Lords Sitting of 15 July 1915

WEARDALE AND CONSETT WATER BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
LINCOLN CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
(UNOPPOSED ORDERS.)
Committee to meet on Wednesday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
To be read 2a on Tuesday next (The Lord Hylton).
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Read 2a, and committed for Wednesday next.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS No. 1) BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to he proposed by the Committee of Selection.
FINANCE (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next (The Lord President (M. Crewe)). (No. 134.)
IRVINE AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
STALYBRIDGE, HYDE, MOSSLEY AND DUKINFIELD TRAMWAYS AND ELECTRICITY BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
NATIONAL REGISTRATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
Trade Reports (Annual Series)—
No. 5446. Siam (Consular District of Chiengmai, 1913);
No. 5448. Italy (Finances for the year, 1914):
Workmen's Compensation (Industrial Diseases)—Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending the provisions of Section 8 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906:
Board of Education—Regulations for Technical Schools, Schools of Art, and other forms of provision of further Education in England and Wales. (In force from 1st August 1915):
Government War Risks Insurance Scheme—Report of the Aircraft Insurance Committee:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Companies—Twenty-fourth General Annual Report by the Board of Trade under Section 283 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to extend the powers of the Scottish Universities to make Ordinances for purposes connected with the present War—Was presented by the Lord Stan-more; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next. (No. 135.)
INDICTMENTS BILL. [H.L.]
House to be in Committee on Tuesday next.

GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) 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.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
    LAND DRAINAGE (OUSE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next.

DUNFERMLINE AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS (EXTENSIONS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
Amendments moved—
Clause 4, page 8, line 28, leave out ("Base") and insert ("Establishment")
Clause 4, page 9, line 10, leave out from ("Queensferry") to the end of the clause and insert:
Provided that the new Tramways Nos. 6 7 and 8 shall not be constructed except with the consent in writing of the Admiralty:
Provided further that subject to the consent aforesaid the new Tramways Nos. 14 and 6 and the Tramways Nos. 13 and 13A authorised by the Order of 1906 shall be constructed and opened for public traffic by the Company within eighteen months from the date on which the treasury has given the consent required by the section of this Order whereof the marginal note is "Company not to raise or borrow money during the continuance of war." The Company shall unless otherwise agreed between the Company and the Admiralty apply for the said consent of the Treasury on or before the thirty-first day of December one thousand nine hundred and fifteen and in the event of such consent being refused the Company shall renew their application to the Treasury within a period of twelve months after the date of any such refusal:
Provided also that if such consent is not given before the expiration of a period of twelve months from the termination of the present war then the said period of eighteen mouths shall commence to run from the expiration of the said period of twelve months.
Clause 5, page 9, line 36, after ("authority") insert ("and in the case of the new Tramway No. 4 with the consent also of the Local Government Board for Scotland and in the case of the new Tramways Nos. 5 and 6 with the consent also of the Admiralty").
After clause 8 insert as a new clause:
For protection of Admiralty.
. For the protection of the Admiralty the following provisions shall except so far as may be otherwise agreed between the Admiralty and the Company have effect—
(1) The Company shall be entitled to construct the new Tramway No. 6 along the Castle Road on a ballast track to the reasonable satisfaction of the Admiralty:
(2) The Company shall at their own expense to the reasonable satisfaction of the Admiralty maintain and keep in good order the roadway of the new Tramway No. 5 where such tramway is not situate upon a public road and the new Tramway No. 6 between the rails and on either side thereof to the line of the tramway poles if such poles are placed on either side of the portion of road set apart for tramway purposes and in any case to not less than a total width of between the rails and five feet beyond each of the outer rails of such tramways:
(3) In so far as not inconsistent with the method of construction of the new Tramways Nos. 4 5 6 7 and 8 (hereinafter in this section referred to as "the said tramways") the provisions of subsection (8) of the section of this Order whereof the marginal note is "For protection of Corporation of Dunfermline" shall be fulfilled by the Company to the reasonable satisfaction of the Admiralty:
(4) The Admiralty shall be entitled to construct and repair drains sewers water pipes electric mains and cables and telegraph and telephone wires under or over the said tramways on their property Provided that in the execution of any such works they shall not interfere with the working of the tramways or the traffic thereon more than may be reasonably necessary Provided further that if any portion of the said property shall before or after the commencement of this Order be conveyed to the Local Government Board for Scotland the provisions of this subsection and of the immediately succeeding subsection shall ensure for the benefit of that Board in respect or such portion:
(5) The Company shall allow their standards and poles on the new Tramways Nos. 4 and 6 to be used by the Admiralty for attaching thereto electric lights and electric telegraph and telephone wires provided that the same shall not interfere with or restrict the use of the standards and poles for tramway purposes:
(6)—(i) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Orders of 1906 to 1915 the Company shall—

(A) Convey passengers from or to the termination of the new Tramway No. 6 at the Dockyard of Rosyth to or from the commencement of the new Tramway No. 4 at Queensferry Road for a fare of one penny for each passenger and from or to the said termination of the new Tramway No. 6 to or from the junction of High Street and New Row Dunfermline for a fare of threepence for each passenger; and

(B) Convey workmen employed at the Rosyth Naval Establishment to or from the said termination of the new Tramway No. 6 from or to the junction of High Street and New Row for a fare of three half-pence for each workman going to or returning from work at the Naval Establishment and shall issue to any such workman applying therefor a ticket or tickets available on the day of issue

435
only entitling such workman to travel once both ways between the dockyard gate at or near the termination of the new Tramway No. 6 and the commencement of the new Tramway No. 4 for a return fare of one penny:

(ii) In the event of the fares which the Company are by the Orders of 1906 to 1915 authorised to demand and take for the conveyance of passengers on the tramways being increased under statutory authority the fares hereinbefore in this subsection prescribed shall be increased proportionately:
(7) In addition to the service of carriages for artisans mechanics and daily labourers prescribed by section 48 (i) of the Order of 1906 the Company shall run such a service of carriages for the purpose of conveying on the tramways workmen employed at the Rosyth Naval Establishment to and from their mid-day meal as may be agreed upon between the Company and the Admiralty Provided that the Company shall not be required to provide a service of carriages under this subsection on Sundays New Year's Day and general holidays:
(8) Any dispute or difference arising between the Company and the Admiralty under this section shall be referred to and determined by an arbiter to be agreed on by the Company and the Admiralty or failing agreement an arbiter to be appointed by the Board of Trade on the application of either party.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE MILITARY OPERATIONS IN SOUTH-WEST AFRICA.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I move to resolve: That this House desires to place on record its grateful appreciation of the distinguished skill and ability with which General the Right Honourable Louis Botha planned and conducted the recent military operations in South-West Africa, and of the eminent services rendered by him and by General Smuts, and by the officers and the forces of the Union of South Africa under their command.
In making this Motion, my Lords, I feel sure that the House will remember that the day before yesterday in the House of Commons a similar Motion was carried, moved and seconded by the Prime Minister and by the Secretary of State for the Colonies respectively, and I ought to explain that owing to an unfortunate blunder, for which we were not responsible, we were not placed in a position to make
436
a simultaneous Motion in this House as we should have desired to do. It was, however, conveyed to my noble friend Lord Lansdowne and myself that it would be the desire of your Lordships that a Motion in the same terms should be made here which, though somewhat late, would not therefore be the less genuine. I therefore now rise to make it, and I may be perhaps permitted to state that it is a particular personal satisfaction for various reasons to myself to have the privilege of doing so, since in the year 1909, when I was Colonial Secretary, I had the pleasure and privilege of being responsible for the passage of the South Africa Act through this House and of conducting the business in connection with it so far as the Imperial Government took part in the conception and also in the carrying out of the terms of the measure. During that time it was my good fortune to be able to become on terms of personal friendship with General Botha, and during the progress of the various negotiations connected with that Act I enjoyed the opportunity of acquiring an ever-increasing appreciation of his great moral qualities and also of that saving common sense which distinguishes him just as we know it did our great statesman soldier of the nineteenth century.
During the last few months we have seen General Botha, Prime Minister of South Africa, once more taking up arms, although in a very different cause from that in which he so distinguished himself before. We have to bear in mind that on this occasion for General Botha and his Government and his Army the question was not solely one of meeting and beating the enemy in German South-West Africa. As we all know there was domestic trouble of no slight kind—a domestic problem which had to be faced by the South African Government. The question was not only one of a certain element of rebellion and of disloyalty, but there was also in South Africa a not inconsiderable party of those who were not actively disloyal, but who disliked the adventure of making an attack on German South-West Africa by the Union. As to that, it is only right to mention that at a very early stage Majesty's Government made it clear to General Botha and to his Government that no greater service could be rendered by the South African troops to the common cause of defeating Germany than that, which they were so proud to undertake, of disposing

