cent. of sawdust. In that particular case the manufacturer gave the amount of carbohydrates that he said were capable of assimilation. Had he been required to use the words "digestible carbohydrates" there would have been no doubt that his analysis would have been wrong. Very probably the material that was used in this compound was quite capable of being assimilated by the animal eating it, but a great portion of it was of no possible use as a feeding stuff. The manufacturer has this advantage, that he has nobody to say what form his analysis, his description of the stuff, shall take. On the other hand, the county councils and borough councils who are interested in the matter are unable to publish the analyses which they have made and which could be set alongside the advertisements so as to warn the buyer as to the true substance of the material he was buying. I think, therefore, that this clause would be exceptionally useful to county councils.
980
Another point which was raised before the Departmental Committee was that the seller of seeds and the manufacturer of food stuffs and manures should be allowed to have the use of the analysis of the county council for the purpose of the sale of his article. It appears to me, if a county council is to have the power of publishing the result of its analysis of the food stuffs, that that should be as useful to the seller of a good article as it is a check upon the man who is selling inferior goods. I see no reason why the good seller should not make use of it. For these reasons I think that the Bill is one which may be of very great use to agriculture, and I hope that the House will consent to its being read a second time, and such faults in regard to detail as there may be in it can be considered in Committee.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): My Lords, I am certain that your Lordships will be disposed to agree that the noble Lord who introduced this Bill has explained this somewhat unintelligible Bill with a great deal of clearness. I was very glad to hear him say that the Bill was in no way a declaration of war against the traders. That, of course, we readily understand. He spoke of the veto of the Board of Agriculture as regards prosecutions, and told us that in his opinion, and in the opinion of the great agricultural corporation that he so worthily represents, county and borough councils are the proper persons to exercise this right independently of the Board of Agriculture, and I must say that he put his case very fairly indeed. I am bound to admit that feeling runs very high the other way, and for the protection of traders—and no one wants to interfere with the legitimate protection of traders—the opinion is held that there should be some sort of veto on account of the difference of opinion that exists among legal representatives as to whether a prosecution would or would not stand.
The noble Lord also spoke of the very technical question of the limits of error, and I hope he will not at this stage wish me to follow him into that. He also mentioned a subject which I hoped, in my heart of hearts, he would have left alone, and that was the well-known case in which a feeding stuff was found to have over 40 per cent. of sawdust, and in connection with which the county council not unnaturally wished to prosecute the trader. I was, however,

981
able to persuade myself, and what was much more important to persuade noble Lords opposite some years ago, that this sawdust was not sawdust at all, that it had been changed by some chemical process into what I think was called cellulose, and that it was an absorbent of sugar and therefore a very proper food for agriculturists to feed their cattle upon. I shall not again inflict my reasons upon the House, but I hope your Lordships will be satisfied with the undoubted proof that I was able to show that stuff containing 40 per cent. of sawdust may be a very admirable food for cattle.
The noble Lord's Bill proposes to amend the Act of 1906, which amended the Act of 1903. That Act put a stop to the mal-practices in trading by which farmers were robbed, and it induced farmers to realise the importance of getting information as to the nature of the fertilisers and feeding stuffs they used, and for this purpose to encourage analysis by competent public analysts; but I do not say in any way that the Act is perfect. Everything, of course, in life can be improved, and if it can be shown that further steps can be taken without injustice and dislocating legitimate trade, the Board which I have the honour to represent will, of course, be only too glad to avail themselves of them. This is a very technical Bill and is bound to be most hotly opposed by traders. I have no opposition on behalf of His Majesty's Government to offer to the Second Reading of this Bill, but I earnestly hope that the noble Lord will consent to its being sent to a Select Committee to have the rough edges rubbed off it. I think if that course were adopted some of the opposition at any rate of the traders would be removed, and the Bill would have a much better chance of passing through Parliament. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will consent to that proposal, which I make, not in any way to stop the passage of his Bill through this House, but only with the wish that our Act may be brought noire into harmony with agricultural interests.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I do not wish to speak at any length on this subject, which has been dealt with so fully by experts, but I would express the strong hope that the Minister for Agriculture will not put his foot down in Committee, if this Bill goes to a Select Committee, in resisting the efforts of county councils for the removal of the Board's veto. I must say I thought
982
the noble Earl was the last person I should find championing a veto. I do not think, however well placed the veto may be otherwise, that there is any reason why the great county councils, on whom the responsibility of assisting farmers within their county areas depends, should not have the right of decision in respect of these prosecutions. The analyst is appointed with the consent of the Board of Agriculture; and I maintain that the committees which direct and control agricultural matters in the county councils are just as fitted as the officials of the Board of Agriculture to decide tins-question. Yes, every bit as fitted, and perhaps in their own locality a little more fitted. The noble Earl says legal opinions differ. Of course they differ. The county councils may make mistakes. Let them make mistakes and learn. I have often seen your Lordships entranced by the witching eloquence of the noble Earl the Minister for Agriculture. I had not the good fortune to be present when he persuaded you all that sawdust was the most natural food for cattle. The Board of Agriculture found that out. If it is true, let the county councils find it out for themselves. But I do not think they will take it, not having the opportunity of hearing the noble Earl, on his authority. Therefore, I hope that when the. Bill goes to the Select Committee the Board will not assume a degree of infallibility in respect to this veto. Every one who takes part in county business knows how thoroughly competent are the men who deal with these matters on the county councils, and the less centralisation there is in these things the better.
LORD WENLOCK: My Lords, my noble friend who has just spoken appears to be in some doubt as to the action which will be taken in future by the President of the Board of Agriculture in regard to the provision in this Bill giving back to county and borough councils the power to initiate prosecutions. But from what the noble Earl the Minister for Agriculture said, I understood that he was going to offer no objection to this part of the Bill. [EARL CARRINGTON nodded assent.] I am glad the noble Earl consents. Therefore the fears mentioned by the noble Earl who has just spoken are not likely to be justified. I have had an opportunity in my county of seeing a great many of these questions brought before the various committees, and I can assure the noble Earl that it has been the greatest disappointment to them that

