Lords Sitting of 13 December 1917

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table a Certificate from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill—
Chequers Estate.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Your Lordships will recollect that a few days ago the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition asked the Leader of the House a question as to the further progress of business during the present sittings and after the Christmas recess. It was represented to the Government by a good many of your Lordships that, should this House be advised to give a Second Reading to the Representation of the People Bill, the Committee stage of that measure should not be taken so early as January 2, which is the date that has been mentioned. My noble friend the Leader of the House promised to take the matter into consideration and to let us know later what view the Government took of that proposal. I think the suggestion then made to the Government was widely held in all parts of your Lordships' House.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, my noble friend who has just addressed you has referred to what passed in the House a day or two ago, and to the appeals which, from more than one authoritative quarter, were addressed to this Bench. I have considered the matter and have endeavoured to give due weight to the various arguments that were addressed to me on that occasion. It was then urged, supposing that your Lordships gave a Second Reading to the Representation of the People Bill next week, that it would be desirable not to take the Committee stage on January 2—a date which had been mentioned, not by myself, but in the Press. In the first place, some noble Lords thought that a somewhat longer time ought to elapse between the Second Reading and the Committee stage, in order to enable them to consider the various pro-
126
posals that they might wish to put forward. Secondly, some noble Lords living at a great distance from London, notably those who reside in Scotland, represented to me that it would be an inconvenient thing for them to return to London on January 1. Thirdly, it was pointed out that it would be a convenience if noble Lords who desired to put Amendments on the Paper had an opportunity of consulting with each other before the Committee stage was opened. And lastly it was suggested I think by Lord Courtney that it might be desirable to occupy one or two days of Parliamentary time with taking other business before the Committee stage of the Representation of the People Bill was put down.
My Lords, recognising the weight of these arguments. I have endeavoured to give effect to all of them in the following way. I propose to ask your Lordships to take the Committee stage of the Representation of the People Bill on the date named by the noble Marquess Tuesday, January 8 and to take it continuously, in so far as that is possible, from that date onwards. At the same time there are certain measures coming up from another place which it is desirable that your Lordships should discuss, and if it be your will, pass into law with as little delay as possible. I will give your Lordships a list of these measures and of the dates at which they are likely to come up to us. First, let me give the names of those Bills which I should like your Lordships to pass before we adjourn for the Christmas recess. They are Bills that are not likely, I think, to provoke considerable discussion in this House. They are the Chequers Estate Bill, the Education (Provision of Meals) (Ireland) Bill, and the Appropriation Bill.
There is a second category of measures that I hope this House will be in a position to take immediately after we return from the Christmas recess. They are the Coal Mines Control Agreement (Confirmation) Bill, the National Health Insurance Bill, and the National Insurance (Unemployment) Bill. Those are the measures that, following the suggestion of Lord Courtney, I would ask your Lordships' House to take immediately after we return; and to meet the convenience of the House I propose that we should meet for this purpose on Thursday, January 3. That will obviate inconvenience to those who do not wish to travel on January 1. I propose that we should meet on January 3, and sit on that day and on the next day, Friday, in order

127
to take these Bills. There would then he an interval of a few days, from the Friday to the Tuesday, in order to enable noble Lords to make their preparations for the Committee stage of the Franchise Bill.