437
of the German forces in the South-West. On the other hand, the South African Government had not only, of course, the warm support of the British within the Union and of the great majority of the Dutch population, who have cordially accepted the Union Government under the Crown, but besides those there were, I believe, not a few of the Dutch who had been less enthusiastic about the Union Government who at the same time were impressed and appalled by the sinister history which had been well known to them—far better known than it is here—of the brutalities and barbarities committed by the Germans in their conquest of South-West Africa.
We all admire the display of high military qualities which General Botha has shown. We had our own experience of him as a most chivalrous and a most capable commander against our forces. Now that he is one of us we most fully appreciate the evidence that he has shown in this campaign of the qualities of a great commander, not merely in a wide grasp of the general situation, but in a close attention to the detail which, in a campaign of that character, is all-important if victory is to be achieved. We have observed with admiration how, with the skill of a great strategist, General Botha was able to bring to bear at particular points a superiority of force which brought about a lower scale of casualties than that to which we are sometimes unhappily accustomed in this war. We have to remember what enormous physical obstacles were encountered and surmounted in the invasion of German South-West Africa; and in this connection we certainly ought not to pass over the admirable work done by the Defence Department in South Africa, and in particular the supreme qualities of organisation displayed by General Smuts, who presides over that department.
We have noted with pride and admiration the marvellous cheerfulness of the troops, which has to be added to the great qualities of courage which they displayed and the endurance they showed in undertaking long and arduous marches in a most difficult country. We certainly also remember with pride the invariable assistance and counsel which the soldiers in the field received from Lord Buxton; and altogether we are able to state that the South African Government and the Generals and the officers and rank and file
438
of the Army have all contributed to add a glorious and an absolutely stainless chapter to the record of this world-wide war.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, with that graceful consideration so natural to him, suggested that I should take his place as the seconder of this Motion because of my personal connection with General Botha. When his late Majesty King Edward VII conferred responsible government upon the Transvaal I had the honour of being Governor, and I entrusted to General Botha the task of forming the first Ministry under the new system; and from that day to this General Botha has been consecutively Prime Minister of the Transvaal and Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa. The relation which began in this official manner between General Botha and myself ripened into great personal friendship, and therefore on private as on public ground I am glad, indeed, to be allowed the honour of seconding this Motion.
It is unnecessary for me to enumerate to your Lordships the deeds of General Botha. They are written large in the history of South Africa. If you were to ask me where in my judgment his success originates, I would say in his character and in his political insight. When peace between His Majesty and the Boers was made at Vereeniging General Botha accepted the new condition without reservation. But, as I think, he came as time went on to this opinion, that there was greater scope for the absolutely free development of South Africa, and of any part of South Africa, such as the Transvaal or the Orange Free State, in working out its own salvation within the British Empire than there would be for it if it were technically an independent Republic. I believe that to be an absolutely true statement of the case.
But in my judgment that became the opinion, not only of General Botha, but of many other Boers who were in a position to study the field of world politics. I only say that, my Lords, as my judgment, because never could feel quite sure of what General Botha would think. I often differed from him very greatly, and if I ever had the pleasure of working with him again I have no doubt I should often find myself again differing from him, and,

439
indeed, I feel confident that a very large number of the British South Africans who trust him and honour and respect him, and give him their constant political support, yet constantly disagree with him. This is not wonderful, my Lords, because they, like myself, naturally approach every question from the British point of view but General Botha approaches every question, equally naturally, from the Boer point of view. General Botha is a Boer of the Boers. So far as I know there is no British blood in his veins at all. I know of no Boer more proud of his birth and origin or more devoted to his people. He has achieved a wonderful success in putting down with the least possible loss of life an extraordinary and inexplicable rebellion. He has overcome a powerful and highly-organised enemy and conquered German South-West Africa in a campaign subjected to the most extraordinary physical difficulties. But he has still a great and grave task before him. He has always been, as your Lordships know, the steadfast opponent of racialism in any form, whether shown by the extreme exponents of the Boer or the extreme exponents of the British point of view. He has never done his countrymen a greater service than in pointing out again and again, as Sir Thomas Smartt and Mr. Merriman have pointed out to our fellow-countrymen, that the only road of peace and prosperity in South Africa lies in what is known as the one-stream policy, and that the two-stream policy is the sure road to eternal strife and misery. General Botha has been wonderfully seconded by that very remarkable Boer, General Smuts, who has made both politically and militarily an almost perfect Chief of the Staff.
I should wish you also, my Lords, to give your tribute of praise to the officers and men of both races who have served under General Botha. I do not suppose that a little Army has ever done more in a shorter time with more complete success under more strenuous conditions of campaigning. The interior of the country just conquered, so far as I know from information given me, does not differ materially from the rest of the Middle and High Veldt in South Africa. But there are parts which are the most uncompromising desert which exists, I should think, in the world. For instance, from the coast inland a belt of at least 100 miles in width had to be traversed, in which rain never falls, in which, in the most
440
literal sense of the word, there is not one blade of grass or any other herb and no living creature; where the sand is always shifting because the wind is always blowing, and over that miserable desert the columns had to toil to make a railway which had to be cleared all day long from the sand that had drifted over it, to distil their water at the coast, and to bring all the water for men and for animals by the railway as they made it to the railhead. I think, my Lords, you will agree that this vote which you are asked to pass is no extravagant testimony to services so great.
Moved to resolve, That this House desires to place on record its grateful appreciation of the distinguished skill and ability with which General the Right Honourable Louis Botha planned and conducted the recent military operations in South-West Africa, and of the eminent services rendered by him and by General Smuts, and by the Officers and the Forces of the Union of South Africa under their command.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine contradicente.

MAINTENANCE OF LIVE STOCK BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
LORD ST. AUDRIES: My Lords, before this Bill is read a third time I should like to bring once more to the notice of the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture the hardship which may be inflicted on farmers under paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of Clause 1. The case is a very common one. It is where a farmer gives up his farm at the end of his tenancy, or gives up business, or where the farmer dies and his successors are not prepared to carry on the farm. In those cases there is always a sale of live stock. If the farm happened to be situated in a restricted area under paragraph (e), the live stock could only be sold within that area, which might be a very small one. It is obvious that in all those cases a great part of the stock would be breeding stock, in-call cows, in-calf heifers, ewes in-lamb, and young immature calves; and it would be very hard on the farmer were the competition at the sale so restricted. There was a

441
notable case the other day, when the herd of the late Lord Rothschild was sold. One cow fetched 970 guineas, and her heifer calf 180 guineas. It is obvious that this cow was not bought for beef, nor the calf for veal. Had that sale happened to have taken place in a restricted area the competition would have been very much smaller. That would not have made much difference to the executors of a man like the late Lord Rothschild, but it would have made a lot of difference had the case been one of a tenant farmer. Then there is the case of pure breeds, in connection with which there are various societies which hold public auctions once or twice a year of young breeding stock, in-calf heifers, and sometimes old cows. If the sale happens to be in a prohibited area obviously the competition must be much restricted, and that would be very hard upon the breeder. Further than that, such a restriction would defeat one of the great objects which the noble Earl has in mind, which is to encourage the use of better bulls for dairy cows all over the country. If sale is to be restricted in certain areas it is obvious that these bulls will have much less chance of being spread about the country. The point, I know, is a difficult one to deal with. I have tried to draft an Amendment, but I gave it up as I did not wish to tie the noble Earl's hands. I admit the difficulty, and all I ask is that in any orders or instructions which the noble Earl gives to the local authorities he should provide for the widest possible discretion in dealing with these cases.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The case put by the noble Lord is a perfectly good one, and I will undertake that if ever an order is made under paragraph (e) it shall be made so as to meet both of his points.
LORD BARNARD: May I ask the noble Earl whether he has been able to meet the criticism which was made in Committee on paragraph (c) of Clause 1. The noble Earl will remember that the criticism was that under this paragraph as now drawn the Board of Agriculture would he given power to impose a burden on the rates. The clause provides that the Board of Agriculture may, inter alia—
(c) 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.
442
The suggestion made was that the insertion of the simple word "to" before "provide" would obviate the difficulty.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I have taken legal advice on that point, and am told that the suggested Amendment is quite unnecessary. The effect of this provision in the clause is, as I said in Committee, that the whole thing could only be done by arrangement with the local authority. Therefore any provision with regard to imposing a charge upon the rates would be made with their consent.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 1:
Power to make orders for the maintenance of stock.
1.—(1) The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may, for the purpose of maintaining a sufficient stock of animals to which this Act applies, by order applicable to England and Wales or any part thereof—

(a) prohibit or restrict the slaughter of animals;

(b) prohibit or restrict the sale or exposure for sale of meat of immature animals which has not been imported;

(c) 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;

(d) authorise any officer of the Board or of a local authority to enter any slaughterhouse or other premises on which animals are slaughtered for human food and examine any animals or carcases therein;

(e)prohibit or restrict the movement of animals out of any area in which the slaughter of such animals is prohibited or restricted;

(f) revoke, extend, or vary any order so made.

(2) The animals to which this Act applies are cattle, sheep, and swine.
LORD STRACHIE: It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that the President of the Board of Agriculture, when he refused my Amendment to exempt "male lambs of pure breeds and all crossbred lambs," said he would be ready to accept the first half of it, and on the principle of half a loaf being better than no bread I readily assented to that course. But in placing my Amendment on the Paper to-day—after the word "animals" at the end of paragraph (a) of Clause 1, to insert "except male lambs of pure breeds"—I did not think it right to put down other than the exact words of my own Amend-

