Lords Sitting of 21 March 1912

LORD HOLLENDEN.
Samuel Hope Morley, Esquire, having been created Baron Hollenden of Leigh in the County of Kent—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in the case of petitions for additional provisions in the following Bills:

National Electric Construction Company.

London County Council (General Powers).

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

BAWTRY AND TICKIIILL GAS AND WATER 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.
NORTH MIDDLESEX GAS COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  BRIGHTON AND HOVE GENERAL GAS COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LEA BRIDGE DISTRICT GAS COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  MAIDENHEAD GAS COMPANY BELL. [H.L.]
    SOUTHGATE AND DISTRICT GAS COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
    Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Viscount opposite, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, whether the Government adhere to the arrangement they have already proposed that the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Bill should be put through the House of Commons in all its stages to-morrow and be received here to-morrow night, and that we should hold a sitting on Saturday as proposed originally by the noble Marquess who leads the House.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY): The noble Earl is well aware that a step has been taken in the House of Commons by Mr. Balfour which gives a new aspect to the situation. It is impossible for us, therefore, until we know what the result of that new action is, to say anything as to the proposed Saturday sitting of this House. The Bill in question may or may not get a Second Reading in the House of Commons to-night. I can only say that we will do the best we can to meet the convenience of this House, and, unless something unexpected happens in another place, the arrangement for a Saturday sitting of your Lordships' House will stand. But if there should be any change I will take good care that the House is informed.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not wish to press the noble Viscount beyond what is reasonable, but could he state when he thinks he will be able to let the House know what the final arrangement of the Government is in the matter?
VISCOUNT MORLEY: It is impossible for me to tell the House our final arrangements until we know what will happen in another place shortly before midnight to-night. I am sure your Lordships' House would not like to sit till after midnight in order to know our decision. To-morrow at a very early hour we shall be able to say definitely, and the information may be accessible to the noble Earl through other channels of information. But we cannot decide until we know what happens in the House of Commons to-night.

METROPOLITAN POLICE RATE BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS): My Lords, I have the honour to move the Second Reading of this Bill, the object of which is to extend the powers of the Secretary of State for imposing a rate for police purposes in London. This is not the first time that the Bill has appeared in this House. On the last occasion it failed to obtain a Second Reading at your Lordships' hands. Let me recall what happened. I moved the Second Reading on December 14 last year. The noble Viscount opposite, Lord Midleton, took objection to the Bill on the ground that the date at which it had been introduced had left no reasonable opportunity for discussion in another place or for the London County Council to consider its provisions. I explained to him that many of the facts which necessitated the Bill had only matured late in the year, and that there had been a change in the Home Secretaryship. But he took a more serious objection to the Bill on the ground that the powers which it sought to confer upon the Secretary of State with regard to rating were more than sufficient to meet the exigencies of the situation, and the noble Viscount secured the rejection of the Bill in a very thin House, the figures being twenty-two to fifteen. The Bill which I have the honour to introduce to-day is the same Bill as that which was introduced last session with one very important addition, which is contained in proviso (b) of Clause 1. This provision should go far to reconcile the opposition to the Bill and dispel any honest misgivings which may be entertained with regard to it.
Let me first state briefly what the Bill does. The Bill raises the statutory maximum rate which the Secretary of State may impose for police purposes from ninepence, which was fixed by the Act of 1868, to elevenpenee. This is necessitated by actual and prospective deficiencies in the Police Fund. Those deficiencies have been caused, on the one hand, by the growth of expenditure, and, on the other, by the lack of corresponding expansion in the revenue. The main items which account for the growth of expenditure are the one day's rest in seven accorded to the police by general consent last year, the better remuneration to which they were generally
572
considered to be entitled, and the necessity of continually increasing the number of the police in its ratio to the population of London on account of the various and obvious problems with which the metropolitan police have to deal. And I might also mention that there is the general rise in the price of commodities, to which the police are subjected as much as anyone else. Alongside this growth of expenditure there has been a decline in the revenue, and the first reason for that is due to the decline of the rateable value of London, which, of course, affects the productivity of the rate. Ten years ago the rateable value of London increased by £2,000,000. At the next quinquennial period there was only an increase of £1,500,000, and last year there was a positive decrease in the rateable value to the extent of £350,000. Your Lordships will easily see the significance of that from this point of view. There is a further diminishing source of revenue caused by the failure of the Exchequer contributions. I do not mean to say that the Exchequer contributions paid out of the Local Taxation Account to the local authorities have actually diminished, but the percentage which those contributions bear to the general expenditure has diminished, with the result that all the services which they are intended to supplement have suffered, and the police rate has suffered with them.
Perhaps your Lordships may feel, in regarding the items of this balance sheet, and especially in view of the diminished Exchequer contributions, that the ratepayers of London are entitled to special consideration at the hands of the Exchequer. I would point out to your Lordships in reference to this consideration that the London Police Fund already enjoys a grant of £100,000 a year from Imperial sources, which is supposed to cover the national and Imperial service which the police render in the metropolis, and I understand that that amply covers the services they render under that head. Further, the salaries of the metropolitan police magistrates, which amount to £40,000 a year, are defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund, and the Police Pension Fund enjoys a subsidy of £150,000 a year from Imperial sources; so that the Exchequer has already made very considerable contributions to the expenses of the London police. Further, if we consider the position of London in comparison with the position of counties and boroughs, we

573
find that the contributions paid out of the Local Taxation Fund are larger in the case of London than they are in the counties and boroughs. In counties and boroughs the contributions amount to 39˙5 per cent. of the total cost of the police; in London they amount to 44˙7 per cent., so that I do not think there is much of a case to be made out in comparison with the position that obtains elsewhere.
But I am quite prepared to admit that the police are a burden on the ratepayers. Your Lordships are aware that a Royal Commission reported recently, and I dare say you may also be aware that a Departmental Committee is at present sitting considering the Report of that Commission, and I have no doubt that when the Departmental Committee has concluded its labours a case may be made out for further contributions from Imperial sources to the rates under this head. I would point out to your Lordships that the Bill recognises to some extent that fact. In subsection (a) of Clause 1 there is a proviso which amounts to this, that whereas the contribution paid by local authorities bears, roughly speaking, the proportion of four-ninths of the total of the expense, no additional contribution is expected from them in respect of this additional rate which we are now asking leave to impose.
Returning for a moment to the actual deficiencies which we have to meet, I will give your Lordships the figures with respect to the coming financial year and the two succeeding financial years. If we assume that there is no increase in the police force in order to meet the one day's rest in seven, there will be a deficiency in the financial year 1912–13 of £82,500; in the year 1913–14, of £75,900; and in the year 1914–15, of £141,300. That represents the normal growth of expenditure, and is the net deficiency over re venue on the present rating maximum. But if the one clay's rest in seven is provided it must add to those figures a further £30,000 for 1912–13, a further £51,000 for 1913–14, and a further £54,000 for 1914–15; and if a further 200 men a year are to be added for the normal growth of the population you must add a further £10,000 for the coming financial year, £27,000 for 1913–14, and £40,000 for 1914–15, so that the net deficiencies in the three years are £122,500, £153,900, and £241,300 respectively, on the assumption that the rest day is given and that the force is increased in a normal manner.
574
But that is not all, because for seven years past the balances of the Police Fund have diminished, and it is estimated that if those balances are to be replaced in a satisfactory position to avoid the necessity of considerable loans to finance the force, a further sum of £108,000 is needed this year to restore the solvency of the fund, so that the total for this year is £230,000. A penny rate produces approximately £233,000, so that of the additional two- penny rate which I am asking your Lordships to sanction one penny is immediately absorbed in the current year. The justification for the second penny is the possibility of emergencies arising. I would point out that in cases of emergency caused by labour troubles it might be necessary to recall the pensioners of the police, and supposing 1,000 pensioners were recalled the cost would run into about £10,000 a month. It might also be necessary to engage additional men or to enroll special constables, and although for a short period the citizens of London might be expected to serve without pay, if the crisis were prolonged it might be necessary to engage some thousands of extra men, which might run us into an expenditure of £20,000 or £30,000 a month. So that it is conceivable that in the case of serious labour troubles the Police Fund might be called upon to meet something like an expenditure of £100,000. That is the justification for our coming to the House and asking leave to increase the maximum rate to elevenpence instead of to tenpence.
To turn to, perhaps, the more controversial issues which this subject arouses, I think one might say the controversy has advanced since the subject was discussed in this House last cession. I do not think noble Lords who spoke on that occasion will revive all the arguments on which they relied then and which they employed to secure the rejection of the Bill. I do not think that the node Viscount, Lord Alidleton, will tell us now that only £50,000 is wanted, as he did last year. I hope I have made it quite clear that we need at least £122,000 to carry on the coming year. And then the noble Earl, Lord Dunmore, told us that the ninepenny rate at present in force produced a surplus of £150,000. When he said that I think he entirely overlooked the deficiency in the Police Pension Fund, which accounted for £282,000 last year. We have no surplus. The balances have been increasingly depleted. In 1905 the balances stood at