983
he has refused on several occasions to consent to prosecutions in what they believed to be extremely strong cases against fraudulent traders. The result has been that in many cases the committees who deal with these matters have felt that it is useless sending any more applications to the Board of Agriculture, and therefore a certain number of what we believe to be absolutely fraudulent transactions have taken place and the farmers have suffered. I would press on the noble Earl that his special business is to protect the interests of the farmers and agriculturists. I think the traders are strong enough to look after themselves.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I desire to thank the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture for the sympathy he has extended to this measure. I am anxious to get the Bill passed, but to do that I must have the assistance of His Majesty's Government. The noble Earl has suggested the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee. I should regret that, because it would mean delay; but if the noble Earl is prepared to set up a Committee with a full reference to it I would not put any objection in the way, because I am willing that the traders' objections should be perfectly fairly considered. We do not want to steal a march upon them. We believe that we have given them every protection in this Bill, and we have not asked for more than the agriculturists of this country are entitled to obtain. As I say, if your Lordships desire that the Bill should go to a Select Committee I would offer no objection.
On Question, Bill read 2a; and referred to a Select Committee.

REMOVAL OF A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE*LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention had been called to the removal of Mr. Caldicott from the Commission of the Peace for the City of Worcester, and to call attention to the circumstances attending his removal.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it my duty to ask your Lordships to listen for a few minutes to what I am afraid is a very ugly story. I do so with the most profound respect for the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and underlying a
984
great deal of what I am going to say is a desire to protect him and his successors from a recurrence of the kind of thing which I am going to relate to the House. Mr. Caldicott is a well-known and respected inhabitant of the city of Worcester. He is an old and tried public servant of that city, and has been on the town council for twenty-eight years and a magistrate of the city for nineteen years. At the beginning of this month—I think on May 2, as the letter is dated May 1—he received this letter from the Lord Chancellor's secretary—
"I am desired by the Lord Chancellor to inform you that his Lordship, acting on the advice of the Advisory Committee recently appointed to deal with the Commission of the Peace for Worcester City in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Selection of Justices, has given directions for the removal of your name from the Commission on the ground of non-attendance."
We know that from time to time Justices are removed from the Commission of the Peace on the ground of non-attendance. We also know that before this is done it is usual for the gentlemen whom it is proposed to remove to receive some intimation from the Lord Chancellor that their removal is about to be effected. In this case the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, following the usual precedent, caused to be written to Mr. Caldicott a letter advising him of his intention, but owing to some mistake that letter was never sent; it was not put into the post. But that is not the point on which I desire to lay particular stress.
We need not enter at any length into Mr. Caldicott's qualifications as a Justice of the Peace. It is quite true that he has not attended on the Bench very often, but this has been due to other work. I will ask your Lordships to listen to the defence which Mr. Caldicott makes for his non-attendance—
"My excuse for non-attendance is that I have been busily engaged on corporation work pretty well every day of my life … I had to neglect something or give up business altogether, and I thought the work I was engaged on was more important in the interests of the city than sitting on the Bench, which was never short of a magistrate during my time, and I have often provided a substitute when impossible to go."
If non-attendance was the only plea for the removal of Mr. Caldicott, it is quite clear that a great many other gentlemen, including the noble Earl who sits on the Front Government Bench, Lord Beauchamp, ought also to have been removed on the

985
ground of non-attendance. The noble Earl can contradict me if he is in a position to do so, but I am informed that, although he has been a magistrate of the city of Worcester for, I think, fourteen years, he has attended but a very few times, and has not sat on the Bench at all since 1906. I am not finding fault with him on that ground, but if non-attendance is to be the ground for removal then the noble Earl, equally with this unfortunate gentleman, is open to that charge.
Mr. Caldicott is a strong supporter of the Conservative Party, and my deliberate suggestion is, whether or not his removal was of an invidious character, that it at least has in the public eye that appearance to a considerable extent. So much so, that Mr. Caldicott's removal was very strongly resented by his fellow magistrates and by all his fellow-citizens. When they heard that he had been removed from the Bench public opinion would not stand it. Indignation meetings were held, and following upon that, though I do not say as a result, Mr. Caldicott's name was reinstated by the Lord Chancellor. The noble and learned Lord wrote to Mr. Caldicott reinstating him on the Bench, and I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to read the Lord Chancellor's letter, because the sequence of these letters is really important to an examination of the ease. The Lord Chancellor's secretary wrote on May 8—
"I am directed by the Lord Chancellor to acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 6. His Lordship has looked into the business and thinks there has been a misapprehension. It is a pity that you did not receive the letter which I wrote to you on April 10. … At the same time, the Lord Chancellor will replace your name on the roll. No one has ever made any suggestion against you personally, and it was only in the belief that you were unable to attend to Justices' business that your name was removed."
This letter, which the Lord Chancellor intimated could be made public by Mr. Caldicott, if he so desired, in order to show that no reflection had been intended, is only another instance of the invariable fairness and courtesy always extended by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to those with whom he comes in contact, though I do not think that in this matter he has received at all times the assistance he might have received from his political friends. The point I put is that if a few days after the removal of this gentleman it was necessary to reinstate him, then his removal
986
cannot have been altogether a just or proper proceeding.
But it is not so touch the fact of Mr. Caldicott's name being removed from the Bench that I desire to call attention to. What I want to direct public attention to is the manner in which his removal was effected. These Advisory Committees for the purpose of advising the Lord Chancellor with regard to the appointment of Justices are, I believe, appointed in the counties on the combined suggestion of himself and the Lord-Lieutenant of the county. I am not aware what the particular machinery is, but what the country wishes to see is that those who are responsible for recommendations of this kind shall not be grouped into bodies which have a distinctly political bias. The Advisory Committee in the city of Worcester is constituted as follows: First there is Lord Beauchamp, whose appointment to the committee it would be an impertinence in me to criticise except to say that he is, and quite rightly from Iris own point of view, the leading Radical in the place and chairman of the Radical Party there. The next name is that of Mr. Fairbairn. His appointment as a member of the Advisory Committee caused very serious thoughts. Mr. Fairbairn was at one time, and I believe is now—I stand open to contradiction if I am overstating the case—the paid agent of the Radical Party in Worcester, and he was at one time the Radical candidate for the city of Worcester. The third name is that of Mr. Evans, also a leading Radical of the city of Worcester. Then there is the Mayor, who is supposed to have, and I suppose has, officially no politics at all; and then there is a Mr. Allsopp, who was, I believe, at one time a Conservative candidate for Parliament, but who is now looked upon by his friends and acquaintances as something like a Socialist. But it does not matter very much what he is, because he never goes near the Advisory Committee at all. Noble Lords laugh, but this is no laughing matter. What I wish to place before you is that this Committee has a distinct political bias. But that, again, is not really the point.
Even if this Committee had been properly consulted with regard to the removal of Mr. Caldicott's name from the Bench, the removal would not have become a matter of notoriety; but I have material at my disposal to prove that two members of the Committee were not consulted at all with

