Lords Sitting of 10 December 1912

LORD MURRAY OF ELIBANK.
The Right Honourable Alexander William Charles Oliphant Murray, commonly called the Master of Elibank, having been created Lord Murray of Elibank of Elibank in the County of Selkirk—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD WHITBURGH.
Sir Thomas Banks Borthwick, Baronet, having been created Baron Whitburgh of Whitburgh in the County of Midlothian—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
Regulations, dated 7th December, 1912, made by the Joint Committee acting jointly with the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, as to the Administration of Medical Benefit: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 184.)
NORFOLK FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 13) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order): Then Standing Order No. XXXIX, considered (according to Order) and dispensed with: Bills read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

NORTH KILLINGHOLME (ADMIRALTY PIER) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendment considered (according to Order).
Commons Amendment.
After Clause 6 insert the following new clause A.:
Accommodation for Workmen Employed on Construction of Works.
.—(1) The Admiralty shall erect, fit up and maintain or provide:

(a) such huts or buildings for the accommodation of the workmen employed in and about the construction of the works authorised by this Act;

138

(b) such hospital accommodation for the treatment of cases of sickness or accident among such workmen including accommodation for dealing with infectious diseases

as shall be reasonably necessary having regard to the accommodation available in the neighbourhood of or conveniently accessible from the said works, and shall provide and maintain proper and sufficient sanitary accommodation in connexion with every such building and hospital.
(2) The Admiralty shall pay all reasonable costs and expenses incurred in respect of the medical and surgical treatment of any workman employed on the construction of the said works who is treated in any hospital accommodation provided by them except in so far as such costs and expenses are payable under the provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1911, or otherwise.
Moved, That this house do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl o1 Granard.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: The new clause which I move to insert after Clause 1 is of considerable importance to county councils generally. When this Bill came before the House of Commons there was in it as Clause 2 of the Bill a clause enabling a trackless trolley system along any road or street to be authorised by Order under the principal Act in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as a light railway. Into that clause were inserted certain Amendments, the purport of which was that the damage which these trackless trolleys did to the roads should be a liability upon the promoters of this system. The municipal corporations and county councils stood on a different footing in this matter,

139
because municipal corporations were constantly the promoters of tramway systems and may be in the future, and in some cases are at present, promoters of trackless trolley systems, from which they would naturally reap the benefit. The wear and tear upon the roads under a system of trackless trolleys would be very great, and where the system was privately owned the burden of repairing the roads would fall upon the county councils whilst the profits would be reaped by the promoters of the trackless trolley system and none would reach the counties whose roads would be considerably damaged. Therefore we thought it was only fair that in all these Orders provision should be made whereby any damage that was actually done should be made good to the authorities over whose roads the promoters took the trackless trolley system.
As I pointed out last night, there is considerable difference between a trackless trolley system and the tramway systems promoted by urban authorities which have been extended in many instances over the main roads of the counties, in that the promoters of tramways invariably are responsible for keeping in order that portion of the road over which their tramway runs, and we thought that there should be some analogous provision in the case of trackless trolleys, which do more damage to the roads than any vehicle would do, because, as we know, the tendency is to keep upon one track and to wear that track away. Where there is an overhead wire, however much give and take there might be, the tendency would be for these trackless trolleys to follow upon this course and to wear away that portion of the road to an extent which would involve a considerable additional cost for the upkeep of the road. As I say, when this Bill was originally introduced in another place this provision for dealing with trackless trolleys was inserted, and we made an attempt to get such Amendments put in as we thought fit and proper to meet our case. In this we were successful. But the promoters of trackless trolley systems, who had originally been anxious to get the clause into the Bill, were no longer so anxious for it after the safeguarding Amendments had been inserted. Consequently when the Third Reading stage was arrived at the clause was struck out altogether, and the present position is that the promoters of a trackless trolley
140
system have to come to Parliament for their powers, and each separate Bill has to be opposed by the particular county which objects to it. We consider that this is an especial hardship upon county councils.
We think that this matter is one which should be dealt, with upon a broad and general principle, and if we saw any prospect of this being done in the near future we should, of course, not be here moving the re-insertion of this clause into the Bill. This is an attempt to deal with the matter on broad principles which would be applicable to all cases of this particular kind of traffic. We think, in the absence of any other means of doing it, that our only way to remove what we regard as a great and distinct grievance on all county councils is to move the re-insertion of this clause. The clause is, with one exception, in the terms of the clause which the Government were originally prepared to accept. Therefore I feel I need not go at any length into the actual provisions of the clause. The question before the House is whether it should be inserted in this Bill, and my contention is that if there is no prospect of the matter being dealt, with by general legislation it is only proper that the clause should be re-inserted. The exception to which I alluded is not one of great importance. It is in the last subsection, where we provide that no trailers shall be used in connection with trolley vehicles without the consent of the Board of Trade and without the consent in writing of the road authority. On this particular addition to the clause I do not, of course, lay so much stress, because it was not part of the clause as it was originally intended to stand. Therefore if any objection is raised to the insertion of this additional subsection I shall not press it. I submit that a provision of this kind should be made to deal with railless trolleys, or else that we should have some kind of assurance that the matter is going to be dealt with by general legislation and that we are not to be left to the very expensive and unsatisfactory method of opposing every Bill that is brought into the Houses of Parliament. In the latter case, of course, the only locus standi that will be given will be, not to county councils generally, but to the unfortunate county council which is going to be injured in the particular case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1 insert the following new clause:
"Power of Light Railway Commissioners to authorise Trackless Trolley Systems.
"2.—(1) A trackless trolley system along any road or street may lat authorised by order under the principal Act in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as a light railway, and that Act and any Act amending the same shall accordingly be construed as if the expression "light railway" included a trackless trolley system
Provided that—