There is a third category of measures, previously alluded to in this House, and likely, perhaps, to excite more discussion than those I have mentioned. They are the Non-ferrous Metal Industry Bill, the Imports and Exports (Temporary Control) Bill, and the Criminal Law Amendment Bill. I do not propose to ask your Lordships to take any of these measures until a later stage either after the Committee stage of the Representation of the People Bill, or, if it be found necessary to interrupt that stage, at some date after January 8. I hope that these arrangements will meet with the approval of your Lordships' House, because they have been designed with the intention, as I have explained, of meeting all the various appeals that were made to me a few days ago.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, there is one point to which I should like to call the attention of the noble Earl. When last we discussed this particular question I am bound to say I think he met us in all respects in a most reasonable manner. I do not think he could have said or done more than he did on that occasion. But since then one, thing has happened which appears to me to have entirely changed the situation, and which deserves some further consideration. At that time we knew exactly what the Representation of the People Bill contained. We knew the policy of the Government as to a most important part of that measure—namely, what their proposals were with regard to redistribution and representation in Ireland. But all that has gone; the whole position is altered. The Bill which we are asked to sanction by a Second Reading is, in that most important respect, wholly incomplete; and I am bound to say, from a recollection of nearly fifty years of Parliamentary life, this is the first occasion I can call to mind on which a measure of this vast importance, has been submitted to your Lordships for your judgment and approval in this condition—that everything connected with Ireland is, up to the present time, en l'air. We really do not know what we are sanctioning by the Second Reading. All we know is this, that there is to be another Bill (what it may be we have no idea), and that this other Bill is to be presented for
128
the Royal Assent—supposing it is passed, which I observe is taken as a matter of course by the Government—at the same time. I am perfectly aware that a proposal has been made, and a very remarkable proposal it is. It will involve the opinions and decisions of live members of the House of Commons at most. It may be a decision of three, but more likely I should think it will be a decision of one man—namely, the Speaker of the House of Commons. That is a very singular proposal.
We were told that the decisions of the Speaker's Conference were to be embodied in a Bill which was to be an agreed Bill, but we know now, from the course of the measure, that it has been anything but an agreed Bill, and in its later stages it concluded amidst the most violent controversy that has probably occurred for months, or I might almost say during the whole existence of the present Government. All this prompts me to ask, What is the need for hurry in proceeding with the Representation of the People Bill until we really know what it is that we are to have before us and on which we shall have to pronounce our judgment and opinion? I should have thought that, this being the position, we might have had a little longer period allotted for consideration than seems to be the view of the noble Earl, who asks us to come back again on January 3. The reason for this, as far as I understand him, is that we are to have a whole variety of other Bills which he asks us to consider. Some of them may be important, others may not be; but at least we have before us at the present time one of the most important and most complicated measures that I have ever seem. Though to some extent our difficulties have been diminished by the singularly able and lucid speech which was made on the First Reading by Lord Peel—who, I think, showed us on that occasion that he has inherited by descent the qualities of an orator, and an orator of the very highest class we are still in the position (I can speak only for myself, but I dare say I have seen as many Bills as almost any one living and had to do with as many in the course of a very long career) of having before us a measure which, when we do begin it, ought not to be complicated by other measures introduced during its passage, so far as that can be avoided.
I assume that the House of Commons are going to meet again on the same day. If

129
that be so, of course we, shall have to abide by what the noble Earl says. But unless that is so, I really think it is asking a great deal of this House to expect it to come back again so soon for this tremendously important discussion in Committee with endless numbers of details involved, all of them of vast importance. I do not think that I am saying anything that I ought not to say or going too far when I suggest that we might have further time for the consideration of this measure.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, the position and authority of the noble Viscount in your Lordships' House suggest to me that I should make some brief reply to his remarks. I confess that I was rather disappointed at their general tenor, because I have, in the arrangements that I have suggested for the Representation of the People Bill, done my best to meet the considerations and appeals that have been addressed to me from so many quarters of the, House.
Let me remind your Lordships of what we have done. In the first place, in order to satisfy your Lordships—and for that reason only—my noble friend was asked, on the First Reading of the Bill, to adopt the wholly unusual course of making a detailed expository statement of the features of the measure. And here may I say, not having had the opportunity of doing so before, how cordially I join in the many tributes that have already been offered to him for the conspicuous success that attended his effort on that occasion. Having made that arrangement on the occasion of the First Reading, I then, to meet your Lordships' desires, postponed the Second Reading for the best part of a week. You will take it next Monday. Then the question arose of the Committee, stage, and I cannot help recalling that my noble friend Lord Courtney, in his remarks the other day, asked that, as a special favour, I should give your Lordships at least a fortnight between the, Second Reading and the Committee, stage. My Lords, I went beyond Lord Courtney's wishes. Anxious above all things to oblige the noble Viscount, who is so desirous of devoting his holiday to pensive reflections on this vast change in the Constitution, I gave him, not two weeks, but three weeks; and now I find that he is not satisfied with three weeks but wants a further period for prolonged rumination in the Midlands upon this Bill. Is that altogether reasonable? Admitting
130
the vast importance of and the great changes introduced by this Bill, are we really to believe that your Lordships cannot in three weeks of time master its contents, assisted by the singularly lucid exposition of my noble friend who sits on my left (Lord Peel)?
