Lords Sitting of 28 June 1916

Preamble
The Lord Crofton—Took the Oath.
RIVER GLEN BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
RHODES ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2a on Wednesday next.
GREAT CENTRAL AND SHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ALEXANDRA (NEWPORT AND SOUTH WALES) DOCKS AND RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
UXBRIDGE GAS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
PLYMOUTH AND STONEHOUSE GAS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: A further Amendment made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
FOLKESTONE GAS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues—Ninety-fourth Report of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, dated 29th June, 1916:
Board of Education—Report for the year 1915 on the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Bethnal Green Museum:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
India (Loans raised in India)—Return of all Loans raised in India, chargeable on the revenues of India, outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ended the 31st March, 1916, &c.:
Destructive Insects and Pests Acts, 1877 and 1907—Order, numbered D.I.P. 364, dated 19th June, 1916, declaring an area described in the Schedule thereto to be an infected area for the purpose of the American Gooseberry Mildew (Infected Areas) Order of 1915:
National Insurance Acts—The National Health Insurance (Insurance Committees, Representation of Insured Persons) Amendment Regulations (Ireland), 1916 dated 27th June, 1916:
Shops Act, 1912—Order made by the Council of the County of Surrey and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department affecting certain classes of shops in the parish of Merton:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LECKY'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed and sent to the Commons.

THE IRISH NEGOTIATIONS.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House a question of which I have given him private notice—whether he is in a position to make any statement with regard to the negotiations which have been going on for a settlement of the Irish question. I would point out to your Lordships that the position is an extremely anomalous one. We have been informed in the public Press of statements made on behalf of the Government to various sections of the Irish Parties, and we have also been informed in the Press that a meeting was to have been held to-day of

421
members of the House of Commons, to be addressed by a leading member of the Government, which meeting has since been put off, but at which it was understood that further statements would be made as to the intentions of the Government. It is surely an anomaly that your Lordships' House should remain in ignorance while all this by-play is going on, and that we should not be in possession of what has actually been put publicly, on the authority of the Government, before various public bodies. I would therefore ask the noble Marquess whether he is in a position to make any statement on the subject.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, the private notice of which the noble Viscount has spoken reached me only very shortly before I came down to the House, or I should have taken the liberty, also in private, to inform the noble Viscount of my opinion that he is not rendering a public service by raising this question to-day. I stated yesterday, in reply to the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury), that I was in doubt whether it would be possible to make any statement to-day; and the noble Viscount has seen the notice in the Press, and I have no doubt has also derived information from private sources, concerning the postponement of an important meeting which was to have been held to-day. He will have seen that it was stated on authority that this step—that is to say, the postponement of the meeting at the Carlton Club—" has been necessitated by the desire of the Government to have further time for the consideration of the Irish proposals." I am bound to assume, and I do most cordially assume, that it is not the desire of the noble Viscount or of any of his friends to hamper His Majesty's Government in arriving at a solution of what clearly must be one of the most difficult and delicate problems that any Government has been called upon to consider. I would therefore appeal to noble Lords opposite, being in full possession of the facts of the position, as we know they are, not to press us further to-day, but to wait until it is possible in the public interest to make a full and complete statement of all the circumstances.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I quite understand the noble Marquess's position. But might I ask him whether he will undertake
422
that a statement is made in this House before any body of members of the House of Commons are called together in order to be consulted by leading members of the Government upon points on which your Lordships have an equal right to be consulted.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am not quite sure that I follow the meaning of the noble Viscount's question. Is he speaking of a meeting of a section of the House of Commons or of a meeting of that House as a whole? It may fairly be assumed that when it is possible to make a statement in the House of Commons a statement will be made here also; but I am not able to speak of what any particular body of members of the House of Commons may choose to do in meeting together to consult with those with whom they are as a rule associated. But so far as the two Houses are concerned, I can say frankly that when a statement is made in another place one will also be made here.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The difficulty with us is that we are afraid that there are great misconceptions arising in the country and in Parliament. We are afraid that in many respects public opinion is not adequately informed, and in a matter of this kind, dealing with interests of such vast magnitude, it is not possible to allow the country to remain in ignorance of what is passing. We think this the more because a certain section of persons have been much more fully informed than Parliament has been. That appears to us to be altogether disadvantageous to the public service. I do not think it would be fair to press the noble Marquess, who is always very courteous to us, to make a statement this afternoon; but in order that he may have full notice, I will read a Question which I will put, with the leave of the House, to-morrow. It runs—
To ask whether His Majesty's Government will lay before Parliament forthwith—

1. The proposals as to the Government of Ireland which were made by Mr. Lloyd George to Sir Edward Carson and Mr. Redmond for communication to their respective supporters, together with a statement as to the authority upon which these proposals were made; and

423

2. The Report of Lord Hardinge's Committee relating to the circumstances which led up to the recent rebellion, and also the latest information in the possession of the Government as to the spread of disaffection in the three southern provinces of Ireland.

I propose to put that Question down, provisionally at any rate, for to-morrow.