575
£541,000, and they have been reduced, as I have explained, to £367,000, and this year we need £108,000 to restore the balances to something like a reasonable figure. Then the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, told us last year that if the Bill were thrown out, as it was, not a single policeman would go short of a farthing and not a single administrative act would be changed. I told the noble Viscount then that if he secured the rejection of the Bill all recruiting to give effect to the one day's rest in seven would have to be stopped, and it has been stopped.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My point was that it was not necessary to stop it. On the contrary, it has been proved that there was no necessity whatever to stop the recruiting for the one day's rest in seven.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I thought I had made it clear that if the one day's rest in seven is to be provided an additional deficiency will be incurred of £30,000 next year. Anyhow, I hope I made it quite clear that it was impossible to go on recruiting to give effect to the one day's rest in seven, and recruiting has since last December been at a standstill. I do not complain of all the arguments which the noble Viscount used, because to some extent I sympathise with him. He had very little time for considering the Bill, and no doubt some of his figures were rather hastily obtained. I suggest to-day that the controversy between us is narrowed, and it is narrowed to this, not whether the eleventh penny should be authorised, but subject to what restrictions and to what guarantees that authority should be given. And here we come to the important subsection to which I previously alluded. It runs thus—
"(b) before approving the issue of any warrants under section twenty-three of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1829, be the effect of which the annual sum to he provided for the purposes of the Metropolitan Police in any year will be for the first time increased above the rate of tenpence in the pound, the Secretary of State shall lay before the House of Commons a Minute stating the reasons for such increase; and if within the next twenty days on which the House has sat after any such Minute has been laid before it, an Address is presented to His Majesty by the House praying that the said increase be not made, the said increase shall not then be made."
I am aware that that is not what the noble Viscount asked for. What he asked for was that this second penny should not be levied unless a substantive Motion were introduced
576
and carried. But although there is a difference I suggest to him that the difference is not so very great, especially in view of the fact that he was then content, and I suppose is still content, to leave the duty of safeguarding the interests of the ratepayers to the House of Commons. I will read what the noble Viscount said last year about that. He said—
"In several measures which have passed the House of Commons it was required that the Act should not be put into operation until a substantive Motion had been moved and carried in both Houses. I do not here say both Houses of Parliament, but I do ask that if the Secretary of State, who cannot possibly for some years to come require more than a penny rate, desires to raise the other, he should give a pledge that a substantive Motion shall be moved in the House of Commons and carried before any portion of that further penny rate is applied to the services of the police."
As I say the difference between the noble Viscount's substantive Motion and what is placed in the Bill is not very considerable. It really whittles down to this, whether the discussion on this subject in the House of Commons should take place before eleven o'clock or after eleven o'clock, and I submit to you, if there is sufficient interest—I dare say there will be—on this subject in another place, that after eleven o'clock will afford ample opportunity for any individuals interested in the matter making an effective protest if they desire to do so.
In this matter we are, of course, very much in the hands of noble Lords opposite. But I appeal to the noble Viscount—and I would have appealed to the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition if he had been in his place—whether it is judicious for this House to appear to dictate to another place what is, after all, largely a matter of domestic concern to them, because it is very little more than a matter of machinery whether the opportunity for discussing this subject should take the form of a substantive Motion put down by the Secretary of State or whether it should be left to any individual member of the House of Commons to raise the question in the manner which is provided. The noble Viscount has, I think, good reason to be satisfied with what he has achieved. If he has not got all, he has got nearly all he asked for. He has occasioned delay, he has occasioned ample consideration of this subject in another place—two debates took place, as he well knows—he has accomplished a revision of the Bill, he has secured important concessions; and I put it to him, seeing that when he was in the position of Secretary of

577
State he asked for and obtained at the hands of the House of Commons and at your Lordships' hands wide and ample discretionary powers far larger than any we are considering to-day, whether it is not a little unbecoming of him to cavil when the Secretary of State comes down to your Lordships' House and asks you to give him certain discretionary powers, subject to the safeguards which are now in the Bill, in order that he may use them, if he thinks fit, in the public interest.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken prefaced his remarks by drawing attention to the alteration which has now taken place in this Bill, and he expressed a hope that we would now regard it with more satisfaction. Speaking for myself, I cannot say that I do regard it altogether with satisfaction. I think that any increase over the penny should only take place by Resolution of the House of Commons. But I will express my satisfaction at the figures which the noble Lord has given to the House this evening. Those figures show that it would require to meet the extra expenditure on the police force an additional sum of approximately £230,000. Your Lordships will recollect that when this Bill came up to us last December we refused to pass a measure which took power to impose, not a penny rate, but a twopenny rate—an extra burden of nearly £500,000 on the ratepayers of London—without the local authorities representing those ratepayers having had any opportunity of putting forward their views. Now the figures which the noble Lord has just given us provide, even taking the same basis for calculation as the noble Lord has done, ample and a complete vindication of your Lordships' action. That action was taken on a Motion by the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, that if it was found desirable to raise anything further than an extra penny rate a substantive Motion should be moved and carried in the House of Commons before any portion of the further penny rate was applied to the services of the police.
It is quite clear that a penny rate will be sufficient to meet the deficiencies in the Police Fund for the next three years. I will take the figures which the noble Lord has
578
himself given us this evening. He says there is a deficiency over revenue of £82,000. He then went on to say that it would require another £30,000 to provide one day's rest in seven under the Act of 1910, and then he asked for an additional £10,000 to cover the cost of recruiting a further 200 men. That leaves a net balance of £108,000 if a penny rate were imposed—a net balance which he suggests should be utilised for restoring the depletion in the working balance of the Police Fund. But I ask the noble Lord, Why does he propose to restore the working balance at one fell swoop? Would it not be more reasonable—it is not a recurring charge—and more in accordance with business methods, certainly under the circumstances, to spread this payment over two or even over three years if that were done, it would not be necessary to impose even an additional penny rate—a ¾d. rate would be quite sufficient for the year 1912–13, and the whole of the penny rate could be imposed in the following year, and the twopenny rate might be relegated to future years for our grandsons or granddaughters whoever controlled the Treasury in those days.
One fact, however, stands out quite clear. It is that, however you deal with these figures, on whatever basis you make your calculations, the produce of a penny rate is amply sufficient to cover the whole of the required expenditure at the present time and for the next few years. I ask your Lordships why, under those circumstances, did the Home Secretary try to make Party capital out of the rejection of this Bill last year? What was the foundation for the Home Secretary's statement in the public Press that we were responsible for preventing the metropolitan police from securing the benefits of the one day's rest in seven? This House was perfectly willing to accept a measure giving immediate power to impose an additional penny rate, but the Government were unwilling to restrict their measure in such a way as to give some security that Parliament should have an opportunity of discussing the matter before any further expenditure over and above that extra penny was imposed. What do we now find? The Home Secretary again produces this Bill taking power to impose an additional twopenny rate, against which even Members on his own side voted. When this Bill came to be discussed in Committee criticisms were freely offered from both sides of the

579
House, and the Bill, which was passed in the previous December without any discussion, owing to the circumstances under which it was smuggled through the House, found no friends when it was brought forward in a more constitutional manner. Mr. McKenna himself, with refreshing candour, made the following remark—
"After listening to the whole of the debate the one fact obvious is that nobody likes this Bill."
The Bill which the Home Secretary discovered on February 29 last was a Bill which nobody in the House of Commons liked was the same Bill to which he referred in his letter to The Times on December 21 last as having passed through the House of Commons by agreement. I really think that the position must have been a somewhat trying one, even for a gentleman of his great ability, to talk of a Bill having passed through the House of Commons by agreement, and then, when he conies to reintroduce it, to find that it meets with such vehement opposition that he is forced to bring forward a very important Amendment which has since been embodied in the Bill. This Bill is not the same Bill that we discussed last year, and in view of the alteration in it I might well ask the noble Lord opposite a question which I am afraid he cannot possibly answer, and that is, What about the agreed Bill out of which Mr. McKenna made so much Party capital? The agreed Bill was objected to by both sides of the House of Commons and has disappeared. The noble Lord asked whether it was advisable for us to dictate to the other House. My Lords, where was the dictation to the other House when the other House had no opportunity of discussing this Bill?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I was alluding to the present occasion, not to the past.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: We have not, as far as I know, this evening dictated to the other House. In my opinion we have clone what we wanted to do. We have given the other House that opportunity of discussing the matter which it was our duty to do. Substantially it comes to this, that the House of Commons, when afforded a reasonable opportunity of discussing and considering the matter, has taken the same view of the proposals of His Majesty's Government as was taken by your Lordships last December.
LORD MONK BRETTON: My Lords, I think we can all agree with the noble Earl who has just sat down that an extra penny rate is sufficient for the needs of the police at any rate for the next three years. I gather from the remarks of the noble Lord who introduced this Bill, and also from the remarks which were made in another place by the Home Secretary, that the only two circumstances which led to the asking for the second penny were, in the first place, the possible progressive decline in the Exchequer Contribution Account; and, secondly, the fear of labour tumults. I noticed that this evening the noble Lord laid very little stress on the former—on the possible progressive decline in the Exchequer Contribution Account. I venture to say there is a balance at the present moment and that it will be time enough to legislate for a possible progressive decline in that account when it arises, more especially as last year was a year of abnormal expenditure connected with the King's Coronation.
But the second contingency on which the noble Lord laid stress was the possibility of labour troubles. Far be it from me to say that that is not a very important matter at the present time, but what I would submit to your Lordships is that labour troubles are matters of great emergency and require emergency methods to meet them. It is the practice of the Home Secretary every year to borrow money for the purposes of the police. That has been explained by Mr. McKenna in another place, and it was alluded to this evening by the noble Lord, and if a great emergency occurs, surely that is a very proper case for an emergency loan and not a reason to impose taxation to the amount of £250,000 permanently upon the ratepayers of London. Those ratepayers, in spite of what the noble Lord has said, have had somewhat hard treatment in regard to payments to the police. Originally, and for a great number of years, the proportion was 4d. from the Exchequer and 5d. from the ratepayers Then, under the policy of the Act of 1888 and the assigned revenues from which the Exchequer Contribution Account was drawn, an alteration began to set in, and in the year 1907 the ratepayers paid a fraction over 51 per cent. as against the Exchequer's contribution of a little over 48 per cent In 1910 the ratepayers paid 55˙3 against the Exchequer's 44˙7 per cent. That was quoted by the noble Lord. What he did not