What is the reason that the noble Viscount puts forward for his request? It is that at the last moment a change has been made in the form in which the Bill is being presented to your Lordships' House. Is that change one which renders it desirable to postpone the Committee stage? Surely, my Lords, very much the reverse, because the proposals to deal with Irish redistribution were no part of the Bill in the form in which it was presented in another place. They were introduced at a later date. They may have been wisely or unwisely introduced. I offer no opinion upon that. But the fact that they were introduced and were afterwards dropped is surely not a reason for postponing the Committee stage, but rather one for accelerating our taking it in this House.
Only one word as to the method that is proposed to be adopted with regard to this Irish redistribution. I have no responsibility for that. It was an arrangement made in another place. Whether it was a good or a bad one I do not say. Whether it is open to the criticism of the noble Viscount I do not say. But at least it was an effort to arrive by general consent at a settlement of a singularly complex and disputed case. That settlement, if it is arrived at, is to be put in the, form of a Bill. That Bill will come up to your Lordships' House. You will have it in your hands to deal with as you please. Your liberty is not compromised. And if the noble Viscount entertains such strong views upon the proposed settlement of the Irish case as apparently he does, he will have the opportunity of placing them before your Lordships at a later date. I submit that in none of these arrangements is there any reason why we should abstain from taking the Committee stage of this Bill on the date named. I therefore hope, even if I have not given satisfaction to my noble friend, that I have adduced sufficient reasons for the course that is proposed, that I have treated your Lordships not unfairly in the matter, and that you may reasonably be asked to take the Committee stage upon the date which I previously named.

COAL MINES CONTROL AGREEMENT (CONFIRMATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I hope that your Lordships will allow me to make a short statement explaining its general nature and object. Your Lordships are aware that there is power given to the Government by the Defence of the Realm Regulations to take control of coal mines. That power was exercised in regard to some coal mines in Wales in December last. By a further Order, made towards the end of Feburary this year, that control was extended to all mines of the United Kingdom; and the result is that the Board of Trade, acting through the Controller, regulates the business of this vast industry in all parts of the United Kingdom.
This control has had very beneficial effects. Among others, I may mention two of the principal ones. In the first place, it has very much facilitated arrangements with the miners, owing to the increased confidence that they feel that the mines are, being worked in the interests of the nation as a whole. In the second place, the control has effected a very great economy in traffic. Your Lordships are aware what an enormous part of the traffic over our railways consists in the carrying of coal. By having this controlled by a central authority, a very great reduction can be effected, and, as I am told, has been effected in the labour and expense inseparable from the transit of coal.
For the, purpose of carrying out an agreement of this kind some provision must be made for compensating any coal-owners who may suffer loss owing to the working of such a control. There are, in Great Britain. I believe, some 3,000 mines and 1,500 coal undertakings, each undertaking in many cases consisting of more, than one mine. If you were to have a series of individual claims for compensation put forward, ending possibly in arbitration and only too probably in attempts at litigation, it is obvious that the, working of any such scheme of control would be very much hampered. You want some general scheme which will prevent squabbles in individual cases. With that view the Board of Trade opened negotiations with that highly representative body, the, Mining Association of Great Britain. Your Lordships are prob-
132
ably aware that this association has branches all over Great Britain, and that it is a body which very thoroughly represents the coal-owners of the country. These negotiations resulted in the appointment by the Executive Council of the Mining Association of a Consultative Committee for the purpose of conferring with the Board of Trade as to the terms of the agreement that should be entered into. The result of that was what your Lordships will see on page 15 of the Bill, at the end of the Schedule, which contains the agreement in which these negotiations resulted—
"Resolved as follows on the twenty-first day of June, nineteen hundred and seventeen, by the Executive Council of the Mining Association of Great Britain:—" That this meeting records its view that the terms of the agreement with the Controller of Coal Mines should be further modified, but leaves to the Consultative Committee full power to make a definite settlement on the, best possible obtainable terms.' Subsequently, between the said twenty-first day of June and the twentieth day of July, nineteen hundred and seventeen, a definite settlement in the terms of the foregoing agreement was arrived at between the Controller of Coal Mines and the said Consultative Committee."
