Lords Sitting of 7 July 1915

Preamble
Appeal Committee—Third Report from; read, and agreed to.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION (TRENT NAVIGATION TRANSFER) BILL.

  BARNOLDSWICK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  Board of Education (Regulations, Grants to Schools for Mothers)—Regulations under which Grants to Schools for Mothers in England and Wales will be made by the Board of Education: Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

DUNFERMLINE AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS (EXTENSIONS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2a To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
    To be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Hylton).
ELECTRIC LIGHTING' PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
    Committee to meet on Wednesday next.
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (DERBYSHIRE, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
IRVINE AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order), and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been reported from the Committee, and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection in regard to the Southampton (Extension) Order.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE (OUSE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE AVENINGHAM) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed for Wednesday next.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD ISLINGTON): My Lords, I think it will be for the convenience of the House and I hope expedite the passage of this Bill with its various Amendments through Committee if I make a few introductory observations by way of explanation of the position in which the Bill is now presented to your Lordships. There are a number of Amendments standing in my name on the Paper which, with a few exceptions at the end, with which I will

283
deal in the course of my remarks, are all recommended for insertion in the Bill by the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills. The object of the Bill, as the Joint Select Committee state in their Report, is to consolidate the existing law contained in a series of Acts dating back to the year 1770 relating to the government of India. In the Bill as now drafted, the Joint Select Committee have made certain Amendments for the purpose of bringing the Bill into closer conformity with the existing law or of simplifying the form of law without in any way altering the substance. These Amendments are included in the Bill as it is now presented to your Lordships, and they are set out in Appendix A of the Report of the Joint Select Committee with a brief description showing the reasons why such alterations have been proposed. The Committee report that the Bill thus amended represents the existing law as contained in the various Acts which they have examined and which are consolidated in this measure, and it reproduces the provisions of these Acts as understood and construed by existing constitutional practice. Therefore I think I may say with complete confidence that the Bill is purely and simply a consolidation measure construed as such on strict and rigid lines with no attempt at any actual amendment of the law.
In the case of a long series of enactments extending, as these do, over a period of upwards of 140 years and many of them overlapping each other, your Lordships will readily understand that, with the best intention to reproduce in a consolidation measure the actual effect of what I may term a jumble of ancient texts, considerable difficulties beset the Joint Select Committee in their work. They found themselves in this dilemma, that they must either on the one hand propose in many instances clauses which would be obviously unworkable and would, if inserted in the Bill, in modern conditions produce almost nonsense, or on the other hand they must suggest alternatives which in their essence would frankly depart from the original wording of the previous Acts. The Committee in their Report indicate very clearly the difficulties with which they were confronted; and having strictly kept to codification throughout they recommend, in addition to the alterations now inserted in the Bill, certain
284
other Amendments which are to be found in Appendix B of their Report and which they suggest Parliament might accept in a Consolidation Bill as representing three vital principles—first, that such Amendments will clear up ambiguities in the existing law; secondly, that they will confirm constitutional practice; and, thirdly, that they will remove provisions which through lapse of time have now become inoperative. The object and character of each of these Amendments is briefly but clearly described in Appendix B in notes appended to each of these respective Amendments. It would occupy your Lordships' time unnecessarily were I to attempt to go through these various Amendments or to elaborate the explanations already given; but if any noble Lord desires further explanation of any of them I will endeavour to the best of my ability to answer any question put to me upon them.
I will take, by way of illustration, one class of Amendment and make a few explanatory observations to show the kind of, alteration which is suggested. Your Lordships will notice that in ten different places it is proposed, where the words "British India" occur, to omit the word "British." Among those ten Amendments I will take the one in Clause 5. That clause states that the Council of India, under the direction of the Secretary of State, shall conduct correspondence with British India., and it adds that every order sent to British India shall be signed by the Secretary of State. I think your Lordships will agree that in this instance common sense suggests that the expression "British India" as we see India to-day would limit to a pedantic degree the provision in this clause. There is, as your Lordships know, almost daily correspondence between the India Office and those parts of India which lie outside British India—the territories of India known as the Native States; and the Viceroy himself, in the course of his official duties, has from time to time to visit these Native States. You will therefore realise what unnecessary delay and quite unnecessary embarrassment would be caused if, by retaining the word "British," correspondence were delayed either to the officials resident in the Native States or to high officials visiting those States. Therefore the omission of the word "British," I think your Lordships will agree, would be an advantage.

285
We are merely restoring the language of the Act of 1858, which habitually speaks of "India" and not of "British India." But in order to lie quite frank with your Lordships I think it is right to observe that the Act of 1856 defines India as "territories vested in His Majesty," no separate phrase for India in the largest sense existing in those days. Since 1858 the distinction has been sharply drawn as between India in the wider souse and British India in the more restricted sense, in the Interpretation Act of 1889. That. Act lays down that British. India constitutes those parts of India under British government, whilst India represents those parts of India under British government and the Native States. In codifying old Acts like these, therefore, the question must arise in the minds of those who are undertaking this difficult and delicate task, to what extent are they to interpret the practice of to-day and to what extent are they to leave the actual phraseology in the original state. I hope your Lordships will agree that the proposed Amendment in the instance which I have cited is one which only complies with the common practice. The other nine cases in which it is proposed to omit the word "British" are on similar lines, and I will not delay your Lordships by further explanation.
I might, perhaps, be allowed to say a word with regard to an important clause which has undergone considerable verbal amendment on the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee. I refer to Clause 121, which deals with the liability in connection with certain offences by officers under the Crown. This Amendment is carefully explained by the Joint Select Committee in their note appended to the Amendment, and the clause as proposed is in accordance with existing law. The clause in the Bill as it stood without amendment, would be necessarily incomplete in accordance with modern conditions, because there are several important officers whose positions have been created since those early enactments. There is certain phraseology was not made in the early days for the modern joint stock company which has come into existence since those measures were enacted. This has alt been now brought up to date in accordance with the spirit and practice of the law as it obtains to-day in India.
286
I will not detain your Lordships longer with the Amendments on the Paper which are specifically recommended by the Joint Select Committee, but I would ask you to observe that at the end of the marshalled list there are certain Amendments standing in my name dealing with the Fifth Schedule of the Bill. Although not specifically recommended by them for amendment in this Consolidation Bill the Joint Select Committee, in paragraph 7 on page ii of their Report, give many instances where the Schedule is susceptible of alteration to effect an improvement of the law. I propose, after consultation with my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India, to withdraw the Amendments on, Schedule 5 which I have placed on the Paper, with the exception of the one referred to at the bottom of page viii of the Joint Select Committee's Report which is merely consequential upon the Amendment to the clause with which I was dealing just now—Clause 121. My reasons for withdrawing those Amendments are two-fold. In the first place, there are so many provisions in this Bill in its consolidated form which must, to bring them in accordance with modern usage and practice, be amended that it is considered in the India Office advisable that no attempt should be made to deal with these amendments piecemeal. It has been considered that it would be much better to have this measure upon the Statute Book in its consolidated form, in order that it may then form a basis for comprehensive amendment throughout after deliberate consideration in the India Office and in consultation with the Government of India.
Lord MacDonnell has an Amendment on the Paper to omit the whole of the Fifth Schedule. I would ask him, and I hope he will favourably consider my suggestion, to withdraw his Amendment. I might, perhaps, be allowed here to point out that there are certain clauses in the Schedule itself which it would be most undesirable to have omitted from the Statute. For instance, there are certain clauses there—between 106 and 111—the omission of which from the Schedule would have the effect, I am given to understand, of withdrawing the authority of the Government of India Over the High Courts of India. It would necessitate the withdrawal of certain provisions in the High Court Act, which would have the effect of placing the High Courts independent of the Govern-

287
ment of India, and I am sure the noble Lord would be the last person in this House to desire to see such an infraction of the law. I only point out that there are clauses in this Schedule which it is most desirable should be retained, and therefore it is very necessary that most careful consideration should be given to each respectively before any proposal is made for their omission. That is the reason why I ask noble Lords who have Amendments down to-day with the purpose of improving the Bill to be good enough to forego their Amendments on this occasion, and to wait—I hope not for long—until an Amending Bill is submitted to your Lordships dealing with the whole matter comprehensively. I may say that already an Amending Bill has been drafted, that portions of it have been sent out to India for consideration, and that directly this Bill is on the Statute Book it will he dealt with throughout and an Amending Bill introduced bringing all these matters up to date. That is the first reason why I propose to withdraw the Amendments standing in my name to the Fifth Schedule.
My second reason is in deference to the very strong desire on the part of the Joint Select Committee who undertook the difficult task of consolidating these Acts to confine this Bill purely and simply to consolidation. I appreciate, with my noble and learned friend Lord Loreburn and his colleagues on that Committee, the great importance of in no way infringing that principle, especially in view of the fact that there are so many other groups of Acts now under examination by that Committee the consolidation of which will be so important to Government in many departments of our public life. In conclusion, in submitting for your Lordships' approval the proposals both in the Bill and in the Amendments upon the Paper proposed by the Joint Select Committee, I would couple the hope that the noble Lords who have tabled Amendments which involve alterations in the law will on this occasion forego pressing their Amendments, and will leave them over to that more appropriate time—at no distant period, I should hope—when an Amending Bill will be presented to your Lordships.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Amendments made in the Bill by the Joint Select Committee for the purpose of bringing it into closer conformity with the existing law, agreed to.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
The Council of India.
3.—(1)The Council of India shall consist of such numbers of members, not less than ten and not more than fourteen, as the Secretary of State may determine.
(2) The right of tilling any vacancy in the council shall be vested in the Secretary of State.
(3) Unless at the time of an appointment to fill a vacancy in the council nine of the then existing members of the council are persons who have served or resided in British India for at least ten rears, and have not last loft British India more than five years before the date of their appointment, the person appointed to till the vacancy must be so qualified.
(4) Every member of the council shall hold office, except as by this section provided, for a term of seven years.
(5) The Secretary of State may, for special reasons of public advantage, re-appoint for a further term of five years any member of the council whose term of office has expired. In any such case the reasons for the re-appointment shall be set forth in a minute signed by the Secretary of State and hid before both Houses of Parliament. Save as aforesaid, a member of the council shall not be capable of re-appointment.
(6) Any member of the council may, by writing signed by him, resign his office. The instrument of resignation shall be recorded in the minutes of the council.
(7) Any member of the council may be removed by His Majesty from his office on an address of both Houses of Parliament.
(8) There shall he paid to each member of the council out of the revenues of India the annual salary of one thousand pounds.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 37, leave out ("British").—(Lord Islington.)
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: My Lords, I wish to explain my position at once. Nothing is further from my intention than in any way to interpose unnecessary or unreasonable opposition to the passage of this Bill, because I think it is an achievement of the legislative department of the Government of India which cannot receive too much praise. It is the completion of a work which was undertaken over forty years ago, and I would be the last person to do anything unnecessarily to impede its progress. At the same time there are one or two points which I think it desirable to bring to the notice of your Lordships. One is in connection with the Amendment now before the House, to omit from subsection (3)