"(a) A trackless trolley system shall not be authorised along any road or street except with the consent of the road authority, but that consent shall not be unreasonably withheld; and

"(b) A trackless trolley system shall not be deemed to be a railway for the purpose of any exemption from rating; and

"(c) Provision shall be made by any order authorising a trackless trolley system for the payment by the undertakers to the road authority, as part of the expenses of the undertaking, of the cost of any alterations or improvements in any road or street so far as they are made for the purposes of, or rendered necessary by, the trackless trolley system, and also of the whole or any part of any additional cost of maintaining or repairing any road or street which may be shown to be caused by the working of that system, and for the mode in which any such payments are to be accounted for in cases where the road authority are themselves the undertakers; and

"(d) The order authorising a trackless trolley system shall regulate the weight and construction of the vehicles to be used for the purpose of that system, and the dimensions and materials of the tyres of those vehicles, and the licensing of the vehicles and the drivers thereof.

"If any question a rises whether the consent of the road authority required under this section has been unreasonably withheld, that question shall be decided by the Light Railway Commissioners, but the promoters of the undertaking or the road authority may appeal from the decision of the Light Railway Commissioners to the Board of Trade. The decision of the Light Railway Commissioners or, in the event of an appeal, of the Board of Trade on the question whether the consent has been unreasonably withheld or not shall be final.
"(2) The expression "trackless trolley system" means a system of running on roads or streets, without any defined track or line of rails, mechanically propelled vehicles moved by electrical power transmitted thereto from some external source, and includes all apparatus necessary for working the system, and the expression "undertakers" means the company, body, or person authorised to work the system.
"(3) Mechanically propelled vehicles used for the purpose of any trackless trolley system authorised in pursuance of this section shall not be deemed to be light locomotives within the meaning of the Locomotives on High ways Act, 1896, or the byelaws and regulations made thereunder, nor shall they be deemed to be motor-cars within the meaning of any provisions of the Motor Car Act, 1903 (except subsection (1) of section one of that Act and the
142
provisions necessary for enforcing that subsection), and subject to that exception neither that Act nor the regulations made under that Act, nor the enactments mentioned in the Schedule to the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, nor the Locomotives Act, 1898, shall apply to any such mechanically propelled vehicles except in so far as they are incorporated or applied by the order authorising the system.
"Provided that nothing in this provision shall affect any duties of excise (including the duties charged by section eight of the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896) for the time being payable in respect of any such vehicles.
"(4) For the purposes of this section the expression "road authority" means the authority liable to maintain or repair the road or street, and in the case of a main road that authority shall be taken to be the county council, except in the case of a road the duties of maintaining and repairing which have been retained by the urban authority under subsection (2) of section eleven of the Local Government Act, 1888.
"(5) This section shall not apply to the administrative county of London.
"(6) No trailers shall be used in connection with the trolley vehicles without the consent of the Board of Trade and without the consent in writing of the road authority."—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
THE EARL OF GRANARD: The noble Lord who has just spoken has put his case very fairly as regards this particular Amendment, and he has described to your Lordships the history of this clause in another place. As the noble Lord said, in the original Bill there was a clause carrying out more or less the objects which he has in view, but it was found that there was so much opposition to the clause in the House of Commons, especially from municipalities and others, that it was considered best in all the circumstances to drop it. As the noble Lord is aware, there was a great deal of negotiation between the county councils, which he represents, and the Board of Trade, and it was found impossible to come to an agreement without making the Bill highly contentious. The noble Lord's Amendment, if carried, would have the effect of penalising one particular form of locomotion—namely, the trackless trolley system. Motor-'buses and others which do quite as much harm to the road would virtually go free. I venture to place before the noble Lord this view, that it would be unfair for Parliament to handicap trackless trolley cars in competition with motor-'buses and others. Again, this Bill deals purely with light railways. Its object is to allow extra advances for the making of light railways in sparsely populated and poor localities, and I am assured that if the Amendment which the noble Lord has suggested were introduced