581
quote was that in the Estimates for this year the amount from the Exchequer Contribution Account is only 41˙7 against the ratepayers' 58˙3. Consequently the ratepayer is being increasingly burdened, and that in spite of the fact that the Royal Commission to which the noble Lord, referred recommended, that the contribution should be as 50 and 50, or half-and-half, and therefore I do say there is a very sound case to be made out for the consideration of the ratepayers of London in connection with this matter.
I do not think that your Lordships' House has any idea of objecting to the Second Reading of this Bill. Your Lordships never did object to the first penny. You recognised its necessity and endeavoured to meet the difficulty last December. But, as the noble Lord has pointed out, this Bill comes back to us with a very important change in it, and that change—I will call it Mr. McKenna's clause—the noble Lord read to the House. I do think that it is not fair, having regard to the press of business in another place and to the procedure there, to say that this second penny may be imposed without a Vote of the House of Commons. I think that it ought to be imposed by a Vote of the House of Commons. That would be a proper way to vote this very large increase. When you come to the Committee stage your Lordships will find that in any case you will have to amend this clause, because if you look at it you will see that it runs—
"And if, within the next twenty days on which the House has sat alter fly such Minute has been laid before it, an Address is presented to His Majesty by the House, praying that the said increase be not made, the said increase shall not then be made."
What does "then" mean? Does it mean this year or next year? Does it mean that the House of Commons may pass an Address that the increase should not be voted, but that the increase, though not then made, may be made the following year? The drafting of this clause, particularly in regard to the use of the word " then," is so ambiguous that in any case it will be necessary to amend it in Committee.
But that is not the whole ground of my objection to this clause as it stands. This clause contains the most unprecedented procedure. It has been the habit in many recent Bills to say that such and such Regulations or such and such Papers
582
should be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament and that certain things should only take place concurrently with them. That was the procedure in the National Insurance Act of last year, in the Finance Act of 1909–10, in the Trade Boards Act, 1909, and in the Labour Exchanges and Town Planning Acts. In all of those measures it was required that certain Papers should be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. I can find no precedent for the language in this clause, that the Minute shall be laid on the Table of the House of Commons only, But I believe I did discover where it might have arisen, because I looked in the Speaker's Manual as to the procedure of the House of Commons, and I found that this language has to be used in cases where Bills have been rejected three times under the Parliament Act, and are required to go to Royal Assent without the consent of your Lordships' House, or in the case of Finance Bills under the Parliament Act. But, so far as I am aware, this clause introduces new language which I believe is without precedent, at any rate in recent times, and therefore I submit that this is a matter for the grave consideration of your Lordships' House when this Bill goes into Committee.
I hope that your Lordships will not give the Home Secretary a blank cheque as to this second penny. I do not want to say extravagant things, but, after all, it was the Home Secretary who recently set the example of sending the metropolitan police to Wales. This year they may go to Ireland for all I know. That is not a matter which I wish to criticise. It may be necessary in the public interest. But what I do say is that if the metropolitan police are going to be used by the Home Secretary in this way, it is more than ever necessary to safeguard the interests of the London ratepayers, and that if they pay for a man to watch them they at least should have the benefit of his protection.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, do not wish to reiterate any of the arguments which have been ably put by my noble friend with regard to the financial question raised by this Bill, but there are two points on which I should like to ask for explanations before we give the Bill a Second Reading. I think that we have grave reason to complain of the language used by the Home Secretary and the

583
statements made after the rejection of this Bill on December 14 last year. Lord Ashby St. Ledgers has said to-night that he told us then that if the Bill was rejected the recruiting to supply the one day's rest in seven for the police must necessarily be stopped. He did tell us that, and it was repeated by the Home Secretary, but the statement had not a shadow of foundation. I say with great respect that recruiting was stopped as an electioneering appeal to the metropolitan police to prejudice them against your Lordships' House and against those who had stood in the way. The whole cost of the additional men to be raised for the metropolitan police for this particular service amounted to £51,000 a year, and the delay in regard to money caused by your Lordships rejection of this Bill three months ago would have accounted for something between £15,000 and £20,000 at the outside, and that in an expenditure which already amounts, from the ratepayers alone, to £1,500,000 a year. This fact makes it almost ludicrous to suppose that there was any foundation for the proposition put forward.
I am afraid I must go a step further. We; have never been treated fairly and frankly in this matter. Everybody knows —the figures have shown it most conclusively and it was proved in the House of Commons—that these additions which are to be made to the police are to be made on three grounds—first, the rest day, the charge in respect of which I have already mentioned to your Lordships; secondly, the normal increase of the police due to the increase of population; and, thirdly, in order to have a larger reserve of men available for possible emergencies, which have nothing whatever to do with the rest day. Those emergencies had an extremely apt illustration last year, when for three or four months the metropolitan police sent a large body of men to Tonypandy. But there has never been a proposal to reimburse the ratepayers for their share in the cost. It is quite true that the Government are going to pay for the actual period during which those men were away, but everybody knows that if you are to be ready to send 1,000 men at any moment for two months or three months away from the force, you are putting upon the ratepayers the expense for the other nine or ten months of keeping these men so that they may be available, and that was the main object for the
584
increase. The numbers required for the weekly rest day in addition to those raised before did not justify the Home Secretary in the remarks he made and in the attempt he made in the public Press to declare that by your Lordships' action his hands had been tied in the policy with regard to one day's rest in seven, on which we were all agreed.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I said that national services such as those to which the noble Viscount alluded are more than covered by the grant of £100,000 per annum from the Exchequer.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: It is a pity that the noble Lord has not given us the exact figures as to the number of men, which would have assisted us in forming a judgment as to the truth of the Home Secretary's statement. We have the figures at the London County Council, and we know the facts. The public, if they had them before them, would see at once that what I have stated to your Lordships is absolutely correct.
I am only concerned with two or three points this afternoon. The first is to point out that your Lordships were amply justified in the course which was taken three months ago. We asserted then that an extra penny would be sufficient., and it has now been proved in the House of Commons that an extra penny rate will be sufficient for the next three years. We contended that the Bill had been hastily considered, and that no opportunity had been given for the expression of adverse opinion. That has been proved; because not one single London Member in the House of Commons rose to support the Bill during the two evenings on which it was under discussion. Every London Member, so far as we know, opposed the Bill, but after an appeal had been made by the Home Secretary to their patriotism to Party a number of those who had spoken against the Bill finally voted with the Government. We asserted also that it was absolutely necessary that there should be some safeguard before the second penny was raised. That safeguard has been put in, but not in a form for which there is any precedent or which can be well defended. It is quite true that I suggested that a substantive Motion should be made. Unquestionably it is one thing to say that for a particular object the

585
Government shall propose a substantive Motion in one House, and it is quite another to say, when you insert a provision that objection can be taken, that this House shall be placed in a different position from that which it has always occupied.
I say it was a most serious charge which was made against us that this House was alone in standing against the Bill. It has now been proved that this House had the support of all those who represent the ratepayers of London. What we succeeded in doing was to stop the Government from smuggling this Bill through without proper discussion. I confess that I feel it very strongly, when those who represent the ratepayers are struggling to keep down the rates of London, to find so large a sum placed upon the ratepayers which has always before been divided between Imperial funds and the rates. We have a most valuable admission in addition to the other points from the noble Lord this afternoon, because he told us that it might certainly be considered that a case had been made out for further contributions from the State, and if we obtain that alone, of which we take note, we have obtained something which the ratepayers would have lacked but for the action taken by your Lordships' House in December last.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Lords, by the indulgence of the House I should like to make a few remarks upon what has been said. I understand that the noble Viscount is more or less satisfied with the safeguards at present provided in the Bill, but he feels that if there is not to be the substantive Motion for which he asks the Minute should be laid on the Table of both Houses. [VISCOUNT MIDLETON nodded assent.] I understand that if it is by a substantive Motion the noble Viscount would not expect it to be moved and carried in both Houses, but if the safeguard is to take the form in the Bill then he thinks the Minute ought to be laid on the Table of both Houses. If that is his point and if that is really all there is between us, and if, subject to that, the Bill can go through in its present form, I think I can undertake that the Secretary of State will be prepared to accept that alteration in the subsection.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Then I understand the noble Lord will accept an Amendment to that effect if it is moved in Committee?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I cannot absolutely pledge the Secretary of State, as the noble Viscount will understand, but if he or any other noble Lord puts down an Amendment to that effect for the Committee stage I will see the Secretary of State and ascertain whether it would be accepted. I think very likely it would be.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