987
regard to the removal, and this is the crux of the whole matter. Both of these gentlemen say that the first thing they heard of Mr. Caldicott's removal was when they saw the announcement in the public Press. Mr. Evans, one of the members of the Committee to whom I have referred, wrote to Mr. Caldicott on May 4—
"You are under a wrong impression in thinking that I have been in any way a party to the removal of your name from the list of magistrates. I, of course, saw the announcement in the newspapers, but until the receipt of your letter to-day I thought the removal of your name was made at your own request."
Here is another letter, a most remarkable one, from the Mayor of Worcester, who is a member of the Advisory Committee. He wrote to Mr. Caldicott as follows—
"The first intimation I had that your name had been removed from the Commission of the Peace was the announcement in the public Press. I have only been asked to attend one meeting of the Advisory Committee for this city, and at that meeting no recommendation was made that your name should be removed from the Commission. If such a proposal had been made I should have strenuously opposed it.—Yours faithfully, E. THOMAS, Mayor."
I think I have said enough to show the kind of thing which must have taken place. The impression which must be left on our minds, and on the minds of anybody who has followed the sequence of the story, is that Lord Beauchamp and Mr. Fairbairn were, by the process of elimination, the only two members of the committee who were privy to the recommendation that Mr. Caldicott should be removed from the Bench; and without wishing to overstate the matter—because you cannot get rid of the suggestion that a letter was sent by one or other of those gentlemen to the Lord Chancellor advising him to remove Mr. Caldicott's name—there must have been a letter from those two members of the Advisory Committee purporting to come from the Advisory Committee as a whole. It may be that I misstate the terms of that letter, but I cannot be very far out because we have the letter of the Lord Chancellor, dated May 1, in which he said that in removing Mr. Caldicott's name he was "acting on the advice of the Advisory Committee." As I ventured to remark just now, this constitutes a very unpleasant episode, and the best way, if the noble Earl opposite desires to clear it up, is for him to produce the letter which was written to the Lord Chancellor purporting to come from the Advisory Committee. I do beg that
988
in the public interest both Houses of Parliament and the public may have an opportunity of seeing this letter.
I have ventured to bring this matter forward, my Lords, because there has been a great deal of suspicion, and after what has happened to Mr. Caldicott a great deal of well-grounded suspicion, with regard to the manner in which the Lord Chancellor is being advised as to the creation and removal of magistrates; and I trust that Parliament at no distant date will see fit to go into the whole matter of these Advisory Committees in order that the Lord Chancellor and his successors may have protection in the future from what at least is a very irregular manner of conducting the public services of this country.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, I have not the smallest complaint to make of the noble Lord for bringing forward this or any other subject relating to the administration of my office. The suggestion is that there has been some political bias, and that an injustice has been perpetrated of which I must be apparently the innocent instrument. The facts are these. The names of two gentlemen were removed from the roll under a misapprehension. One was the gentleman referred to, Mr. Caldicott, and the other was a gentleman who I believe is a Liberal. I think I am right in saying that he is a Liberal. The noble Lord has only referred to the case of the gentleman who happens to be a Conservative. It was a misapprehension which would not have happened but for the miscarriage of a letter.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but my information, which he will have ample opportunity of testing, is that at the same time that Mr. Caldicott was removed three other gentlemen were also removed. One of them is an undischarged bankrupt, one has unfortunately lost his reason, and the third was removed entirely at his own request and on his own initiative.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That only shows the delicacy and difficulty of the duty which I have to discharge in regard to putting magistrates on and removing magistrates from the Bench. As I have said, two gentlemen were removed under a