143
there would be no possibility whatever of getting this Bill through the other House. I have heard that every municipality in the kingdom would fight this Amendment line by line. As the noble Lord has justly stated, the whole question of traffic should be dealt with by one large Bill and not in a piecemeal fashion. That would be the effect if this Amendment were carried. The noble Lord has asked us whether the Government can give any undertaking with regard to legislation on traffic generally. As far as I am concerned I am unable to do so, for such legislation would not come within the scope of the Department Which I represent. I sincerely trust that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment, for it would have the effect virtually of killing the Bill.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH: I venture to hope that your Lordships will see your way to support my noble friend's Amendment. It seems to me to raise a very serious question in the case of main and other roads throughout the country, especially in rural districts. If this invention is allowed to be used over the roads without any safeguard whatever, it might cause grave and serious damage to roads belonging to county councils and other bodies. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill spoke about a new industry being penalised. I think that is rather a strong expression to use. Nothing is said about penalising county councils and the roads which they administer. The whole point of this, it seems to me, depends upon the nature of this invention. There are no rails to take off the weight of these very heavy cars, and inasmuch as the motive power is derived from an overhead wire the tendency is for these immensely heavy trolleys always to run in or close to the same groove. I am told that there is a possibility of their being able to deviate from one side of the road to the other; in crowded roads that would be necessarily the case. But in country roads the trackless trolley system would do grave damage to the roads apparently without the county council having any means of redress. This is one of those things which at first sight appears to be a mere mechanical detail, but there can be no question that these trolleys would work very serious and unfair damage unless some provision in the nature of my noble friend's Amendment is inserted.
LORD NEWTON: This discussion is an illustration of the difficulties with which Private Bill Committees have to deal when these kind of questions arise. I have on several occasions ventured to express the opinion that it is most desirable that Chairmen of Private Bill Committees should have definite instructions and rules with regard to questions of this nature. This particular case is one which has occasionally come before me in the course of my experience. The position is this, that in a particular case compensation may be allowed solely owing to the personal view of the Chairman of the Committee and those who are associated with him, but there is no regular rule laid down. Therefore it is purely a matter of haphazard, and it lays upon county councils the onus of opposing all these Bills on the chance that if they are lucky they may get the compensation to which they are morally entitled. I did not hear the whole of this discussion, but I did hear the reply of the noble Earl, Lord Granard, and it seems to me he has not made out his case at all. He did not deny that this is a case in which there is prima facie an admirable case for compensation, and the only argument that I could discover which he adduced against it was that if any provision of this kind were inserted the Bill would run the chance of being lost in another place. To my mind that is a very poor argument. The obvious reply to him is that this being the case it is all the more imperative on the Government that they should give an undertaking that questions of this kind should be dealt with in a general and definite way which should act as a guidance to Private Bill Committees in the future. I do not know whether my noble friend intends to press his Amendment to a Division. But on a question of this kind I think it would be desirable to obtain the opinion of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees before the vote is taken.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): The noble Lord has appealed to me. As he says, this is a matter that has come before several Committees this session. I have given considerable time to the consideration of the particular point, and if it is of any value to him I will tell him the conclusion to which I have come. It is this. First, that it is extremely desirable that a solution should be found; secondly,