THE CONGO.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER*THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER rose to call attention to the affairs of the Congo. The right rev. Prelate said: My Lords, I do not think that even at this time, when our minds are preoccupied with matters so grave, I need make any apology to your Lordships for asking a few minutes' attention to the subject which I have put on the Paper. Whatever the gravity of the relations between classes here, anyone, I think, who has considered the future must feel that the relations between nations and races are at least as grave. I think it would further be admitted that the matter of the Congo State has been for some years past the premier case of anxiety and even of danger, moral and political, in regard to the relations between the white races and the coloured. I cannot express that better than in the words of the Foreign Secretary, who said that "no external question for at least thirty years has moved this country so strongly and vehemently."
There was a great force of public opinion, which came not only from quarters where opinion upon these subjects may be thought to be a little too lively and excitable, but which expressed itself through a great meeting in each large centre of population and industry presided over in case after case by the chief magistrate of the city. That opinion found voice also in the men whom we are accustomed to look to most for official interpretation, or something like official interpretation, of the opinion of the country. The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, the present Foreign Secretary, the noble Earl who now sits upon

587
the Front Bench (Lord Cromer) expressed themselves in language which I should think had had few parallels in comment upon the conduct of another State concerning the breach of faith, as it was considered, between the promises made when the Congo Free State was started and the actual performances. The cynicism with which methods of unexampled cruelty were carried out justified that strength of feeling in the country and that strength of expression on the part of responsible men who are accustomed to weigh their words. That strength of feeling was due, I think, to two causes—first, the character of the régime which then prevailed in the Congo; and, secondly, the fact that the conscience and best opinions of this country felt that quite unmistakably we had a responsibility in the Congo. I need hardly justify that statement. It has been made by statesman after statesman, but I may just quote the expression, for instance, used by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, who said—
"I cannot admit that there is any doubt as to our right."
I shall refer to that again in another connection. I think we shall all feel that when there has been a great agitation of that kind, an agitation thoroughly justifiable and thoroughly representative of the best feeling and conscience of the country, it is a serious and anxious matter to watch what the issue of it is—whether it proves ineffective altogether, whether it dies down leaving public opinion disappointed and wearied, and is succeeded by a period of lassitude and want of interest in the matter. And I feel that if in this House, after some time has passed and when we are at a critical point, perhaps one of the last critical points in the history, we showed no interest in the matter, we should be lacking rather in our duty.
What was the result of that agitation? I am bound to say that I am doubtful whether it would have achieved anything had it not been for the death of the principal actor in these transactions. I do not know whether those who represent us diplomatically were or were not to blame, hut it seems to me extremely doubtful whether, but for that death, anything would have followed. It is true that the Congo Free State had been a few months before the death of King Leopold II transferred to Belgium, but it had been transferred in a way which showed no concern whatever for
588
the representations made on behalf of this country and under conditions which gave no guarantee for any improvement. But the whole scene changed with the death of King Leopold, and this country entered upon the new stage with, I think, a great feeling of hope. Belgium has always been a country with which we have had close relations. We have the feelings which connect together two races that have stood for freedom and whose interests of industry and so on are largely the same. Therefore I think England expected from that change a great deal. We hoped for the influence of a Parliamentary régime and we hoped for the influence of a young new Monarch who was known, both in Europe and, as the Papers show, in the Congo, to take so much interest in the matter that it might be well expected that a great deal would follow. And so, as regards public opinion here, I should describe what happened by saying that public opinion became passive in the matter, though I do not think it lost its interest, and I believe that in many quarters of society you would find that people were rather anxiously watching to see what next would follow.
If I may say so, I do not think any very great pains were taken to satisfy legitimate anticipations in that way. I believe I am right in saying that the most rev. Primate some time ago expressed in this House the opinion that it would be very desirable if we could be more rapidly supplied with such Papers as the Government might have in their possession. All through this Congo business there has been some strange reluctance—perhaps those who understand foreign affairs better than I do can explain it—to bring out Papers which were perfectly fit for publication and which were finally published, but which were not brought out without delay. I only say that in passing. But we now have a considerable body of opinion in the White Paper, Africa No. 2 (1911). What does that show? In the first place, it gives the fullest justification to the agitation in England; it justifies fully what was felt and said about the system which had prevailed; it shows that the movement of moral opinion—I claim no monopoly, I am thankful to say, for that to England, for there were forces in other countries, notably in Germany and in some degree in France, which were taking the same side—it shows that all that movement of opinion has had a great deal of result.
At one definite result it has had every lover of humanity must rejoice. It seems pretty plain that throughout the Congo district, perhaps throughout the whole area, outrages as we understand that word have disappeared. There are no longer the horrible mutilations, the cutting off of hands, the treatment of women and the rest. These, things have passed away with the malign influence by which they were sheltered. I think that that would in itself be an enormous relief to public opinion. But, of course, it might possibly be a relief out of proportion to the real value, because outrages appeal to our sentiments, and a system out of which the outrages have proceeded may really threaten harm which is not so much noticed, which is not, if I may say so, so sensational, but against which there is almost as much reason to protest. All through in this agitation the principles of which the outrages were the outcome had been kept quite steadily in view. It has never been a question of merely saying that such and such a case of intolerable cruelty on a large scale, amounting to the decimation of the population and so on—it has never been said that those, and those alone, are the acts against which we protest. On the contrary, it has been said over and over again that these follow as a matter of course from a system which does not treat the native as a free man, which does not allow him any property in the land which is his own, which denies him, therefore, the opportunity of trading and of true progress, and which, in fact, exploits a great country for the sole benefit of a foreign race of a different colour.
I think we may say, not only that the outrages have disappeared, but that there is evidence that the present Government of Belgium has done a great deal to alter the whole manner of treatment of the country. We are fold in this White Paper that there are signs that '"the former régime is undergoing radical change," and there are other parts of the White Book which amply confirm that. Perhaps I may mention one point which in some ways is the surest of indications. We know what enormous sums have been wrung out of the Congo under the Leopoldian system. We all wondered when Belgium took over the Congo what it would do in that respect; whether it would keep on wringing money out, or whether it would agree to be a loser. The Budget statistics given in the White
590
Paper show that receiving on the part of Belgium is more or less at an end, and that some degree of spending is taking its place. I should like just to say at this point that the evidence of improvement comes, not only from our Consuls, to whom we all feel we owe so great a debt in the whole history of this matter for informing and enlightening opinion in a very intrepid way but also from the missionaries. Perhaps I have a professional prejudice in favour of missionaries, but I do think that it is often suspected by public opinion generally that a missionary is a man who is always ready to complain and perhaps by so doing to make himself a nuisance. I think in the matter of the Congo we can hardly exaggerate what we owe to the missionaries—not connected with my own Church at all—who were greatly responsible for bringing to light the horrors of what happened. But I want now to point out that the same class of men speak with complete frankness about the improvement that has taken place, and seem to enjoy speaking well of their rulers at least as much as they can be supposed by some to have enjoyed speaking evil of them.
Perhaps your Lordships think that at that point I might leave the matter. Opinion has worked an enormous improvement. The Belgian Government has lent itself to the influence of that opinion, which, let it be remembered, some of the men who now compose the Belgian Government scoffed at and denounced as futile and mistaken. Therefore it may be said that we can leave the future to take care of itself. But, my Lords, I should like to give one or two reasons why I think the policy of leaving the future to take care of itself would be an entirely mistaken one. First of all, we have to take account of the fact that all through one of the reasons which seem to us and to our Government to justify protest and action has been steadily denied on the part of those who were responsible for the Belgian Government, and denied in terms which I think no Government of a first-class Power could have allowed without challenge on the part of another first-class Power—terms which certainly showed no superfluous courtesy or consideration, to say the least. The Belgian Government has always, before the death of King Leopold II and since, thrown back in the face of our Foreign Office any claim, which here everybody believes to be just on the part