289
of Clause 3 the word "British." That Subsection runs as follows—
Unless at the time of an appointment to fill vacancy in the council nine of the then existing members of the council are persons who have served or resided in British India for at least ten years, and have not last left British India more than five years before the date of their appointment, the person appointed to fill the vacancy must be so qualified.
The omission of the word "British" would render it possible for a person who live the whole period in a Native State in which British law as current in the rest of India did not obtain, and who had no knowledge whatever of the system of British administration or of British law in India, to be appointed to the Council of I think that is a very serious matter. I submit that a gentleman appointed to the Council of the Secretary of State should have hail such a residence in India as had enabled him to become well acquainted with the system of British administration in India, the laws obtaining there, and the general practice. For this reason I think it would be unwise to omit "British" before the word "India" in the subsection in question.
EARL LOREBURN: My Lords, I do not profess to offer any opinion as regards the propriety of appointing to the Council of India a person who had served only in a Native State. That is a matter for those who are Indian experts. But I think it desirable to state now, at the first stage in Committee on this Bill, what is the real nature of what we have before us and what is the real danger which I apprehend. That has been admirably stated by my noble friend Lord Islington, but as Chairman of the Joint Select Commit1w who took this Bill in hand perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words upon it. This is a most complicated, intricate, and difficult Bill dealing with the government of India. It is very difficult in itself, but there is also a certain what. I may call filigree work which the Statutes have encrusted upon them representing customs and practice. The language of the old Statutes is at sonic places almost antiquated. The conditions have changed. For example, India is an infinitely greater place than British India used to be in the early days, and the task of kneading together what has been enacted in the past so as to make the measure a photographic reproduction of what the law is at the present time
290
controlled by constitutional practice in India has been a most difficult one. What we have done may be illustrated by this particular Amendment now before your Lordships. In this particular case the question is who are to be allowed to sit on the Council of India. We have reported to the House that the law should he in the terms of this clause, unless at the time of an appointment to fill a vacancy in the Council nine of the then existing members of the Council are persons who have served or resided in British India for at least ten years. That is in the Bill as now before your Lordships. We present the clause in that form because that is the language of the existing Act. But the conditions have changed, and it has been thought that service in any part of India should be sufficient. The Government propose in this particular Amendment, as I understand it, to alter the Bill in pursuance of our recommendation—
Loan MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: I understand that the clause with the word "British" in it is the recommendation of the Committee, and that it is the Government who wish to alter it.
EARL LOREBURN: On our recommendation the Bill stands with the words "British India" in it, and the Government propose, acting on our recommendation in Appendix B, to omit the word "British." To that my noble friend Lord MacDonnell objects. It is undoubtedly the case that if Lord Islington's Amendment were accepted it would to a slight degree alter the Statute as existing at the present moment. We certainly did recommend this, but we did so thinking the Amendment would be unobjectionable and uncontroversial, because if you keep all these things upon the footing of British India you will in most cases depart from the actual intention of the Legislature when the Act in question was passed. I may tell my noble friend Lord MacDonnell that I have no sort of bias in this matter. I have only tried, as chairman of the Joint Select Committee, to inform the House that it is the case that if the Government's Amendment were accepted it would constitute a slight alteration of the law. Whether my noble friend will think it necessary in this particular instance to press the. Amendment is more than I know, but as the proposal seems controversial I suggest that it might be better not to press the Amendment.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, this may seem an unimportant matter, but it does appear to me, as one who lived in India for five and a-half years and tried to study the conditions of life there, that it would make a great difference were you to render eligible for this high post one who might have lived during the whole of his time in India in Native States, for such a person would not be acquainted with the system and principles on which the administration of British India is carried on. I therefore hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.
LORD ISLINGTON: I hope that my noble friends will not press their objection, because this is an Amendment which was proposed by the Joint Select Committee and as such has been taken up by the Government and is now submitted to your Lordships. Lord MacDonnell suggests that there would be great danger in appointing to the India Council gentlemen who had occupied official positions in Native States, but in that he is assuming that the prerogative of the Secretary of State might undergo certain abuse. After all one must rely upon the Secretary of State, who has the authority for making these appointments, to see that proper appointments are made, and that those appointed are qualified not only from service in Native States but also from experience in British India.
I would point out a difficulty that might arise if the objection to this Amendment were insisted upon. There is a limitation in regard to appointment to the Council of India; an officer so appointed must not have left British India for more than five years before the date of appointment. If the noble Lord's objection to this Amendment were sustained, you might have the case of an officer who had served well in British India for fifteen years and had then been appointed to one of the important and responsible posts in a Native State and had resided there for five years, yet with all that accumulated experience lie would, by the limitation of British India being imposed, be disqualified from sitting on the India Council. I would ask the noble Lords who are opposing this Amendment not to press their objection on this occasion, because it seems to me that the Amendment only carries out the actual spirit and practice of the law as recognised in India to-day.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I think that an important matter is involved in this Amendment. I was a member of the Joint Select Committee, but I do not go into the question of the merits as between the terms "British India" and "India." But if this Bill is to be a Consolidation Bill pure and simple, the word "British" ought to be retained unless there is general consent that it can be deleted. It. would be departing from the true principle of a Consolidation Bill to introduce an Amendment of this kind against the opposition of two noble Lords specially acquainted with Indian matters. I am most anxious to preserve the purity of consolidation work, and I think that in the circumstances my noble friend ought not to press the Amendment.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD: Perhaps I may be permitted to say that so little ant I inclined to oppose the Amendments which the Under-Secretary of State for India has placed on the Paper that I intend to accept the whole of them, with the exception of this one; although I believe they are open to the objection which Lord Parmoor has just stated of being of a legislative character. But they all seem to me to be so reasonable and to be so required in the interests of India that I am determined to support all the Amendments down to and including Clause 19. Surely the noble Lord will recognise that on this point I would not raise an objection if I did not feel that you were incurring a great danger. The case which Lord Islington cited just now, of an officer who bad served for fifteen years in British India and then for five years in a Native State not being eligible for appointment to the Secretary of State's Council, is really not appropriate in any way. The danger which I have in my mind is not in connection with the appointment of British officials, but the appointment from a Native State of a gentleman who was not an official and who left England and went out to the Native State to make his fortune. I can recall an instance which occurred during the 'eighties where a gentleman, whose name I need not mention—it was a well known name in Indian politics at that time—came over here and afterwards became a Member of Parliament and obtained certain notoriety. It is quite possible that such a person in certain circumstances might be appointed to the Secretary of State's Council, and this qualification, were the Amendment agreed

293
to, would enable him to be appointed. It is against non-officials acquiring by this means a qualification for appointment to the Secretary of State's Council that I have raised objection to the deletion of the word "British" from this subsection.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I think we are all in agreement with what fell from the noble and learned Lord opt (Lord Parmoor) as to the proper limitations to be imposed upon a Consolidation Bill of this kind. My noble friend behind me (Lord Islington), however, endeavoured to point out— and I think was able to point out with not a little foree—that although this proposed Amendment does involve a certain change in the law as it stands and on that account may not appear to find a proper place in a Consolidation Bill but should rather be deferred until the time comes for the Amending Bill of which I spoke when I originally introduced this Bill when I was Indian Secretary, and of which my noble friend behind me has spoken to-day, yet as a matter of fact the spirit anti intention of the at it has stood during the period of our rule in India is on the whole more completely carried out by the Amendment than by the terms in the clause. That, I was the reason why my noble friend desired to ad here to this Amendment; and that is really the only question before us—whether an Amendment of this kind can be considered as properly relevant to a Consolidation Bill pure and simple, which it is the desire of us all that this should be.
I do not think, therefore, that a discussion on the merits is, strictly speaking, relevant. But as that question has been raised I should like to say that I do not find it easy to contemplate any practical danger which could arise from the adoption of this Amendment. The case which my noble friend Lord MacDonnell mentioned, that of the possibility of the addition to the Secretary of State's Council of some gentleman who had conducted a successful career, successful at any rate from his own point of view, in a Native State, is of course to the point; but if the case that he had in mind is the same as one which occurs to me—that of a gentleman whose name, at any rate, came before the Courts of this country in very notorious circumstances a good many years ago—it is, I think altogether impossible to suppose
294
that any Secretary of State could have selected that particular gentleman for his Council. But, however that may be, perhaps that side of the question is not altogether worth pursuing.
But in view of what has fallen from Lord MacDonnell and also from Lord Sydenham, whose Indian experience is both important and recent, I agree that it would be wise not to press this Amendment in this particular place. The subject will no doubt recur for consideration, or probably may, on its merits when the Amending Bill is produced; but meantime we are prepared not to insert this particular Amendment in this place. But I understand that my noble friend will move it in the other places in which the same words occur, and in those cases I understand no serious exception is taken to the proposal.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Seat in council disqualification for Parliament. [1858, s. 12.]
4. No member of the Council of India shall be capable of sitting or voting in Parliament.
THE EARL OF CROMER: Your Lordships may remember that on the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill I alluded to the fact that Clause l either excludes Peers from sitting on the Council of India, or at all events renders it very dubious whether they may sit on that Council. Lord Curzon, who is not in his place now, supported that view, and the noble Marquess who leads the House was by no means unsympathetic, but he pointed out—very reasonably, I think—that it was a point that could not be properly discussed in a consolidation measure. That view was also supported by Lord Loreburn and by Lord Haldane, and that was, of course, quite sufficient to put the matter altogether out of my mind if I had entertained any intention of moving an Amendment. But. the noble Lord now in charge of the Bill has said this afternoon that an Amending Bill will be subsequently introduced. I, of course, do not ask him to give any expression of opinion On the merits of this proposal now. But I hope this particular point will be considered when the Government of India are consulted, so that an opinion may be formed by the Government upon it prior to the Amending Bill being brought before the House.
LORD ISLINGTON: I will certainly take note of what the noble Earl has said, and when the Amending Bill is being dealt with the point that he has raised shall have due consideration.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 28, leave out ("British")
Page 3, line 29, leave out ("British").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 6, leave out ("British").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 4, leave out ("British").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 20, leave out ("British")
Page 6, line 22, leave out ("British").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 33, leave out ("British").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 36, leave out ("British").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 38 agreed to.
Clause 39:
39.—(1) The governor-general's executive council shall assemble at such places in India as the Governor-General in Council appoints.
(2) At any meeting of the council the governor-general or other person presiding and one ordinary member of the council may exercise all the functions of the Governor-General in Council.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: My Lords, the Joint Select Committee as the noble and learned Earl, Lord Loreburn, has reminded you, profess to have produced the provisions of the existing law as understood and construed by existing constitutional practice. The constitutional practice in India, I believe I may say, since the enactment of the Indian Councils Act of 1861 is represented in Clause 41 of the third edition of Sir Courtenay Ilbert's Digest of the Statute Law relating to the Government of India. That clause runs as follows—
41.—(1) The Governor-General's Council hold ordinary meetings, that is to say, meetings for executive purposes; and legislative meetings, that is to say, meetings for the purpose of making laws.
(2) The ordinary and extraordinary members of the Governor-General's Council are entitled to be present at all meetings thereof.
In the Bill now before your Lordships it is stated that "the Governor-General's Executive Council shall assemble at such places in India as the Governor-General in Council appoints," and that "at any meeting of the Council the Governor-General or other person presiding acid one ordinary member of the Council may exercise all the functions of the Governor-General in Council."
Under this statement of the law it will be possible for the Governor-General to summon one member to his Council and not the rest, and to carry out with all the authority of the Government of India whatever business he pleases to place before himself and his colleague. I only plead that in this most important provision the constitutional practice of more than