989
misapprehension, one of whom is a Liberal and the other a Conservative. Both names were restored, and in the case of neither would there have been anything of the kind had it not been for the miscarriage of a letter, a thing that may happen in any department or in any business. The only ground of removal in the case of the two gentlemen I have referred to was the belief that they would not be able in future to discharge the duties of a Justice of the Peace. Immediately I ascertained that a mistake had been made I sent the same day to Worcester for the Commission roll, which was sent to me by return of post, and I instantly reinstated the names of these two gentlemen. I never heard anything about anxiety and unrest in the city of Worcester on the subject at the time. At least I do not think I did. I only learned that a mistake had been made, and it was instantly rectified. I did not know whether Mr. Caldicott was a Conservative or a Liberal, and I did not care. From the beginning to the end no one has ever suggested to me, either by letter or by word of mouth or otherwise, any single word against the character or standing of these two gentlemen, and the only ground considered was that to which I have referred. As soon as I knew what had happened I wrote a letter to the gentleman in question saying that he had been reinstated and that he might use the letter publicly, if he was so pleased, to show that no sort of reflection had been intended. If the noble Lord wishes to convey that members of the committee had done or said anything unfriendly or offensive to this gentleman, I can assure him that there is no foundation for it.
With regard to the composition of these committees, I would like to say that I have to appoint, on the recommendaton of the Royal Commission, committees in ninety-eight counties and 227 boroughs. In some counties more than one committee has to be appointed, and in London I expect there will be at least fifteen. I have to get the information from the best sources I can, and I believe the committees are so appointed as to give no partiality to any one person on account of his political opinions. Just consider the delicacy of the work that has to be done when not merely the names of persons who are taken off or put on the roll, but the names of the committees are to be brought forward in Parliament and canvassed. I do not know how it is possible to carry on a business of this kind
990
under a perpetual bombardment of criticism of that kind. In point of fact I believe that on the committees that have been appointed there is practically an equality. I get the best and most suitable men in the particular place. In this case there were three Liberals and two Conservatives. I ascertained that before I appointed them. Probably in the next borough there would be three Conservatives and two Liberals. But this is not a question of voting. Any committee-man who is dissatisfied with what proceeds can come to me, and if anything is wrong I will investigate the matter as I did in this case and set it right. I do not rely upon numerical relations at all, and it is not unfair that there should be three of one side and two of another.
As to the removal of names, I am sure the noble Lord has read the Report of the Royal Commission, or he may consult some of the Lords Lieutenant sitting around him and they will tell him that it is most undesirable that the Commission roll should be encumbered by a number of names of men who are absent or quite incapable of discharging the duty, or by gentlemen who regard the office as a decoration instead of as a duty. I will leave any man who knows the subject to judge. I am sorry to say that no one can know this subject so well as I do, unless it be my predecessor, who has to perform the most weary and trying duty in the face of constantly conflicting opinion of supplying the Benches of England, Scotland, and Wales with an adequate number of magistrates. Anybody who knows the difficulties will know that the only method of preventing ultimate corruption is by obtaining efficient local advice which can be given by impartial local committees. I cannot impart to any human being the experience which has led me to that conclusion, but experience led to the same conclusion those who investigated the matter in the Royal Commission, consisting of sixteen men of great experience who were absolutely unanimous on this point.
I do not in the least regret that the noble Lord has brought this subject forward, and I thank him for the kindly expressions which he used towards myself. But let me remind him that there are enemies of the system of Advisory Committees—I am not speaking of the House of Commons or of Members of Parliament, for I should never think of being guilty of such a discourtesy—but all

991
over the country there are many persons who are anxious to see this system fail, because hitherto the appointment of magistrates in some parts of the country has been treated as a matter of political reward and has been thought to be used by both sides in political life as an instrument and weapon in political controversy. It is that which I have always condemned and sought to avert and always will seek to avert as long as I retain my present position. I ask the noble Lord, who I am sure will sympathise with my view, to consider that the kind of criticism which he has brought forward about an accidental misapprehension relating to a single man is the very sort of weapon which will be made use of outside Parliament by those who are hostile to the reform which has been undertaken in the interests of purity in the administration of justice.
If I am alone with a single secretary living in London, with no possible knowledge of the different parts of the country, and if I am deprived of the information and advice, given always in confidence—a confidence which I would never betray under any circumstances—which I am able to obtain from local committees, what chance have I of preventing the appointment of magistrates from degenerating into a mere question of reward for and incentive to political services? I hope I have answered the observations that were made by the noble Lord, and I trust that he will feel that it is desirable in the public interest that these committees should prosper and should be encouraged. I believe that all dissatisfaction will, in the course of a short time or within two or three years, disappear if only I have access to impartial, fair, honest local opinion, not only from Lords Lieutenant, who have always given me their honest opinion and the best advice in their power, but from those who move about among the people in the neighbourhoods concerned and are able to interpret their feelings and desires.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I rise mainly for the purpose of assuring your Lordships that nothing is further from the thoughts of those who sit in this part of the House, and I am sure nothing is further from the thoughts of my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke, than to make any complaint of the conduct of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, either in regard to this particular
992
incident or in regard to the manner in which he has dealt with the whole of this important question of the selection of Justices. That duty is, as he truly said a moment ago, a most delicate and difficult duty, and I am sure that every one of us must feel that in his efforts to discharge that duty dispassionately he deserves the full sympathy of every member of the House. But, my Lords, in this particular case it is evident from what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord that a misapprehension arose, and as soon as that misapprehension was discovered the noble and learned Lord at once corrected it, and, judging from the terms of the letter which was read to the House by my noble friend, corrected it in a very full and handsome manner.
But while I say that we have no complaint whatever to make of the noble and learned Lord, I cannot help saying that I think the noble and learned Lord has some complaint to make of the manner in which he has been served in connection with this transaction. It is to be remembered that in the first letter read to the House by my noble friend, the secretary to the Lord Chancellor states distinctly that the removal of Mr. Caldicott from the Bench had been "recommended by the Advisory Committee." We have yet to learn by whom and in what form that recommendation reached the noble and learned Lord. He will, I am sure, not be surprised that we should watch the operation of this new system of Advisory Committees not only with interest but with some slight measure of anxiety. We are all anxious that this experiment should succeed, and we shall none of us spare any pains in order to make it succeed. We recognise that it is desirable that these committees should, so far as may be, be constituted upon the most impartial basis possible. I say so far as may be, because we most of us realise that it is difficult in a case of this kind to balance with mathematical precision the different elements of which an Advisory Committee may be composed. But it does seem to me essential, if the new system is to work that each member of these Advisory Committees should have a full and sufficient opportunity of making his views known either in regard to the appointment of a magistrate or in regard to the removal of a magistrate; and I must say that my noble friend seemed to me to establish clearly that in this particular instance the members of the Advisory Committee did not have the full and