591
of Great Britain, to interfere in the matter at all on the ground of Treaty right and of the particular way in which the Congo State was set up. I think we might have hoped from the sister country of Belgium, when they came to recognise by their action that in the main the agitation here had been thoroughly justified and when in the main what was asked for had been done, that some frankness and acknowledgment, some courtesy, might have been given to us in return for the almost invincible courtesy with which the Foreign Secretary of this country had treated the Belgian Government. That, perhaps, is not a matter of any great importance—words are not deeds. But I think we cannot read the evidence before us and say that all cruelty—cruelty, I mean, even such as is condemned by the rather low standard which I am afraid prevails in many places between European and native races—that all such cruelty has disappeared. We find still that the "chicotte," the hippopotamus whip, is in use. We find that there is a supply of arms going on to chiefs, some of them not the legitimate chiefs of the people but soldiers who have been put into chiefs' places and who keep troops of a low native type—always one of the worst incidents in the whole matter—and who by such measures as can be supposed accumulate wives to themselves.
But let that pass. Let us come to the very heart of the matter. The representatives of our Government insisted again and again that the system was wrong right through, and must disappear. It is against all fair international dealing with the subject race to confiscate the land; it is against the elementary rights of the native, to destroy his power to trade and to force him to labour, not for his own benefit, but for the benefit of the governing Power. What has been the case, then, about the system? Has it been root and branch abolished? We all know what happened. The Belgian Government determined to deal with the system by instalments. In 1910 there was to be the abolition of forced labour and there was to be free trade throughout one section of the country, and so it happened. In 1911 there was to be the same through another section, and so again it happened; and in July of the present year the same thing is to extend to the last section of the Congo State, and so I believe it certainly will happen.
592
Criticisms have been made upon that method of dealing with the matter, and when we realise how evil the thing has been some impatience at seeing it abolished in that piecemeal way is not unnatural. But I do not think we should make too much of that. We know how difficult it is to change in these matters and how much is involved. But I think we are bound to notice that the land into which the new system was first brought was just the land which had been most exhausted. Therefore the land in which the old system still lasts, with many of its attendant evils, is the best field for exploitation. Let me quote from the White Paper to justify that—
"The 1910 area, except for a few oases, is practically exhausted."
With regard to the other area, we read—
"Forest rubber is fast disappearing, and by the time the Government surrenders the monopoly on this produce there will be none left."
And meanwhile—this is what seems to me the ugliest feature of the case—in the last area—that is, the 1912 area—where the pressure of the tyrannical system could still produce large results in rubber the system has been pressed with ruthless severity. That statement is made by Vice-Consul Armstrong with reference to the Uele district. The Vice-Consul says that the system could not be abolished at one blow, but I think any one who reads his description would say that that was a very mild way of expressing the truth. The old system is going to be pushed; on up to the hilt until the day in July this year is reached—I mean exacting from the native labour at the rate of three days in every four, or twenty-five days in the month, pursuing the native into the forest and forcing him to labour. We read that—
"Every effort was made to obtain as much rubber as possible with a total disregard of the means employed by the chiefs to enforce it."
The Vice-Consul also uses these words—
"A direct system of slavery has been created and is maintained by the Government."
Now, my Lords, I think that is not only an important point in itself, but that it has further importance in raising in our minds a certain amount of distrust about Belgian action even under the altered and better system. There is another point upon which I think some real stress should be laid—namely, that the Government of Belgium, in abolishing this abominable and unjust system and in setting up those improved conditions to which I have tried

593
to do full justice, reserves to itself, and is known to reserve to itself, a power of revoking these concessions and falling back upon the older methods. I should like here, if I may, to state the words of one who I think is universally respected in this matter, and if his countrymen had listened a little more attentively to him we should have got, I think, earlier to better results—I mean M. Vandervelde. These are his words—
"The State reserves to itself the right to limit, to suppress, or to alienate the areas in which the light of the natives to gather produce is exercised, and to maintain or to extend the concessions system."
I understand the concessions system to mean putting the whole territory into the hands of a company and letting them do to a large extent what they like. He adds—
"All the territories, or nearly all, whose exploitations have proved remunerative have been reserved for exploitation."
I ask you to consider what the effect of this power of revocation is upon the native, and I also ask your Lordships to consider—what others are far better able to discuss than myself—the effect it must have on trade, because if security be the first condition, as I suppose it to be, of the development of trade, then the absence of a guarantee for the future would certainly be against that development of trade, which almost more than anything we desire to see in the Congo area. This is no imaginary risk: more than one of our Consuls appear to report that a return to the old system is regarded as a very real possibility.
There are other points connected with that which combine to cause us suspicion. There is the maintenance of a standing force of low-paid black soldiers; there is the fact that many of those who are working the new régime in Belgium and probably in the Congo are people who worked—shall I say contentedly—in connection with the old régime, and there are certain other sinister things because they are so capable of further development—I mean requisitions of labour for works of public utility and for revenue purposes and works for Government profit. When we find those things still going on, when we find also that upon a tremendously exhausted country taxation is still exceptionally heavy, when we find that the Government itself is entering into competition with traders, I think there are elements of danger in all that which cannot be regarded with other than very grave consideration.
What, then, is the duty of England in those, circumstances? I would submit that the duty of England is not to relax such hold as she already has, which is not a very great hold. What is it? It is, as your Lordships probably all know, that hitherto this country has not recognised—to use the technical phrase—the annexation of the Congo by Belgium. In answer to this the Belgian authorities have steadily "bluffed" all claims on our part to interfere. It has been said on our side that in requiring improvements we were only claiming our Treaty rights and discharging our Treaty obligations. So the Foreign Secretary said; and it has been said by the noble Marquess opposite that he could not admit that there was any doubt of our right to interfere. And with that right in his hand, the Foreign Secretary, in a memorable declaration, said—
"It must be a condition precedent to any transfer of the Congo to another authority that that authority should take it over on terms—"
Here I think the statement becomes a little indefinite—
"which would place it in a position to give assurances and to guarantee that those assurances shall be carried out and the Treaty obligations of the Congo fulfilled."
We all know how that was understood here. It was understood to mean that whatever power, diplomatic at least, England possessed would be employed to prevent annexation unless guarantees were given; we know that it was so complained of by Belgium; and we know that the interpretation was true, because when the guarantees were not given the British Government, though it entirely failed to back up its strong words with strong deeds, did not recognise annexation.
Recognition is the one remaining weapon or lever in our hands. The reports of the Consuls show it to be assumed in the country that if once England recognises the annexation there is an end to all interference with the internal affairs whether by England or by any other country. It has then passed out of the condition of international guarantee into a position of international independence. Therefore if I ha\e put the case rightly before your Lordships it will mean that Great Britain acquiesces in a system which, except for outrages, still retains, either in execution or in reserve, the principles of the system against which the protests were made. I should like to express

595
what I desire to say in the words of one of our Consuls—
"The Belgian Government has yet to make good its claim that the native will be justly and humanely treated, and that forced labour will not be permitted."
I venture to claim your attention for one moment more because I cannot end without referring to what does appear to me to be a very regrettable utterance on the part of one of our representatives. On Page 52 of the White Paper we have an account from Sir Arthur Hardinge, our representative in Brussels, of an interview between himself and the Belgian Minister. In his Despatch to Sir Edward Grey he alludes to the fact that in 1912 the whole area will be free, and then he says—
"and it will probably then be possible for you consistently with the attitude "which you have throughout maintained, to recognise, or at least to seriously consider the recognition of. Belgian rule in the Congo, and thus close a disagreeable chapter in the history of our relations with this country."
I speak with submission, but in that last phrase I seem to recognise what has been, perhaps, a weakness in our whole treatment of the matter—namely, that looked at from Brussels and not from Africa, the happiness or unhappiness of our relations with Belgium bulk rather larger than the happiness or the unhappiness of the natives of the Congo. I cannot but think it matter for regret that, in view of those reasons which I have tried to state for a considerable remainder of anxiety on the part of this country about the future action of Belgium, Sir Arthur Hardinge went in front of his chief, and I may almost say half committed his chief to a course of recognition, instead of, for the remainder of the time at the very least, leaving whatever power the withholding of recognition gives in the hands of the Home Government.
I hope I have not occupied your Lord ships' attention too long. I should like to ask the noble Viscount who represents the Foreign Office whether he can give us any satisfaction on the matter, and in particular whether he can tell us that the Foreign Office—we have, I believe, an assurance that it will not proceed without giving an opportunity to Parliament and to the country of considering what it intends to do—will not proceed without considering very gravely whether before recognition there should not be some more distinct assertion by the Belgian Government that what it has been largely doing, and what it purposes still further
596
to do in the remainder of the area within a few months, shall represent a permanent change in the method of administration, and shall therefore give at the eleventh hour to the peoples of the Congo, and to those who on this side of the water are looking to the credit of the white races in Africa, the guarantee which has been so often asked.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: My Lords, last year the most rev. Primate called the attention of the House to this grave matter. He took a slightly different tone from that of the right rev. Prelate who has just addressed us, and who certainly need not for a moment have apologised for detaining us too long. We all listened to what he said with the greatest interest and attention. But last year the most rev. Primate admitted that we needed to exercise great patience in forming our opinions and stating our demands as to measures to be taken by the Belgian Government in what he called truly a limited region shrouded from our view, and I think the right rev. Prelate who has just spoken has not quite made allowance enough for the enormous difficulties which are interposed in the way of getting correct and authentic and sound information. At the same time, the Government have no complaint whatever to make of the right rev. Prelate for introducing the matter.
Last year the most rev. Primate used what I thought was a very good expression. He warned us that after one great step in reform had been taken, and before its fruits were reaped, time was a great narcotic. But, apart from that, there is no lassitude and no indifference in the public mind in this country at this moment. What there is is a feeling that the arduous experiment of the transformation of the system of government of the Congo from the terrible system that did prevail, and the substitution for it of a system more conformable to decent humanity, is a thing which does take time and which requires consideration. For example, when the American Union had their great struggle for the abolition of slavery there was impatience, of course, but sensible people felt—in fact circumstances made them feel—that there could not in a moment be substituted for the system of slavery in the Southern States of the American Union a free system; and in our own case—though I do not remember the details—I am pretty sure that from