297
half a century should he embodied in this Bill; and I venture to say that the constitutional practice a being such as I have read Sir Courtenay Ilbert's well-known book having stated it to be such, it will be considered by many to have been abrogated if this version of the law and practice is promulgated in India. I suppose that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the usual practice will be continued of communicating the Viceroy's invitation to the members of his Council when a Council is to be held. Of course, when the Viceroy goes on tour and it is not possible for his Council to go with him, a different procedure is provided in this Bill. It is possible for the Viceroy, when he goes on tour in that way, to act with the entire authority of the Governor-General in Council. But if he is on tour when grave discussions on very intricate and perhaps very exciting matters—matters involving a great deal of controversy, perhaps great opposition in the Viceroy's Councils—come up for discussion, it is only right and proper and in accordance with constitutional practice that the Viceroy should obtain the advice and assistance of the whole of his Council. I do not desire to make any imputations whatever, but in extremely acrimonious matters it is conceivable that the Viceroy, being convinced himself of the propriety of his conduct, might like to carry it over his Council. If he desires to overrule his Council there is a method for doing so—he places upon record his reasons, and the members of the Council place upon record their reasons. But the possibility of the Viceroy carrying out any project with the authority of the Government of India without making a record of his reasons caught to be prevented by the introduction in this place of the Amendment which I have the honour to propose.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 15, after ("appoints") insert:
(2) The ordinary and extraordinary members of the governor-general's council shall be entitled to be present at all meetings thereof.—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, this question is really one of first class importance. Though we who have Amendments on the Paper find ourselves in a difficult position because we are told that in a short time this Bill will be amended, yet we remember that this Bill has been nearly forty years on the legislative anvil,
298
and we do not feel quite sure that another forty years may not elapse before the Amending Bill comes to your Lordships' House, Even a layman like myself can perfectly understand the extreme, difficulties which faced the Joint Select Committee in dealing with this Bill, and I think we must all feel that they hare dealt with it in an exceedingly able manner considering the intricacy and magnitude of their task. I suppose the greatest difficulty with which they had to deal and constantly face was whether they should stand upon the letter of some old law or take a broader view and accept what Sir Courtenay Ilbert has called in his Digest the constitutional practice of long usage.
Some provisions in these old and unrepealed laws may have fallen into disuse, but if they appear in any form in this Consolidation Bill it will have the effect as it seems to me, of reviving them; in other words, it will result in making a new law, which we have been told on the highest authority was never intended in the case of a Consolidation Bill. Surely something of this kind has occurred in the clause to which my noble friend has brought forward an Amendment; and I really must say that I agree with every word he has said upon it. I think the change—for it is a change—in constitutional practice which the clause makes might he dangerous. I suppose in all Councils, even in the high Councils of the Viceroy, there may be and often is some one who would always support the Viceroy without pausing to consider the reasons why. As this clause stands power to do anything will vest in the Viceroy if he only summons one member to an important Council at which a grave matter has to be decided. I need not point out that grave results might follow from that course. It may well be that that would not happen, but I think we ought to guard ourselves against that danger in the meantime before the Amending Bill has been drafted and passed.
It is a well-known and salutary constitutional practice that every member of the Governor-General's Council should be entitled to be present at all meetings. And if this clause as it stands is passed, does it not have the effect of completely nullifying Clause 41 of the same Bill, which nearly follows it. That clause runs—
If any difference of opinion arises on any question brought before a meeting of the governor-

299
general's executive council, the Governor-General in Council shall be bound by the opinion and decision of the majority of those present and if they are equally divided the governor-general or other person presiding shall have a second or casting vote.
Those words can only mean that bona fide and not hole-and-corner meetings are held. If the Governor-General can select any member who happens to agree with him and hold a Council to deal with anything they agree upon, this salutary provision in Clause 41 becomes utterly worthless and what seems to me to be a considerable constitutional safeguard will disappear. Therefore I strongly support my noble friend's Amendment.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, I fully appreciate the point that has been brought forward by the two noble Lords and the arguments they have advanced in favour of the Amendment. The position of this proposal is that Sir Courtenay Ilbert, in all the three editions of his Digest I believe, has recommended that an addition to the clause should be proposed on these lines. But I would like to point out, on the other hand, that the words in the Amendment are in no existing Act, and therefore the addition of these words to Clause 39 would be a distinct amendment of the law. I do not think we need have the gloomy apprehension of my noble friend that the Amending Bill will take forty years to incubate. I trust it will be here long before that. Whilst admitting that there is a great deal to be said for the addition of the words proposed by the noble Lord, and whilst it would, perhaps, make the clause more complete when it is taken also with Clause 41, I at the same time place myself behind the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee and would ask the House and the noble Lords who have spoken to this Amendment to adhere to the principle on which we started out on this discussion—namely, that no amendments to the law should take place now, but that they should be reserved for an Amending Bill.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD: Might I ask the noble Lord to refer to the concluding words of Paragraph 1 of the Committee's Report.
LORD ISLINGTON: Yes, I know what is at the end of Paragraph 1. But it is not suggested in that paragraph that this
300
particular clause does not come under the specific proposals of the Joint Select Committee. We are adhering to the specific proposals of the Select Committee. I hope that noble Lords will be satisfied with this undertaking on my part, speaking on behalf of the India Office, that when the Amending Bill is being drafted and alterations of the law are then specifically proposed, this proposal which they are making now will have very careful consideration. I hope that the noble Lords will be satisfied with that at this juncture, and will allow this Bill to stand as a Consolidation Bill, proposed as such by the Joint Select Committee.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords. I trust that you will not think it presumptuous of me to take part in this discussion, but having taken a great interest in India for many years and possessed property there for various charities and other institutions, I hope the noble Lord will press his Amendment to a Division. If necessary I could give details of cases in which certain individuals sometimes ride rough-shod over private rights; and when they get up to the hills and all the other people are away it is very difficult to get careful consideration, especially if several officials in the place happen to want the particular property for cantonments or other purposes which may be considered public purposes. In one case the property was taken away, and it required the intervention of the Viceroy himself to override the decision which was made by an official in a high place. I know of other cases which have come within my own personal experience during the last thirty years when I have been carrying on a certain amount of work there. Therefore I can assure you it is no imaginary danger of a Viceroy getting one member who agrees with him and doing these things. We all know on committees how tempting it is to have a sub-committee and have one or two with you who agree, and with no appeal from your decision. Under this clause as it stands something might be done which was very unfair and thus cause a bad impression of the justice of British rule in India.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, personally I am inclined to agree with what has fallen from my noble friends Lord Sydenham and Lord MacDonnell. But I would point out that if this clause were to be amended at all it would be absolutely

301
necessary to raise the question of the extraordinary anomaly which exists as between the Council of India assembled in and the Governor-General's Council. The Council of India is bound to meet once a week, whereas the Governor-General's Council need never be convened at all, or only at such intervals as may occur to a particular Governor-General. I very much doubt whether the old provision for the Council of India meeting once a week is a necessary one. On the other hand, I am certain that something ought to have been inserted in the Act which would more frequent statutory meetings of the Governor-General's Council, which on certain occasions has not been convened sufficiently often. But on the general understanding that we should not take anything that is contentious, I have not brought up that point. I cannot help however, that it might be well in a small supplementary measure to deal with both points.
EARL LOREBURN: My Lords, the Bill as it stands is unquestionably the Statute Law; it is not the Common Law. But it has been, I understand, the practice for all these gentlemen to be summoned. Can a Consolidation or any other Committee say, when that is the state of things, that the practice has been such that as a matter of constitutional law it has become equivalent to a Statute? When you are consolidating what you have to do is to find what the law is—that is, what the Statute is. This Amendment proposes to incorporate what is usually, and I have no doubt most properly, done; and if we were discussing what the law ought to be instead of what the law is, my own instincts would be very much to agree with the noble Lord behind me (Lord MacDonnell) and the noble Lord on the Cross Benches (Lord Sydenham).
The condition of the law in this country has been a subject of reproach for I do not know how long. We have done a good deal even in a few years, always by consent and always by avoiding every controversial point we can, towards putting the law in order, and we have a number of Consolidation Acts which are admitted to be thorough photographs of the law as it is. We treat amendments of the law as an entirely different thing. It is a very laborious task. It is undertaken for love by members of both Houses. The House of Commons is
302
very particular about any alteration of the law being made in Consolidation Bills; and if we, if I may so call it, take to improving the occasion by amending the law when this modest but most valuable work of consolidation is going on, we shall find that we have broken the unwritten convention between the two Houses of Parliament; and then the members of the House of Commons, who have taken without question every one of our Consolidation Bills for the last six or seven years and passed them even in that busy House without question on the faith that we are loyal to that convention, will say, "You are amending the law; we cannot he expected to give the First, Second, and Third Readings, and to negative Committee, in respect of a Bill which is admittedly altering, in however beneficial a way, the law, and we shall have to end all our valuable work." I should regret it because I have been associated with this work of consolidation from the commencement, and I believe it is most valuable. I think this Amendment might well be postponed, because after all there is nothing in the Bill which prevents the present practice from being continued.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, there can be no question that the practice in regard to this matter is as stated by the noble and learned Earl who has just sat down. No one questions that the ordinary and extraordinary members of the Governor-General's Council are by well-established usage entitled to be present at all the meetings of the Council. But when we are asked to add words of this kind to the Bill, we have to remember where we shall find ourselves carried if we attempt Amendments of this kind. This difficulty is the result of our scrupulous adherence to the pledge which has been given that this Bill shall be a Consolidating Bill and not an Amending or even a Revising Bill.
My noble friend Lord Sydenham suggested that we ought to take a broader view, and that where we find that the law has been interpreted in a particular manner we should frame this Consolidating Bill so as to make it accord, not with the Statute Law, but with the well-established practice. That, it seems to me, is a very dangerous suggestion. My noble friend Lord Midleton pointed out that this is by no means the only anomaly that might be dealt with if we once embark on the task of making this Bill a measure of revision. I hope, there-