BRITISH PRISONERS IN POLAND.
LORD GRENFELL LORD GRENFELL had the following Notice on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government, with reference to the transfer of German prisoners to France and employment in that country, and the action of the German military authorities in retaliating by sending 2,000 British prisoners to Poland—(1) Has the Government now got information as to the localities where the prisoners have been sent to, and have arrangements been completed whereby these prisoners will be inspected by any representative of the American Embassy. (2) If the places where prisoners have been sent to are known to the Government, can parcels still be sent to such camps by various societies and representatives of regiments with a reasonable chance of their being received.
The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, the transfer of the 2,000 German prisoners to France has resulted, as we must all have expected, in brutal retaliation on the part of the Germans. Some 2,000 British prisoners have been sent by the Germans to Russian Poland, where food is scarcer than in Germany, and where, according to numerous letters which have been received, these men are suffering great privation and are being worked very hard by the Germans. Nearly all the societies which send parcels to prisoners, including those connected with the various regiments, and particularly the Society of the Red Cross, with which I am connected, have received numerous letters from these prisoners. The White Paper which has been issued gives no information as to the locality of the prisoners, but most of the letters from these unfortunate men come from Libau. It is curious that these men have been permitted for the first time to send letters openly, in which they tell us of the great sufferings they are undergoing. This no doubt is allowed so that we may know how severely our soldiers are being
424
treated. I will read a portion of one letter which we have received—
"Can you possibly send out parcels and letters? We receive nothing. We are at Libau, where we are working on the railway. We get up at 4 a.m. and return from work at 6.30 p.m. We are living on practically nothing, with two thin blankets and no bed, and I can assure you it is perfect hell. We understand that this is a punishment for us on account of the brutal treatment of German prisoners in France."
I am anxious to ask the noble Lord who will reply whether there is any chance of a proper inspection of these unfortunate prisoners by the American authorities, and whether parcels, upon which they are almost entirely dependent, can be sent with a reasonable chance of being received.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, the prisoners to whom my noble and gallant friend refers have been sent, we understand, to the two ports of Libau and Windau, though the latter has been given a new German name, which I fail to remember at the present moment. But this information is private information only. We have as yet received no reports from the American Embassy, because hitherto the officials belonging to that Embassy have not been permitted to visit the ports in question. We have received at the Foreign Office a number of private communications similar in character to that read by my noble and gallant friend. I am sorry to say that there is much reason to fear that these men are undergoing considerable hardships. At the same time I am bound to admit that I have seen one letter at all events from a man sent to one of these ports—I forget which—in which he spoke favourably of the conditions, and said that their treatment by the officers was kind.
With regard to the German prisoners of war in France, my noble and gallant friend will recollect that they were sent there some months ago at the instance of the late Secretary of State for War, and I have always imagined that he was largely actuated by the extreme reluctance which prevails here with regard to the employment of these men either by public bodies or by individuals. But that clearly did not afford any excuse for retaliation, because these German prisoners in France have, by their own admission, been treated in an extremely kind manner, and so far as I know have made no complaints whatever. These prisoners have been inspected by officials of the American Embassy in Paris, but so far

425
their Report has not reached the Foreign Office. In view of the fact that these men in France are suffering from no grievance, and that they have been inspected by the American Embassy at Paris, we naturally claim that the same state of things should be instituted with regard to our prisoners who have been sent by the Germans to Russian territory, but so far the American officials have not received permission to proceed to those camps. On the 13th of this month we asked Mr. Gerard, the American Ambassador in Berlin, to endeavour to ensure that the parcels destined for or these men should arrive safely, and we have no reason to suppose that the parcels have not reached their destination. As a matter of fact it is only fair to admit—and I think it is important to take note of this—that, so far as our information goes, nearly all the parcels sent from this country to British prisoners in Germany reach their destination without fail; the percentage of parcels which do not arrive is very small. In connection with this fact I might mention that I heard recently from Mrs. Grant-Duff, with whose work noble Lords are probably well acquainted. She assures me that she has been in communication with a very large number of German commandants of prison camps, and that in almost every instance they have shown great anxiety to see that the parcels arrive safely at their destination and to co-operate with her.
As I am dealing with this question of parcels, I should like before I sit down to correct an error into which I fell upon the last occasion when I made a statement in this House with regard to prisoners. I then stated that Russian prisoners received no parcels at all. I regret very much having made that statement. I must own that I had completely forgotten for the moment that there is an organisation in this country which exists for the purpose of supplying Russian prisoners in the hands of the Germans with food, and that there is also an organisation in Switzerland for the same purpose; and I should be extremely sorry to think that I had impugned in any way the valuable work which they have done. At the same time it must be obvious to everybody that, in view of the enormous number of Russian prisoners—they amount to something like 1,250,000 in Germany alone—it is impossible to supply their needs in the way that it is possible to do so in the case of our own soldiers.

THE MAR ESTATES.
THE EARL OF MAR THE EARL OF MAR had given notice of his intention—
To call attention to his Petition, presented on the 18th May, praying for a rehearing of the Mar Estates case, and that he may be allowed his right to plead for these estates as inheritor of the historic Earldom restored in 1824 by the grace of the Crown, as anticipated by the entailing to "the nearest heirs, whether male or female," inheriting that ancient dignity in that line of female descent.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise reluctantly to explain to your Lordships why I felt compelled to present a Petition to your Lordships' House on the 18th of last month. In that Petition I prayed for a rehearing of the Mar Estates case, and that I might be allowed my right to plead for these estates as inheritor of the historic Earldom restored in 1824 by the grace of the Grown, as anticipated by the entailers to "the nearest heirs, whether male or female," inheriting that ancient dignity in that line of female descent. I may observe that I shall be very pleased to send a copy of my Petition to any Peers who have not already received it. I regret very much that the Petition is so lengthy, but it was necessary to set forth the extraordinary circumstances surrounding my case. I regret to be bringing the matter forward in the midst of this dreadful war, when your Lordships are so deeply engaged with other serious questions; but it is a duty to myself and my heirs that I should do so now, in order that I should not suffer from the bar of time.
I will ask your Lordships' kind indulgence while I place before you very briefly the position. It is well known that my ancestor in 1715, through the fortunes of war, lost his estates. The estates, which were very extensive, were all confiscated and his ancient title was attainted. However, a few years after, by the grace of the Crown, a portion of the Mar estates—namely, the estates of Alloa—were allowed to be bought back by the family for the support of the ancient Earldom. This was followed not many years after—in 1824—by the restoration of my great-grandfather to the ancient dignity, he being, as stated in the Act of Parliament, "grandson and lineal representative of the attainted Earl."