This is signed by the, Controller of Coal Mines, by the President of the Mining Association of Great Britain, and by the Secretary of the Consultative Committee of the Mining Association. If was, of course, a highly satisfactory result. It is perfectly true that the Mining Association had no legal power to bind the individual coal-owners whose interests it represents, but-such a view, so expressed by such a body, of course carries the greatest weight, and makes it practically certain that the great majority of coal-owners are in favour of agreeing on the terms embodied in the document which is appended to this Bill.
But there is, of course, a dissentient minority. I suppose the output of coal annually is something like 250,000,000 tons. It has been said, I believe, in the House of Commons by one opponent of the Bill, that the dissentients represent something like 100,000,000 tons of the annual output. The Board of Trade believe that this is a very great exaggeration, and that the dissentient minority is very much smaller than that. But I am not going to enter into controversy upon that subject, because

133
it is necessary that this agreement, in order that it should give effect to the control which in the public interest is essential, should be binding upon all the coal-owners. If you have in any matter of this kind a dissentient minority who will not fall into line with the majority it is very apt to upset the scheme altogether. And there is another reason for its being necessary that the agreement should become binding by legislation. There are a good many persons under disability as to contracting. There are minors, there are persons who are incapable of contracting, and there are trustees in limited interests, and so on. And for these two reasons it was absolutely necessary that there should be a Bill brought in for the purpose of rendering the terms so generally approved binding upon all. This was very essential, to take only one illustration, because the Controller of Coal Mines must, of course, regulate the supply of labour to the different mines, and he must also regulate the destination of the coal from the several mines, so that the wants of the country may be best met.
This Bill was introduced for the purpose of providing one general scheme of compensation which should bar all individual claims. The Bill was given a Second Reading in the House of Commons, and there was only one Division in the whole of its progress, and that was on the question whether the first clause should stand part of the Bill, and that was carried in favour of the Bill by 162 votes to 34. There were some Amendments made in the Bill in the Commons, none of them of a vital character, and I think I am justified in these circumstances in saying that the Bill comes to your Lordships' House with very good credentials. It has the approval of that great body, the Mining Association, and of the Consultative Committee appointed by their Council, and it has been stamped with the approval of the House of Commons in the circumstances which I have mentioned.
The Bill is to give effect to the agreement. It consists in the first place of the clauses of the Bill, and, in the second place, of a longish Schedule containing the terms of the Agreement to which the Bill is to give effect. The first clause of the Bill makes the Agreement binding, and it is only necessary to read two lines of that clause. It provides that the Agreement shall be binding on the owners (including trustees)
134
of any coal mine to which the said Regulation 9G—that is the Defence of the Realm Regulation empowering the control of Coal Mines is for the time being applied, and upon all persons whom the Agreement affects. But it is to remain binding, as is provided in Clause 5, only until the expiration of six months after the termination of the war.
I would call your Lordships' attention, in the first place, to the nature of the provision made with respect to coal-owners, which, in virtue of Clause 24 of this Agreement, is to be in satisfaction of all claims of any kind for compensation in con-sequence of the action of the Controller in working the mines. The provision is threefold. There is, first, the guarantee of a standard of profits. Many of your Lordships may have become painfully aware of the fact that a pre-war profit standard was set up, and that anything over that standard was subjected to special taxation—the Excess Profits Tax. The standard of profit set up before the war is taken, and Clauses 4 and 7 of the Agreement have the effect that the Controller guarantees to the coal-owners who come under this Agreement that they shall get, not less than the pre-war profit standard. If the profits fall below that, they are to be made up. Clause 4 of the Agreement runs—
"Where as respects any accounting period the profits of any undertaking retained by the owner are less than the guaranteed standard as hereinafter defined, or if there is a loss or the loss is greater than the guaranteed standard, when that standard is a negative, quantity, such sum as may be required to make up the guaranteed standard, shall, subject to the provisions of Clause 13, be paid to the owner by the Controller."