993
sufficient opportunity to which they were entitled. He quoted to the House the names of several members of the Committee who distinctly state that they took no part whatever in the recommendation with regard to Mr. Caldicott. That really is, to my mind, the only weak point in the case. There was what purported to be a communication from the Advisory Committee to the noble and learned Lord, and we should like very much to know, if we can be told, what form that communication took. When I say this I trust I shall not be understood as suggesting that the procedure of these committees should be of too rigid or formal a character. In my view their proceedings should, on the contrary, be informal, confidential, and as little as possible impeded by anything in the nature of red tape. But I do hold very strongly that the consultation of the Committees should be an effectual consultation, and, as I said a moment ago, there does seem some reason for supposing that in this particular instance the consultation was not of the full and complete character to which members of the Committee, were entitled.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, I am sure the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will have heard with very much satisfaction the expression of the noble Marquess who has just sat down, that these Advisory Committees should in future meet with success, but I share the fear of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that if discussions of this kind become frequent the success of these commitees will be very gravely imperilled. In the first place, let me touch on one of the points raised by the noble Lord—the point about the composition of the committee of which I have the honour to be chairman. He told your Lordships, quite correctly, that on that committtee sat the last Radical candidate for the representation of the city of Worcester. He is universally respected, and I think the oldest magistrate representing that interest in politics. On the other side there was the present Mayor, who is a Conservative and always has been a Conservative. Then there is Mr. Percy Allsopp. It is with some difficulty that one speaks of the personalities of people and it is not a pleasant thing to do, but I think your Lordships will agree that the Allsopps are generally members of the Tory Party and I have never had any reason to suppose that this gentleman is
994
any exception. I noticed that on Saturday last his nephew, Lord Hindlip, speaking in Worcester, expressed the opinion that the Liberal Party were pests who ought to be swept altogether from this country. I can quite understand that he would say that of his political opponents, but I cannot imagine that he would say it of so near a relative as his uncle, and I confess I feel convinced that Mr. Percy Allsopp is a member of the Conservative Party.
As to the proceedings of the Advisory Committee, here I confess I find myself in a difficulty created by the noble Marquess opposite, who expressed the opinion that the proceedings of the committees should be of a confidential nature. Yet I am asked for an explanation as to the proceedings in this case. Let me suggest to the noble Marquess that it is not easy to combine proceedings of that nature with a full explanation. On the present occasion I am glad that I can, without violating what took place at the meeting of the committee, say sufficient to make the position clear. An Advisory Committee never recommend the removal of a magistrate, and are not asked in any circumstances to do so. What they are asked to do is to inform the Lord Chancellor whether any Justice ought to be requested to resign. The noble and learned Lord has explained the unfortunate mistake that occurred in this case. The letters sent to the two gentlemen in question never reached them, and I think it says something at any rate for the impartiality of the committee that on this occasion they should have treated a Liberal and a Conservative in exactly the same way. The mistake arose, as I have said, through a letter sent to these gentlemen never reaching them, and as soon as the mistake was brought to his notice the noble and learned Lord restored the two names to the Commission roll. That seems to me to have been a very generous and fair step, and one for which the noble and learned Lord deserves every credit. In these circumstances noble Lords opposite will not be surprised if I say that I do not think the question would have been raised if it had not happened that the friend of the noble Lord who introduced it was a member of his own Party.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: I have never seen the gentleman.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I hope the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will not understand, though we on this side of the House have never hitherto

995
raised this whole question of the appointment of magistrates, that we have not felt very strongly about it. The reason we have not raised it is that we did not think we should be of any assistance to him if we did. For the same reason we have made no comment upon what has been said by certain gentlemen elsewhere, and for the same reason I make no comment to-night. But I am glad of this opportunity of giving an illustration of how utterly different is the working of the system which the noble and learned Lord has inaugurated from what, so far as I can judge from their utterances in other places, certain gentlemen believe it to be. As far as I can understand, they think that the noble and learned Lord, the Lords Lieutenant, and the Advisory Committees are in a conspiracy to put as many Tories on the Bench as possible and to keep off as many Radicals as possible. I happen to be able to give an illustration, of no interest whatever except as an illustration, of how this system is really working. I wrote to my Lord Lieutenant at the end of last year asking him to put my son, who is now a member of the other House of Parliament, on the Commission of the Peace. The Lord Lieutenant replied that the Lord Chancellor had requested him to make no recommendations at all until the Advisory Committee had been appointed and was in working order, and then only to make such recommendations as the Advisory Committee would join with him in presenting to the Lord Chancellor. I need hardly tell your Lordships that I was wholly satisfied with that reply. My son has never yet been appointed. I make no kind of complaint of that, and I leave the matter with the utmost confidence in the hands of my Lord Lieutenant, the Advisory Committee, and the noble and learned Lord.

TRAWLING SECTION OF THE NAVAL RESERVE.
LORD HENEAGE*LORD HENEAGE rose to call attention to the new Naval Reserve scheme (Trawling Section), and to ask His Majesty's Government what steps have been taken by the Admiralty to enrol fishermen in the new Naval Reserve at the Humber ports, and whether it is true that their efforts have failed to obtain a sufficient number of men either at Grimsby or Hull.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put this Question on the Paper about a fortnight ago in consequence of a reply given
996
by the First Lord of the Admiralty to Lord Charles Beresford in another place which those of us connected with the fishing industry considered rather misleading and somewhat unfair to the fishermen of Grimsby, as it seemed to imply that they were wanting in loyalty and patriotism although it was no fault of their own that they had not come forward to join this new trawling section of the Naval Reserve. Mr. McKenna, in his reply, said that recruiting had only taken place for a short time and that there were other ports than Grimsby at which they could get fishermen. A fortnight has now intervened since I put the Question on the Paper, and in that time I have been sent a good deal of information from various parts of England. I find that in November last a circular which I hold in my hand was issued by the Board of Admiralty, or rather by the Board of Trade on behalf of the Board of Admiralty, containing the conditions of service for those who desired to enrol in the trawling section of the Royal Naval Reserve, and the pay and advantages. I also have here a letter which was issued early in the present year by the Superintendent of the Board of Trade at Grimsby, and which takes the character of what I suppose the Home Secretary would call a little "ginger." He wrote to ask the owners to put pressure on the men to join this Reserve, but, notwithstanding this, up to the beginning of May only eleven men had enrolled at Grimsby and none at Hull or any other of the English ports. I make an exception with regard to Aberdeen, because a good many have joined at Aberdeen, but the circumstances of trawling there are very different from what they are where men go into the North Sea for six weeks at a time. During the last fortnight six trawlers whose crews were to be the men the Admiralty are looking for have been at Grimsby, and during that time they have got some fifteen or sixteen more men and have been able to send two boats, the "Seamew" and the "Sea-flower," to sea, but with regard to the rest they were there without any crews at all up to the end of last week.
I ask, Whose fault is this? I am quite certain, after thirty years' experience of the fishermen of this country, that they are as loyal and patriotic as any other body of men, and that if their services are wanted and the conditions are fair they will come forward and enrol. Therefore I say it is