427
This position he held through his mother Lady Frances, which is a very important point in the position I hold. Before this restoration it was necessary that a preliminary Report should be made and presented by the Law Officers (English and Scottish) on behalf of the Crown into the line of succession conveying the dignity. The Law Officers stated, after examining the pedigree, services, etc., that the restored Earl had already enjoyed these estates through his mother Lady Frances, and he was about to be restored to the dignity as his mother's heir. Accordingly, the Act of Parliament of 1824 states in the plainest words that the Earl of Mar was, as "grandson and lineal representative of the attainted Earl," which he was through his mother, restored to the honours of Mar—and his heirs after him.
In 1739 these Mar estates at Alloa were entailed for the support of the ancient dignity by Lord Grange, who was a Lord of Session and younger brother of the attainted Earl, and he acted as trustee for the children of his elder brother, the attainted Earl, Lord Grange's eldest son Charles became heir male of the family, but be and his younger brother James were both excluded from the Mar estates by the entail by Lady Frances, the Earl's daughter and heiress of Mar. Lord Grange thus recognised the line of female descent through which every Earl has held the ancient Earldom for now nearly 1,000 years. The entail anticipating this restoration which occurred in 1824 made special provision that all "the nearest heirs, whether male or female," should be obliged to hold the Mar estates with the ancient Earldom in the event of its restoration. This event, as I have said, occurred in 1824 through female succession. I have the honour to hold that title, and in that position I fulfilled all the conditions of the entail, being exactly in the same position as heir through my mother Lady Frances as was my great-grandfather, the Earl who was restored in 1824, through his mother, and who at that time already held the Mar estates at Alloa to the exclusion of the sons of Lord Grange, the Earl's younger brother, who entailed these estates to the exclusion of himself and his heirs in favour of the nearest heirs of Lady Frances, knowing full well that she would inherit and hold the ancient Earldom should it be restored. I am her undisputed nearest heir, and so hold the ancient Earldom.
This is my grievance. I have been persistently denied my legal right, as I maintain it to be, to plead in the Courts of Law for the Mar estates at Alloa in my true legal position as Earl of Mar, although under the Restoration Act of 1824 I am exactly in the same position by birth and inheritance as my late uncle, my grandfather, and my great-grandfather, each of whom held the estates and the restored title as the nearest heirs of Lady Frances, heiress of Mar on the death of her only brother without issue in 1766. My uncle died without issue, and I am his eldest sister's only son. Lord Kellie could not claim the Mar estates as remoter heir male, being excluded in that position by the entail. Therefore he claimed them as more remote heir male of Lady Frances, through whom he can hold no dignities whatever. Lord Kellie holds the Mar title of 1875 in the line of heirs male, but is especially excluded from the estates by the entail.
I naturally made a claim for these Mar estates before the Court of Session some years ago. The Court—quite unjustly, I maintain, and in that I have been backed up by a great many Peers and by the Press—though the Court admitted that they had no jurisdiction in dignities, actually compelled my counsel to appear for me as a commoner, though that was some years after my uncle had died and I had fulfilled all the legal forms necessary on succession and had been received by this House as Earl of Mar. I had attended Her Majesty's Court for years in that position, and my wife also in her position as Countess of Mar. The Court of Session gave the decision against me, and they did so, I contend, on wrong premises, because the great point in my case, which my counsel was precluded from urging, was that these estates were entailed on the nearest heirs male or female by Lord Grange recognising the female heirship. I was then obliged to appeal before the House of Lords. I have never claimed the ancient title of Mar because I have been in possession of it all along. I appealed to the House of Lords in the hope that they would not treat me as I had been treated before, but it suited their Lordships again to deny me my legal right and insist on my appearing before your Lordships' House as a commoner. I maintain that a man cannot be a Peer and a commoner at the same time.
I submit that my right to claim the family estates in the same line in which I

429
inherited the Earldom of Mar is not prejudiced by the declaratory Act of 1885. That Act was the result of a great deal of pressure put upon the Government of the day by a large number of Peers who supported my position and were very indignant indeed at the denial of my rights. This Act declared that whereas doubts may exist as to the continued existence of the ancient Earldom of Mar this Act is to remove those doubts. In the Committee on this Bill my right to the ancient dignity was traced back and my pedigree carefully examined, and it; was found that there was no weak link whatever, and that I had inherited the ancient dignity through several heiresses from at least the date of Isabel Countess of Mar in her own right in 1404. This Act declared, as I have said, that I had inherited the ancient dignity. It has suited some of my opponents to say that I had a little interest at Court and had an old title raked up for me which had not been held by any one for centuries, but that, of course, is absolutely untrue. My position was confirmed, and I was declared to be Earl of Mar at the time that the Courts wrongfully and unjustly, as I venture to say, wrote me down as a commoner.
Doubtless the noble and learned Lord, in reply to me, will say "I am afraid you cannot go on with this because the matter has been heard by the highest tribunal in the land." I am quite prepared for that statement. My answer to it is that I venture to submit that the decisions in the Court of Session and in the House of Lords were given on wrong premises altogether. Indeed, one of the noble and learned Lords who heard the Appeal said that the House had decided that Lord Kellie was Earl of Mar, and that therefore I had lost the title and Lord Kellie had gained it, and therefore the estates must go to him. But I had not lost the ancient title; I was already in possession of it. Therefore this was a misunderstanding on the part of the noble and learned Lord. I may state that I have been obliged to pay the costs of the late Lord Kellie in both the Court of Session and the House of Lords. I must impress upon your Lordships that I do not ask the House to decide the Mar estates question. I only ask to be allowed to plead for these estates in the same line in which I hold the ancient title, and to be allowed the privileges and rights enjoyed by every Peer and by every British subject of appearing in his true
430
legal position, a right which has been persistently denied to me. I ask to be allowed to plead for these estates in the same line in which I hold the ancient Earldom and in which position I have sat in your Lordships' House for now upwards of thirty years.
I would defer pressing this matter at present owing to the war, but I repeat that I presented my Petition to your Lordships' House in order to avoid the bar of time, which, as Lord Halsbury once remarked, is most important. I might mention that the late Lord Cairns, whom I had the privilege of knowing, stated emphatically—and it was remarked on in this House by the late Lord Wemyss—that he felt sure there had been wrong done to me, and that he hoped the wrong would be soon rectified. Sir Erskine May, whose memory is so much respected as one of the most distinguished Constitutional lawyers of his time, insisted upon it that had the Committee of Privileges considered the Act of Parliament of 1824 which restored the title through female succession and looked at the Report of Inquiry by the Law Officers for the Crown (which Report they strangely refused to receive), these important documents would have plainly shown that Lord Kellie had no right to go on with his case and his claim to a new and unrecorded title of Mar would have been obliged at once to drop. I thank your Lordships for the kind hearing which you have given to what, I am afraid, must have been a rather dull disquisition.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BUCKMASTER): My Lords, I am not certain from the form of the Notice which the noble Earl has put on the Paper, nor, indeed, from the form of his own observations, whether he expects any detailed reply to the matter he has raised, but I think it would be an act of courtesy to him, and I think also an act of justice to the Earl of Mar and Kellie, who is the holder of these estates, that I should make a few statements to your Lordships as to the position in which this matter stands. The noble Earl has referred to matters which, of course, are familiar to the whole of this House—the interesting and vivid part which his ancestor played in the history of this country. The matter with which we are dealing is not one of such ancient history as that. It arises in this way.