443
ment which the noble Earl had consented to accept. But I notice from an Amendment standing in his name on the Paper that he is ready to exempt all male lambs whether of pure breeds or not, and I therefore move the Amendment in that form.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 9, after ("animals") insert ("except male lambs").—(Lord, Strachie.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I have two Amendments which I would ask your Lordships to allow me to insert in Clause 1. They are both with a view of meeting the point made by Lord Ribblesdale and other noble Lords, and they give power effectively to exempt from the operation of the Order that is in existence or any similar Order to be issued that class of calf which may be termed a misfit—the class which has been so well described by Lord St. Audries and others, which no man wants to buy and no man wants to rear. If the words which I propose to add are inserted I think I shall be able to meet that point. I am now having it very carefully considered, my object being to relieve the farmer from having to keep and feed with milk any calf which would be unsaleable to another farmer who wishes to rear young cattle as stores. While showing my desire to meet the point made in that respect by noble Lords opposite and by deputations that I have received, I wish to emphasise that the other side of the case has not had a sufficiency of spokesmen among your Lordships. The dairyman's side of this question has been heard almost exclusively, and I ventured to point out, with respect to the many calves that had hitherto been slaughtered for veal but which I wished to see in present circumstances reared for beef, that there was a market for them. There has been placed in my hand to-day a letter from an East Anglian farmer which entirely bears out that. contention. It is signed W. B. Damant and dated Helmingham, July 13, and is written to the East Anglian. I will read it to your Lordships—
"The Lancashire farmers' protest against the killing of calves regulations is so extraordinary that I think you might publish the information that if the said farmers will keep their calves well for a week, and then send a truckload to any East Anglian market, they can be assured of making very remunerative prices. Many
444
farmers would gladly give £3 each for good calves at a week old, for weaning purposes, at the present time. The serious shortage of store cattle in the country fully warrants the action of the Board of Agriculture, which might profitably be still more drastic, even to the extent of prohibiting the killing of any cattle under twelve months old."
I am endeavouring to meet the case of the calf which would not be welcomed by Mr. Damant or any other East Anglian farmer. But I hope noble Lords opposite who have so championed the interests of dairy farmers will assist the Board of Agriculture to help those farmers to pass on to rearers of calves those calves which ought not to be killed but which the dairy farmers do not wish to keep.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, after line 23 insert:
(f) authorise or require the marking of animals for the purposes of an order under this Act.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
LORD ST. AUDRIES: I am certain that we shall all do our best to assist the noble Earl in this endeavour to transfer calves from one part of the country to another. But if we wished to send calves from Somersetshire to, say, Norfolk and we happened to be a restricted area—.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: But you are not.
LORD ST. AUDRIES: How do we know that we shall not be?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: There is no such intention. I can assure the noble Lord.
LORD ST. AUDRIES: But paragraph (e) comes in supposing it is proposed to transfer calves from one district to another.
LORD STRACHIE: Perhaps the noble Earl will explain to the House how he proposes to mark the animals. I notice that in his Amendment the words are "authorise or require," so that it might be obligatory that they should be marked. From what the noble Earl said in Committee he rather led the House to believe that he had no intention, which I personally was very glad to hear, of adding to the large number of officials already attached to the Board of Agriculture and other Departments. But if this is not to be done by I officials and experts, who are the people who are to come forward and say that a

445
particular calf is to be marked and branded because it may be sold for slaughter The noble Earl indicated that it might possibly be done by voluntary help, I suppose by having a committee of agriculturists. That may be very good and may save expense, but there is a great deal of jealousy amongst farmers, and I am afraid that it would create considerable friction if you were to set up a small committee of farmers to be the sole authority with regard to marking their neighbours' stock, and it would probably defeat the very object of doing justice these particular cases.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am afraid I cannot wholly satisfy my noble friend, because I have not yet finished drawing up my Regulations. But if an authority is used it will be a local authority.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2:
Offences.
2. If any person acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any of the provisions of an order made under this Act, or obstructs or impedes any officer in the execution of his powers or duties under any such order, he shall, on conviction under 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.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I move the subsequent Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 3, after ("Act") insert ("or with a view to evade the operation of any such order marks, or alters or obliterates a mark on, any animal").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons, and to be printed as amended. (No. 136.)

NOTIFICATION OF BIRTHS (EXTENSION) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, the Bill to which I ask your Lordships now to give a Second Reading is one to extend the Notification of. Births Act, 1907, to areas in which it has not been adopted, and to
446
make further provision in connection therewith for the care of mothers and young children. Your Lordships will remember that up to the passing of the Act of 1907 it was not obligatory to register the births of children for a period of six weeks, and statistics proved that during the first six weeks of infant life the mortality in this country was terribly large. It is still regrettably large, but the Act of 1907, as I shall point out to your Lordships in a moment, has materially mitigated the percentage of infant mortality. Before the passing of that Act infant mortality under the age of six weeks amounted in some places to no less than 174 per 1,000. It was held by medical authorities and by other persons conversant with these matters that if an Act were passed making it obligatory on parents to register the births of infants at a much earlier period than six weeks, this infant death rate would be largely diminished. The principal reason for that hope was this, that as soon as the birth of an infant was notified to the public authorities it was possible for health visitors, either appointed by the health authority or voluntary assisters of the local authority, to visit the home where the birth had taken place, and by looking after the mother and the child in various ways, and by giving advice, and so on, in many casts to save the life of the child; and there is no doubt that since the Act of 1907 became law infant mortality, as I have said, under tile age of six weeks has very largely diminished.
It is, of course, open to critics to say that this is only post hoc and not propter hoc; but, on the other hand, doctors all over the country and people most conversant with the matter do attribute the great improvement that has taken place largely to the Act of 1907. At all events, the infant death rate has been reduced since the passing of the Act of 1907. The general rate all over the country was 130 per 1,000, but it was especially bad in instances like Burnley, where it was 174 per 1,000. Now the general rate is only about 108 per 1,000. The Act of 1907 was a permissive Act, but it has been adopted in a great number of places all over the country, and I believe I am right in saying that at the present moment it affects something like 75 per cent. of the population. But being a permissive Act it has not been universally adopted. The Bill now before your Lordships would make it obligatory all over the

447
country. I think I am entitled to say that your Lordships would at all times receive in a sympathetic way any measure that appeared to the House materially to benefit children and to reduce infant mortality, but I hope that you will view this Bill with an extra amount of sympathy, for it is most important, in consequence of the ravages of the present war, to do all that the Legislature can to protect infant life and, if possible, to reduce still further infant mortality.
The Bill has been passed through all its stages with practically no opposition in another place, and it is, as your Lordships will see, a comparatively short measure. The first clause enacts that the Notification of Births Act of 1907 shall extend to and take effect in every area where it has not been already adopted. The second clause reads as follows—
2.—(1) Any local authority within the meaning of the principal Act (whether a sanitary authority or not) may, for the purpose of the care of expectant mothers, nursing mothers, and young children, exercise any powers which a sanitary authority has under the Public Health Acts. 1875 to 1907, or the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, as the case requires.
(2) Any expenses incurred in the exercise of these powers shall be defrayed in the same manner as expenses of the local authority are defrayed under the principal Act.
Any such powers may be exercised in such manner as the authority direct by a committee or committees which shall include women and may comprise, if it is thought the, persons who are not members of the authority. Any such committee may be empowered by the authority by which it is appointed to incur expenses up to a limit for the time being fixed by the authority, and, if so empowered, shall report any expenditure by them to the authority in such manner and at such times as the authority may direct. A committee appointed for the purposes of this section shall hold office for such period not exceeding three years as the authority by which it is appointed may determine.
The third clause applies the Bill to Scotland and Ireland. I beg to move the Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hylton.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the Bill which the noble Lord has introduced deals with a matter in which I have perforce taken a great interest for a long time, and I do not think any words are necessary to endorse what he has said. I believe the fact to be that most people imagine what is already enacted to be in existence throughout the country, and many will be
448
surprised to learn in what a large part of England to-day arrangements which have been long possible have not been adopted, and that we have been in different parts of the country without the requirements that this Bill will make obligatory. The need, in my opinion, was never more real than it is at the present time; and in view of all that is being said of late with regard to problems raised by war conditions, the need that proper arrangements should be made, and the desire that all possible information on the subject should be at the earliest possible date in the hands of the authorities with a view to preventing evils of any kind, I earnestly hope that no sort of difficulty will arise and that this Bill will be placed at once on the Statute Book.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, the importance of this Bill has certainly not been overstated by the most rev. Primate. On the contrary, I think the Government are to be congratulated on having brought forward a reform of far-reaching importance. This is no suddenly conceived measure. It has been thought out for the last two years by the experts of two great Departments of the State, the Local Government Board and the Board of Education. I think the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of the Bill was too modest. He has introduced a more far-reaching Bill than he told the House. This Bill does two things. First, it makes the Notification of Births Act compulsory. But that is a small matter compared with the way in which it enables the local authorities to set up health committees. If your Lordsiiips read the Bill you will see that these committees, the duty of which is to look after the health of mothers, have their activity directed not only to actual mothers hut to expectant mothers. When the noble Lord mentioned the figures of infant mortality, he referred to the mortality of children who are actually born. He gave a very formidable case, an unusually formidable case in one of the localities. According to the last reports that have been published by the Government, the mortality works out in the case of children already born at something like 10 per cent.—108 in the 1,000, I think was the average—in the districts where the figures were taken for the period after birth. But there was a much worse set of figures—about 150 per 1,000, or 15 per cent.—in the case of children not born. That is to say, it was estimated that 15 per cent. more children night have come—or