997
not the fault of the fishermen. If the Board of Admiralty had, instead of working through a sub-department of the Board of Trade, obtained the assistance of the Sea Fisheries Department and the associations in connection with it, I am quite certain that the whole thing would have gone smoothly and the right men would have been forthcoming. But they did not consult any one connected with the trade. They tried first of all to work it themselves through the Board of Trade and then through the masters. I should like to remind the representative of the Admiralty in this House that the people they call the masters are simply the directors of the various fishery companies at the different ports. At Grimsby there are only two private owners. The whole of the ships belong to companies, and the men who manage them are mere directors and have as little influence over the seamen as the directors of any large industrial company have over the men in their employ. I hope His Majesty's Government will not think that I am trying to run down this scheme. I am as anxious as anybody to help it forward, but I want the Admiralty to get the right men and the best men.
The right men to get are the skippers, who have all the power over the men and to whom they look for advice. Now it is a condition of this scheme that no skipper shall be enrolled who is over thirty-five years of age. All the best skippers, the men who go to the North Sea, to the Faroe Islands, and who went to the White Sea before it was closed, are over thirty-five years of age, and not being able to enrol themselves they discourage the second hands and the men who serve with them from enrolling either. You may say, Why don't the men act as they like? It is a very serious matter for the men to go against their skippers. The boats go out for six weeks at a time to fish, and if men remained at home in order to do eight days' training they would find at the end of the training that their places had been filled up, that they had annoyed their skippers and would not be taken on again by them. The result is you wilt not get the best men unless you first of all enrol the skippers. I am glad to see my noble friend Lord Nunburnholme in his place, because I am sure he will agree with me on this matter and will be able to speak with greater influence with the Government than I can. The Admiralty have twenty-
998
seven men at Grimsby, but they had eleven enrolled before May I. The rest have been enrolled during the last week, but they are the men who were left behind when all the fleets went out to the North Sea, and therefore they are not the best men.
There is another complaint. In the conditions of enrolment for recruits for the trawler section it is laid down by the Admiralty that when called out by Royal Proclamation for service they should not only be liable to serve on trawlers for which they enrolled, but be under obligation to serve also on such service as the Admiralty may direct. That is to say, because a man has patriotically enrolled to serve on board a trawler for the particular service for which he is to be trained, that on being called up by Royal Proclamation he is to be liable to be called upon to serve on a submarine, a torpedo boat, a merchant vessel, or anywhere else. These men say they are quite ready to enrol for the service for which they are asked to serve, but that they are not ready to enrol to be at the disposal of the Admiralty for any service upon which they choose to send them. Then I ant informed that the men of the Naval Reserve, of whom we have some 200 at Grimsby, will not volunteer for the trawler section because, if they do, they will be deprived of their right to a pension. I must say I do not quite understand that, but this information is sent to me as a definite condition which prevents them from joining. So far as I am concerned, my object is to give the Admiralty every assistance I can as one who has been for a long time connected with fishermen. I am certain that they will not get the best men unless they alter the conditions in some respect—they may get casuals or unemployed men, but they cannot get the best men. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, the criticisms which the noble Lord has made are, I think, entirely justifiable, but I would point out that the scheme under consideration only started at the beginning of the year and it is early days to criticise it adversely. It is hard to explain why this scheme has been such a success at Aberdeen, but according to the latest figures we have there already trained 116 men, and we have another forty ready