It will thus be seen that the coal-owner gets that guarantee in the terms of Clauses 4 and 7 of the Agreement read together.
I will not weary your Lordships by going through the details. Put very shortly, it comes to this. If the output of the mine for the year in question is not less than the output at the time of the pre-war profit standard, then the whole of the pre-war profit standard is made up to the owner. If the output of a mine has fallen off, as long as it does not go below 65 per cent. of what it was at the time of the pre-war standard, then there is provided in

135
Clause 7 a scale for fixing a proportion of the profits according to the amount of the output in the two years comparatively. If, on the other hand, it falls below 65 per cent. of what was the pre-war output at the time of the standard profit being ascertained, then special provision is made to have it fixed by the Controller. Now, this guarantee of standard profit is not to be discontinued by reason of the fact that the mine may be closed by order of the Controller. In the third place, if the mine is kept open by the Controller against the will of the owner, then the compensation to be paid to him is fixed by the Bill. That is the nature of the compensation which is to be paid in satisfaction of all claims which may arise for injury occasioned by the action of the Controller. This applies to all coal-owners.
It will be seen that, for this purpose, funds are required; and by Clause 3 of the Schedule provision is made for providing a fund which, by Clause 3 of the Bill itself, is to be applied as directed by the Controller. Your Lordships are aware that the Excess Profits Tax is levied on any excess profit in any year over the pre-war profits standard plus £200. The amount of the duty on that excess in 1915 was 50 per cent.; in 1916 it was raised to 60 per cent.; and in 1917 it was increased to 80 per cent. It is on the surplus of 20 per cent. of the excess profits that the Bill operates. The owner takes one-fourth of that surplus, and the other three-fourths go to the Inland Revenue for the purposes of being applied, under Clause 3 of the Bill, as the Controller may direct. It will be realised, of course, that, in addition to that 5 per cent. of the excess over the standard of profit, the owner has also the standard profit plus the £200, because the excess duty is levied only on anything over that amount.
I will illustrate by figures what I have been putting to the House. Suppose the pre-war profit standard was £10,000, then you have the addition of £200 before the Excess Profits Tax operates Then suppose that after the war broke out the profits in one year were £11,200, you have then £1,000 excess profit. The Excess Profits Duty of 80 per cent. on that £1,000 wipes out £800. The remaining £200 would go, as to £50 to the owner, and £150 to the Inland Revenue to form the fund which is to be available for the making good of the
136
profits to the coal-owners to which I have called the attention of the House. There is a provision, which I need not discuss in detail, in Clause 3 of the Schedule, paragraph (b), as to the owner's amount not exceeding a certain sum. Then in Clause 9 of the Agreement provision is made for the fixing of a special standard by the Controller, with an appeal to referees. That is intended to replace the percentage standard which, in the Finance Acts, takes the place of the profit standard in certain cases.
Provision is also made for full information to be given to the Controller; but Clause 4 of the Bill fences in this particular provision of the Agreement by providing for a declaration of secrecy, which is to have the same effect as the oath to be taken with regard to information obtained in connection with income. Then Clause 21 of the Agreement provides for a levy, which may be made at the request of the local branch of the Mining Association, for the expenses of maintaining the mine after it has been closed, and reinstating it when it is opened. That is spoken of as a voluntary levy, but it is not altogether voluntary, because if the Mining Association requests that that levy should be made it is brought to bear upon the individuals in the district affected, irrespective of the individual position of each person; but the initiative must be taken by that representative body, the branch of the Mining Association. Then in the twenty-third clause of the Agreement provision is made for arbitration in the case of dispute between the Controller and any coal-owner. The arbitration is to be before one arbitrator, who is to be nominated by the Lord Chief Justice. I have stated shortly the effect of the main features of the Bill, and I now ask your Lordships to allow me to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had given notice, on the Motion for the Second Reading of the Coal Mines Control Agreement (Confirmation) Bill, to move "That the Bill be read a second time this day three months."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise not only to move that this Bill be read a second time this day three months, but principally to draw attention to the way in which your Lordships' House has been treated over what is a very far-reaching

137
measure. This is a Bill which was introduced in the House of Commons on November 8 last. It was considered at great length both on the Second Reading and in Committee, and was also discussed on Report; and it is a Bill which was welcomed by the Leader of the Labour Party as a measure that was to introduce the thin end of the wedge for public ownership and the nationalisation of mines. We are well aware how influential the Labour Party is now in the House of Commons, in the country, and also with the Government, and therefore I venture to think that this is a Bill of which we had a Tight to some little notice. What has happened has been this. The Bill was read a first time last Tuesday, and noble Lords who were not in London would not have been aware until this morning that the Second Heading was to be, taken to-day. They were therefore given no time either to study the Bill or even to come up to the House, if they happened to have urgent business to arrange in the country. Consequently I think it is only fair to raise a protest when a Bill of such great importance is being rushed through as regards its consideration on Second Reading.