449
a large proportion of them might have come —into the world if only there had been sufficient care directed to the attention of the mothers before birth.
This Bill does what to my mind is quite as important as anything connected with the notification of births. It sets up these health committees to look after expectant mothers as well as actual mothers. The Bill makes the Notification of Births Act compulsory. That is of great value, because it gives the information upon which you can bring to bear the real machinery of the Bill. For a long time past it has been realised that the care of children must not be confined to school years; it must begin at that early stage of which I have spoken, and must come into operation even in the period before birth. Our birth rate is falling. We shall, through the war, lose some of our most valuable young men, men who might have been fathers of families, and it is necessary that in every way we should set to work not only to raise as high as possible the number of children who are brought into the world, but to see to it that they come into the world in a healthy condition and that they continue until the period of school life to be taken care of and looked after.
These health committees which will be set up over most parts of the country—some of your Lordships know the voluntary committees that are in existence in London and elsewhere at the present time—will have this great duty. They will be composed of experts and presided over by the medical officer of health; they will consist of volunteer ladies and of others who have in many cases already devoted great attention to this subject, and who will continue the splendid work that is being done in the northern towns such as Bradford and Huddersfield, where the system already has been in operation. This is a first stage in a policy which I ventured to press on your Lordships the other afternoon—a policy of paying as much attention to what is going to be the position after the war as to what is going on during the war. We shall be faced with a situation in which we shall need all that the State can do for us to enable us to face what we shall have to encounter, and I am very glad to think that the President of the Local Government Board has taken up this Bill, which was already in draft—it is part of a very far-reaching scheme—and is determined to press it through.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, the Royal Commission of which I am chairman has been engaged for more than one and a-half years investigating matters very closely connected with the purposes of this Bill. The evidence that we have taken—and it is very voluminous—confirms entirely what has been said by the noble Lord and by the noble and learned Viscount. A few weeks ago we decided unanimously to press on the strongest grounds that the adoptive Act of 1907 might be made obligatory as soon as possible. That Act has been in operation over, I think, about 74 per cent, only of the population of England and Wales, and has had little effect in Ireland and Scotland. The Act has had far-reaching results already, and it is beneficial in two distinct ways. In the first place, it has provided statistical details which were wanting and which could not be obtained in any other way, and it has brought out important facts connected very intimately with public health which would otherwise have remained for ever hidden. The other excellent effect of this Bill, to which the noble and learned Viscount has drawn attention, is that it will empower the health authorities to get into touch with the mother and child at the earliest possible moment, and so enable them to give advice to the mother and bring treatment and medical assistance to the child in what is really the most critical period of its life. The loss of lives unborn is as great very nearly as the lives that are lost shortly after birth and in that way this Bill will have a marked effect in still further reducing the unnecessary loss. All who are deeply interested in trying to check the appalling wastage of infant life, much of which is really preventable, will welcome this Bill as a great advance in a direction in which we must move, and in a direction in which I believe we shall have to move much further in the future.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I thank the House cordially for the reception this Bill has been given by the various speakers, and I apologise to the noble and learned Viscount that I did not go as fully as I ought, perhaps, to have done into Clause 2. But the reason was that Clause 2 is only adoptive, whereas Clause 1, of course, is obligatory.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

GERMANY AND COTTON SUPPLIES.
LORD CHARNWOOD LORD CHARNWOOD had the following Questions on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether fresh supplies of cotton are now prevented, so far as the vigilance of the Navy can prevent them, from reaching our enemies either by direct importation or indirectly through neutral countries in Europe; whether the Government believe the naval measures taken for this purpose to be completely successful; what steps are taken to mitigate the injury caused to neutral countries in Europe by such measures, and whether those steps at all impair the stringency of the blockade of our enemies' countries; whether any neutral country in Europe is known to have imported, since the commencement of the present system of blockade, greater quantities of cotton than it had imported in the corresponding periods of former years, or greater quantities than are believed by the Government to be used by the manufacturers of that neutral country; how far the answers to the foregoing questions in regard to cotton apply, first, to other materials capable of use in making munitions of war, and secondly, to seaborne merchandise generally; whether under present circumstances or under any circumstances likely to arise during the war, the difficulty of our enemies in obtaining more cotton would be at all increased by declaring cotton contraband of war; whether, since the commencement of the present system of blockade, any article has been declared contraband of war, and if so, why.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the subject to which I venture to ask your Lordships' attention is one of very keen interest to many most competent observers of the war, not only in this country, but also, I am told, in France as well. I am informed that raw cotton, or cotton waste, is absolutely necessary for the manufacture of any sort of propulsive ammunition. I believe that at the beginning of the war an opinion had some vogue, both here and in Germany, that efficient substitutes could be found, but I am told that that opinion is erroneous, at least as far as regards manufacture on any large scale. At the beginning of the war Germany, no doubt, had very large stocks of cotton, and has since replenished them. But, on the other hand, this is a long war. The expenditure of
452
ammunition has enormously exceeded any possible previous calculation, and, further, cotton in very large quantities is necessary, not only for the making of ammunition, but also for the making of a great variety of things more or less necessary in the conduct of the war. Consequently I believe—and I say this upon the advice of distinguished artillery experts—that it is an object of first-rate military importance to cut off our enemy from the possibility of obtaining fresh supplies of cotton, or, if for any reason that cannot be absolutely done then to cut down his possible supplies to the lowest degree compatible with other national interests that would have to be considered. To my mind I have not stated the importance of this matter at all too high, and I think I shall have accomplished a large part of my object in putting these Questions if I can obtain from the Government some clear assurance that they, too, regard this matter substantially in the light in which I have just tried to put it.
My Questions relate entirely to present conditions, and have no reference to anything that happened in the early stages of the war. Whether I supposed that at the outset of the war the Government had made some grave error of judgment, or whether, on the contrary, I supposed that they acted wisely in pursuit of some paramount national interest, I should be equally averse—and I think your Lordships would be—to discussing now any matter that definitely belongs to the past. For this purpose the present begins at that date in March when the late Government adopted measures for the purpose, as it is defined in the Order in Council of March 11, of preventing commodities of all kinds from reaching or leaving Germany. The actual measures adopted in the carrying out of that policy apply, I understand, to all commodities, contraband or not contraband—to cotton and to everything else. Doubtless I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that for some purposes it is still convenient to declare certain things contraband, and a good many have quite recently been so declared, but that, provided the blockade measures to which I have referred can be effectively carried out, it is now a matter of extremely little importance whether an article, cotton or any other article, be declared contraband or not—of extremely little importance for this present and principal purpose of preventing those goods from actually reaching the enemy.
The series of Questions which I have put down substantially resolve themselves into this: Do the Government find that the measures they have been taking since last March are effective in regard, especially, to cotton? That, of coarse, is partly a question of the naval dispositions that can be taken, and as to that I suppose the answer will be a simple one; but it is partly also a question of our dealing with tin neutral countries through which cotton or other goods may be passed on to the enemy. That is the difficult point of this whole subject. I hardly suppose that the Government will be able to discuss in any minute details the precise character of their negotiations and dealings with neutral countries upon this subject. But I want to face that side of the question quite fairly, and there are two or three things which I will ask leave to say upon it.
In the first place, I think it is desirable that people in neutral countries should understand—and our debates in Parliament may help them to understand—that we regard these measures as matters of life and death to ourselves, and they are literally matters of life or death to ourselves and to those near to us. In the second place, may I say that I think the Press of this country might do something to make clear to the minds of the people in neutral countries that, we wish, as far as is possible to us, to have regard to the rights and to the interests of neutrals. We recognise, of course, that a great naval Power, fighting for its life, cannot be altogether a convenient neighbour, but we do not wish, where we can avoid it, to be a needlessly inconsiderate neighbour. We know that a great deal we have to do has given some annoyance to the business communities of neutral countries. I will venture to give two slight instances of this. In the restrictions which are imposed on the imports to a neutral country, it may happen, upon grounds which in some cases may conceivably be a mistake, that we withhold from one neutral trader the goods he has ordered from abroad, and at the next moment we pass on goods that have been ordered by his rival in trade in his own country. That creates friction. Or again—and several instances of this have been brought to my notice—our measures result in this, that some neutral trader has a large part of his business taken away, and that business is practically transferred to a trader in this country. That, of
454
course, is a lucky thing for the individual English trader, but emphatically it is not the national object at which our policy aims. I wish to say this that, subject to the paramount necessity that these goods should be prevented from reaching our enemy, we should heartily welcome any assurance that can be given that any possible device will be adopted to mitigate hardships of this kind which cannot be entirely removed and that the co-operation of neutrals will be invited, as no doubt it is being invited for that purpose. I dwell rather emphatically upon that side of the question, because at the present moment German propagandists are busily engaged in circulating in neutral countries the statement that our restrictions upon the trade in cotton are of no military disadvantage to Germany, and that our object in them is to benefit the British trader at the expense of the neutral trader. The precise contrary is, of course, the case, and it is very desirable that that fact should be made clear to the people of the neutral countries concerned.
Now to return to the main question. Is the blockade which we are carrying out effective—effective specially in regard to cotton? There are a good many published figures which would suggest that it is not completely effective, that there is a very considerable leakage of cotton through the neutral countries into enemy countries. Those figures, I ought to say, roust be taken subject to considerable deductions of seine importance. To begin with, most of the figures I have seen in no way distinguish between the importation that had taken place into neutral countries before these blockade measures began to take effect and the importation which may have taken place since; and without such a distinction the figures show nothing, or at any rate nothing clear. Then when one sees, as one often does in the papers, figures showing an increasing importation of cotton, or anything else, from this country to some neutral country, the explanation of that very often is simply that a source from which that country formerly obtained goods has been cut off by the war and the increased importation to that country is really for its own actual necessities.
Then I will take the particular case of Norway, and I do so because instructive figures on this subject have lately appeared in the Press. During the war Norway has