303
fore, that we shall bear in mind the warning given to us just now by the noble and learned Earl, and that we shall remember how much additional difficulty will be thrown in the way of the work of consolidation if we step a single inch beyond the frontier which divides a measure of consolidation from a measure of revision.
One or two noble Lords have drawn an alarming picture of the kind of scandals which might arise if this Bill is not amended in this sense. It is suggested that the Viceroy might retire to sonic remote fastness in the hills, and that there, accompanied, perhaps, by one or two members of his Council upon whose support he could depend, he would pass measures of the most iniquitous description. My Lords, is that really a very real danger? I do not know whether any noble Lord with experience of India is able to cite cases in support of that suggestion, but I think it worth while to point out that the Governor-General, for his own sake, would be extremely careful not to pass a highly controversial measure in such circumstances. These are clays when there is great publicity in India and elsewhere, and no one would be more likely to suffer from an indiscretion of that kind than the Viceroy himself. I doubt extremely whether any harm will be done at all by leaving the law upon this point and the constitutional practice exactly as they are at this moment. And I venture to suggest to your Lordships that you may be content with the pledge which has been given by my noble friend who represents the India Office, that an Amending Bill will be introduced at the earliest possible date and that this point will be dealt with in that measure.
Loan MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD: In consideration of the pledge to which the noble Marquess has referred, I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clauses 40 to 51 agreed to.
Clause 52:
The province of Agra.
52. The Secretary of State in Council may, if he thinks fit, direct that the province of Agra be constituted a presidency under a Governor in Council and if that direction is given the presidency shall be constituted on the terms and under the conditions mentioned in section nineteen of the Government of India Act, 1853, and section our of the Government of India Act, 1854.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: My Lords, the Act of 1833 which is involved in this clause directed the division of the Presidency of Bengal into two distinct parts; one was to be called the Presidency of Fort William and the other the Presidency of Agra. At; the same tine power I was given to the Government to suspend the operation of the Act, and, instead of creating a Presidency, to create a Lieutenant-Governorship. No action was taken upon that Act in regard to Bengal until three years ago, in 1912, when His Majesty the King went to India. Brit action was taken on it in regard to the Presidency of Agra, and a Lieutenant-Governor of Agra was actually appointed in the year 1836, and has remained up to the present day. By the action taken in 1912 the regulation was spent as regards Bengal; by the action taken in 1836 the regulation was superseded so far as the Province of Agra was concerned; and in these circumstances the whole regulation is very properly repealed by the Fourth Schedule attached to this Bill. The Act was 5 & 6 William IV, chapter 52, and the whole of that Act is repealed by the Fourth Schedule. But simultaneously with repealing the whole of the Act and also repealing the Government of India Acts of 1853 and 1851, which are referred to in the clause under notice—Clause 52—it is sought to keep alive by this clause the power of creating a Governor in Council for the Province of Agra. No person would for a moment consider that that was a likely thing to be clone by any school of politicians either in this country or in India, and I therefore think that the proper mode of procedure in this matter would be to omit Clause 52 altogether and rely on the repealing effect of the Fourth Schedule.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 52.—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I think the question with regard to this clause differs somewhat from that of the other. Any power to make this provision in respect of Agra must be derived apparently from the Act of 1833, and I think the noble Lord who has just sat down has made it clear that the Act of 1833 has really spent itself and therefore cannot be revived in this form. When your Lordships the other day decided that the

305
provision of an Executive Council for the United Provinces ought to be deferred as a highly contentions measure during the period of the was the idea suggested itself to some legal minds that that was what was called, erroncously as I think, the veto of the House of Lords. The House of Lords did nothing but reaffirm the very strong announcement made by the Viceroy in his Council. These, a people thought that by reviving the Act of 1833 a Presidency Government could be conferred upon the United Provinces. That was a very in, genious idea but it was clearly impracticable for this reason, that Oudh was not annexed until 1858 and therefore could not have been dealt with by any previous Act of 1833 or of 1854. The original Bill as laid before your Lordships' House conferred this power in the case of Agra and Oudh. It was a new power and a new legal provision that would really have had the effect, to my mind, of a new Act of Parliament which we are assured should not be. But now the clause has been altered, and has been made to apply solely to the provision of a Presidency Government for the Province of Agra. I think from what the noble Lord has said that your Lordships will see that this really is in effect, if not technically, the creation of a new law; and as I cannot conceive that the Secretary of State wishes for any power to create a Presidency within Agra, I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, I think the speeches of the two noble Lords who have spoken in support of this Amendment Hurst show to your Lordships the great difficulties that the Joint Select Committee have had in dealing with these old laws which are full of technicalities and of conflicting elements, and one extends a sympathy to the Committee in their attempt at unravelling from this jumble of the past anything in the nature of a coherent clause for a present. day Act. All I can say with regard to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord for the omission of Clause 52 is that I cannot accept it, because the clause is placed in the Bill as part of the statutory law of the past. It is merely a representation of the 1833 Act, an Act which I do not think can really be accurately described as having spent itself. If in the face of modern conditions it does not comply altogether with the present practice, the clause will
306
be susceptible of improvement and alteration in the Amending Bill. The power which was given to create the Governorship in Bengal three years ago, I am given to understand, emanated from the 1851 Act as distinct from the 1833 Act.
I would appeal again to the two noble Lords who have proposed the omission of this clause to forego their desire for the present and to allow the Bill to remain as it has been handed clown to us by the Joint Select Committee. I farther ask them to take account of the appeal which was made by my noble and learned friend Lord Loreburn just now, in the interests not only of this Bill but of all other Consolidation Bills, and adhere as strictly as possible to the law as it has been produced for us by the Joint Select Committee and in no way to attempt to amend it at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54:
Amendment moved—
Page 23, leave out lines 14 to 19 inclusive.—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 55 to 68 agreed to.
Clause 69:
Amendment moved—
Page 30, lines 10 and 11, leave out ("or the date on which the disallowance is signified by the governor-general to his council").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 70 to 81 agreed to.
Clause 82:
Amendment moved—
Page 37, lines 4 and 5, leave out ("or the date on which the disallowance is signified by him to his Council").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 83 to 88 agreed to.
Clause 89:
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 9, leave out ("British").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 89, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 90 to 94 agreed to.
Clause 95:
Amendments moved—
Page 43, line 27, leave out ("British")
Page 43, line 28, leave out ("British")
Page 43, line 32, leave out ("British")
Page 43, line 34, leave out ("British")
Page 43, line 37, leave out ("British").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 95, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 96:
No disabilities in respect of religion, colour, or place of birth.
96. No native of British India, nor any subject of His Majesty resident therein, shall, by reason only of his religion, place of birth, descent, colour, or any of them, be disabled from holding any office under the Crown in India.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, the Amendment standing in my name to this clause is really a very small one, but I ask you to believe that it is one of some importance. Every one who has recently resided in India knows well that educated Indians greatly dislike and resent the use of the term "native." Perhaps for that reason the term "native of India" does not appear in any other clause of the Bill. It seems to me that we ought to especially careful in these times not to do anything that may hurt the susceptibilities of our fellow-Indian subjects. I therefore move to insert the words, "No British subject resident in British India." That only restores the Bill to the form in which it stood when it first came before your Lordships' House. The Joint Select Committee, in giving their reasons for making this change, say that it was made in order that the provision should follow the phraseology of the Act of 1833. But India has changed in the eighty-two years that have passed since that Act was put on the Statute Book, and words which were suitable in 1833 may be inappropriate or even improper at the present day. Therefore I
308
earnestly hope that this small Amendment may be accepted by the Government. I have no doubt that the process of bringing in and passing the Amending Bill will take nothing like the forty years which I suggested as a joke, but we may infer that it will take several years; and meantime I think it is worth while that the words that I wish expunged should not be placed on the Statute Book.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, lines 38 and 39, leave out ("No native of British India, nor any subject of His Majesty resident therein") and insert ("No British subject resident in British India").—(Lord Sydenham.)
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, as my noble friend truly said, the Amendment which he proposes would restore the wording of the clause as introduced in this House. The words that are now in the Bill have been placed there by the Joint Select Committee because they follow exactly the phraseology of the Act of 1833. I am given to understand that there is little if any difference, from a legal point of view, in the meaning of the words now in the Bill and the words as proposed by my noble friend. But, as he must know full well, section 87 of the Act of 1833, of which this is an exact reproduction, is regarded in India as a charter under which Indians are entitled to hold office under the Crown. Certainly in the two years' experience I had in India on the Royal Commission investigating the Public Services nothing struck me more than the regard that was held for this particular provision, which all Indians looked upon as a sacred privilege that had been handed down to them from the year 1833; and any alteration in the wording of this particular section, however minute and trivial, would, I am sure, be regarded with the deepest suspicion by all Indians, who might read into it some insidious idea for an alteration and a withdrawal of that privilege. As I have already said, the alteration proposed by my noble friend makes no real difference; but it is regarded by those who advise me, apart from what I have said, that the words as proposed in the Bill are preferable. Under the British Nationality Act of 1914 "national born" has been omitted, but with that exception the provision is an exact reproduction of the 1833 Act. I am sorry, therefore, that for the reasons I have given I cannot see lily way to accept my noble friend's Amendment.
THE EARL or CROMER: My Lords, I suppose that view of the arguments advanced by the noble Lord it is impossible to have this Amendment accepted, but I entirely agree with what my noble friend Lord Sydenham said about the use of the word "native" When I was in Egypt one of my principal difficulties in official documents was to avoid the use of that word, and I used to use the word "indigenous" and all sorts of other words to get out of it. But I quite agree with the noble Lord that in view of the fact that we should stick absolutely to the previous wording in dealing with a Consolidation Bill it is impossible to accept the Amendment.
LORD SYDENHAM: I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 96 agreed to.
Clauses 97 to 108 agreed to.
Clause 109:
Amendments moved—
Page 49, lines 24 and 25, leave out ("or signifies to his council")
Page 49, lines 26 and 27, leave out ("or signification").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 109, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 110 to 123 agreed to.
Clause 124:
Amendments moved—
Page 54, leave out lines 28 to 37 inclusive.
Page 55, leave out lines 1 to 33 inclusive, and insert:
(4) if, being the governor-general, or a governor, lieutenant-governor or chief commissioner, or a member of the executive council of the governor-general or of a governor or lieutenant-governor, or being a person employed or concerned in the collection of revenue or the administration of justice, he is concerned in, or has any dealings or transactions by way of, trade or business in any part of India, for the benefit either of himself or of any other person, otherwise than as a shareholder in any joint stock company or trading corporation; or
(5) if he demands, accepts or receives, by himself or another, in the discharge of his office, any gift, gratuity or reward, pecuniary or otherwise, or any promise of the same, except in accordance with such rules as may be made by the Secretary of State as to the receipt of presents, and except in the case of fees paid or payable to barristers, physicians, surgeons and chaplains in the way of their respective professions,
310
he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour; and if he is convicted of having demanded, accepted or received any such gift, gratuity or reward, the same, or the full value thereof, shall be forfeited to the Crown, and the court may order that the gift, gratuity or reward, or any part thereof, he restored to the person who gave it, or be given to the prosecutor or informer, and that the whole or any part of any fine imposed on the offender he paid or given to the prosecutor or informer, as the court may direct.—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 124, as amended, agreed to
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First, Second, Third and Fourth Schedules agreed to.
Fifth Schedule:
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 7, column 1, leave out ("124 (5), (7), (8)") and insert ("124 (5)—so far as it relates to persons other than the governor-general, a governor, or a member of the executive council of the governor-general or of a governor").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the Fifth Schedule. The noble Lord said: After the plea which the noble Lord the Under-Secretary has made to me, I do not intend to move this Amendment. But no doubt the noble Lord is aware that the elect of the Bill will be to enable, for instance, the Governor-General in Legislative Council to free himself from all responsibility of giving any information whatever to the Secretary of State with regard to the government of India.
LORD ISLINGTON: I would say, in reply to the noble Lord, that I fully appreciate the anomalies that are produced here. But I am obliged to him for not moving the Amendment, and I can assure him that in drafting the Amending Bill due regard will be had to the various anomalies that exist.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 126.)