597
the first step when we abolished the slave trade there was a long interval before a satisfactory substitution of a new system came into force. So now, without in the least wanting to relax the pressure of opinion in this country, we must still be perfectly just and reasonable in the demand which we make either in the shape of public opinion or through the Foreign Office.
There is a suspicion—and the right rev. Prelate has given voice to it—which I think is as yet an unreasonable suspicion, that somehow or another the recognition of the annexation of this unregulated zone on July 1 of this year when the third zone is finally taken in, is going to be something surreptitious and outside of public view. This is not so, and I wish that the right rev. Prelate had given a little more emphasis to Sir Edward Grey's definite and emphatic declaration. So far from anything surreptitious being possible after a declaration of that kind, I think the right rev. Prelate will feel that any suggestion of surreptitiousness is thoroughly beside the mark. Sir Edward Grey has said, not once but two or three or four times, that His Majesty's Government will not recognise the Belgian annexation of the Congo until he can lay before Parliament evidence that the state of affairs as to the condition of the natives and the freedom of trade is satisfactory. So far as the third zone is concerned, the zone that is yet under the old system, we do not think that the reports received and laid before Parliament would justify recognition. When the third zone has been thrown open—that is, placed on the same footing as the other two zones—we shall before recognition have to be convinced that the condition of affairs in that zone is satisfactory or that the measures taken are calculated to ensure that at an early date. I think that in view of a declaration of this kind any notion that the Government have the slightest idea of letting recognition of the annexation by Belgium slide through unobserved is not reasonable.
Something has been said by the right rev. Prelate of a pledge on our part to insist on the rights of the native population to dispose freely of the produce of their land and labour. That pledge, it is said, has not been made absolutely secure. I am sure the right rev. Prelate will not suspect me of any desire to play fast and loose with what has been a revolting subject, but what is
598
now, I do really believe, a hopeful subject, and I think the right rev. Prelate used no language that did not indicate that he held hopes both of the good faith of the Belgian Government and of the strenuousness of our own efforts to do what we can to influence Belgian opinion. And let us note, as that expression has fallen from me that there is in Belgium a very strong public opinion, which finds voice from time to time in the Belgian Chamber, of aversion to all the odious abominations and atrocities that marked the rule of a deceased Sovereign in the Congo. Let us take note of that, as I am quite sure the right rev. Prelate does. The Congo Reform Association say that that pledge has not been made absolutely secure; and the devoted secretary of the Congo Reform Association, in a letter to the noble Earl who is sitting opposite, says that—
"There is no indication that the Foreign Office have the slightest intention of making British recognition subject to this right—"
THE EARL OF CROMER: Would the noble Viscount tell me what he is quoting from?
VISCOUNT MORLEY: It is a letter from Mr. Morel to the noble Earl himself. I cannot remember where I got it, but I think it will be found authentic.
THE EARL OF CROMER: I do not remember it.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Certain reservations were, no doubt, made in the Reform Decree of March, 1910. There is, however, we feel assured, no intention to restore the ancient system of the Congo State in any part of the Congo State. The Belgian Government could not reasonably be expected to condemn the State ownership of vacant land, but they have renounced the system of working the produce of the land. They are pleased with the result of the change effected, and have, we believe, no intention whatever of reversing decisions which were only arrived at after deliberate reflection.
I do not know what more you can ask from a Government, which, after all, is a respected and important Government. We cannot ask for a better guarantee by the State of its desire to reform the system of administration than the new system which they have introduced. It is admitted that in the two zones already dealt with they have introduced a new system. Surely the

599
right rev. Prelate does not expect us to ask the Belgian Government to bind themselves for all time not to change their system again—that is to say, not to have a reaction and swing back from reform to the old detestable state of things? Surely everybody in the House will say that for us to use language of that kind would be to use futile and rather insulting language to a friendly and apparently reasonably zealous Government. If in the future—this is my answer to the right rev. Prelate—the Belgian Government of the day chooses to revert to the hateful system of which we have seen the end in two zones, and shortly shall, we hope, in the third zone, it will be for the British Government of that day to take the step and make the energetic remonstrance which the right rev. Prelate would expect.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: Would the noble Viscount allow me to ask him whether he does not think that the explicit reservation which the Belgian Government now makes of a right to revert to the old system is not a fair subject of challenge on the part of the British Government?
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I will not argue whether it is a fair subject of challenge or not. But I am sure the right rev. Prelate is alive to this, that Governments carrying on dealings with one another have to choose the particular moment before they press this or that point, and they have to deal with that point for example in connection with their own whole attitude towards Congo reform. I do not think that is an unreasonable line to take. Now to go a little more into detail. The right rev. Prelate spoke about suspicion. Any one can see that if the Belgian Government were to put back the men who took an active part in the hateful administration which everybody now condemns, it would be an obvious and gross evil, and would really nullify paper reforms. Everybody agrees to that. But there, again, let us look at the White Paper to which the right rev. Prelate referred. At Page 49 Sir Edward Grey, writing to Sir Arthur Hardinge, says—
"You are authorised to make such use of Mr. Armstrong's Despatch in conversation with M. Davignon or M. Renkin as you think fit, and you should point out the inference that there can be little hope of really satisfactory progress so long as the present class of officials remains unchanged."
I quote that to show that the Foreign Office are alive to the mischief, and that they have
600
instructed our Ministers at Brussels to represent that view to the responsible persons in Brussels. Therefore I think that on the point of the old officials their withers are unwrung.
The right rev. Prelate will not think it unreasonable if I make one or two remarks about the sending of new officials to the Congo. It is obvious to every one of us—I am sure the noble Earl opposite will recognise it—that you cannot change offhand in a few months, or even in a year or two, all the officials who have experience of the country and know the ways of the natives, and so forth. It is not a very easy thing to do. It is also not very easy to find a number of officials in Belgium or anywhere else who are willing to go into a remote and most unhealthy region. You want a great mass of patriotic and humane men willing to undertake those burdens off-hand. Then I would say that some of the officials complained of in the concessions region—this, I admit, is a very disquieting point, but it only touches those regions where the Belgian Government are only very secondarily responsible—are put in by those companies whom the Belgian Government have naturally considerable difficulty in supervising and restraining. In the debate on the Congo Budget in the Belgian Chamber, I think last February, the Colonial Minister, M. Renkin, said—and this I am sure the right rev. Prelate will accept as a final answer to that particular point in his statement of the case—that means would be taken to raise the standard of all officials in the Congo service, that their salaries would be raised, that officers of bad character and tradition would not be retained, and where required a complete reorganisation would be effected. That seems to me, as I am sure it will to everybody, to be thoroughly satisfactory.
Then as to State trading, I think the right rev. Prelate mentioned the ivory trade. It certainly is made much of, and justly, by those who are concerned in this matter. It is stated that the Belgian Government is a keen and interested and—the word is used—dishonourable competitor in ivory. That is all very well. But what did M. Renkin say last December in the Belgian Chamber? He is the responsible Minister, and he said that he had given definite orders that all purchases of ivory were to cease and come to an end on the opening up of the Congo in the successive stages of freeing trade, and

601
when the last step is taken on July 1 of this year there is to be a cessation also of the exploitation of the land, so little eager is the Belgian Government to enter into these dealings which are so open to suspicion and doubt. I should like to quote, if the House will allow me, from a Despatch, or Report, sent to the Foreign Office dated February 12 last, which ought to quiet apprehension and misgiving on the subject of ivory. It will be recollected that formerly all ivory had to be taken to a Government station to be stamped; one tusk out of two became the property of the State, and the State officials usually took the opportunity of persuading the native to sell his second tusk very cheap. I think we can guess what that means. M. Renkin has now stated that this is to be discontinued, and it seems that the native can, if he chooses, redeem the tusk hitherto handed over as duty. This is a very great advantage to the native and to the trader. The expense of obtaining two tusks is the same as the expense of obtaining one, and if the duty of 18 francs a kilo, leaves any margin of profit, it is clearly to the native's advantage to pay for and take away both tusks. Also the European trader will probably be glad to get as much ivory into his hands and out of the hands of the State as he can.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: What is the noble Viscount quoting from?
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I am giving the substance of and quoting the words in the last part of the Despatch to the Foreign Office of February 12.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: It will be laid on the Table, of course, as it has been quoted and is a document of great importance?
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Yes; it will be laid when the other Papers are laid.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I will take it for granted that it will be laid.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: The most rev. Primate is not wrong in taking it for granted that any document will be laid on the Table, if necessary, to show that I am not reading a concocted passage. Now with regard to forced labour. The right rev. Prelate dealt, quite naturally,
602
with the point that while proposing to employ forced labour—it is not denied that forced labour is employed—only for works of public utility, such a construction has been put on that convenient phrase "public utility" as to include all kinds of work, and that many pretended volunteers are really men who are forced to work. I quote again M. Renkin, the Colonial Minister. He says that the moment the Belgian Government heard of these proceedings they condemned and forbade them, and that they have not ! been repeated. No Consular Reports that the Foreign Office have had show that M. Renkin is wrong. There is nothing to show that the Belgian Government have not done their best to forbid that, and they believe that that is so. But let us look at this like men who realise the difficulties of introducing all the refinements and necessities of civilisation into these backward and barbarous places. You cannot do it off-hand, and it may be and I dare say it is—in spite of there being no information from our Consul that M. Renkin was wrong or over-stated his case when he said this—not at all improbable that Belgian officials in far-off and distant places may be attempting to bring pressure to bear upon natives to work where labour is scarce. I hope nobody will think that His Majesty's Government will not do the very best they can to ask the Belgian Government to keep their eye upon that if it is necessary. But still we have to look at it reasonably, and we must not suppose that we have a complete monopoly of the gifts and the faculties and the human feelings which go to make these rough places smooth.
The right rev. Prelate said something about finance. I will only trouble the House with one single figure. I am now referring to the Congo Budget, which says that the excess of expenditure over revenue is twenty-two million francs. This sum represents the excess of expenditure proposed for 1912 over the revenue estimated as available during that year, and in the face of a figure of that kind we cannot reasonably suggest that the Belgian Government is wringing excessive taxation out of the country concerned. In the last Report we have, which has in truth just arrived—it is one since the White Paper was printed—this is what is said by, I think, a Consul, but it is official at any rate and it is full of details. It gives details of this