431
In 1867 a claim was made and considered by the Committee of Privileges of your Lordships' House on behalf of the ancestor of the present Earl of Mar and Kellie to the title of Earl of Mar, and in 1875 the Report of the Committee was made favourable to the claimant, and your Lordships accepted that Report. It may be that the Report was imperfect. Justice does sometimes stumble, and Lord Chancellors sometimes nod. I think that your Lordships felt that there might have been some imperfection in the proceedings, because in 1885 the Act to which the noble Earl has referred was passed which confirmed him in the ancient title of Earl of Mar, far more ancient than the Earldom of Mar which had become associated with the Earldom of Mar and Kellie. Indeed, the noble Earl is to be congratulated on the fact that he is the undoubted inheritor of one of the most ancient and honourable titles in the United Kingdom.
But while this litigation was going on between the Earl of Mar and the Earl of Mar and Kellie there were proceedings in the Scottish Courts with regard to a matter less honourable and more substantial—the estates which had hitherto been associated with the Earldom. I think it was the noble Earl himself who claimed as against the possessor of the estate, the ancestor of the present Earl of Mar and Kellie, that those estates belonged to him, for the reasons he has set out before your Lordships to-day. That claim was heard by the Lord Ordinary and by the Court of Session in Scotland, and was decided by them upon the clear and distinct ground that the true construction of the deed of entail which was in dispute divorced the estates from the title, and that it was a matter of no moment at all what might be the Report of the Committee of Privileges of your Lordships' House as to the title; because whichever way that Report was made, the true construction of the deed, upon which everything depended, was in favour of the person who was in possession of the estates, the ancestor of the present Earl of Mar and Kellie. That judgment was given in 1873, and from that time onwards possession has been enjoyed of that property. It has never been assailed, and the present Earl of Mar and Kellie holds the estate with a title made authoritative and, I venture to state before your Lordships, unimpeachable by virtue of that decision.
432
Now if I gather from the noble Earl's Petition aright—and I have been through it with some care—it is that decision which he seeks to challenge. I say with all respect to the House that your Lordships have at this moment nothing whatever to do with it. I cannot sec how you can possibly consider or do anything whatever to subvert, even if you desire, the judgment of the Court of Session; unless, indeed, proceedings were taken on the Judicial side of this House asking that the time, which would have expired over thirty years ago, should now be extended in order to enable that judgment to be impeached. But it would be quite impossible to imagine, after this lapse of time, that these proceedings should be reopened; and I am sure your Lordships would agree with me that it would be most unfair and unjust to the man whose ancestors for so long had been in uninterrupted and undisturbed possession of this property that the decision should be interfered with. I have entered into this matter only for this reason. I think it is possible to understand the grievance of a man who believes that a Court, with full desire to do justice, has failed to do justice to him. I am sure that the losing litigant must often have that feeling, and it is one for which everybody must have sympathy. But I feel satisfied that nothing could be more dangerous than, out of consideration and sympathy for such a position, to do anything that could impeach or impugn a title which has been held in the circumstances that I have stated, and which has been supported after solemn and careful investigation by the Courts whose real business it is to deal with such matters.
LORD JOICEY: My Lords, I have some hesitation in taking part in this discussion, particularly after the Lord Chancellor's admirable speech. But I cannot under stand the principle he lays down, that if a Court comes to a decision and afterwards fresh evidence is adduced there should be no claim made against that decision. So far as I understand the case, the decision was come to when the noble Earl was compelled to plead as a commoner; but the noble Earl having proved his claim to the ancient Earldom is in a different position. So far as I understood what was said by the noble Earl—unfortunately I could not hear much of his speech—I gathered that he considers that as the honour of the ancient Earldom—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is under an entire misapprehension. Let me read to the House what was said by the Court of Session when the decision was given—
"The right to the Peerage of Mar—a title of great antiquity—is not directly or immediately involved in this case. Nor has this Court the power of disposing of that question of Peerage succession. It must be decided by the House of Peers. We have only to deal with the pursuer's claim to the estates. At the same time it is not to be overlooked that, on the supposition that the pursuer succeeds, as we must assume that possibly he may, to the title, the effect of a judgment against him in this action would be to separate the estates from the title. It is naturally and forcibly urged that such a separation could not have been intended, and that the deed of entail on which this question turns should be so construed as to prevent that separation and to maintain the connection between the Peerage and the estates. I appreciate the force of this argument. If there were any ambiguity in the voids of destination, the argument founded on the presumption against an intention to separate the estates from the title would be appropriate. But if the words are not ambiguous, such a presumption is inappropriate and must be excluded."
LORD JOICEY: I cannot attempt to argue with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. It is a question of law, and I presume I must accept this decision.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is not my decision.
LORD JOICEY: At the same time it does seem to me as an ordinary layman that it is an extraordinary thing that, if fresh evidence is adduced and an injustice has been done, the injustice should not be remedied.