145
that we have not yet enough experience of trolley vehicles to find a solution. I do not think there is enough evidence as to the kind of damage they do to the roads to enable an arbitrator to fix a price if a case came before him. Therefore the course which we have followed up to the present is this. Trolley vehicles are worked by a system of overhead wires. These overhead wires are liable to rates, and we think it is best that the road authority should be compensated through the rates on the overhead wires and in that way get the assistance they should receive towards the upkeep of the roads—in fact, that the workers of trolley vehicles should be put in the position of all other ratepayers, and because they pay rates be allowed to use the roads as much as they like. I do not pretend for a moment that I think there is enough evidence to say that this is a final solution; but I have come to the conclusion, after giving the matter all the consideration I can, that it is the best solution we can come to at present with the small amount of experience we have of the working of trolley vehicles. I think, from a very cursory reading of the Amendment now before the House, that if it were carried in the exact form in which it stands now these local authorities would be in the happy position of being paid twice, because they would get full compensation for damage, if they could prove any, and would also get paid rates on the wires. I repeat that I hope in the not very distant future we may be able to come to a more permanent solution of the difficulty, but I really do not think there is enough evidence at the present moment to reach that permanent solution.
LORD NEWTON: The sum derived in the matter of rates would be an extremely insignificant one, because I understand it is only possible to rate these undertakings upon the posts which support the wires, and that would bring in an absolutely infinitesimal sum.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Lords who have brought this subject forward seem to me to have established a strong prima facie case in favour of the Amendment on the Paper, but we have to take note of the fact that they were met by the noble Earl who speaks for the Government, not by an attempt to dispute the merits of the proposal, but
146
by an intimation that in his view, speaking with all the authority of the representative of the Government, there is absolutely no chance of an Amendment of this kind being allowed to retain its place in the Bill when it goes back to the other House. Well, my Lords, that is a pretty formidable obstacle, because I take it that if the Bill were to come back to us without the Amendment we should scarcely be in a position to insist upon its reinsertion. But a still more material consideration arises from the speech of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees. The Lord Chairman, unless I misunderstood him, said that in his view we had not yet a sufficient amount of experience to justify us in dealing with this subject. I must say that in face, on the one hand, of the Government reply, and, on the other, of the advice given by the Lord Chairman I do not see that my noble friend would be likely to gain any substantial advantage by persevering with his Amendment.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: I wish to say a word or two in answer to the speech of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. He brought forward the argument that the Amendment would penalise one kind of locomotive traffic and leave untouched another kind—namely, motor-'buses and others. There is a very marked and substantial difference between a trackless trolley and the ordinary motor-omnibus. The latter is the property, or may be the property, of an individual. He has no other rights and no position different from that of the owner of a cart. But here you have a monopoly. No one is allowed to use this trackless trolley system unless he pays a certain amount for it to the promoters, and therefore it stands on a totally different footing. What is so unjust to county councils is that these trackless trolleys are started and the proceeds of them are taken by one set of people whilst the expenses of keeping up the roads are borne by another. What we say is that the profits should be shared in some kind of way between the different authorities over whose roads the system runs, or else that those who take all the profits ought to be bound to pay for the damage which they do to the roads, the upkeep of which will otherwise have to be paid for by persons who have no share in those profits. I do not see that the rates which the county council is likely to get in respect of a trackless