603
place and that place and the other place, but as the names are difficult to pronounce I will not attempt to pronounce them, and I do not think anybody in the House would be the wiser if I read every page of the Report. I will, therefore, read a sort of summary of it—
"The Belgian Government has lightened the burden of taxation to the native in areas where poverty and poor economic conditions rendered exemption advisable. … While the measures of 1911 are, indeed, dwarfed in their scope and importance compared with the epoch-making Acts of 1910 throwing the Congo open to unfettered trade in three zones, they cannot be regarded as a whole other than tending in the same wholesome direction. The policy inaugurated in 1910 has therefore, at least as reflected in the Legislative Acts of the Government, continued to pursue its course through 1911 along lines that make for the betterment of the Congo, its people and its commerce."
I am sure the right rev. Prelate will be delighted to hear testimony of that kind. It is satisfactory, and I have every reason to suppose that it is a veracious estimate of the actual state of things. I have said already that there is a strong and wholesome public opinion in Belgium, and what has been said in the papers the right rev. Prelate is well acquainted with. See what is said by Mr. Harris, whose authority is accepted, and not unjustly, by the Congo Association. This is dated December 30, 1911—
"We are glad to recognise the great change that has come over the Congo, and are prepared to extend an encouraging and even a warm eulogy on the Belgian Government, and more especially on King Albert, for the disappearance of certain features of the old régime. There are facts which it would be folly to ignore, and these facts give rise to certain questions."
It is quite true that there are undoubtedly some facts which it would be folly to ignore, but do let us have in our minds that declaration that he, a zealous missionary, is prepared to extend an encouraging and warm eulogy on the Belgian Government.
I should like to read also from the Report of the Congo Association Paragraph 9 on Page 33, referring to the Consuls' Reports—
"Accompanied as they are by sundry warnings and grave criticism, the Consuls' reports in so far as they deal with the reformed areas are encouraging, and the opinions of a number of missionaries therein quoted the Association rejoices to note. There can be no doubt that the present situation in the reformed areas is altogether different from what it was, and the Association is the less likely to wish to minimise these improvements, since it is able with some justice to claim that its own labours have not been foreign to securing them."
It is perfectly true that you have to deal with the future. All we can say about the future is that the success of the policy of the
604
past, due to the Belgian Government, and, of course, to pressure within Belgium and from outside, encourages us to hope that the future will continue the growth of that harvest which we have already obtained.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I did not come down to the House this afternoon with any intention of speaking on this subject, for the truth is I have rather lost touch with Congo affairs lately. Neither should I speak now if it had not been that one or two allusions have been made to my opinions in the course of this debate. The right rev. Prelate said with great truth that what was required was a thorough change of system in the Congo, and that the system of the past was absolutely vicious from beginning to end. There cannot be a doubt of that. But I, perhaps, go rather further than the right rev. Prelate in condemning that system, for I think its main defect was that the same governing body was concerned with commercial enterprise and administration. That system has been tried, as your Lordships are aware, many times in other countries—by the old East India Company in India, and elsewhere. It always has been a failure and I believe always will be a failure. Neither do I think that the Congo administration will be reformed until the whole of that system is swept away. But I quite admit the enormous difficulties the Belgian Government would have to encounter in sweeping it away, and I almost doubt, with the best intentions possible, whether it would be feasible for any Government to do so. All we can hope for is that they will make as many improvements as they can and move forward in the desired direction. I do not think any one can fairly ask for more than that.
I was very glad the noble Viscount read that passage in Mr. Harris's letter. I had intended to bring it down to the House myself, but unfortunately left the paper on my table. No doubt great improvements have been made, but at the same time a great deal remains to be done. The only really practicable question to-day is recognition—that is, I believe, the crux of the whole matter; and I think that the noble Viscount's expression on this subject ought to go a long way to satisfy the friends of Congo reform. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, as I understand, has not given any sort of pledge that he will recognise annexation at all. His hands are

605
absolutely free in the matter. All he says Is that he will be prepared to consider it, and he has further given a pledge that there will be no recognition until such time as the Papers have been laid before Parliament and Parliament and public opinion have had an opportunity of informing themselves on the subject and expressing their opinion. I do not think we can ask for more than that.
We must bear in mind that the Belgian Government are in a very difficult position. They have inherited a bad system for which they are in no way responsible themselves, and I think they must have a fair chance of reforming it. When it comes to subsequent recognition I am bound to confess—without pledging myself at all to any very specific opinion—that I should not be in any too great a hurry to recognise, and I have no doubt that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has no intention of being in a hurry about it. As regards guarantees for the future, I quite see the force of what the noble Viscount says—that it is a very difficult matter to deal with, and that you have to accept the declarations of a foreign Government. I am sure no one in this House or in the country wishes to cast the smallest reflection upon the good faith of the Belgian Government, but if in the course of the negotiations the Foreign Office can secure some additional guarantees to those already indicated, it would be a source of great satisfaction to the friends of Congo reform. All, therefore, that can be done is for His Majesty's Government not to relax their efforts in the direction of urging reform, and to hold over recognition until they can recognise with a clear conscience and in such a manner as will satisfy themselves and the public opinion which exists in this country on the subject.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I had rather hoped that the noble Viscount would have spoken a little later, because I have a question to ask to which I hope he will give me an answer. My justification for intervening in the debate is this. Some three years ago when returning from Rhodesia I purchased a riverside estate near to the borders of the Congo Free State. I have developed that estate, and I have just returned from that part of the world so that I possibly can speak with some authority as to what is going on there. I have listened to a good many debates on this subject, and as an actual neighbour of the Congo Free State I rejoice at the tone of the one we have heard
606
to-day. We want to be friendly and we want to be neighbours with our Belgian friends over the frontier. What sort of state do we live in out there? I only need mention the words "black peril" to indicate what it is. The natives in North-West Rhodesia and also in the Congo Free State do not walk about with hammers; they walk about with pistols. The authority of the white man, therefore, must be kept up. North-West Rhodesia is a country as big as France and Spain and the white population numbers only some 2,000 people, whereas the blacks number some 400,000. So everybody knows that the authority of the white man must be kept up, and the Belgian white man in the Congo is in exactly the same position as the English white man in North-West Rhodesia.
There are only two ways into the Congo. One I cannot speak of; that is up the Congo River. There is another way which I can speak of; that is through Rhodesia. I had the pleasure the other day of going out with five Belgian officials on board the steamer to Cape Town, and I can assert with the utmost confidence that those; men were some of the finest citizens that Belgium could send out to govern the Congo. They were extremely popular on board the ship, and their usual banter was to say, "Have you got your return ticket, because you do not stay very long out there?" One of these gentlemen was asked by a fellow-passenger, "Have you your return ticket?" He said, "No, but I have a hundred dozen of champagne with me, and I am not going to return to my own country until I have drunk that up." I have told the House my idea of the class of man who is going into the country. I have, also to inform the House that North-West Rhodesia is very closely mixed up with the Congo. We are going to feed the Congo. They will have to rely upon us—they rely upon us now—for their markets, and, as I said before, anything which tends to upset the good feeling which now exists is contrary to the interests of people who are closely concerned in this matter.
The noble Viscount spoke of the difficulty of getting information about the Congo. The present Secretary to the Administrator in Zanzibar, whom I had the pleasure of lunching with and having a conversation with the other day, being in the Foreign Office was sent out by the