MAINTENANCE OF LIVE STOCK BILL.
[SECOND READING]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, I ask you to read this Bill a second time, and I will first briefly refer to its provisions. Clause I is to give the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries powers, for the purpose of maintaining a sufficient stock of animals to which this Bill applies, by Order applicable to England and Wales or any part thereof, to prohibit or restrict slaughter. Paragraph (b) of Subsection (1) of this clause is, with a view to making that first prohibition more effective, to prohibit or restrict the sale or exposure for sale of meat of immature animals which has not been imported. Paragraphs (c) and (d) are auxiliary to (a) and (b), and enable the Board of Agriculture to authorise any local authority specified in the Order to execute and enforce within their district all or any of the provisions of the Order, and provide for the manner in which the expenses incurred by the authority are to be defrayed; and to authorise any officer of the Board or of a local authority to enter any slaughter-house or other premises on which animals are slaughtered for human food and examine any animals or carcases therein. And paragraph (e) gives the Board power to prohibit or restrict the movement of animals out of any area in which the slaughter of such animals is prohibited or restricted. The reason for that will be obvious to your Lordships, because were no such provision inserted it would be quite easy for a person to take the cattle out of the area in which slaughter was prohibited into the next area in which slaughter was not prohibited, and thus defeat the very purpose for which the Order had been Made. The second subsection of the first clause lays down that the animals to which the Bill applies are "cattle, sheep, and swine."
Clause 2 deals with the penalty for offences under the Bill, and provides that if any person acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any of the provisions of an Order made under this Bill, or obstructs or impedes any officer in the execution of his powers or duties under any such Order, he shall, on conviction under
312
the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or if the offence is an offence committed with respect to more than four animals to a fine not exceeding five pounds for each animal. Clause 3 contains the application of the Bill to Scotland and Ireland. Clause 4 is the title clause. It repeals the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1914, which was passed last August and would expire next August, and provides that this measure shall remain in force "during the continuance of the present war and for a period of twelve months thereafter and no longer."
The whole justification for this Bill, which with some slight variation is identical with the Bill that was passed by your Lordships last August, is the fact that we are in a state of war. It is a war emergency measure, and not one which in any other state of affairs any Government would think of presenting to your Lordships. For no one can have had any experience of farming in this country without knowing that the less the Government interferes with the farmer in the execution of his business the better it is for the farmer and for the country. I am speaking to noble Lords who have had long experience of agriculture, and I claim this much qualification for the office which I have the honour to hold, that I have myself farmed on a fairly large scale for nearly thirty years; and I know that the business and science of farming is an extremely complicated and difficult one, and that the conditions under which the farmer carries on his industry vary very much in the South from the North, in one county from another county, and even within different parts of the same county. The business of the dairy farmer is wholly different from that of the farmer who fattens beasts for the market. The business of the sheep breeder is wholly different from that of the general farmer who follows out a mixed system of grass and arable cultivation. And I know that as the years go on so farming in this country tends to greater specialisation. I take it that a hundred years ago there was much less difference between the practice of one farmer and another in the same district than there is to-day. One man specialises on milk, another on cheese, another on cattle, another on potatoes, another on fruit, and so forth. I mention these facts, which are so well known to your Lordships, merely to emphasise

313
my assurance that I know that any interference on the part of the Government with the business of the farmer is in itself very regrettable and could not be justified except by the unfortunate fact that we are now engaged in war.
These considerations are heightened by two facts which must also be present to the minds of your Lordships. In the first place, the country has been suffering from a serious drought the effects of which cannot be entirely obliterated now even by the most abundant rain. The hay crop of this year must be a short one. Our pastures may contain a very abundant growth of aftermath in the later months of the year, but though this is of great advantage to the farmer it does not compensate him for the fact that he has only a short hay crop. In the second place, the price of meat is abnormally high. That is in itself an evil, and one which no Government would wish by any action that it took to increase. Therefore the case which leads me to ask your Lordships to accept such a Bill as this must be a really strong one. And indeed, my Lords, it is. It is one very simply stated, but I cannot imagine one of greater urgency or importance. During the course of this war the food supply of our people is a matter of paramount importance, and we should have no excuse if we allowed that food supply to be in any degree diminished owing to our want of forethought in not asking Parliment for such powers as would enable us, had we possessed them, to save our people from that diminution of their food supply. I put that down as a matter which requires no argument. There are some risks you cannot run, and one of those risks is that during this war there should be a diminution of one food supply.
In the matter of meat, as your Lordships know, this country is much more self-supporting than in the matter of cereals. Of the meat consumed in the United Kingdom about 64 per cent. is produced in the United Kingdom, and only the difference is imported front abroad. Now have we any reason to suppose that there is cause for anxiety about the constant transfer to this country of that 36 per cent, of the supply which we have been accustomed to import from abroad? In the first place, I cannot conceal from your Lordships that there is some danger of a shortage in that supply from abroad,
314
not because less will come, but because more is being consumed. The fact that you have these vast Armies in France and elsewhere causes it greater consumption of meat. The men who are now fighting are consuming more meat than they would have if they had not been fighting; and the result is, so far as we can calculate, that even if there is no diminution in our oversea supply there will be less to come to this country for the use of the civil population. Therefore it is of the utmost importance, from that point of view alone, that we should have the power of conserving greatly our own live stock in the United Kingdom.
But it would be improper if I did not remind your Lordships that there is an additional danger, a war danger, to our food supply from abroad quite independent of the fact that the fighting men are consuming more than they did when they were civilians—that is what I may describe as the submarine menace. I think, my Lords, that the degree to which our Navy and the daring and seamanship of our mercantile marine have thwarted the intentions of the German Navy is wonderful. If you bear in mind the boasts with which the submarine campaign against our commerce was launched by the German Admiralty and compare the results with those boasts, and if you compare the total number of losses, serious as it is, with the number of our ships which go to and fro about their lawful business safely, I think you will agree that I do not exaggerate when I say that the meed of praise to the Navy and to the mercantile marine should be very great. But although that is so, it is the fact that German submarines are taking a steady toll of our ships, and the longer the war goes on the more submarines there will be probably engaged in this task. So far as we can look into the intentions of the German Admiralty it is probable that they are now putting their whole shipbuilding strength into the construction of submarines, and therefore we must expect the submarine menace to our shipping not to diminish but to increase. It will not be the fault of the German Admiralty or of the German Government if they fail to deal a mortal blow to our carrying trade, and especially at that part of that trade which brings to this country the necessary food for the people. Therefore as sensible men we have to look that danger in the face.

315
There is no reason to exaggerate the danger, but it would be foolish on our part not to acknowledge its existence or calculate the consequences which might ensue were our Navy less successful in its vigilance and the German Navy more successful in its attack. Therefore the reasons for the powers for which we ask seem to me to be overwhelming. We ask that you should arm us with the power to take such steps as may from time to time seem to us to be necessary to avoid any premature or hasty diminution of our flocks and herds owing to the fact that at any given moment prices may be so high as to tempt farmers to part with their breeding stocks and so reduce our supply. But if you give these powers I can assure your Lordships that they will be used not only with an ever-present sense of responsibility but only after careful consultation with the best practical agriculturists available for this purpose. As your Lordships know, we have a Consultative Committee established by my predecessor for the purpose of this war, presided over by Sir Ailwyn Fellowes and containing within itself a very strong representation of the practical working farmers of England and Wales. We shall always go to them for advice in these matters, and even if you suppose, which would not be true, that the Board of Agriculture are not aware of the specialisation of agriculture, you may be quite sure that this Committee will not leave us unreminded of the fact. An order, for instance, such as was made the other day, which may be welcomed and praised by those farmers who want store cattle may be very unpopular with dairy farmers. We know that quite well. We know that in the cattle industry we have the breeders to consider, the men who fat cattle, and also the dairy farmers.
I should like to refer for a moment, as it bears on the powers I ask for under this Bill, to some of the protests which we have received on the subject of the Order issued the other day prohibiting the slaughter of calves—except those belonging to certain dairy breeds—under twelve weeks old. That Order was made after consultation with the Advisory Committee, and after every possible step hail been taken to ascertain the opinion of farmers throughout the country. We have, however, received a certain number of remonstrances and protests against it, but they all come from what I may call the dairy districts; they are largely from Somersetshire and Gloucester-
316
shire, the counties so fully represented by some of the noble Lords opposite. I am, indeed, sorry to cause inconvenience to the practice of those farmers. I know quite well that if you have to use milk to rear a calf you cannot sell that milk or make it into cheese. That is quite obvious. Therefore I can quite understand that these farmers should greatly dislike having the practice of their agriculture interrupted by their being prohibited from selling calves to the butcher when they had been accustomed to sell them and had been looking forward to continuing to do so. But I would point out to noble Lords opposite who may be said to represent those counties and those industries that there are other ways of disposing of calves besides selling them to the butcher—namely, selling them to some other fanner who is prepared to rear them. I agree that in a given district where every farmer is accustomed to sell his calves to the butcher and there are no rearers, it is not easy at once for the farmer to find a market for the calves which he cannot sell to the butcher and does not want to keep. But it ought not to pass the wit of man to devise a scheme by which a calf in, say, Herefordshire could be sent on to, say, the Eastern counties where there are farmers who are desirous of getting those calves. Surely if there was time that method of exchange would adjust itself, and I would suggest to noble Lords and those they represent that that is the real solution of the difficulty—that they should find a means by which the calves could be collected from the farmers who do not want to keep them and passed in truck loads to those markets where they could be readily disposed of.
I would say, in passing, that the curious part about the correspondence which we have received is this. In not one single protest that I have read with regard to the Order would you ever guess that we were at war. Whether the letter comes from a committee of a county council or from an individual farmer, there is not one simile reference to the state of war which was the only justification for the making of that Order. Those letters would have been a contribution to the merits or demerits of such an Order had they been written a year ago. But they make no allusion whatever to the only justification which exists for the Order, and it is therefore not easy to give them the weight one would wish.