147
trolley system are likely to be at all of an appreciable amount, and therefore I think the argument used by the Lord Chairman as to double payment is not one which is worth considering. What would be received in rates would be very small in proportion to the amount of damage done; and the advantage we obtain by the system compared to tramways and the other systems hitherto known is very small indeed. I am afraid, in view of the
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 2 and remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order): Then Standing Order No. XXXIX considered (according to Order) and dispensed with: Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
unsatisfactory answer I have received and the absence of any promise of assistance in any other way, I must ask the House to insert this clause, which I conceive only meets the justice of the case.
On Question, whether the proposed new clause shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided:
Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 30.

CONTENTS.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Clifford of Chudleigh, L. [Teller.]

Kilmaine, L.

Kinnaird, L

Camperdown, E.

Colchester, L.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Morton, E.

Ellenborough, L.

St. Levan, L.

Forester, L.

Wynford, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gwydir, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Blythswood, L.

Hatherton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Curzon of Kedleston, E.

Channing, L.

Morley of Blackburn, V. (L. President.)

Halsbury, E.

Charnwood, L.

Plymouth, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Crewe, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Allendale, V.

Emmott, L.

Devonshire, D.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Glenconner, L.

Marlborough, D.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Haversham, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Herschell, L. [Teller.]

Salisbury, M.

Lamington, L.

Sandhurst, L. (L. Chamberlain.)

Shaw, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Aberconway, L.

Southwark, L.

Craven, E. [Teller.]

Ashby St. Ledgers, L.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.
MEDICAL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RAILWAYS IN PERSIA.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government what is the present position of the negotiations for the railway from Mohammeral to Khoramabad and other railways in Southern Persia giving access to the Gulf which the Persian Government are desirous of having built as expeditiously as possible, both on account of their remunerative possibilities and as a necessary step towards the better administration which the Government are endeavouring to establish.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to elaborate the Question that stands in my name. The matter was referred to in a debate initiated by Lord Curzon when the subject under discussion was the Trans-Persian Railway. It was then pointed out that this system of railways, as indicated in my Question, would be of real value to the development of Persia, and particularly would aid in bringing peace and order into that much perturbed country; and I should be glad to hear whether the Government can say that negotiations have advanced at all towards a concession being obtained for the construction of these or any such lines.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY): I think my noble friend must be aware that His Majesty's Government regard with the greatest interest all movements for promoting railway construction in Persia, especially in the southern part, which concerns this country; but he will also understand that the only case in respect of which negotiations are actually pending is the case of the first railway mentioned in the Question, the railway from Mohammeral to Khoramabad. All I can say is that negotiations of an active kind are pending and the satisfactory solution of them depends on one or two considerations which are not yet ripe, and my noble friend will understand that it would not be at all to the public interest that we should enter further into the details of the question as it stands at the moment. As to the probabilities of a financial return, cost, and so forth, those are points that we cannot discuss now, and perhaps it will not be our business to discuss them. The Persian Government will certainly have the main business in weighing all these chances and possibilities. I can only repeat that the general promotion of railways, so far as that promotion can take place gradually and without damage to other interests, has the lively interest of His Majesty's Government and will continue to have it.