999
for training. The noble Lord is perfectly right in what he said as regards Grimsby and the Humber ports. Our scheme there has not been so successful as we desired it to be, and a few days ago we sent to Grimsby Captain Greatrex, who has undertaken the management of this particular scheme. He has sent a report which is before me now on the whole matter. He states that he has consulted with all the interests at Grimsby, and as far as he is able to ascertain they are, with one exception, all in favour of the scheme. He saw the secretaries of several of the skippers' associations, the enginemen's union, the deckhands' and trimmers' union, as well as several owners. The noble Lord seems to think that the great difficulty in getting these men is that we refuse to take skippers of an age about thirty-five. The period of service which we desire these men to serve is twenty years, and the view of the Admiralty was that after the age of fifty-five the services which these trawler skippers would be called upon to do would be of too arduous a nature. They thought that, if the age limit was raised to forty-five, by the time the man finished his service, which would be at the age of sixty-five, he would not be of very much value to the Admiralty. The noble Lord also touched on the question of long cruises. He said that at Grimsby the conditions were somewhat different from those at Aberdeen, and that at Grimsby the trawlers went out for six weeks or over, which is not the case at Aberdeen. I questioned Captain Greatrex on that point, and he tells me that the men who go on voyages of three, four, and six weeks are a very small proportion indeed, and that that fact would hardly affect the success of the scheme in any way. Another criticism raised by my noble friend was as to liability to serve in the Fleet in the case of the Naval Reserve being called up. We are perfectly willing to modify that liability, and we propose to delete the words "on such service as the Admiralty may direct." The paragraph would then read—
"All ranks and ratings will be liable to serve in steam-trawlers when the Naval Reserve are called out by Royal Proclamation."
That limits trawler skippers and trawler men to serve in trawlers and not in any other ships.
LORD HENEAGE: Unless they choose to volunteer?
THE EARL OF GRANARD: Yes. There are, I think, something like 160 available skippers between the ages of twenty-five and thirty-five at Grimsby. I can assure my noble friend that there is no suggestion of questioning in any way the loyalty of Grimsby. That was the last thing Mr. McKenna wished to convey in the answer he gave in the other House. The Admiralty are very anxious that this scheme should be a success, and are willing in every way to consider the views of persons interested in the trawling industry. At the same time the scheme is so much in its infancy that they are not desirous of changing the age limit at the moment, and I think my noble friend will agree that the scheme should be given a few months longer trial before any definite decision is come to with regard to further modifications in the regulations.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, the noble Earl stated, in his reply, that this scheme only started at the beginning of the year, but I hold in my hand Admiralty regulations regarding skippers, second hands, and enginemen dated October 10, so that the scheme has been for some time in operation, and I am very glad to hear that the Admiralty intend to go on with this scheme and are prepared to make considerable alterations in the regulations. Skippers are entered for a period of five years, and if suitable they may re-engage for another period of five years and so on until they have served for twenty years. This puts the limit of age at fifty-five for men entering at thirty-five. After twenty years' service a skipper is to receive a discharge gratuity of £60. The Admiralty might consider whether a skipper should not be allowed to enter at forty and do fifteen years' service, or at forty-five and do ten years' service, and then be given a proportionate gratuity on attaining the age of fifty-five. Skippers entering at twenty-five might be allowed to make six re-engagements for five years and to serve for thirty years instead of only twenty. Why should not fifty-five years remain the limit of age in all cases? A discharge gratuity of £50 is to be given to all second hands on completion of twenty years' service, but the men who enter at the age of twenty-six and are discharged on attaining the age of forty-five after completing nineteen years service will apparently get nothing at all. Surely the discharge gratuity ought to be made more

1001
proportionate to the number of years served. The Admiralty, too, might consider whether there should be hard-and-fast regulations for all ports or whether local circumstances should not be taken into consideration and different regulations be issued for different ports; also whether the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve could not assist in the work.
It would be a great misfortune if the attempts of the Admiralty to have the mine-sweeping round our coasts in war time carried out by trawlers manned by Reserve fishermen should end in failure. If this work is undertaken by local men it will set free for other service large numbers of seamen who would be more usefully employed on board our seagoing fleets. I may add that I do not think it necessary that the whole of the crews of the trawlers should be fishermen. I believe that the dangers of mine-sweeping in small vessels have been greatly exaggerated, especially when compared with the dangers incurred by large ships. Their midship section is much smaller, and besides at high water they will in many cases be able to go over mines without touching them. The rise and fall of tide during neap tides at the mouth of our harbours on our North Sea coasts is about ten feet, and generally more. Now if a mine is laid with a length of cable which will cause it to float ten feet below the waterline at high water, that mine would be visible at low water, and easily destroyed. At high water any trawler drawing less than ten feet would pass over it in safety, whereas a mine so placed might destroy a Dreadnought drawing thirty-one feet. Spring tides are, of course, higher, and the trawler would get the advantage of them. Then as mine-sweeping is carried out by means of a specially prepared hawser between two vessels, there is always a second vessel ready to pick up the crew of the damaged trawler. In my opinion fishermen would run more risk when going through the unwept entrances of their harbours for the purpose of fishing than in actual mine-sweeping. Besides, if an enemy is raiding the North Sea a good many fishermen will remain unemployed.
It appears that both skippers and second hands are afraid of losing their employment if they take intermittent service under the Admiralty. I can easily understand that owners of vessels object to having their crews broken up at intervals for training in
1002
mine-sweeping. But I have a suggestion to make with regard to that. All vessels engaged in trawling must lay up for repairs from time to time. Why should not the Admiralty regulations be so altered as to enable the skipper and the whole of his crew to take up their eight days' or their four days' training simultaneously at the time their vessel is undergoing repair? I think that with a little give and take on the part of the Admiralty and the owners an arrangement satisfactory to both parties might be arrived at. I would suggest that a conference should be arranged between the Admiralty representatives, the owners, and the skippers. I have made these remarks in the hope that the Admiralty will not be discouraged, but that they will continue their efforts to have all mine-sweeping done locally by Reserve men.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I would appeal to the Admiralty that they should raise the age in the case of skippers from thirty-five to forty or forty-five, which would enable them to get the best men. I can assure the noble Earl that he is mistaken in saying that the majority of the trawlers at Grimsby and the Humber ports go out only for three weeks. They generally go out for six weeks. The men at the Humber ports go out to Newfoundland and to the northern coast of Africa, and what they do not know about the depth of waters is not worth knowing. Many of the best skippers of these modern trawlers are forty years of age and upwards, and to make the scheme a success I think it would be worth while for the Admiralty to raise the age at any rate to forty. Another complaint is that the men are very badly paid while serving under the Admiralty as compared with what they earn whilst fishing. A good skipper can earn at the rate of £500 a year while fishing, and those are the men who would be most useful to enrol in the new trawling section of the Naval Reserve. Not only should they be given better rates of pay by the Admiralty, but also compensation for accidents whilst serving in the Navy to the same extent as they would be entitled to if serving on their own fishing vessels.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: The noble Lord will readily understand that I cannot myself give any undertaking that the limit of age will be raised. As at present advised the Board of Admiralty are not

1003
anxious to change the age limit from thirty-five, but I feel sure that the First Lord of the Admiralty will give careful consideration to the arguments of the noble Lords who speak with such authority in these matters. Lord Nunburnholme expressed the opinion that if the age was raised to forty the Admiralty would tap the best skippers in his district. Well, the question of five years, I should say, is not very material, and although I cannot make any definite promise I am sure my right hon. friend will give the matter his immediate consideration. The noble Lord behind me also raised the question of pay. I am in no way cognisant of what these men earn when they are at their work, but a skipper gets when doing eight days' training £9 and a gratuity, at the satisfactory conclusion of his training, of £3, which makes in all £12 for his eight days' training, and which I think on the whole is quite generous from the Admiralty point of view. The question of gratuities and compensation for accidents has also been touched upon. As far as I understand, in the event of the Naval Reserve being called out these men come under the Navy Warrant and get pensions and gratuities the same as men belonging to the Royal Navy, but while under training I am not quite certain on the matter but I will make inquiries with regard to it.