317
I wish to say a word about sheep. We take powers under this Bill to deal with sheep, but, as your Lordships know, we have put no restriction on the sale of lambs or ewes in the Order which has been already published; and I take this opportunity of reassuring those who fear that the Board of Agriculture may not be aware that the rearing of fat lambs for the market is a particular branch of farming very successfully practised in various parts of the country. I am personally very familiar with this, as for over ten years I had a flock of horned Dorsets, and the only purpose of keeping such a flock is to get the lambs to the market at as early a date as possible where they do make a very real and important contribution to the food supply of the country. Therefore I would assure all sheep farmers that we are perfectly well aware of the special conditions of what I may call the fat lamb industry.
Then as regards pigs. Here the matter is constantly complicated by that scourge swine-fever, which never leaves us and with which all successive Administrations have hitherto failed successfully to cope. I should like to take this opportunity of stating that we are trying tentatively a new treatment—the serum treatment—which I hope the farmers will welcome. It is only in the stage of experiment at present. Pig treated with the serum does not thereby become permanently immune. But if swine fever breaks out on a farm and the pigs not yet infected are inoculated with this serum and then contract the fever from the infected pigs on the farm the great probability is that they will recover and ever after be immune. That is a very interesting contribution to our knowledge of the subject which has been made by the veterinary officers who have been working on this vexed question, and I very much hope that we may reap some real benefit from it and by our experience leant how to deal with swine fever much more successfully in the future than we have in the past. But it is necessary to take these powers in respect of pigs. There is no class of stock which reproduces itself so rapidly, and there might be at a given moment a very real necessity for checking the slaughter of sows in order that within a comparatively brief space of time the number of pigs in the country might be largely multiplied.
I ask for these powers because, quite frankly, your Lordships have already
318
admitted by passing so many emergency measures that in the condition of war in which we find ourselves it is necessary for the Government to have in some respects the powers of a dictatorship. I am very far from suggesting that I am competent to exercise even the twenty-second part of a dictator's powers, but some one must do the work; and I can only say that we shall endeavour, if you give us these powers, to exercise them with common sense and with sympathy and knowledge of the difficulties of the farmers of this country.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I am sure none of your Lordships will disagree for one moment with what the noble Earl has said as regards the necessity of maintaining our food supply. The only difference I have with him is that I am not convinced by what he has said—and I doubt whether the House is convinced—that this Bill is the only way of doing it, and that it is necessary under this Bill, as he says, to make himself and the Board of Agriculture a dictator. Certainly our experience since the war began, judging from other Departments of State, is that it does not do entirely to make them dictators. I will not put it higher than that. I am sorry that the noble Earl did not refer to what I regard as the principal consideration of this Bill. I am not one of those who in any Way wish to put difficulties in the way of the maintenance of a full amount of stock in this country or of increasing it. On the contrary, I am most anxious to do everything in my power as an agriculturist to help the President of the Board of Agriculture in the matter. But I think the noble Earl will find, when expressions of opinion are given throughout the country, that his proposals do not command anything like the unanimous sense of agriculturists generally. I am not talking of the gentlemen who compose his Consultative Committee—the only gentlemen he seems to have consulted in this matter. I admit their position as agriculturists, but they are not men who live by firming, whose bread and butter depends on raising stock. I would rather go to the men who are practical farmers, who live on the land and by the land.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The noble Lord is quite mistaken. There is a large representation on the Committee of men who are making their living on the land.
LORD STRACHIE: I do not think there is one tenant farmer on it.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes, there is.
LORD STRACHIE: I will deal with that later. Now as regards the question of procedure. I wish the noble Earl had said something with regard to that, because to my mind, however much we approve of the principle and the idea of the Bill, the procedure is most objectionable. I mean the procedure which was found in the Act of last year—that is, that Orders made under that Act were not required to lie upon the Table of either House of Parliament. If the Order made under the Act of 1914 had lain upon the Table of this House, we should have had an opportunity of discussing it and pointing out its many objectionable features. But the Act of 1914 was a much smaller and simpler measure. That Act only allowed Orders to be made for one year, but this Bill goes a step further. It is the old story of the thin edge of the wedge. When the Board of Agriculture found that this House was willing to allow Orders to be made without their coining before it, no doubt they thought that it would be a good opportunity to ask that Orders in future made at any time during the war or a year after should not lie on the Table of the House. There is no doubt that it is most convenient for the Minister at the head of a Department and also for the officials of the Department to be able to make Orders without any control of Parliament over them.
I have not long had the honour of a seat in your Lordships' House, but for nearly twenty years I was a member of the House of Commons. I have noticed how Parliament has gradually been losing its control, how we have constantly been met with the argument, "It is desirable to do this by reference," or, more often, "It is desirable to do this by Orders." Those Orders at first were laid on the Table of either House, but the practice is growing of not laving them on the Table. Of course, the war argument may be used again, but the war argument does not apply to Orders being laid upon the Table of either House of Parliament, because those Orders come into force at the moment they are laid, only if either House chooses to vote an Address to His Majesty upon one of them that Order
320
becomes null and void. The noble Earl may say to me, as an old member of the House of Commons, "Our Orders would be discussed and delayed, and there might be criticism." But the Government having taken the whole time of the House of Commons knows very well that that House would not have an opportunity of discussing these Orders, and they would only be discussed in this House. I am certain that no member of this House would ever do anything which would hamper the Government in carrying out an Order which they said was a national necessity. All Orders laid before this House would be criticised in a friendly spirit. Therefore the argument against Orders being laid before the Houses of Parliament is one that has not much substance in it.
The noble Earl referred to the differing interests of breeding, grazing, and so on, but I did not catch that he said anything with regard to those interests being dealt with separately, and certainly in the Order under the Act of 1914 no distinction is made between one area and another. I can assure the noble Earl that it is not only the agricultural interest in the West of England who object to the Order which has been made by the noble Earl and the powers which have been taken, but objection is also taken by the agricultural interest in Derbyshire, Cheshire, Lancashire, and the Midlands. The noble Earl honoured the County Council's Association the other day by addressing that body, and it may interest him to know that after he had left this Bill was referred to the Council's Parliamentary and Public Health Committee. That Committee was not able to meet until to-day and they unanimously passed a resolution approving of the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper. Not one member took objection. Every speaker laid strong emphasis on the importance of all Orders under this Bill being laid before both Houses of Parliament, so that they could be investigated and, if necessary, criticised. There was a feeling that much greater care would be taken in the framing of the Orders if those who drew them up knew that there would be strict scrutiny and criticism of such Orders by members of this House. It maw be said that this Bill was carefully considered in another place, but I have the authority of Sir Rim Spear, the Member for Tavistock

321
and a well-known agriculturist in Devonshire, that this Bill was not fully considered but as a matter of fact was rushed in another place. Old Members of the House of Commons know well how, late at night, a Bill is taken and rushed through.
Then the noble Earl talked about the Consultative Committee to which I have already referred. That Committee would have got greater weight if it had had the support of the Royal Agricultural Society or of the Bath and West of England Agricultural Society. But neither of those has up to now expressed any view in favour of the Order, and I notice that Mr. Acland, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, was not able to quote any of the great societies as supporting his views on the subject. All he did was to make an oracular statement. Speaking in the House of Commons on the Second Reading of the Bill, he said—
"I believe that that Order, although it does not go so far as a great many people wanted us to go, will be generally welcomed. Farmers have been particularly urgent upon us that something of this kind should be done. They foresee, very clearly, it may not be to their permanent interest, whatever may be the temporary and immediate interest of some, that the breeding stocks of this country shall be depleted, because, when once depleted, it is very difficult to build them up again. They have, therefore, pressed upon us the passing of an Order of this kind, and we are very glad to be able to follow their advice."
It is rather interesting that Mr. Acland, a West Country Member, should make such a statement, but he got his answer a week later when the Somersetshire County Council passed the following resolution—
"That this county council considers that the Order issued by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries with reference to the slaughtering of calves, dated June 23, 1915, is contrary to the best interests of agriculture, and will defeat the object of increasing the supply of meat and dairy produce; and is of opinion that two weeks should be substituted for twelve as in the recent Order."
This body has not the slightest power to interfere with that Order, though it is very representative of agriculturists. Somerset is not only agricultural but industrial, with large coalfields, and of course this Council is representative of other interests besides agriculture. But there was not a single member who objected to this resolution. If they had thought that there was any question of reducing the supply of food I am sure that the industrial representatives would have protested most strongly. But not so; they were perfectly unanimous.
322
Again, Sir John Spear in the House of Commons complained of the farmers not being consulted and objected to the way in which it had been said that they approved of the Order. The noble Earl did not make any reference to the difficulties which farmers would experience under the prohibition of the slaughter of stock. As to the difficulties they would have with regard to the hay crop, it is true the noble Earl said that however much rain we had in the future he did not think it would help us in this case. That is true, because practically speaking the hay harvest is over. One of the difficulties from which agriculturists suffer when they are told to keep more stock is that they have less hay, and a lot has been commandeered by the War Office. In this connection I should like to call the noble Earl's attention to a resolution passed by the Somersetshire Chamber of Agriculture. It was as follows:
"That this chamber considers the commandeering of clover mixtures and hay of the best quality at £3 10 s. on rail is grossly unfair and ruinous to the farmers, who are dependent upon the same to maintain their proper head of cattle on the farms, being, through the war, face to face with a considerable increase in the cost of production and the extraordinarily high prices of all artificial feeding stuffs, and also the possibility of a very short crop of new hay."
So that I think the noble Earl will see that agriculturists have considered the state of things arising out of the war, and that they are perfectly prepared to keep as much stock as they can. Indeed, they would be glad to do it. They are most of them practical men. The noble Earl did not say anything as to whether there was a diminution of stock in this country, but as regards Scotland I notice that there has been a large increase there of cows and sheep.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: We have not the returns in yet, but shall have them very soon now.
LORD STRACHIE: I am informed that an answer was given in another place, with regard to England, that there would be a large increase of calves and cows.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: We have no information at present, but we shall get it in a few days.
LORD STRACHIE: Then I was wrong in thinking that such an answer was given in the House of Commons the other day?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I have no recollection of it; not an official one.
LORD STRACHIE: In effect the noble Earl says to the House, "While all you say may be true about these things, while we understand the difficulties of the farmers who, of course, are practical men, you ought to trust the Board of Agriculture in this matter and give us a free hand." I admit that had I to think only of the noble Earl himself I should probably be perfectly ready to give him a free hand. But I would remind the House that Presidents of the Board of Agriculture come and go fairly frequently. We have had in the last few years four different Presidents and many Under-Secretaries. Though we might be willing to trust the noble Earl himself, and though we are fortunate enough to have him as president in this House at the moment to answer Questions, perhaps the position may be reversed in two or three months' time. The noble Earl may be given, say, a higher office and we may have the President of the Board in the House of Commons and there would thus be no opportunity of cross-examining him on any Orders. And I would remind the House that past Presidents of the Board of Agriculture have done things by a stroke of the pen. I refer to what was done by Mr. Runciman, who, by a stroke of the pen, made an Order by which the importation of store cattle was allowed into this country, thereby driving a coach-and-four through the Statute. Mr. Runciman in his wisdom broke that down and brought store cattle into this country, thus creating a most clangorous precedent with regard to our flocks and herds in respect to foot-and-mouth disease, as he allowed cattle to be brought over from a country where foot-and-mouth disease is more or less endemic. I trust that the noble Earl will make further inquiries into this matter and may be willing to assent to the proposal which, so far as any public bodies have spoken upon it, has received unanimous support—namely, that all Orders made by him under this Bill should be laid before both Houses of Parliament. That is the ground upon which I move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
To leave out all the words after ("That") for the purpose of inserting the following Resolution, viz.: ("This House regrets that no provision is made in the Bill for the laying of Orders made by the Board of Agriculture before both Houses of Parliament").—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I desire cordially to associate myself with the noble Lord who has just sat down and to support the Amendment that he has put before the House, that Orders of this kind should be allowed to lie on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. Personally I should have thought that the noble Earl himself would have felt regret that he had not provided for something of that sort in the Bill. He told us at the beginning of his remarks of the various idiosyncrasies which govern agriculture and convert this country agriculturally into a great many Englands. For that very reason it is clear that these Orders should be accessible to Parliament. I quite recognise that this is an emergency Bill, but on that account I think it wants very close scrutiny.
Perhaps I may state my credentials for saying something about this matter. I own and work, under a fifteenth century Charter to my family, a large auction mart at Gisburn, the centre of a great grazing and rearing district. In that auction mart 25,000 cattle of all kinds, 70,000 sheep, and 2,000 pigs, change hands. I am also here to-night because I have been asked to represent the views of the Craven Farmers' Association, whose headquarters is Skipton and who consist of 700 tenant farmers. So far as I know, we have not any one on the Committee upon which Lord Selborne has relied for information who represents that part of the country in any way, and although this association are perfectly willing to put up with the Bill because we are in a state of war, they have certain points which they have asked me to bring before the President of the Board of Agriculture to-night. Craven is a fine district; it is all grass and fell, and all cattle and sheep. I see the noble Duke on the Cross Benches who owns a large property at Bolton and who will corroborate that; and I venture to say that if he had gone up there ten days ago he would have heard very much the same sort of views from his tenants as I am putting before you to-night on their behalf. I ride about all that country a great deal, so that yon can take it from me that I am not talking of what I do not, at all events, know something about.
Now, this is what these people suggest to me. In the first place—and this has reference to what the noble Earl said of the peculiarly local characteristics which