455
re-exported a considerable quantity of cotton, but it is also a fact—and this is worth noticing—that the enormous bulk of that export of cotton on the part of Norway has gone, not to our enemies at all, but to Russia. I thought it right to point out these deductions to be made from the figures one sees. Nevertheless, the figures do leave the impression that a very considerable leakage does go on. And the only figures so far as I know which we have, which clearly relate to the period since the blockade began—I mean the figures given the other day by Mr. Pretyrnan with regard to the imports during the mouth of May by one neutral country in particular—are quite sufficient of themselves, as I am sure the Government recognise, to give grounds for the great anxiety which is felt on this subject by many people in this country.
I make no sort of apology for having put the catechism which I have upon the Paper somewhat elaborately and I humbly hope searchingly. I do not think my Questions need very much explanation, but one of them invites the Government, if they are inclined so to do, to go beyond the question of cotton. And for this reason, that there are many other things needful in war besides cotton to which somewhat similar considerations to those I have been advancing must apply. My Questions are put not in the very least degree from any want of confidence in the Government in this matter; but in a matter so vital it is well that e, and our Allies too, should be told as plainly as possible just where His Majesty's Government stand. May I say this further. This is a very intricate and a very delicate matter. The fullest information in regard to one part of this intricate question lies with the experts of one Department and perhaps sonic experts outside, while the considerations which bear on another part of it are mainly known to a quite different Department. And when a question is of that character it might very easily happen, even in the case of a subject so momentous as this, that no one of sufficient authority had ever really grasped it as a whole in its full and true bearings. I quite understand that I may not succeed in eliciting the full-details, but failing the full details it will go a very long way to satisfy us if the Government can give an assurance that an adequate share of its fully informed judgment—and of its resolution and
456
capacity, if need he, for taking risks—is bestowed upon this particular subject. I should like to add to my Questions on the Paper one of which I have given private notice to the noble Marquess—namely, whether the policy of the Government in this whole matter is framed in concert and consultation with the Governments of the Allied Powers?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, so much public interest has been taken in this question of supplies which in certain circumstances may reach the enemy that I feel sure the whole House will agree that no apology is necessary from my noble friend for continuing here the discussion which took place in the House of Commons on the 12th of this month, when my hon. friend Lord Robert Cecil made a clear and concise statement on the subject, and succeeded, I think, in relieving some anxieties and in getting rid of some misapprehensions. I was glad to hear from my noble friend that in putting these Questions he desired to deal with circumstances as they are and not to go hack upon debatable questions of what might have been done, for instance, last autumn. That, of course, confines our discussion to a narrower and I think a more profitable field at this moment.
The main question which lies behind the various Questions which my noble friend has asked, and to which I will endeavour to reply as best I can seriatim, is whether or not it is an advisable thing now to add cotton to the contraband list. On that question there have been, as I have already stated, no small number of misunderstandings and misapprehensions, and some of those misunderstandings undoubtedly obtain not only in this country but also in other parts of the world, and particularly in those countries with which we are especially concerned for the moment—namely, the neutral States.
My noble friend's first Question is whether cotton is prevented, so far as the vigilance of the Navy can prevent it, from reaching Germany, and it will be noted that this particular Question has no bearing on the point as to whether cotton ought to be declared contraband or not, and I am able in general terms to reply to it in the affirmative. In the second place, my noble friend asks whether we believe that the naval measures taken for this purpose are completely successful. The word "completely" must, I think, be taken in

457
a somewhat relative sense both by those who question and those who reply. Complete success, literally taken, would mean that no vessel of any kind had succeeded in defeating our naval precautions, and he certainly would be a bold man who, during any time in history at which the stoppage of imports into a particular place has been attempted by blockade or otherwise, would assert that in no instance had those precautions been evaded. But speaking generally I would reply to that Question that, so far as can be ascertained, the answer is "Yes." And in connection with this the third Question of my noble friend—namely, what steps are taken to mitigate the injury earned to neutral countries in Europe by such measures, and whether those steps at all impair the stringency of the blockade of Our enemies 'countries"— becomes relevant to a reminder of what our existing system is. As Inv noble friend has told us, on March 11 an Order in Council was promulgated with the object of preventing exports generally from reaching Germany. As he has pointed out, that Order works equally upon all articles, whether they are on the contraband list or not. All ships are examined, and where it is necessary for the purposes of examination they are brought into port. If they contain a contraband article, that article is taken out and subjected to the decision of a Prize Court. Articles that are not contraband are either forwarded to their destination under restrictions or are dealt with in some other way, in some cases by purchasing them. The destination of the cargo and any part of it is noted, and as far as possible that destination is carefully checked.
It is, of course, to the interest of sonic traders in neutral countries to forward goods to Germany, and we ought in describing these goods to speak of individuals and not of countries. It is obvious that there are certain individual traders whose personal interests are greatly affected by the question of freedom of export to belligerent countries. Therefore when we permit consignments to be made to those countries our endeavour has been either to consign them to a Trust formed, for the purpose of dealing with them and distributing them to those who are entitled to receive them in the neutral country, and engaging to do its utmost to prevent their further proceeding into a belligerent
458
country—for this purpose, of course, Germany; or, in cases where a Trust is not formed, to firms or persons of proved respectability who are willing to give a similar guarantee. This is clearly not a simple or easy matter. The conditions are not the same in different countries. For instance, it has not been found possible to form in every one of the four neutral countries mainly involved a private Trust, not representing the neutral's Government but formed with its consent, such as exists in Holland; and therefore in different countries different methods have to be pursued.
Our hope is as time goes on and by continual friendly negotiations, as my friend described—by no means of an easy character and also a delicate matter—to improve the position progressively towards what must be our main goal and purpose, that is to limit the export to those neutral countries to the precise amount of their actual needs, calculated on the average imports which they have used and employed at home f luring the last few years. If that limitation is made it is also necessary, as the House will perceive, that it should be carried out preferably by domestic arrangements made within the country itself, with fairness to individual merchants and traders there. For example, if the amount of some commodity, say, cotton, exported to one of the Scandinavian countries is limited to a specific amount, unless it could somehow be arranged that the division of that particular amount among the different spinning firms in the country could be fairly allocated you would have precisely the same complaint from the merchant or trader who found that he could get no cotton at all as you would if you adopted the most stringent methods of preventing import altogether. The more, of course, that we can improve these arrangements —and we are endeavouring in all the countries every day to carry out that improvement and to bring them nearer to perfection—the less is the stringency of the blockade, if that is the proper word, which we desire to apply to the ports affected by our, action.
In his fourth Question my noble friend asks whether any neutral country in Europe is known to have imported, since the commencement of the present system of blockade, greater quantities of cotton than it had imported in the corresponding I periods of former years. Seine figures

459
have been published, as my noble friend says, which have excited no little doubt in some minds as to the success of the measures that we have taken. But it is important, as I think my noble friend pointed out himself, in dealing with these figures to note that excessive reliance must not be placed upon them, because it will be found that where different figures, as sometimes happens, are promulgated concerning a particular country, they are different because they do not really apply to the same thing. When we are told, for instance, that a certain amount of cotton has been imported into a particular country in the month of May, and a comparison is made, say, with May of a previous year, it does not follow that the calculation is framed on an identical basis. It happens in some cases, for instance, that consignments are noted and included in the calculation, whilst in other cases only the cotton is included which has been actually landed; and it is necessary to make various deductions in considering the figures which have been promulgated. But it cannot be disputed that there has been in the case of the four countries of which T have been speaking an increase in the imports of raw cotton and cotton waste since March, as compared with the amount in previous years, of several thousands of tons. On the other hand, it is not possible to state with accuracy to what extent the diminished import of manufactured cottons, piece goods and so on, has led to a quite legitimate increase in the import of raw cotton to be worked up in the neutral country itself to replace the cotton goods which in ordinary circumstances it would have been simpler to import. That I have no doubt accounts for some portion of the increase, although I do not think it ought to be taken as accounting for the whole. On tins question of cotton waste and raw cotton my noble friend stated—and I think it is worth while to note this by the way—that in his opinion it was practically proved that cotton of this kind is necessary for the making of all explosives. I should have thought that that was something of an over-statement.
LORD CHARNWOOD: Not of all explosives, not of high explosives, but propulsives.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: It is undoubtedly necessary for some, and I am glad to have my noble friend's correction because I think it makes it clear. But
460
even, I fancy, for some explosives which do not come within the category of high explosives substitutes may be found, and knowing what we do of the extraordinary skill and pertinacity of German chemists it would, I think, be a bold thing to assume that no substitute, even if less convenient, can be found in many cases. I do not say that to minimise the importance of keeping raw cotton and cotton waste out of Germany, but I am not prepared to go so far as my noble friend did in speaking of its absolute necessity. Next my noble friend asks how far the answers to his foregoing Questions in regard to cotton apply, first, to other materials capable of use in making munitions of war, and, secondly, to sea-borne merchandise generally. The answer to that Question is that, mutatis mutandis, everything that I say in reply applies to all sea-borne merchandise precisely as it does to cotton.
Then we come to the Question which I think will be regarded by the House and by the public generally as the most interesting. My noble friend asks whether wide present circumstances or under any circumstances likely to arise during the war, the difficulty of our enemies in obtaining morn cotton would be at all increased by declaring cotton contraband of war. I have already stated that no little misapprehension has existed, and for all I know may still exist in sonic quarters, on this question of the effective declaring of either cotton or anything else contraband. My noble friend explained very clearly, and I have endeavoured once more to repeat its effect, what the present system does; and any one who has followed those explanations will see that there can be no magic in the mere declaration of any commodity as contraband so long as we pursue our present system of examining all goods of whatever class, whether contraband or not. Some people have appeared to imagine that it would be possible to institute a regular blockade of the neutral ports and thereby absolutely prevent goods of all kinds passing either by way of the Channel or by way of the North Sea. But I feel sure that nobody in this House can suppose that either under International Law or maintaining the most elementary rules of fair dealing it is possible to institute a blockade of neutral countries with whom we have no kind of quarrel, apart from the practical inconveniences which would accrue to ourselves and our Allies from the