GUN-RUNNING IN MUSCAT.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the arrangement made with the Sultan of Muscat for the prevention of gun-running is working satisfactorily and whether the French Government are co-operating in the matter.
The noble Lord said: This Question deals with a matter which I think has been a considerable source of anxiety to His Majesty's Government here and to the Government of India—the vexed question of the running of arms into Persia as well as into Afghanistan. Considerable sums of money have been expended by the two Governments and lives have been sacrificed in trying to put clown this very harmful traffic, and I understand that in the spring of this year certain negotiations were successfully carried out with the Sultan of Muscat by which all arms imported into Muscat should be bonded and only allowed to be taken out when their destination was one to which they could properly be sent. It would be interesting to know how far these negotiations have been carried out, and whether any success has been attendant upon them. We are also aware that for many years past the French Government, by virtue of a very old Treaty with Muscat, have not perhaps given us all the assistance that might have been desirable in putting down this traffic, but I hope now that the Entente is so closely established they are giving assistance in this matter. I believe that from time to time proposals have been put before them by way of compensation for the abrogation of this Treaty, but they have always been fruitless. I do not know whether it has ever occurred to His Majesty's Government that this is a subject which might be very properly put to arbitration if the French Government are still unwilling to give their best assistance in putting down this traffic. I will not say more now, but I shall be glad to get some assurance from His Majesty's Government that success is attending their efforts by virtue of the understanding with the Sultan of Muscat to relieve our Navy from the arduous work of trying to suppress this traffic.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I am quite sensible of the discretion used by the noble Lord in putting this Question, and here again I must repeat that the moment is not opportune for anything like a full or complete discussion of the matter. The arrangement made with the Sultan of Muscat by which arms were bonded, though by no means ideal, has worked as satisfactorily as a limited arrangement of that kind could work. My noble friend referred to the attitude of the French Government. The French Government have their own difficulties. We are perfectly

151
sensible of them. But we are glad to think and hope that the French Government, which cannot have two minds as to the demands of civilisation in this case, are doing the best they can to meet us in the matter. The adverse contention held by the French Government to the arrangement we made with the Sultan is that these arms are not merely bonded but sequestrated, if not really indeed confiscated. In our view that is not the case, and we shall continue to use every effort with the French Government to bring them actively and fully into line with us on this particular matter.
LORD LAMINGTON: Does the noble Viscount mean to say that the arms which are bonded are considered by the French Government to be confiscated?
VISCOUNT MORLEY: The arms are undoubtedly bonded, and one contention of an important interest in France is that what we call "bonded" is in truth confiscation. That is, as we contend, an erroneous view. But be that as it may, I fall back upon my original remark that the relations between ourselves and the French Government upon the Muscat question are such that the present moment is particularly inopportune for a discussion of the case in Parliament.

INDIAN TROOPS IN PERSIA.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government what number of Indian troops are now in Southern Persia and where they are stationed, and whether it is intended to retain or to withdraw them.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question which stands in my name is intended to refer specifically to a number of Indian Cavalry troops who left India some time ago and who are now, I believe, in Shiraz, and who, so far as I am able to gather, are likely to remain there for an indefinite period. Towards the end of 1911, in consequence of the disorder prevalent in that part of Persia, the interference with the trade routes and the general inconvenience which prevailed, His Majesty's Government determined upon sending an Indian force there. That force, which I believe consisted of three squadrons of native Cavalry, proceeded to Bushire, and went up country in different detach-
152
ments at different times. One squadron penetrated as far as Ispahan. It remained there for some time, and has now rejoined the others, I understand, at Shiraz. During these marches the troops were subjected to occasional attacks, and on one particular occasion the Consul of Shiraz, whom they were escorting, was wounded. The Indian force was worsted in the fight that took place, and, if I am not mistaken, the Consul himself was made a prisoner. Owing to the insufficiency of the numbers of these troops, so far from being able to keep any order in the district, for which purpose, I presume, they were originally despatched, they have been practically—I do not think I am exaggerating when I use the expression—prisoners in Shiraz ever since they got there. At all events, they have been unable to leave, and unless I am greatly mistaken—I hope I am mistaken—I am under the impression that they are waiting for a favourable opportunity to get back to the coast.
I have not the smallest doubt in my own mind as to how this humiliating state of things arose. When the Russian troops began to pour in by thousands into the north of Persia—those troops which, according to Sir Edward Grey, are only there temporarily but who will certainly remain in Persia just as long as, for instance, the French troops remain in Tunis or our troops in Egypt—and when in addition to that the state of things in the region of which I am speaking became almost intolerable, it is evident to me that some members of the Government thought it was necessary that something should be done, and it is equally evident to me that there were certain other members of the Government who were determined that nothing should be done, and that being the case the wretched compromise was arrived at that this particular force should be sent which was too large for an ordinary Consular guard and not large enough for any practical police purposes. I am well aware, as presume everybody is, that neither Bushire nor Shiraz, nor Ispahan is in what is called the British spheres. Ispahan, of course, is in the Russian sphere. One of the humours of the Anglo-Russian Agreement is that practically none of the particular districts in which our interests are supposed to predominate are in our sphere at all. But it is equally evident that His Majesty's Government consider that they have some responsibility attaching to them in that