THE ADEN HINTERLAND.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON rose to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he could give any information about the railway to be constructed by a French syndicate, from Hodeida to Sana'a, and whether all idea of railway extension in the Aden Hinterland had been abandoned; also whether he could state what progress had been made in the dredging of Aden Harbour.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regret that slight indisposition prevents the noble Viscount, Lord Morley, being present this afternoon to answer these Questions. It was his policy when Secretary of State for India which had some bearing on one of the Questions I have put down. Some eight or nine years ago, after the conclusion of certain operations in the Aden Hinterland, the Government had under consideration a project for the construction of a railway from Aden to the high ground in the Hinterland to a place called Dthala. This was under consideration with the object
1004
of helping to pacify and bring into good order the Aden Hinterland, and also as affording a place where a sanatorium could be formed at which the troops in Aden could find refuge from its scorching rocks. But the policy of the noble Viscount was to withdraw altogether from the Hinterland and to have as little interference as possible on our part with anything that went on in that country. Therefore any consideration of a railway lapsed. At the same time the Chief of Lahej had granted one or more concessions for a railway to a company who wished to construct what would have been a portion of the bigger scheme—from our Aden frontier at Shaikh Othman to his capital—but even this railway was prohibited as coming under the grounds for withdrawal which the noble Viscount considered expedient to adopt. This always seemed rather a selfish policy on our part, that because it did not happen to suit our policy we should prevent one of the Chiefs under our suzerainty opening up his country. But it was obvious that if the railway was not carried on to Aden it would be of no value at all.
A few days ago I saw in the Press a statement that a railway syndicate was beginning to construct a line from Hodeida to Sana'a, which is 140 miles inland and is the capital of Yemen. If it is the fact that there is now going to be a development of the southern portion of Arabia, I would ask whether it would not be advisable to reconsider the policy which was adopted by the noble Viscount and allow the development of the Aden Hinterland by the great civilising agency of a railway. Probably there is more reason for doing so because of the scheme for deepening and improving the inner and outer harbours of Aden itself. This is with the idea of attracting trade particularly from East Africa, but there has always been a strong desire on the part of the inhabitants of Aden to promote the trade of the place by having better intercourse with the Hinterland. I am well aware that our first consideration is of Aden as a strategical position, and that from time to time the view of the Admiralty has altered as regards its value in this respect. That being so, it was not unnatural if the Government have been reluctant to encourage Aden to become a commercial entrepot and so increase their responsibilities for defence. On the other hand, if in response to local demands an improvement in the port is being carried out it is inconsistent

1005
and unfair should we disallow what is the counterpart of harbour accommodation—namely, the opening up of the country by a railway if there is any private agency anxious to undertake the project, as certainly there was in the past. This is my excuse for asking for information as to what is our position at the present time, and what is the attitude of the Government towards the whole question of the development of the Hinterland and of Aden becoming an important trading centre.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend the Leader of the House I have been asked to reply to the noble Lord's Questions. In regard to the first, the answer is that a concession to survey a projected line from Hodeida to Sana'a was obtained in 1909 by M. David Leon, of Paris, from the Ottoman Minister of Public Works, and the survey was completed in April, 1910, by French and Italian engineers. The scheme included the construction of a harbour at Ras-el-Ketib and a railway line from Ras-el-Ketib via Hodeida to Mefak (186 kilometres) and thence to Sana'a (85 kilometres), a branch to be added proceeding north-west to Amran (57 kilometres from Sana'a). The total cost of the scheme was estimated at £1,772,000. It is understood that the Ottoman Government has decided not to grant a concession to any foreign company for the proposed line for a limited number of years, but M. David Leon's syndicate has taken in hand on behalf of the Ottoman Government the construction of the harbour at Ras-el-Ketib and the section of the railway from that place to Hujjula which it has been decided to construct. The line will run via Hodeida (about 116 kilometres). No decision has yet been taken at Constantinople with regard to the continuation of the line to Sana'a. M. David Leon has also obtained the concession to make a survey of the country between Hodeida and Taiz and between Taiz and Sana'a, with a view to ascertaining the practicability of a line traversing these parts to Sana'a.
1006
As to the second Question in regard to railway extension in the Aden Hinterland, it is the settled policy of His Majesty's Government to abstain from any extension of their responsibilities in the Aden Hinterland so long as the status quo is strictly observed by the Turkish Government. Any scheme for railway construction would be narrowly scrutinised by them in the light of this policy. The reply to the third Question is that the dredging of Aden Harbour, which early last year was reported to be nearing completion, has been somewhat prolonged owing to physical obstacles necessitating a modification of the scheme. It may interest the noble Lord to know what those obstacles are. The latest information we have is a report made by the Port Trust to the Bombay Government in 1910, in which they state that difficulties had been experienced in attempting to remove the rock in the valley mouth on the south side of the channel, and that the dredger had broken down. It was therefore decided to abandon dredging in this particular spot, and to widen the other part of the channel. This alteration in the scheme was approved by the port engineer and the Port Trust, and was sanctioned by the Bombay Government.
LORD LAMINGTON: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his answer. At the same time I would ask His Majesty's Government whether it is right, not that they as a Government should embark in any enterprise, but that they should prohibit private agencies from developing a country for which, after all, we are responsible. It certainly seems to me rather a dog-in-the-manger policy that we should undertake more or less to supervise and see that good order is maintained in a certain area, and at the same time not allow the Chief to contract an obligation with private parties for a project which would have a beneficial effect upon the whole of that country.
House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow a quarter past Four o'clock.