461
adoption of any such policy. Therefore as I have tried to explain, we adopt this policy, which we admit to be a novel one, but which is rendered absolutely necessary by the changed conditions of maritime warfare. Our desire is to permit the export to neutral countries of goods representing their own needs and absolutely no more. That, is what we are endeavouring to do. One difference, which of course will be familiar to every one here, is that if you declare any article contraband, on its finding its wav to the Prize Court it can be Confiscated; whereas in cases of articles not on the contraband list that cannot be done. In the case of these articles which are not contraband, when they come into our ports to be examined they are either in some cases diverted or in other cases we purchase them ourselves in order to reduce to the lowest point the possibility of their finding their way to an enemy destination. As my noble friend very clearly put it, our One and only object is to stop the imports into Germany, and if in the case of any particular article we can effect that object, it is clearly idle merely for the sake of sounding highly energetic in our action to incur whatever, disadvantages may attach to the declaration of any article either absolute or even conditional contraband.
On this matter of cotton it is no use discounting the fact that in the United States, especially in what are known as the Cotton States, where cotton is not only the main product but represents the pivot around which the whole life of those communities revolves, the placing of cotton on the contraband list would cause no small amount of alarm and disturbance. That would undoubtedly be the case, because in the United States also there must exist no small degree of misapprehension as to what the effect of such a declaration would be. There are various such misapprehensions. I have no doubt that there is a tendency in some quarters in the United States and probably also in other countries to ascribe to the action of our Navy losses and disadvantages which ought not to be set down to us but are inherent in the fact that this world-wide war is raging. It is also, as my noble friend very usefully pointed out, believed—again not only in the United States, but no doubt in other countries—that there exists a desire here to secure and abstract the trade not merely of the hostile belligerents but also of neutral countries for the benefit of our own traders. I was
462
glad to note the expression of opinion, which of course we entirely share, that there can be no intention of the kind entertained by the people of this country. It is also, I think, probably believed by many persons in America that if we were to declare cotton contraband a serious and most damaging difference would be made to the growers and merchants, not in the amount of cotton which would find its way into Germany, but in their general trade all over the world.
It is our belief that it would be exceedingly difficult to prove that the placing of cotton on the contraband list would make any difference to the general flow of the American cotton trade, and as matters now stand we are convinced that so far as the entry of cotton into Germany is concerned we should gain no benefit that can be ascertained from placing cotton on the contraband list. That being so, it would clearly be unwise for any of us to disregard the opinion of the United States in this platter, although we may believe that they, in their turn, are under a misapprehension in believing that the turning of cotton into contraband would prejudicially affect them At this moment, as we are well aware, we stand higher than our enemies in the estimation of instructed public opinion of the United States, because they are a fair-minded people who are able to weigh mid are determined to weigh the differing merits and demerits of the methods of warfare which we respectively pursue. Therefore unless it is clear that a change of this kind is imperatively needed, we are naturally—I think noble Lords will say rightly—averse to taking action which would be regarded by a particular interest in the Southern States of America as being substantially aimed at them, as being harmful to their interests, and as being generally unfriendly.
This brings me to the seventh and last Question on the Paper asked by my noble friend—namely, whether, since the commencement of the present system of blockade,- any article has been declared contraband of war, and, if so, why? The answer to the last part of his Question will, I think, be quite clear to the House from what I have just said on the subject of cotton. Certain things have been placed on the contraband list since March 11, including toluol and its deriva-

463
tives. Toluol, as your Lordships know, is a coal-tar product which it was quite of late years discovered could be used for the manufacture of high explosives; it is also used for the manufacture of dye-stuffs, and for a great number of other chemical products. There have also been placed on the contraband list machine tools and machines of a character suitable for making munitions of war, large scale maps of belligerent territory, various forms of lubricants, and also wool. Wool, as noble Lords will appreciate, is of prime importance, and of almost paramount necessity for the clothing of troops in cold weather, for so far as we know no substitute for it has been discovered. It is quite possible that the contraband list may be added to at any time. In the case of cotton I have explained that there are solid objections to placing it on the contraband list, which could only be outweighed by obvious or clearly proved military advantage.
The general conclusion which I would ask the House to accept is this, that the case of every commodity must be considered separately on its particular merits. You cannot make a contraband list which would be anything approaching universal, and the relative advantages and disadvantages must, I submit, be weighed in each case. I am therefore certainly not going to say that if in any case—that of cotton or any other—the military considerations were found to be paramount, we might not have to face the corresponding disadvantages which I have described to the House. That applies to all commodities, and as the conditions of the war may alter as time goes on we should, I am sure, be unwise to bind ourselves strictly in either direction. We feel compelled, as I have said, to leave the door open for ourselves to make such a declaration with regard to any subject, always of course bearing in mind as far as possible the fair claims of neutral countries but being, obliged, as they I am sure will fairly admit, to regard the military necessity. The shortening of the war, and the manner of the final victory, is the absolutely paramount consideration we have to hear in mind. That we shall continue to do, and I hope that I have convinced the House that we have not in any way neglected that object or compromised the interests of the country in the steps that we have so far taken.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on what is undoubtedly a matter of paramount importance. Nobody denies that this question of cotton and cotton waste is, as has been pointed out by the noble Marquess, a matter of great intricacy and difficulty. I may say that I am entirely in accord with the principle which the noble Marquess has laid down for dealing with this subject. I think he has made the same statement here as that which was so admirably made in the other House by Lord Robert Cecil, and I which I may summarise in these words—that in this great European struggle England has stood in the main for the maintenance of the public law of Europe in matters of this kind. That is a most important principle to maintain. First of all, speaking from the point of view of the legal position, I think it is right and just that we should act upon that principle. Secondly, I think with the noble Marquess that we lose much more by possibly putting ourselves in the wrong on matters of principle though we may gain in what may appear to be the immediate advantage at the particular moment. At the same time I think we all agree with him that a time of paramount necessity from the military standpoint may arise which is so great and so immediate that that principle will have to give way, and that may hereafter be the case as regards the declaration of cotton as contraband.
But there is every reason why raw cotton, should not be declared contraband unless it is a matter of urgent and essential necessity. After all, we are dealing with merchandise sent from a neutral country to a neutral country, and we are bound—and it is an attitude we have taken up in the past with regard to questions of this kind—to give a fair regard to the rights and claims of neutrals as regards traffic of this character. Of course, this is especially important having regard to the conditions in the Southern States of America. The noble Marquess told us in substance that the Government had obtained the results we all desired without declaring cotton contraband. I think that is a very important statement, on which the House is much to be congratulated. Consider the dangers and the difficulties of departing from what has always been our view at any rate of I International Law upon a question of this kind. I admit that in some senses International Law seems to be a figment of the

465
past. But I do not take that view, and I eon glad to hear, from what the noble Marquess has said, that the Government are maintaining what T may call the right principle upon essential points of this character.
Let us consider for a moment the question of contraband in connection with cotton. Practically at the instance of this country, but not entirely so, it was put on the free list in the Declaration of London. I am afraid. I am one of those who always opposed the Declaration of London. It has not been accepted up at the present time. But those who are in favour of the Declaration of London must take note that cotton was put on the free list— that is to say, it was placed as one of those articles which, as against the interests of neutrals, no belligerent was to be allowed to put into a list of contraband. No doubt that was done because we as a great industrial country an more than any other country interested to see that neutral industries were not interfered with during a long war. No other country is more interested than we are in maintaining a principle of that kind. Let me give an instance which came into my mind while the noble Marquess was speaking. The only time when cotton was declared contraband and treated as such was, I think, about 1861, in the Civil We r in America, the war between the Federal States and the Confederate States. That was justified on a very peculiar ground, and only on that ground—it was said that the only form of specie, or money, with which the Confederate States could deal was cotton, and therefore the Federal States on that very ground claimed to put cotton within the contraband list. Well, we can only say that since then every writer of the slightest importance on International Law has thought that that was at least a very doubtful action so far as the Federal authorities were concerned. In 1904 Russia declared cotton to be an absolute contraband in her war with Japan. We at once made a protest—I submit, a very proper protest—against that The result, partly though not entirely satisfac7ory, was that cotton upon that occasion was moved from the absolute contraband list into the conditional contraband list.
I do not want to go into technicalities upon a point of this kind, but no doubt most of your Lordships are aware that the conditions under which contraband can be dealt; with differ whether it is a matter of
466
absolute contraband or a matter of conditional contraband. Therefore oil every ground, and particularly having regard to what the noble Marquess said, it would be a great misfortune—I do not say it tray not become necessary to have to face what I must call in some respects the just criticism of neutral countries and neutral traders—it would be a great misfortune if, after all our history and all our declarations as regards International Law, we did put cotton and cotton waste on the contraband list. But from the answers which have been given in Parliament I understand that there is no question of declaring cotton contraband at the present time—no one, of course, can say what may happen in the future. And further than that, the noble Marquess assures us in substance that what is now being done under the various Defence of the Realm Acts is sufficient to protect this country against what I consider the greatest of all misfortunes—namely, the importation of cotton and cotton waste in any large quantities into Germany, because if we are to bring this war to a termination within anything like a definite time it is in my opinion absolutely essential that on a point of this kind Germany should be as far as possible prohibited front getting assistance by exports from outside.
There is one other point on which wish to say a word. Very often those who criticise the Government upon a point of this kind forget that these problems are extremely intricate and difficult. They seem to put out of sight any other interest or idea except the one dominant factor they may have present to their minds at the particular moment. An illustration of that was given by the noble Marquess. I understand it has been suggested, I presume to the Government, that you might have something like a general blockade of neutral countries. A noble Lord on the other side of the House says "Hear, hear." It appears to me that a suggestion of that kind can hardly emanate from those who have really considered the conditions in which we are at the present moment. It can only he suggested on the hypothesis that you absolutely disregard the rights of every one in every direction except what is suitable to yourselves at a particular moment. Will any one agree with such a proposition as that? One of the great difficulties of a great naval Power like ourselves is so to conduct operations of this