STATE WOOL PURCHASES.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they can give any particulars of the scheme for purchasing the wool-clip, 1916.
The noble Duke said: My noble friend Lord Sandhurst was kind enough yesterday to say that if possible he would give further information on this subject to-day, and therefore I would like to ask the Question which stands in my name. Perhaps the noble Lord could also inform the House what powers the War Office had of fixing the price, and what appeal there is for those who are forced to sell if they are not satisfied with the price.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: My Lords, before my noble friend answers, may I be allowed to say a few words with regard to something that was said by him in the course of the debate yesterday afternoon. He stated, I think, that it was proposed to pay the farmers 30 per cent. increase on the pre-war prices of 1914. I do not know whether the noble Lord said 1913 or 1914, but I believe that in the other House the year 1914 was given. The 30 per cent. increase which the noble Lord mentioned is the first official statement of the exact amount that it is proposed to give. When he made this statement yesterday I was not in a position to get up and point out that this would involve to the farmers a lower price than they had received last year, because it was necessary to look into facts and figures. I have since done so, and there is no doubt whatever that if such a price were adhered to, namely, 30 per cent. on 1914 prices—if it were 30 per cent. on 1913 prices it would be still worse, because prices went up in 1914—it would be very detrimental to farmers. I cannot understand on what principle such a figure was settled. Surely it is not the intention to give farmers less than the market price for the wool that is being commandeered. The farmers are quite ready, if the nation wants it, to hand over their wool to the Government; they are as loyal as any other section of the population; at the same time I think they have a right to expect that they will obtain something like market prices for the goods that are commandeered.
I am able to state that the figure named by my noble friend would not produce to the farmers the same prices as they obtained last year. A rise of between 40 and 50 per cent. on the 1914 prices would be necessary to bring up the figure to the same that they obtained last year. I know it may be argued, when I talk of the market price, that it is very difficult to say what the market price is until the wool sales of this year have established it; but those sales have been done away with, so that one may say there is no market price. I contend that the only fair basis of settling the price is to take the prices of last year. If the farmers obtained last year's prices, one would feel that they were being treated fairly and justly; but anything short of last year's prices seems to me to be unfair and unreasonable.
I should like, in connection with this case of wool, to say what a great loss it is to the

435
country and to agriculture that Lord Selborne has resigned the position of President of the Board of Agriculture. He has done an immense deal during the twelve months that he has been President of the Board, both for the nation and for agriculture. There never was such a difficult time for anybody who looked after the interests of agriculture. Lord Selborne has done his best to encourage farmers to grow as much food as possible on their holdings. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said last night, he (Lord Selborne) has dealt very efficiently with the difficult question of the labour on the farms and the requirements of the Army, and he has not failed frequently to go about the country and tell the farmers what he considered their duty was to the country—namely, that they were to do their very best in their respective holdings to grow as much as they possibly could; that they were, if possible, to carry on their milk cows so that the population might have plenty of milk. Generally, he has given them good advice; and where there has been a question of Regulations he has never failed to seek advice from all parties concerned, so that the conflicting needs of agriculture in the different districts might be reconciled. I hope I am not out of place in this connection in saying that it is a great misfortune that we have not got Lord Selborne now at the Board of Agriculture, because I am sure he would have done his best to see that in this case of the commandeering of wool the farmers were treated as fairly and as justly as possible.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I have not with me a copy of the Defence of the Realm Act, and I must ask leave, therefore, to postpone a reply to the supplementary question which the noble Duke put to me. Your Lordships will remember that yesterday my noble friend Lord Camperdown addressed to me a specific question on one or two points which admitted of a categorical and precise answer. I came prepared with that answer and gave it. But, as often happens in this House, four or five speeches were made on the subject, to which, to my great regret, I was unable to reply. Where a variety of speeches are made on a specific question they lead to a little inconvenience; because unfortunately the official who replies is often unable to provide the additional information beyond that which is asked for in the Notice on the Paper. Therefore I am very glad to be able to-night
436
to make up for my shortcomings yesterday evening.
The noble Duke asked last night why the date of June 8 was fixed. I am told that the Order forbidding the sale of the wool-clip this year was issued before any of the English wool fairs had taken place. The question of the supply of wool had been one of anxiety for some time, but it was not until the beginning of June that it was clear that there was a serious danger of a shortage in the supplies available for the military necessities of ourselves and of our Allies. As soon as the decision was taken that it was urgently necessary to safeguard English supplies, all the interests were informed. In one case only did the information arrive too late to prevent preparations from being made for an auction sale, and it is extremely regretted that this circumstance caused some inconvenience to those farmers who had made arrangements to sell their wool on that date. Where the farmers had packed their wool the trouble will not be wasted, as it will be taken over in that state as soon as the necessary arrangements are completed. Since that date negotiations with a variety of leading wool merchants, wool brokers, and farmers have taken place in regard to the methods to be adopted by the Government for the purchase of the whole clip, and it is these methods that, in reply to the question on the Paper, I shall endeavour to explain.
I may say at the outset that the matter has been discussed with the Board of Agriculture. To begin with, merchants of good standing will be employed as agents for the purchase of wool from farmers with whom they are accustomed to deal. These merchants will act under directions from district officers appointed by the Department in each of the main wool-growing areas, and will be responsible to a central executive officer in London. There will be a central advisory committee at headquarters, and a local advisory committee for each district officer in the various areas. As to organisation, the services of Colonel Wyllie have been obtained for the purpose of directing the whole of the wool purchase. I might say that before the war this gentleman aided in the management of the well-known firm of Wyllie and Company, which I believe is, if not the largest, one of the largest firms of wool merchants in the country; and he has had considerable experience of the