607
Foreign Office to the Congo, where he learnt the language. He told me that he spent two or three years in the Congo studying this question, and I would like to ask the noble Viscount whether we can have the report of this gentleman. If we could, I think it would go very far to allay any spirit of anxiety with regard to affairs in the Congo.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I am sure we have all been interested in the personal knowledge which my noble friend possesses of the region under discussion. I only rise to express the same feeling which he has expressed of satisfaction that in the debate expressions have not been used which could be complained of in any quarter. At the same time I do not think that the right rev. Prelate will feel that he has lost his time this evening, because the whole tenor of the speech of the noble Viscount opposite led to the feeling that, whatever has been done—and we are very pleased at the advance which has been made—we cannot regard the change of administration as in any sense complete, and certainly we are a considerable distance apparently from realising the hope expressed by our representative in Brussels, to which attention was called by the right rev. Prelate, that within a year—that is to say, about the present time—it would be possible for the Foreign Secretary, consistent with the attitude he has throughout maintained, to recognise or at least to seriously consider the recognition of Belgian rule in the Congo. I hope I have not misinterpreted what fell from the noble Viscount when I say that he regards the changes which are to take place this year—the abolition of the rubber tax alluded to in the same Despatch and monopoly in every district and the attempt to place the administration on a sounder basis—as an experiment which is to be carefully watched, and which is not to be prejudged as successful until we have before us evidence of its success. I am not sure whether I am speaking accurately in saying that there was some undertaking given by the Foreign Secretary that recognition would not take place without the consent of Parliament.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: What the Foreign Secretary said more than once was not exactly that, although it perhaps comes to the same thing. He said that recognition would not take place until Parliament had been fully informed and had all the evidence justifying it.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Fully informed beforehand?
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Yes, beforehand.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: That is a very important point, and I urge it simply from the point of view from which it was put by the right rev. Prelate and by Sir Arthur Hardinge—that we all desire to close a disagreeable chapter in the history of our I relations with Belgium.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I must apologise for again interrupting the noble Viscount. The words of Sir Edward Grey have always been that he will not recognise until he can lay before Parliament evidence that the state of affairs as to the condition of the natives and freedom of trade is satisfactory. When the third zone has been thrown open, we shall, before we can recognise, have to be convinced that the condition of affairs in that zone is satisfactory. But it is to come before Parliament.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. Might I ask one other concession? In the debate last year the noble Viscount used language in which he apologised for the absence of information, to which the right rev. Prelate drew attention again to-night. The information laid before us has been singularly retarded. At the close of the debate last year I did call the noble Viscount's attention to his own remarks, and he used the words that—
"within a near measure of time we shall be informed of what has taken place."
He merely urged as a reason for not laying Papers at the moment that although Despatches had passed—the very Despatches to which the right rev. Prelate has drawn our attention to-night—he thought it desirable that the reports from the district, which would give us really solid information as to what had taken place, should be laid at the same I time as these Despatches. That discussion took place on May 1 last year. The Despatch from Sir Arthur Hardinge was replied to on March 31, and the accounts from the district for which the noble Viscount claimed some short latitude of time left Boma on May 30, and I have no doubt were received in this country about the time of the Coronation. I think, therefore, that we have been a little hardly treated, and that the pledge of the noble Viscount has been rather liberally interpreted by the Foreign Office in reserving the whole of these accounts

609
until November last before publication. It seems to me an unreasonable period. I only venture to call attention to that because in reality, if we are to avoid recrimination on thin subject, if the occasional reports which reach us which are unfavourable are not set right by the full official reports which enable us to take a more general view, it certainly leads to the reiteration of criticisms which we should desire to avoid. We consider quite satisfactory the pledge which the noble Viscount has given us as regards the question of recognition, but I would urge at the same time that as Papers become available we should have them at the earliest possible moment.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships more than a moment. I should like to express my sense of the value of this discussion. The noble Viscount was good enough to refer to a phrase which I had used in the debate that took place last year, to the effect that in matters of this sort time is apt to be a narcotic. It is quite possible, while other events certainly not the least momentous or stirring in our history are seething around us, that matters like this may very easily pass into the region of neglect or oblivion in the view of the public, and a debate like this is a stimulus which counteracts that narcotic, and believe that to-day we have a right to feel that what has passed will not only stimulate public interest but is entitled also to stimulate public hopefulness. I think that we have a right to feel, after what we have heard to-day, increasingly hopeful as to the outcome of the endeavours which are now being made in the face of very grave difficulties, which we should be exceedingly wrong to underrate, by the Belgian Government and the Belgian King.
I should like if one may do so without; impropriety, to say how certain I am that there is a general sense throughout this country of our wish to support the Belgian Monarch at this moment in entering upon a task so extraordinarily difficult as that which befell him personally, for he was able to bring personal knowledge to bear and personal experience to play upon the ameliorative work in which I am quite certain His Majesty is as keenly interested as any one in this House can, be. We have heard to-day fresh grounds for hoping that the efforts which are being I made are not merely genuine—that we
610
do not for a moment doubt, at least I do not for a moment doubt it—but are likely to be fruitful. The noble Viscount has read a report, which has been circulated widely in this country, from Mr. Harris, a man whose evidence upon this subject is of first-class character as regards expert knowledge and experience, and also as regards the calmness which he has shown in situations and under provocation which might easily have led a man to take an exceedingly one-sided view. The value that we attach to his testimony is very high, and I am glad that it should have been quoted publicly in the House tonight.
And what is in one sense more important still—I do not know that it is really more important, but officially it is more important—is the testimony which the noble Viscount has quoted from Despatches or Papers which we shall see in due time. The Consular Reports which the noble Viscount has quoted evidently give a similarly encouraging account. The noble Viscount misinterpreted me if he thought that I was in any way criticising the authenticity of these Reports, because I am sure the noble Viscount would be the last to quote them unless we were to have an opportunity ourselves of shortly reading them. It is to be remembered that the last letter of any kind that we have of an official nature in this matter is dated October 27 last. The Papers from which the noble Viscount quoted were dated in February last, and were written some months after the last Despatches which we have had an opportunity of reading, and therefore I venture to hope that no long time is going to elapse before we shall have the satisfaction of seeing and reading the cheering and hopeful accounts to which he referred. But, my Lords, while I say that I believe that a discussion like this, and the speech of the noble Viscount especially, may stimulate hopefulness, I am quite sure that we should be wrong if we were to regard the need of observation and caution as having come to an end. There has been no allusion to-night to what seemed to me, as I read the Papers issued last November, to be a matter that requires elucidation. Whether it will be elucidated in the new Papers that are to be put forward I do not know, but there seems to be prevalent in Belgium an idea that once annexation has been recognised our share in the whole matter comes to an

611
end as completely as though we were dealing with a Colony of Germany or France. I speak as a child in these matters of diplomacy and diplomatic history; but, if I am not mistaken, there has been nothing officially before the country in the least to lead us to imagine that the original Congo Treaties under which the Congo State came to its birth, and which were quite exceptional in character, would cease to be and would come to an end because what had formerly been the private property of King Leopold had become the property of the State and had been recognised as such.
THE EARL OF CROMER: I think that point is particularly stated in one of Sir Edward Grey's letters to Mr. Morel.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: That they will go on?
THE EARL OF CROMER: Yes. I cannot lay my finger upon it at the moment, but I am almost certain that it is so stated.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: All I maintain, and what I am quite sure about, is that there is abundant evidence in these Papers of a view being taken in Belgium which puts the matter in a different way, and I think it is most important, when anything goes to the public as regards this matter, that it should be made perfectly clear that when annexation is recognised by us that recognition does not mean that we are to part with that share of responsibility which we took over to start with, and which, in some measure at all events, will still remain ours. The very last words which appear in the White Paper distributed last November are in a letter from Sir Francis Villiers in reporting a conversation with M. Renkin, that M. Renkin in speaking of it said that—
"he could have treated it in no other way, us the matter was one which exclusively concerned the internal administration of the Belgian colony."
That is a phrase which I venture to think will require to be elucidated if we are not to feel ourselves placed in a false position as being supposed to admit—those of us who have been interested in this subject—that the recognition of annexation, when that annexation comes, would relieve us of all responsibility in the matter.
I earnestly hope that the conditions will be soon satisfied which Sir Edward Grey has promised will be precedent to that recognition, and that a marked improvement
612
will be shown by the Reports of Consuls which are to be placed in the hands of our authorities, and by the authorities placed before Parliament for its consideration. But I want to call attention to the fact that we who look at the matter from outside and think specially of the sufferings of the Congo natives are by no means of opinion that England's own responsibility will be over when recognition has taken place. I think it well to call attention to that factor to-night, because I believe it to be a most important element in our future consideration of this great and anxious subject.

SALES OF ESTATES.
LORD HAVERSHAM: I beg to ask my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture the Question that stands in my name—viz., when the Government propose to introduce a Bill to carry out Recommendations 2, 3, and 4 of the Departmental Committee upon the Sales of Estates, and in which House of Parliament they propose to introduce it. All these recommendations very much benefit the tenant, and my noble friend spoke with approval of them in the debate the other day. If the Government do intend to introduce legislation I should like to ask my noble friend to tell me whether it will be introduced by the President of the Board of Agriculture in another place or whether it will be in the hands of my noble friend in this House.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (LORD LUCAS): The answer to my noble friend's Question is that we propose to introduce a Bill at an early date in this House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn until four o'clock to-morrow, and at that hour I hope I shall be able to make a proposal to the House as to meeting or not meeting on the following day.
Moved, That the House do adjourn, except for Judicial business, until 4 o'clock to-morrow.—(Viscount Morley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes past Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.