325
govern all agriculture in England—these people say that the most important point is to emphasise the absolute necessity of the officer of the Board or of the local authority mentioned in the Bill being a local and practical man, as no stranger can possibly understand the needs of a particular district. That, I think, is a very important point. In prehistoric days I used to answer in this House, only as a mouthpiece, for the proceedings of the Board of Agriculture, and I knew enough about the kind of answers I gave to know that they were boiled down, as it were, for the general consumption of the House but quite outside the local conditions. They represented the sort of boiled-down wisdom of an arm-chair official in the Board of Agriculture. But I do not want to go further into that.
Another point arises on the Order to which the noble Lord alluded just, now. Though the Craven farmers recognise that this is a war emergency Bill, they have not asked me to say very much more than I have said about the point of the officer of the Board being a man who knows his business and who knows the country. But they are very much opposed to the Outer, which no one had the opportunity of looking at, which prohibits the slaughter of calves. In our view, your local man ought to have power to select calves and to have all those branded, just as you are branding the Canadian horses, which in his opinion are unfit for keeping. This brand would free the butcher from any responsibility for slaughtering the calf; but if the officer of the Board of Agriculture or the local authority found any hides unbranded, either in the butcher's possession or in any tanyard, the butcher or the owner of the tanyard ought to have a large penalty imposed upon him. In our view the age limit of twelve weeks on the slaughter of calves ought to be removed, and a limit of twelve months adopted as to branding. In twelve weeks an animal is neither veal nor beef, but it would be perfectly possible that up to twelve months these animals could be inspected by the officer of the Board or the officer of the local authority, and up to twelve months they could be branded.
I do not know that I need dwell upon the evils of an accumulation of calves, but they are very present to us. Two
326
of my tenant farmers have now twenty cows calving every week, and in the Skipton district there are from 40,000 to 50,000 calves bred every year. I need not point out to you—Lord Harris put the point the other night, and Lord St. Audries put two or three practical points also—that an over-accumulation of animals on land which cannot keep them for want of accommodation creates an insanitary condition of affairs altogether, and in some ways this emergency remedy of yours may be worse than anything which exists at present. I may also tell you this—and I say it on my own authority as one who knows a great deal about the land—always riding about, and always talking to stock raisers—that in our part of the country we have no fear of the right number of calves not being kept for breeding purposes. If I may say so, stock rearing is not only the taste but it is very nearly the talent of that district. We have had three or four very fine strains of short-horn blood, but; I need not go into that. We have stuck to cattle-raising, and I believe in that way we are second to none. I believe as a matter of fact that, tempted by the look of things all round and prices being good, more animals are being kept for breeding than there were, and I also hear from my agent that more cattle are being sold in the neighbouring markets for rearing and breeding. I do not want to trouble your Lordships further. I may in the Committee stage have an Amendment to suggest, but in the meanwhile, for the reasons I have given, I cordially associate myself with the Amendment of the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, we must all admit the desirability of maintaining the flocks and herds of this country, and at the same time we are perfectly willing to agree to an emergency Bill of this sort being carried. But I rise to bring before your Lordships and especially before the noble Earl in charge of the Bill one or two points which I think, if given some consideration, wilt help to reassure people in the country. It is perfectly well known to all breeders of stock that it is no use keeping cows that you cannot fatten for beef. That has been admitted in this Slaughter of Animals Order. I allude especially to the Channel Islands, Ayrshire, and Kerry breeds. I think it would very much reassure people

327
if they knew that it would he practically a certainty that no Order would ever come out that these animals should be necessarily kept as calves. I think it would he better, after "immature," if the word "male" were inserted, except in the case of the three breeds I have specially mentioned, and I propose to put down an Amendment in Committee to that effect. I am told that in special dairy counties it is very often the custom to use a bull of any description so long as the cow will get a calf. The noble Earl spoke of the desirability of farmers in certain districts buying calves out of dairy districts. What has militated so much against that is that the farmers in the non-dairy districts do not go there as they do not think they can get a calf that is fit to fatten hereafter. I do not know whether it is possible in any definition for the noble Earl to add to the three breeds I have already specified.
We have in this Order itself, if I might call the noble Earl's attention to it, a very curious definition. It says "animals visibly or obviously in-calf." I do not know whether the Board of Agriculture see any difference between the two words "visibly" and "obviously," or whether the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would like to give a legal interpretation of them. But if I were asked to explain the difference at a county council meeting, I am afraid I could not do so. Non-dairy farmers should be assured that if they buy calves out of a dairy district they will get calves fit to fatten for beef.
The noble Earl said a word with regard to the question of interfering with the flocks of ewes. It is perfectly well known that every autumn a certain number of ewes have to be drafted, and if he will give some assurance that no Order is contemplated dealing with the sale of ewes it will reassure people who are doubting very much whether their flocks may not he interfered with. Certainly it seems to me to be worth consideration by the noble Earl whether, bearing in mind the great specialisation that is in existence with regard to stock-breeding in the different parts of the country, it would not be better for him, instead of issuing one general Order for the whole of England and Wales, to use some discrimination between those counties which are wholly dairy and those which are ordinary farming—mixed arable and grass counties. If the noble Earl gives
328
this point some consideration, and gives some assurance that he will not interfere with the breeding of cattle, sheep, or swine, it would be welcomed by a great many people and have a beneficial effect.
LORD ST. AUDRIES: My Lords, I am sure we have all the same object in view—namely, to maintain and increase the amount of home-grown food in this country. Speaking at all events for the farmers in the West of England, I can assure the noble Earl that we are ready to make any reasonable sacrifice to secure that end. All we ask is that that sacrifice should be justified by most careful considerations. I think we must look at the Order and the Bill together as embodying part of the policy of His Majesty's Government in securing production of home-grown food. With regard to prohibition of the sale of pregnant animals, and the prohibition as to the sale of females, I think that is a wise course. But when we come to the prohibition of the sale of male calves, I am bound to say I do not think the exceptions made by the Order are sufficient. The noble Earl talked about cross-bred calves, to which we have heard reference made in debates several times. These cross-bred calves which come from dairy counties, the offspring of third or fourth cross cows, sired by bulls which are worthless from a beef point of view and are only of any use at all because they are able to get calves, are absolutely worthless for beef. The object of this part of His Majesty's Government's policy is to produce more beef. What is the real economic value of these calves? The most economic view, I believe, is to hang them directly they are born. The next most economic thing to do is to sell the worst of them when they are a few clays old—they will go to Birmingham and be made into veal pies—and to keep the better ones a little longer and sell them for veal. But I can assure the noble Earl that there is no demand whatever for calves of this kind as store animals to make into beef, for the simple reason that they do not pay. They consume more than the beef-producing breeds, they put on flesh very much slower, and when they are slaughtered their meat is of very inferior quality. Really, as regards those particular calves, I do not think they ought to be exempted from slaughter in the economic interests of the country.
Then we come to what the position of the farmer is if you compel him to keep this

329
particular class of calves. There is no sale for them, and two things must happen. In the first place, there will be a shortage of milk and cheese throughout the country; and, in the second place, there will be an increased consumption of grass and of hay. As regards milk, the demand has not fallen off. The supply must be to a certain extent restricted. For instance, we do not get as much milk imported from abroad as we did. It is quite true that a vast number of the male population of this country have gone abroad, but no one will ever contend that that portion of the population was a large milk-consuming portion. They may have consumed other liquids—I dare say they did—but no one will contend that the Army and Navy were large consumers of milk. On the other hand, the unfortunate men who come back wounded from abroad are, and will be, large consumers of milk. Therefore the demand has not gone down, but the supply has been considerably reduced.
Next there is the question of cheese. We are asked to eat cheese rather than meat, so as to economise the meat supply. That is all very well, but if you reduce the supply of milk you reduce the supply of cheese as well. Therefore we are placed in this dilemma. We were asked last autumn by the Government to grow more wheat and potatoes, and I think as a whole the farmers did their best to meet that demand, and they would have done more had the Government guaranteed a minimum price for wheat. However, they did not take that course. But we were asked to grow more wheat and more potatoes, and at the same time we were asked to plough up grass for that purpose. We all know that a great amount of home-grown oats and hay will be required for the Army, and that must mean less production for food for cattle and for sheep. And yet we are going to be compelled to rear more stock. Rearing that increased amount of stock involves a reduction in the supply of milk and of cheese, and therefore we are embarked on a vicious circle.
Each of these agricultural operations is inter-dependent on the other and requires most careful consideration. I am bound to say that the noble Earl seems to me to be a cross between Pharaoh and Aaron. In the character of Pharaoh he orders us to produce beef and stubble; in the character of Aaron he sets up a calf which he compels us to bow down to and worship. Really, I
330
do not think that this policy has been properly thought out, and I am bound to say that I agree with those bodies who have pessed resolutions to the effect that the Order will defeat its own object and ought to be revoked. The noble Earl might revoke that Order quite easily, because this Bill which we are now considering gives him adequate powers to carry out his object.
In carrying out this Bill two things are essential. First, very wide discretion should be given to the local authority; and, secondly, there should be a correct interpretation given to the word "immature." We are not told what the local authority is to be. I presume it will be the county council or a committee of the county council—the Diseases of Animals Act Committee, or some body of that kind—but I would impress upon the noble Earl that in carrying out this Bill it is absolutely necessary to give the local authority wide powers, and for this reason. Their local knowledge and local experience will be of the greatest value in enabling them to enforce the provisions of the Bill in some districts and to exempt from the provisions of the Bill other districts in which the local conditions are entirely different. I should like a definition of the word "immature." I know what the meaning of the word "mature" is. The word "mature" means ripe or ready, not, as many people think, full-grown. In the agricultural sense it means an animal which has come to its best, and which will not pay for keeping any longer. In that sense there are, as the noble Earl said, certain breeds of sheep which come to their best as lamb, and which are relatively more valuable as lamb than they ever would be as mutton. The same principle is true, to a certain extent, of the calves to which I have referred, and of other calves as well. It does not pay to keep them after a certain age, because you are keeping them at a loss to the farmer, and consequently at a loss to the nation. The fact that in two years time they may be inferior beef does not make up for the loss the farmer and the nation sustain because those animals are not sold when they come to maturity; and I think it would be sound economy to give to the local authority—assuming it to be the county council—power to permit slaughter according to their local knowledge and experience.
The noble Earl told us a week or so ago that if t here was a shortage of food in this