437
wool trade in America as well as in this country. I may add, too, that he was employed in the Ordnance Department in Gallipoli and elsewhere; therefore in addition to his trade experience he has experience of handling and storing clothing, and so on.
The actual collection of the wool—this is of interest and importance—will be undertaken by the usual buyers who operate in an area, and they will be responsible for the purchase, transport, casing, packing, storage, and discharge under directions from the district officers. A central advisory committee of prominent wool merchants is being set up to advise the central executive officer at headquarters. Their assistance will be required in selecting suitable district officers, fixing a table of maximum prices, splitting or dividing up the United Kingdom into convenient areas, and advising generally in questions of policy as they arise. In the meantime five gentlemen have been asked to give preliminary advice pending the appointment of a formal committee. The Department is also in communication with the National Farmers' Union and representatives of auctioneers and manufacturing interests. Local advisory committees will be constituted in each district to advise the district officers in the selection of approved merchants. It will be arranged as far as possible that the farmer shall sell to the merchant to whom he is accustomed to sell, though no vested right of any buyer to deal with any particular farmer will be admitted; and in selecting merchants to act as buyers, only those will be considered who have warehouse accommodation and facilities for and experience in classing wool. The local advisory committee will advise on local administration generally, and will assist in disputes as to quality; and it may be desirable for this purpose to ask the Board of Agriculture to appoint farmers' representatives to these local committees.
It may be suggested that farmers have bought sheep in anticipation of the high price that they would get for their wool. I am advised in any case that at least nine-tenths of the selling value of the sheep consists in the mutton.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Oh, no.
LORD SANDHURST: In the two years from May, 1914, to May, 1916, mutton had
438
risen about 59 pet cent. in price, though in that period the price of store sheep had risen only about 29 per cent. Between February and June of this year the price of mutton had risen about 28 per cent. There is an increase of nearly 60 per cent. on the average of the past eight pre-war years, and it is therefore submitted that the increased cost of production will be compensated for. Should the farmer not be making as high a profit as he had hoped, he is in the same position as other classes of producers, who have cheerfully acquiesced in the position, and no doubt this will be the same on the part of the agricultural classes. The proposed increase of 30 per cent. above 1914 prices was fixed after careful examination of wool prices for a long period and consultation with the Board of Agriculture, wool buyers, and other interests. It should be noted that wool prices in 1914 were considerably above the average of the previous ten years. The prices proposed to be paid are in fact 60 per cent. above the average of the period 1908 to 1914. The increase in the price of English wool owing to the war varies from class to class, and this increase has been caused by the various demands for wool clothing for the Allied Armies, by shortage of shipping and the sinking of wool ships by German submarines, by the enormous increase of freight on Colonial and South American wool, by purchase by German interests in neutral countries, and by a decreased world production of wool. In dealing with manufacturing and other trade interests who supply the needs of the Armies the War Office has consistently during the past few months refused to be guided by the market price. In districts upon which there is a heavy war demand the price is practically created by the demands of the Government, and it is not regarded as reasonable to require the Government to pay an inflated price merely because, owing to war conditions, there is a shortage of supply as compared with the great demand.
It is proposed to take a census of the 1916 clip as soon as possible, and the necessary returns will need to be filled up. The district officers will then draw up the list of approved staplers or merchants, and give instructions to purchase from the farmers allotted to them. After inspection of the clip either on the farm or at the merchant's warehouse and after weighing the wool, the farmer will be entitled to

439
receive 75 per cent. of the estimated value. After the wool has been cased or classed by the merchant according to the different qualities the district officers will inspect the wool, and if the estimate is confirmed the balance will be paid on the certificate of the district officer.
Then there is the question of storage, and as it is desirable to avoid congestion at Bradford and to keep up a reserve for military requirements for a longer period than usual, it will be necessary to arrange for storage in some districts. For this purpose the approved merchants will supply the accommodation required. It may be necessary for them to acquire extra premises as warehouses, and if the farmer is required to store longer than a certain period it is proposed to allow him interest from August 1 at the rate of 5 per cent. The question of distribution is not in such a mature condition that I can usefully say anything about it.
This is the main outline of the scheme of the Government. As I said yesterday, it is necessarily incomplete. It may be modified as to its details, and there are also various adjustments to be made, but I hope I may have said enough to show that the Government are availing themselves fully of expert opinion and knowledge. It is intended to publish the full scheme as soon as possible. The Department are fully alive to the need and to the advantage of simplifying the procedure so as to enable the farmer to secure prompt payment for his produce.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I desire to make a few remarks on the statement of the noble Lord, for which we are very much obliged to him. He commenced his speech, however, by making a statement on which I think he must have been misinformed by the Department. He said, regarding the issue of this Order by the Army Council on June 8, that it was only just before then that they had become aware that they would require the wool. He also said that it was generally known throughout the country that this action would be taken. I can assure him that that is an absolute misstatement. Of course, it is not the noble Lord's fault; it proceeds partly, I am afraid, from the ignorance of the Department. At all events I think every one will agree with me
440
that the Army Council know nothing about wool, and that this is the first occasion on which they have presumed to deal with this matter, on which it seems to me they have displayed nothing but the most absolute ignorance. Surely the noble Lord does not want us to believe that it was only on June 1 that the Army Council arrived at the decision that it was necessary to take this wool. If he does, all I can say is that it shows how utterly they were wanting in foresight. I presume that the greater part of this wool is wanted for the clothing of the Army. Indeed, one sees that this is so. But though they are going to take the whole wool clip, there is a portion of the clip which they admit is not suitable for their purpose. They say that this portion of the clip will be re-sold by public auction. This shows that it is a mistake to take the whole clip. Is it not generally known that up to within about a year or two ago the authorities would not touch black face wool for any purpose; would not buy it at all? So much with regard to the statement as to their purpose, which was announced on the morning of the day when the Order was put in force. This action disorganised not merely the one auction to which the noble Lord referred. It disorganised the wool trade all over the country.
Let me deal with the way in which it is proposed to purchase this wool. The noble Lord says that wool buyers are to be divided over the country, and that they are to purchase to a large extent from the farmers with whom they have been accustomed to deal. On what terms are they to be free to purchase? The wool buyers are restricted as to the terms they are to give. They are not to give more than 30 per cent. in excess of the prices of 1914. That is not telling the buyer to go and deal; it is saying to him, "You must take the wool, but at a price not above the price fixed." The noble Lord was unable to say what are the rights which the Government have in regard to wool. What I should like the noble Lord to answer me is this. Have the Government the right, under the Defence of the Realm Act, to take away the property of any set of persons in this country, paying such price as they see fit? Have the Government, under the Defence of the Realm Act, the right to take property without giving any compensation? Of course if they have, the whole question falls; because anything the Government choose to give you is simply ex gratia on