153
part of the world, because otherwise these men never would have been sent at all.
I do not expect for a moment that the Government are going to make any comprehensive statement upon this or upon any other question in connection with Persia; but as the Persian Government are obviously quite unable, in view of what has taken place, to keep order in this part of the world, and as there does not appear the slightest possibility of their being in a position for some considerable time to exercise the ordinary acts of an independent Government, I think I am justified in asking what is going to happen to the particular force to which I have referred. Are we going to withdraw them altogether, and thus signify that we are, in so many words, going to clear out altogether from that part of the country? Or are we going to take steps to insure that some sort of order shall be re-established there by whatever means may be thought best? Or, finally, are we going to leave things just as they are now, and thus continue a course of action which may have more to be said in favour of it than I see at the present moment, but which, I confess, appears to me to be not only useless but humiliating as well.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I am not sure to which set of opinion as to our duty to Persia the noble Lord belongs. There are those who say that if we were to leave Persia alone she would soon develop resources and capacity of her own quite enough to restore order, and that the obstacle to the restoration of order is the intervention of European Legations, and so forth. The other school insist that we do not interfere half enough. The noble Lord used the term "clearing out" as though that would be an operation not very much to our credit. On the other hand, does he mean that we are falling short in not saying we are there and are going to remain there? I wish the noble Lord had stated more clearly which view he charges the Government with neglecting to act upon. The noble Lord has laid far too much stress upon the despatch of this military force to Shiraz being due to the disturbed condition of Southern Persia. The point in the original despatch of the force was that it was necessary not generally to restore order, but to reinforce the ordinary Consular guard. The total number of officers and men, about which
154
he asks, then and now in Southern Persia is 1,286. They are distributed in the main at three stations—at Shiraz, where there are 12 British officers and 491 native ranks; at Bushire, where there are 5 British officers and 420 native ranks; and at Jask, where there are 5 British officers and 236 native ranks. I have only to say further and generally that His Majesty's Government have no desire to retain these additional troops a single moment longer than the situation requires, and the question of withdrawing them will be considered as soon as ever, in the view of the Government and their advisers and agents on the spot, the situation will permit their withdrawal.
LORD LAMINGTON: Will the noble Viscount say why a squadron was withdrawn from Ispahan, and if withdrawn from Ispahan why not from Shiraz?
LORD NEWTON: I intervene for a moment to ask the noble Viscount whether it is really the case that the Consulate at Shiraz requires nearly 500 men to protect it.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, my noble friend behind me has, I think, fully answered the Questions on the Paper and has stated the policy of the Government with regard to them. As to the question last put by Lord Lamington—why it was that the, I think, 100 men who were at Ispahan were withdrawn to Shiraz—their time for returning to India 'was properly due. The state of affairs around Ispahan, as the noble Lord probably knows, has not been altogether satisfactory, and it was thought advisable on general grounds to move these men to Shiraz, with, as he rightly anticipated, the ultimate intention of their returning in due course to India; the Consular guard at Ispahan, the strength of which I cannot at this moment state, will remain on the spot.
As regards the last question put by Lord Newton, I do not happen to know what the ordinary strength of the Consular guard at Shiraz has been in the past. My impression is that it has been under 20 men, as a rule sepoys and not Cavalry. In this particular case we sent Cavalry for the relief and in larger quantity instead of the usual Infantry