467
character as to be effective, and vet not unduly irritating to neutrals. And if we look abroad and see what is going on in Europe, is there any greater or better support that we could have than the support of neutrals on the ground, the definite ground, that we stand for what is really public rights and public order even during this great struggle of life and death to us? On these ground, so far as my support is of any value I most heartily support the attitude which has been explained by the noble Marquess and which I understand is the same as that mentioned by Lord Robert Cecil in the other House. I deprecate in the strongest manner the notion that for immediate advantage we ought to flout the rights and interests of others, which even in times of stress and difficulty ought to have fair consideration at the hands of our people and at the hands of our Government.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I think Lord Charnwood has done well in bringing this matter before the House. At the same time, like nearly all those who wish us to take stronger measures as regards cotton, he made his speech without making any allusion to the effect that a sterner dealing with cotton would have on our relations with the United States. I was in the United States at the time of the Civil War, when the Southern Press was full of articles condemning the Northern States for declaring cotton contraband. I was again in that country a few months ago, and in the South I found the Press unanimous in attacking Great Britain for its interference with the cotton trade. Unfortunately all the writers in the Press in America and all the writers in the Press in England were discussing the matter from totally different points of view, and apparently were ignorant of one another's arguments. The one fallacy of the Southern Press in America is that they keep on quoting the prices that cotton is now fetching in Germany as prices that the whole of their cotton crop would reach if they managed to get it exported to that country. I have seen one suggestion which may be of benefit—I am not financier enough to know whether it would be practicable to carry it out—but it is to buy the whole of the American cotton crop for this year. I know the immense importance of keeping cotton out of Germany. At the same time I want those who think strongly on that point to realise the
468
immense importance of cultivating good relations with the United States.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Charnwood has brought before the House a matter of the greatest interest and importance, and in his series of seven Questions there are practically two matters dealt with. The first is whether we are now successful in preventing cotton going to the enemy, and the second whether we should be better able to prevent cotton going to the enemy if we declared it contraband. I am sure we shall all agree that it is most. important, if we possibly can, to stop cotton reaching the enemy. Yet we all desire—and I was glad to hear the noble stand made by Lord Parmoor for the maintenance of International Law and international right— to allow neutrals their normal supply for internal purposes, and to act fairly to the great producing country which is, and I hope will always remain, our friend.
I was very glad to hear my noble friend the Leader of the House give a categorically affirmative answer to Lord Charnwood's question whether the position at present is better than it was some time ago. I believe that the present position is much better than any figures that have yet been made public show. Up to now the figures which have been made public—the figure that was used in another place the other day, for instance—are rat her alarming. I have seen some exaggerations, but it is undoubtedly the fact. that hundreds of thousands of bales of cotton over the normal consumption of Holland and Sweden have gone through those countries, and no doubt a good many of those bales have gone on to Germany. Both Holland and Sweden have each of them had, during the early part of this year, at least 50,000 tons of cotton over the normal, and when saving that I am not over-stating the case at all.
I am very much interested in this matter in various ways. During my active business career I was in the cotton trade, and for the last few months—since February, in fact—I have been Director of the War Trade Department, which has had to deal not only with cotton but with a great many other commodities. The War Trade Department issues licences for export, and a most difficult and thankless task it is, for it is perfectly impossible to satisfy at one and the same time the man who looks with the utmost suspicion on every commodity

469
that leaves this country, and the man who desires to do his ordinary export trade and believes that at any rate his customers are to be trusted not to deal with the enemy. It is entirely new work; a large new staff has had to be organised, with very few established men. I believe that the War Trade Department receives now between 2,500 and 3,000 communications a day; and I must take this opportunity of expressing a, word of cordial thanks to the staff, which has worked in season and out of season, late at night, on Sundays, and sometimes all through the night, in order to cope with the enormous amount of work thrown on that Department. We have been subjected from time to time to a certain amount of not very generous criticism. We are expected, in the circumstances I have described, to do things much better and quicker than the older Departments.
I will, however, say no more about the War Trade Department except this. In order to pursue rationally a policy of licensing, you trust know some of the statistics of the commodities which are gong to the countries in which von are specially interested. We find ourselves very short of statistics brought up to a recent date. Those published by the neutral countries surrounding Germany, which are the countries that interest us most, are often published very late, and they are not always reliable. Indeed, some of those countries appear to have given up issuing monthly returns, or, if they have not stopped them altogether, they are certainly very greatly in arrear. Some trades publish statistics of a fairly reliable character but by no means all, and therefore it became the duty of the War Trade Department to see what could he done in order to obtain statistics more up to date than any in the possession of the Board of Trade or any other Government Department. Amongst others I consulted the eminent statistician Mr. Bowled, and he agreed that the best plan would be to obtain particulars of the cargoes of all the ships going to countries in which we had a special interest. For some weeks I have had a staff working in the collection and tabulation of those figures, and I regret to say that the head of that staff, who has worked with extraordinary energy and ability, has broken down under the strain to which he has been subjected. I hope, however, that he may shortly be back at
470
his work again. But already a good many figures have been collected, and we have pretty late figures about cotton.
I am not going to quote these figures, because I have not hail time to test them sufficiently thoroughly yet, but I may say that they do not agree at all, month by month, with the latest official statistics issued by the Netherlands Government. For instance, the figures show that twice as much cotton entered Holland in March as is shown in the official Dutch figures; mid instead of 30,500 tons which are said to have entered Holland in May, the figures collected for me show a very small amount indeed. It is obvious, therefore, as my noble friend the' Leader of the House said in regard to the statistics, that these figures deal with different periods. But taking the five or six months of this year, and addling up the times which have been collected for the War Trade Department and the figures issued officially by the Dutch Government, there is substantial agreement in the totals. Therefore I feel considerable confidence in the figures that have been collected, and my belief is that in May and June the amount of cotton reaching the Scandinavian countries and Holland was not on time whole above the normal. In the case of Norway it was more than the normal, but in the other countries—Denmark, Sweden, and Rolland —I believe it was rather less than the normal. The figures collected for my Department apply to ships which have arrived in the countries in question and the cargoes on those ships. Of course a certain number of ships may be missed, but not any large number, and the general effect produced on my mind by the figures is that His Majesty's Government have at the present time control of this cotton question. If, as I hope, they can maintain that control, I do not think your Lordships need fear that any large quantities of cotton will go through these countries adjacent to Germany into Germany. On that point I feel considerable confidence in the statement I have made.
I have only one or two more words to say on the extraordinarily difficult question of whether cotton should be considered contraband or not. One cannot discuss the matter very fully, but I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Parmoor) that we ought to remember that we have looked at this matter from the point of view of a

471
neutral in the past, and we may have to regard it from that point of view at sonic future date. In any case it would not be fair or wise to tear up International Law as Germany seems inclined to do whenever she so desires. While the present position lasts, which really has curtailed the supplies going to Germany during the last month or two months, no substantial advantage can be gained by declaring cotton contraband. Were cotton declared contraband no more could be done than is now being done. In this matter the House will do well to trust the Government. It is a Government singularly strong in experience and knowledge of foreign affairs, and I do not think any body of men could be picked out of the whole of this country who could give a better decision on any point of that kind.
There is just one suggestion that I should like to make to them. The present position under which cotton is dealt with is based upon the famous Order in Council of which we have already heard. That Order avowedly proclaims a policy of reprisal on the German proclamation of the danger zone. The German proclamation was a violation of every canon of International Law as hitherto understood. I do not suggest for a moment that Germany is going to alter her present practice and procedure. I see no reason to suppose that that is likely to take place. But I do say that if Germany did alter her present practice and procedure the position as regards cotton, for instance, might be made more difficult than it is. I am not going to discuss the desirability or otherwise of making cotton contraband. I am glad that His Majesty's Government have declared their intention of keeping an open mind in case necessity should drive them to such a course. But I venture to suggest whether the present method of dealing with cotton, a method which it is most desirable to maintain if we can do so, is best founded on the Order in Council of March 11, or whether it might not be equally well based on other grounds no more contentious in their character to neutrals and giving perhaps an even more permanent sanction to the procedure and methods that we are adopting with regard to cotton at the present moment.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, there is one feature of this matter which has not been discussed to-day. It is beyond
472
doubt that Germany is still doing an enormous trade with the Scandinavian countries. We have not heard a word to-day on the export trade of Germany across the Baltic. She is sending large quantities of commodities—I believe I am right in saying five or six times her usual amount—through Denmark and through Sweden, and I hope that His Majesty's Government will pay particular attention to the destination of those goods. They are, of course, fully aware that for every ton of goods sent out of Germany the Germans get a quid pro quo either in money or in merchandise. The Baltic Sea is at present nearly absolutely under German control, and this trade ought to be watched and stopped as far as possible. The noble Marquess, in answer to Lord Charnwood, said that the Government were checking the destination of all goods sent from this country. That is a very difficult matter. A trader sends goods on a bil! of lading to a firm, say, in Gothenburg; they sell those goods or pass on the bill of lading, or the consignees send an order for the goods to he transferred to a third person, and he sends them on to a fourth person, and then they slip across from Malmo, or go By another of the well-known routes, into Germany. I know that the international question mentioned by Lord Parmoor is a very difficult one. It is to our interest to stick up for International Law; but are we not, perhaps, hesitating too long in exercising the command of the sea which we do hold outside the Baltic? This war is going to be a long and difficult war, and there is a great public opinion in this country that we ought to stop at no means by which we can strangle the trade of Germany, and, in the end, help to strangle her.