441
their part. But if that is not so, then clearly the Government have no right to fix a certain sum and say, "We will not give beyond that amount." What is the use of appointing wool buyers if you will not allow them to deal as if they were in the market? A wool buyer does not go into the market tied as to the price he is to offer; he goes in order to negotiate on the terms of the trade, whatever they may be. A wool buyer is no better than anybody else to go into the market if all that he is empowered to give is a maximum sum which has been fixed by the Government. He is not a wool buyer; he is simply a person who is carrying out the instructions of the Government.
Supposing these wool buyers carry out their transactions in the way we have been told, what does it amount to? The wool buyers will have no control whatever, and the Government have no control, over the wool that comes from abroad. If wool comes from the Cape, if it comes from Canada, even if it were to come from Germany, you have not the slightest control over the price it is to fetch; and by restricting the home producer while you are unable to touch the foreign producer you are simply fining your own producer for the benefit of the foreign producer.
The noble Lord made one or two other statements that I could not follow. They may be perfectly correct, but all I can say is that I, for one, do not understand them. We were speaking of the case of persons who had gone into sheep farming within the last twelve months. Those persons, certainly in the case of all the big sheep farms in Scotland and in England, have taken over the sheep at a valuation. And when the noble Lord tells me that the rise in store sheep has been only 29 per cent., pray on what ground does he found that? I have had personal experience which tells me that this is a most ridiculous understatement of the increase in the value of sheep. The further statement that nine-tenths of the selling value of sheep is in the increased price of mutton I believe to be entirely inaccurate. The noble Duke sitting beside me (the Duke of Buccleuch) knows about these things much more than I do; but to say that the price of the wool represents only one-tenth of the value seems to me to be an entirely incorrect statement, and I do not know on what it is founded. If it is founded on the inquiries of the Army Council, I can only say that if they do not
442
know more about the rise in the price of sheep than they did about their own requirements and the wisdom of issuing this ukase suddenly on that particular morning, I am afraid I cannot attach much value to their opinion.
I was glad to hear from the noble Lord that it is intended to appoint men to value the wool who will really know something about it. But my objection is that you are not going to give them any latitude; you are going to fix the value yourselves. The noble Lord tells us that it is quite sufficient to add to the price of 1914 by 30 per cent. I believe that to be contrary to the opinion of the trade. I feel confident that if you were to ask the opinion of the trade you would find that the increased price is far more than 30 per cent. I do not think that a transaction of this magnitude, which I have shown to your Lordships is so unfair to home producers as compared with foreign producers, can go through unless there is some further inquiry made and some further opportunity of going into the facts. The extraordinary manner in which this transaction has been initiated and is being carried out by the Army Council is an additional proof of what very bad business men a great many of the Government Departments are composed.
LORD ST. AUDRIES: My Lords, I think the argument of Lord Sandhurst is a curious one. As I understand, it is this—that because the farmer is able to sell mutton to the consumer at a high price, therefore the Government are entitled to commandeer his wool at much less than the market value. This seems to me to be rather curious commercial morality, and if you carry it to its logical conclusion the Government might have the wool for nothing. The pre-war price plus 30 per cent. is not a fair price to the farmer. The price in 1914—of course, different wool sales had different prices, but I am talking about the average price of good quality wool—was 11 d. to 1s. a lb.; if you add 30 per cent. it comes to about 1s. 3d. a lb. Last year the price of wool was from 1s. 7d. to 1s. 8d. a lb.; therefore you are really depriving the farmer, for no reason of which I know, of from 4d. to 5d. a lb. of the value of his wool. I do not know whether the Government, in commandeering other materials for the war, have fixed their price at the same rate. When they

443
buy timber for the purposes of the Army or Navy or when they buy coal, do they fix the pre-war price plus 30 per cent.? If they do, they are getting the materials remarkably cheap. But if they do not, why should the farmer be treated differently from the coal-owner or timber-seller? It is most unjust to the farmer.
As to the advisory committees, our experience of the local forage committees does not inspire us with hope as to how the work will be carried out. There has been one long complaint, ever since the local forage committees were instituted, that proper prices were not forthcoming and that there was immense delay. With regard to the wool question, the farmers cannot stand delay. They depend upon the money they get for their wool to pay their rents at Midsummer. And you must recollect that sheep farmers were very hard hit indeed by the snow in March. On Exmoor there were twelve feet of snow, and hundreds of lambs were killed. The result was that farmers were not able to save as much mutton for the profitable time, April and May, as they generally do. Also their clip of wool was shorter because a number of ewes and other sheep had been lost. Therefore it is essential to them to have cash as soon as they possibly can. They have to pay their rent and their rates and taxes, and they have also to pay for their labour; and these are not days in which banks are at all willing to make advances to farmers.
The whole of the scheme which the noble Lord has unfolded to us this evening is one of delay. There are to be committees of wool staplers; there are to be directors, some military and some of them in the wool trade; there are to be advisory committees—the whole thing is simply, I will not say wilfully a scheme for delay, but a scheme which involves delay. But the interests of the farmers will not allow of delay. Therefore I impress on the Government that they must, in the interests of the country, carry this scheme through as quickly as possible; and they must have the 75 per cent. advance available so as to let the farmer have cash within the next few weeks. The sooner it is done the better. If the farmers are kept hanging about for their money there will be not only great dissatisfaction amongst them but dissatisfaction as well amongst the labourers because they will not be able to get their wages.
LORD STRACHIE: May I ask my noble friend one question—namely, whether the Department will consult the Central Chamber of Agriculture as well as the National Farmers' Union. I would point out that the Central Chamber of Agriculture is more representative of agriculture as a whole than the National Farmers' Union.
LORD SANDHURST: I will convey my noble friend's wish to the Contract Department.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Sandhurst for the great trouble he has taken in a short time to obtain the information which he has given us. I only wish I could congratulate those who have furnished him with the information as to the accuracy of it. At the Kettering Sales, where I happened to be at the time this Order was made known, nobody knew anything about it until they arrived at the market. Whether there was a sale or not, I do not know. This only shows how hopelessly ignorant the Department must be of the conditions. I believe I am right in saying that before the Order was issued the Department neither consulted the Board of Agriculture for England nor the Board of Agriculture for Scotland. I noticed that my noble friend said they were now consulting the Board of Agriculture, but I think that is only since the Order has been passed; and as far as one can see they took no steps to do anything until people began to make a fuss.
LORD SANDHURST: I beg the noble Duke's pardon. In regard to consultation with the Board of Agriculture, what I said, or intended to say, was that the proposed increase of price was fixed after careful examination of wool prices over a long period and after consultation with the Board of Agriculture, wool buyers, and other interests.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I thought that was about other questions. But let me take the question of store sheep. Take the hill farms. The hill farms in the South of Scotland and the North of England and elsewhere produce a great deal of wool, and it is said that there is no reason to give them a high price for their wool because store sheep have not risen in price