155
guard. That was done for two reasons. In the first place, it was thought in the very disturbed condition of the southern roads in November, 1911, when the change was made, that it would be easier and safer for a Cavalry force to get to Shiraz than for half a battalion or whatever it might be of sepoys; and, in the second place, the increased number was due to the reports we received of possible serious danger to life and property of British subjects in Shiraz, which seemed to demand a much larger Consular guard than usual. But like my noble friend I must protest against the supposition which appeared to be in the mind of Lord Newton, that this force went there for the purpose of keeping order in Southern Persia. It did nothing of the kind. It went as a Consular guard. If we had sent a force with the intention of keeping order in Southern Persia we certainly should not have sent less than 5,000 or 6,000 men, quite a different thing from the one Cavalry regiment which went in November of last year.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I do not think my noble friend who put this Question desired to do more than ask for information on a point on which we in your Lordships' House are entitled to have it. I am quite certain he had not in his mind to pin himself to either of those schools to which the noble Viscount opposite challenged him to say whether he belonged. I am in exactly the same position as regards information. I have never been quite able to understand what these troops are doing in Southern Persia, and I had no idea until the noble Viscount told us that as many as 1,200 or 1,300 were there. If I may speak of the time when I had a closer connection with Southern Persia, I do not think at any time did we have more than 300 or 400, or at most 500. There must, therefore, clearly have been something to justify this great increase of troops. One would judge from what the noble Marquess said that the sole object was to put our Consular represent hives in a position of greater security, and he used the argument that if the men had been wanted to restore order clearly a much larger force would have been required. I do not imagine for a moment that His Majesty's Government attempted or desired to undertake the task of policing the country, but if that was not their object, if their object was the more limited one of securing the safety of our Consuls, they
156
did not go the best way about it. They sent a force of 300 men to Ispahan, a place where it is very desirable that some evidence should be given of British influence, but where the British representative, so far as I am aware, has never been in any dancer. This force was shut up in Ispahan, and had eventually to take an opportunity of creeping back to the coast. Then there was a further force shut up at Shiraz unable to move out. The force at Jask on the coast may be removed from consideration—that is a different problem; but far from adding to the security of the Consuls, I believe the exact opposite has been the case. These troops have been unable to move; one of our Consuls was attacked; and I am told from Persia that the presence of this force, whose position is neither one thing nor the other, has been a source of great suspicion, if not of grave offence, to the Persian Government. We are quite justified in putting Questions about the matter, and, what is mo e, I think we shall be justified in raising the matter again at a later date, because this half-and-half state of affairs, in which there is a force in the country unable to move, which the Government want to get out, which is doing no good there, and which, so far as one can judge, is a source of offence to the people, is a situation which we must all deprecate. I hope the Secretary of State for India will not object if at an early date in the New Year we raise the question again with the view, let us hope, of obtaining a more satisfactory statement from him.

THE CHRISTMAS RECESS.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Before the House adjourns I should like to ask the noble Marquess who leads the House to tell us whether, assuming that we are adjourning for the holidays on Thursday next, he intends to invite us to reassemble in the month of January, and, if so, at what time.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: As your Lordships will have observed, there is no business on the Paper beyond Thursday next, and I therefore propose that on that day we should adjourn for the Christmas holiday. It will be necessary, of course, for us to meet fairly early in January in view of the business which is likely to come up to us at that time from the House of Commons. The first important measure

157
which we should expect to receive is the Government of Ireland Bill, and it would undoubtedly be your Lordships' wish that that Bill should be read a first time as soon as it reaches this House so that it may be placed at once in your Lordships' hands. It is impossible at this moment to state precisely the day on which that measure will reach us, but so far as other business is concerned and bearing in mind the probabilities in respect to that measure I think I can state for the information of the House that the first effective day for business, for which one or two Motions have been placed on the Paper, would
158
probably be Tuesday, January 14. Supposing it should be the case that the Government of Ireland Bill should reach us a day or two before that, it would be convenient, I have no doubt, to arrange for a formal sitting of the House so that the Bill could be read a first time and printed. But so far as effective business is concerned, I think we can venture to conclude that Tuesday, January 14, will be the first day.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.