MASSAGE ESPABLISIDIENTS.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will afford early facilities for passing into law the clauses in the London County Council (General Powers) Bill enforcing registration and inspection of massage establishments.
The most rev. Primate said: My Lords, my Question refers to the giving of facilities for the passing into law of the London County Council (General Powers) Bill. That is a Bill of wide range, dealing chiefly with subjects quite outside my knowledge

473
or experience. There are, however, two parts of that Bill upon which I claim to voice the opinion of many people outside; and I ask that a moment's attention may be given to the matter, that we may learn how far His Majesty's Government are prepared to promote same effective action. The part of the Bill to which I refer is that which deals with the establishments for nursing or special treatment of illness. It would be absurd to descant for even a moment upon the immense advantage to the community as a whole from the existence of these establishments for nursing or special treatment which are to be found all over London and in every large town. Perhaps there are few of your Lordships who have nor taken advantage them way or other of nursing and surgical homes, and we are aware of the enormous gain they are to the community as a whole and the debt of gratitude we owe to them. But their excellence, to which I desire to bear tribute, is not incompatible with the fact that in their general merit there lurks a Trill, which for many years has been known to those who are students of a good many of our moral questions, and which has, I am afraid, grown to larger dimensions quite recently. It has for some tune been thought desirable that there should be a possibility of gaining accurate statistical knowledge about some of the homes to which I refer, with a power of registration or inspection which could check mischief, if mischief there be.
Many of us hoped last year before the war began that this matter hart been practically dealt with, because there was a Bill in progress, something like the Bill to which I am now referring but in larger forth, which gave to the London County Council fresh powers for examining and inspecting and registering homes where they felt it necessary to do so. With regard to that Bill, difficulties arose. They were not, as far as I am aware, difficulties on fundamental principles, but administrative difficulties in the main, questions of the right of power and procedure for conducting the investigation which was wanted. But we hoped that these had been overcome, and it is to some of us a little mysterious why during recent months the delay has occurred which leaves us still without the legislation for which we had looked. And I am afraid that we must add that ire the meantime, under the protection afforded by the apparent inability
474
of the authorities to intervene in the matter, the particular difficulties to which I have referred have increased to a very large extent, and almost, in what I may call a blatant and demonstrative manner. There are at this moment known to many people grave difficulties connected with some—I hope the smallest possible proportion, but still some—of the institutions which advertise themselves as massage and surgical treatment homes.
I do not know what the noble Earl who will reply to me will say, but I shall be very much surprised if he says that what I have indicated upon the matter is a hallucination or fad on my part, or that I have exaggerated the facts as they stand. A very little knowledge of what is felt by officials of the Home Office and I imagine certainly by the London Police Force will tell any man that the subject is not one that we can afford to pass by as unimportant or insignificant, or in war time one which can be left alone, in connection with our special conditions of life to-day there are certain points that make it urgent for this matter to be taken in hand with the utmost possible promptitude. I do not propose to enter into the merits of the question at all to-day—I am quite prepared to do so should occasion demand—but I merely want to be assured on the part of the Government that the matter is not failing to receive the attention which the urgency, the need, and the reality of the facts I have mentioned demand.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, nobody could venture for a moment to use any such terms as those of hallucination or fad as applied to the case which the most rev. Primate has brought before your Lordships. He has not, in my judgment, in the least degree exaggerated the seriousness of the case which he has laid before your Lordships. In a few striking sentences he has revealed to us—if revelation was required—the existence of an evil which, masquerading under a false disguise, has been growing of recent years to the dimensions almost of a public scandal. I do not know when the system of these establishments, nominally intended for manicure, massage, and other objects, started. My impression is they are the growth almost entirely of the last ten or fifteen years, but there cannot be a doubt that in recent times they have attained dimensions which must cause serious anxiety to all thinking men.

475
You have only to walk about the streets of London in the neighbourhood of Bond-street or Piccadilly to have your eyes constantly confronted by placards, or boards carried by sandwichmen, or advertisements in shop windows, attracting people to these danger spots; and I quite sympathise with the suggestion so delicately indicated by the most rev. Primate that there is something in the circumstances of the hour, when so many young officers are constantly passing through London, on their way to or from the theatre of war, which renders the lure of these places peculiarly insidious and perilous at the present, time. There is therefore, I think, the strongest possible case in the interests of public morality for some further powers of inspection and control being taken by the authorities than at present exist.
In reply to the Question upon the Paper, therefore, I find no difficulty in saying to the most rev. Primate that the Government will be very glad indeed to see the clauses of the Bill to which he refers passed into law with as little delay as possible. Indeed, the Government may be said to have been more or less behind this Bill. The London County Council consulted the Secretary of State for Home Affairs in drawing it up in the first instance, and the Secretary of State commended the clauses of the Bill to which reference is now being made to the Local Legislative Committee of the House of Commons last year. But the question of giving facilities for the early passage of the Bill into law does not rest in the main with the occupants of this Bench. It is really a matter of the conduct of business in this House. This is not a Public Bill in charge of the Government; it is a Private Bill, the future of which is perhaps more in the hands of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees than of any Minister on this Bench.
In the inquiry which took place before the Local Legislative Committee in the House of Commons it transpired that the borough councils of London took very strong objection to certain features in these particular clauses of the Bill. It was not for a moment that they questioned the seriousness of the evil to which we are referring or that they doubted the propriety of dealing with it with as little delay as possible, but they thought that if further powers were to be given they ought to be conferred upon them, because it would be
476
really an extension of the functions they at present exercise of controlling disorderly houses, brothels, and places of that, sort; and therefore they wanted the existing Acts amended so as to give them, the borough councils, the right of entry into these suspected places in order to obtain evidence in the event of a prosecution being found desirable. On the other hand, the London County Council held the opposite view. They took the view that these duties had better be discharged by a central authority already possessing a staff of inspectors well qualified for the purpose. I need not enter further into the grounds of difference between these authorities, but I may mention that the Committee of the Douse of Commons to which I referred reported generally in favour of the contention of the London County Council.
That is the present position of affairs as regards this Bill. I think I interpret the views of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees rightly in saying that he holds that the borough councils have submitted a case which entitles them to be heard before the Bill is placed upon the Statute Book, and that for that purpose a Committee of your Lordships' House ought to be set up with as little delay as possible. We all know that at this moment of the session it would be exceedingly difficult to obtain a competent Committee to look into the matter, but the Chairman of Committees, I believe, will support me when I say that it is his desire to constitute such a Committee as early as possible in the forthcoming autumn. The borough councils will then be able to state their case before the Committee, and no further delay will ensue. Subject to this condition the Government, I can assure the most rev. Primate, have the warmest sympathy with the object of his Question, and will be only too glad to see this measure pass into law.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to add a few words to what the noble Earl has said as illustrating the position in which we find ourselves with regard to this Bill. It is not a 1915 Bill; it is a Bill suspended from 1914, and the delay has been due to reasons quite apart from these particular parts of the Bill—to negotiations in connection with other parts of the Bill which are not now in it. The noble Earl has

477
referred to the difficulty we might have in getting a Committee to sit next week to hear this very important case advanced by the borough councils. The objections show that the majority—sixteen—of the borough' councils desire to be represented before your Lordships' Committee—a larger number than appeared last year before the House of Commons' Committee; and. I am sure that your Lordships would deprecate any hindrance to their right to be heard.
But there is another difficulty which has been placed before me by the borough councils— an objection to the Committee sitting at once. They were, given to understand perfectly bona fide by the County Council on June 30 last that it was only intended to proceed with the unopposed parts of the Bill. That was the intention of the County Council; but the circumstances have altered. I do not think I am giving away any secrets when I say that in my opinion tie, keenness of the Home Office that something should be passed on these lines is responsible for the fact that these two parts remain in the Bill. During the last fortnight the opponents were under the impression fiat the opposed parts of the Bill were not to be proceeded with; therefore they urge very strongly that now, when they 111V busy with assessment work, it would be hard on them if the Committee met next week, instead of in the autumn. That seems to me to be a very cogent reason for not setting up a Committee for next week.
At the same time I entirely concur with the noble Earl that it is very important that the Committee should be (Ailed together immediately we meet after the forthcoming adjournment, and no doubt some of your Lordships will then assist me by serving on the Committee. I should like to see the form of these provisions discussed in private confabulation before the Bill becomes ripe for the Statute Book, and I intend myself to initiate certain discussions. I hope, therefore, that the time we shall spend before the Committee meets will not be wasted. I
478
also hope that the time will be utilised in bringing about certain things that are necessary for alteration in the Bill. For instance, the Bill makes registration necessary of all places where special treatment is given. The actual house of a doctor who is giving, say, radium treatment would have to be registered as a massage establishment, just as much as the places we have in our minds. Obviously such is not the intention. There are five or six other things which require careful I consideration, awl we shall have useful opportunity during August and September of negotiating all those points. Subject to that, I am at one with the Government in hoping that we may not lose this Bill this session, as we might have done last year had it not been postponed.

NATIONAL REGISTRATION BILL
To be printed as amended in Committee of the Whole House. (No. 137.)
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following fourteen Bills received the Royal Assent—

National Registration.

Kilmarnock Gas Order Confirmation.

Irvine and District Water Board Order Confirmation.

Eastern Valleys (Monmouthshire) Joint Sewerage Board.

Prescot Gas.

Spennymoor and Tudhoe Gas.

Skegness Urban District Gas.

Rotherham Corporation.

Chelmsford Corporation Gas.

Lurgan Urban District Council.

Port of London Authority.

Sutton District Water.

Aberdare Urban District Council (Tramways, &c.).

Northwich Gas.

House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.