331
country owing to his neglect to take precautionary measures, he ought to be one of the first to be hanged. Well, that is an incident which I can assure him we should all deeply regret, and I have not the smallest fear that it is likely to happen. But I would remind him that there is nearly as much danger in trying to do too much without careful consideration as there is in doing too little; and I would also remind him that it is a very difficult thing to carry out a hard-and-fast system with a business like agriculture, which is so dependent upon climate, upon labour, and also upon the fact that unlike other people the farmer has to decide, under unknown conditions of weather and so on, months ahead as to what his policy of dealing with his farm is to be. Interference no doubt is necessary in time of war. We have to submit to interference in many ways which we do not like. But what I say is that any attempt to carry out a hard-and-fast system by a central Committee in London—however eminent or scientific its members may be, or however worthy may be its president, Sir Ailwyn Fellowes—is predestined to be a failure. The only way in which we can increase end maintain the supply of our home production of food is by putting a wide discretion in the hands of our local authorities.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I have only one or two words to say. I should hope that Lord Strachie is satisfied with the discussion that has been raised, and that he will not press his Amendment to a Division, because I think no one wants the Bill to be lost—and I fancy that the carrying of the Amendment would kill, the Bill. But I am sure we are grateful to the noble Lord for placing his Amendment on the Paper. One argument that was used by my noble friend opposite I do not quite follow. I understood the noble Earl to say that although calves might not be sold for slaughter there were people in the country who would be willing to buy them for the purposes of rearing.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes.
LORD HARRIS: I do not think that is so. The wording under the Order, or, at any rate, under this Bill seems to me to prohibit the sale of the animal up till twelve weeks old for any purpose whatever.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: No.
LORD HARRIS: Are you quite sure that that is the effect of the Order?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes, quite sure.
LORD HARRIS: If that is so, it makes a great deal of difference. But as I read the Order it seemed to me that the animal could not be sold at all up till twelve weeks old.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My noble friend is wrong. I am quite certain of it.
LORD HARRIS: I am glad to hear that. But it cannot be removed out of the area.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes, it can.
LORD HARRIS: Then the Order is very much milder than I had imagined. I am sure the noble Earl will feel that he has a multitude of counsellors, and he ought to be a very wise man after all the advice that has been given him, not only here but in the various bodies he has summoned to his aid. There is Sir Ailwyn Fellowes's Committee, Lord Milner's Committee, and the Development Board which I am aware is seriously discussing agricultural matters. So that my noble friend ought eventually to be pretty sure of the views, not only of practical persons, but also of the theorists amongst those Committees. But I venture to express the hope that at the Committee stage of this Bill the noble Earl will make some provision for laying on the Table of Parliament any Orders that he may find to be necessary.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, my noble friend who has just sat down said that I had the advantage of a multitude of counsellors. He was quite right. I think I have had the advantage to-night of a multitude of very good counsel, and I am much obliged to noble Lords for the great contribution they have made to the discussion of what is a very difficult subject, made in each case with real personal knowledge of the matters discussed. I can assure my noble friend Lord St. Audries that he cannot himself be

333
more impressed with the necessity of flexibility in this matter than I am. It is quite impossible to direct British agriculture by any hard-and-fast rule. I can assure him that no member of your Lordships' House can be more sensible than I am of the truth of the doctrine' which he laid down; and if I might be permitted, in the few moments that remain to us, I would go through some of the criticisms which noble Lords have made.
I can assure Lord St. Audries that the Board of Agriculture is in this matter, as every other agricultural body must be, a constant learner. We make no hard-and-fast law of the Modes and Persians. We make according to our responsibility, acting not hastily but after very full consideration and after having been the recipients of an immense amount of advice, what we think is the right Order for the moment. That is how we made the Order to which the noble Lord not wholly objects but to parts of which he objects. But that Order will be under the most constant scrutiny and revision. None of the criticisms or protests winch are sent in are thrown away; they are all considered and weighed as against other evidence we may receive of a different kind. And I would say in answer to Lord Strachie, while am still on that point, that the Advisory Committee contains two or three of the best practical working farmers of the country, not men who may be held to he not drawn from what I may call the "fanner class." I know, of course, whom he had in his mind when he spoke—Mr. Edward Strutt. Although he is one of the best farmers in the country he is not drawn from that class.
LORD HENEAGE: He is one of the best men in the Farmers' Club.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: That is so.
LORD STRACHIE: Is he a tenant farmer?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: No, he is not; but there are men on that Committee who are tenant farmers in the strictest sense of the term. The Order in question was made after we had been
334
the recipients of requests from an immense body of farmers all over the country, not asking us to do merely what we did, but to go much further. The Order is mild in comparison with what we were asked to do by a great number of people.
LORD ST. AUDRIES: Graziers mostly?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes, mostly graziers; just as the objectors were dairymen. And all we can do is as far as possible to hold the scales level between the contending interests. Both Lord St. Audries and Lord Ribblesdale alluded to a very important point. It is this, that many dairymen use utterly inferior bulls to put to their cows, and the produce of those cows from such bulls can never be of any value for rearing, fattening, and turning into meat. That is perfectly true. But it is a lamentable fact, and I think it is an extraordinary pity that such bad bulls should be used to such an immense extent as Lord St. Audries tells us they are when the same results from the point of view of the dairymen and much better results from the point of view of the country would be produced by the use of good bulls. Therefore if an indirect effect of the action which we have taken should be to discourage the very bad agricultural practice of using any bull for the purpose of the dairy cow I shell not personally be sorry. But I admit that this does not absolve me front considering the difficulty which exists from the prevalence of that practice. That was the exact case which Lord Ribblesdale meant, and I am much obliged to him for his suggestion. He said that some authority ought to examine the calves and put aside those which could never be of any value to store, and that those should be branded and exempted from the Order and allowed to be slaughtered. All I can say is that that suggestion will be very carefully considered. But Lord St. Audries rather gave us to imagine—I am sure he does not mean it—that the calves from cows belonging to this class of dairy farmers are all from bad bulls. That is going too far, I think.
LORD ST. AUDRIES: I did not mean that. But I saw a resolution passed by the Fanners' Club only last week in favour of using better bulls in future.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: This vicious practice—I think your Lordships will agree that I am not using too strong a term—is happily not universal, and although there may be only too large a proportion of these calves that are not much use for turning into meat, there is a very large number that we have endeavoured to save which are fit by their parentage to become beef hereafter; and that is the exact reason why the age of twelve weeks was chosen. It is true that at twelve weeks the animal is neither veal nor beef; but at twelve weeks it cannot go back to veal, but it may go on to beef. That is the object with which this particular period was chosen. Lord St. Audries will admit, I think, that I have already dealt with his point as to the necessity of exception when I said that I would carefully consider the matter mentioned by Lord Ribblesdale. Lord Galway alluded to the same point, and therefore he will pardon me if I do not repeat myself.
With regard to the meaning of the words "obviously and visibly in-calf," mentioned by Lord Galway, I would say that I am not a Parliamentary draftsman, but I can state what was intended. We are told by veterinary surgeons and by others that there is a moment when no man accustomed to deal with cattle—the farmer, the middleman, or the butcher—has any real doubt as to whether a cow is in-calf or not; whereas in the early stages of pregnancy you cannot he so certain and mistakes might happen with men not so experienced. "Obviously and visibly in-calf" is the legal method of putting on paper what I have told you the veterinary surgeons said.
I pass to the criticisms of Lord Strachie. I have already pointed out that the Advisory Committee does contain an adequate representation of the tenant farmers. I can assure the noble Lord that any such resolution as the one to which he referred, proceeding from the County Councils Association would naturally carry great weight with me. I am myself a member of that Association and know what a great volume of opinion it represents. Also I should regard with the greatest respect any opinion coming from the Council of the Royal Agricultural Society or from the Bath and West of England Agricultural Society. But it is not possible for the Board of Agriculture, any more than for
336
any other Government Office, on the eve of executive action to write to every possible authority in the country and ask them their opinion. It welcomes, and will welcome, all expressions of opinion as from time to time tendered by authorities so eminent. But all it can do is what my pre decessor endeavoured to do—namely, to establish a Committee representative of them all, the existence of which should be known to the whole agricultural public and to which officially any question that arose from time to time could be submitted for advice.
I would like to allude to the point made by Lord Strachie as to the commandeering of hay. It is not strictly germane to the matter under discussion, but it is so important to farmers that I do not like to pass over his observations on the subject. When the War Office first took powers to commandeer hay, opportunity of appeal to the County Court was given to the farmer as against the price offered by the War Office. That was a tribunal not very popular with the farmers. They did not like the bother of going to the County Court; and whereas a great many of them protested vehemently against the price offered, only a few of them entered an appeal before the County Court. The only appeal that has been heard, I may say, went entirely in favour of the War Office. But acting on the representation of the Board of Agriculture, the War Office have now agreed to supplement that procedure, and Committees are being established, one for the South and one for the North of England, consisting of a representative of the War Office, of the hay merchants, and of the farmers—using such bodies as the Farmers' Union and the Central Chamber of Agriculture for the purpose of selection—to whom an appeal may be made by the farmer against the price offered by the War Office. If the farmer succeeds in his appeal to this Committee the War Office will go no further; but if the Committee gives its decision against the farmer, the farmer is still left with his appeal to the County Court if he wishes. I think that disposes satisfactorily of the question of price. But there is something quite as important—namely, whether the hay ought to be taken at all; because, especially in this year when there has been a comparative drought, the old hay as well as the new may be of importance to the farmer, and it is no use urging the farmer to keep more

337
stock if the War Office conies down and makes it impossible for him to do that by commnandeering his hay. Therefore I am urging on the War Office that the farmer should have au appeal also against having the hay taken at all, so that he should not be placed in the cruel position of not having all the keep he requires for the winter when he is at the same time prevented by the Board of Agriculture from parting with his stock. The matter is not settled yet with the War Office, but I shall do all I can to that arrangement.
It only remains for me to say that I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Lord. As Lord Harris pointed out, to accept this Amendment would mean the killing of the Bill. But although I am not saying my last word now, I should with great reluctance accept any such Amendment in Committee, because I do think that under war conditions it is very necessary that the Board should be able to act promptly and decisively. At all times it will be possible for your Lordships to raise such a discussion as has taken place to-night, and such discussions, I think you will believe after what I have said, will never be thrown away upon me or the Board of Agriculture. We do not profess to be infallible in what is an extremely difficult question. We know how complicated is the whole science of farming, and we shall at all times be prepared to learn by experience, to listen to your Lordships' arguments, and to review the situation and if necessary revise our Orders.
LORD ST. AUDRIES: Could the noble Earl tell us what the local authority is to be?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I will give a full explanation in Committee.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, as the acceptance of my Amendment at the present stage would kill the Bill—the last thing that I desire—I ask leave to withdraw it now; but I give notice that I shall bring it forward again in Committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Then the original Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday next.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
(Southampton (Extension) Order.)
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the London County Council (Tramways and improvements) Bill and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill (Southampton (Extension) Order); read, and agreed to: 2k11 Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bill.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Eight o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Tea o'clock.