445
in the same proportion as fat sheep. The whole of the sheep they sell from these farms are store sheep. Therefore they have not only lost because of the price of store sheep not rising, but they are also to be defrauded of the price of their wool. I do not say that no lambs are sold for fatting off the hill farms, but the bulk are taken away to other parts of the country for store purposes. Therefore as far as those who are most bit by the Order are concerned there is no compensating advantage at all.
I could not follow the figures given by my noble friend. It looked to me rather as if the War Office had picked out certain figures which suited their purpose. But, after all, the real point comes to this. Is it fair and right that one class in this country should be paid a price considerably below what the article that is taken from them is worth? I do not think it is disputed that this proposed 30 per cent. over 1914 prices will be very much below the present day value of the wool. I think the very least that should be offered should be the prices of 1915. It is, as Lord Camperdown pointed out, very hard that the farmers in this country should be fined whilst the growers of wool abroad will be able to get any price they can. There is an impression, it would seem, on the Army Council that cloth is made only in the neighbourhood of Bradford, but I believe there are other places throughout the country where cloth is manufactured and where they will want wool stored.
Another point to which I want to draw attention in connection with these prices is that it is well known that, because of the supposed profits on farms, the farmer has to pay treble the Income Tax that he paid before the war. Previous to the war, under Schedule B, he paid on one-third of the value; now he pays on the full value. Of course it will be said, "But he can claim under Schedule D if he does not make that." Your Lordships know that at the present time farmers are very short of labour, and unfortunately many farmers are not very good at keeping accounts, and there is a good deal of difficulty in keeping accounts to satisfy the Treasury under Schedule D. Therefore practically you may take it that farmers will have to pay on the full value under Schedule B, or three times the Income Tax that they
446
paid previous to the war. If you take those matters into consideration and also the fact that the sheep sold off the great wool-producing farms are store sheep and not fat sheep, they show that the War Office have been acting under an entire misapprehension, and that it is time for them to review their attitude and give a reasonable price.
There is another grievance. Although certain societies and bodies have been mentioned as regards England, apparently no body in Scotland of any sort or kind has been consulted. Perhaps we are supposed to be rather touchy, but I think it must be admitted that Scottish farmers, both as regards stock and cultivation, know their business perhaps as well as anybody. I hope that His Majesty's Government will take this question into further consideration, because there is a great grievance. It really seems that the minimum price they can in justice offer is the price of 1915, although personally I think they ought to give from 10 to 15 per cent. over that.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, before this discussion closes I should like to be allowed to say one or two words on a rather broader aspect of the case which has been put before the House to-day. I do not propose to deal particularly with the case of wool, but I may perhaps express the opinion, from what I have heard this afternoon, that a case has been made out to show that the new Order was imposed without adequate inquiry having been made in regard to it. We must all agree that in present circumstances great interference with trade is inevitable. As one who has to deal every day with interference with trade, the case of this Wool Order is merely an example of very many cases that constantly come before me. When the Government interferes with the delicate machinery of trade, it almost inevitably interferes with a very heavy hand. I find myself at the War Trade Department very often in the position of having to refuse exports of commodities for which no sale appears to exist in this country. The merchants come to me and say, "What am I to do with this material? You will not let me export it. I cannot sell it here. What am I to do?" And where genuine cases of that kind exist, I must confess that I often feel great sympathy for the would-be sellers.

447
My purpose to-night—it is the only purpose for which I have risen—is to make an appeal to His Majesty's Government to institute as full inquiry as possible before these new Orders are imposed. I would even beg of them to interfere as little as they can with trade. Of course, I am not for a moment contending that we must not interfere with it very greatly. We must interfere with our export trade at the present time; that is patent to all of us. With regard to all articles like wool we have complete control of the export from this country, and I do not think anybody objects to that. Nobody can complain of it. And I should like to say, of the classes in this country who are interested in trade, that speaking broadly they have been excessively loyal and have been ready to carry out every requirement of His Majesty's Government when they have seen the necessity for it. In those circumstances I appeal to His Majesty's Government to see to it that when interference is necessary it shall be made as little hurtful as possible to all interested by making as full inquiry as possible from experts in the trade before these new Orders are made. I have found that men of experience are generally ready to meet one as fully as they can, and that when one explains to them what one requires
448
they are ready to advise as to how the new Order or Regulation may be made as little hurtful to the trade of the country as possible. That is all I have to say. I do beg His Majesty's Government to be most careful in these matters, and to consult experts, wherever consultation is possible, before new Orders are put into force.
LORD SANDHURST: I will, of course, represent in the proper quarter the various criticisms that have been made. But I endeavoured to make clear that the Department were availing themselves to the fullest extent of expert experience and knowledge in the various interests concerned.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Did they do so before issuing the Order of June 8?
LORD SANDHURST: Noble Lords may rely upon it that I will faithfully convey their views to the proper quarter.
House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.