When the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack says that this Bill is one which had the general approval of the House of Commons simply because it was not divided upon on the Second Reading—although its rejection was moved, just as I am now moving its rejection in order to have an opportunity of discussing the whole Bill—I would say that, instead of having the general approval of the House of Commons (and if the noble and learned Lord had been present, as I was, on many occasions during the debates and had read the discussions, he would have seen that this was so) the, measure had, practically speaking, not a single friend in the whole House; because the Leader of the Labour Party welcomed it, not for its merits, but because of what he hoped was going to happen in the future in regard to the nationalisation of mines. On the, other hand, all those who had a right to speak for the coal industry, without exception, denounced the Bill as being unfair and unjust, and therefore, I think it is hardly correct to say that it had universal approval in the House of Commons. Quite the contrary was the case; and it had a Second Reading without a Division only because it was looked upon as a war measure, however objectionable and unfair it might be
138
in many of its details, and although it was setting up what might make a very dangerous precedent in the future, as was recognised by the Leader of the Labour Party in the House of Commons.
Then as regards the Bill itself. The noble and learned Lord has referred to the fact that it was to confirm an Agreement between the Government—you might say the President of the Board of Trade—and the Mining Association, of Great Britain. The noble and learned Lord said it was necessary to have this Agreement confirmed, because naturally it is not itself binding on the members of the Association: it was only passed by the Consultative Committee, and it is not binding upon other members of the industry outside the Mining Association. I noticed that the noble and learned Lord seemed to think that the statement made in the House of Commons by one of the greatest authorities in the, country on coal, Sir Clifford Cory, was not to be compared with the, view of the Board of Trade. I venture to think that the coal-owners of the, country would rather take his view as to the number of producers who were against the Bill. That is a question, however, which I agree is to a large extent a matter of argument; but undoubtedly the House may take it that there is very great feeling in the country among coal-owners against this Bill in very many respects. Then, again, their view is that they should have been allowed to be dealt with under the Defence of the Realm Act. The reason, I take it, is that under the Defence of the Realm Act coal-owners would be in a very much better position, because if they did not get proper compensation they would have a right of appeal. That right of appeal has been taken away from them; they will be unable to claim compensation from the State, but will have to claim compensation from more prosperous coal-owners. That is on the principle of feeding the dog with his own tail.
This Bill now renders this Agreement which was made between the Mining Association and the Board of Trade binding upon all those who raise, sell, or buy coal. I notice that the noble and earned Lord said it satisfied the miners. No doubt it is very satisfactory to them, because one of the first things done by the Coal Controller, directly he had a slight difficulty with the miners, who asked for an increase, immediately the Government were in control, of 25 per cent. on their wages,

139
was to say that he would not give a 25 per cent. increase but was prepared to give 1s. 6d. per day or 9s. per week to every man, not only to those working under ground, but also to surface men and the carters of coal—1s. 6d. per day, whether a man worked or not; that is to say, if a pit were laid idle through no fault of the men they would still be paid 1s. 6d. per day or 9s. per week, whether they worked or not, if the coal pit was shut by the action of the coal-owners. That introduces an entirely new principle, and naturally the miners are very much pleased. But there is another body not at all well pleased, because in order to compensate the coal-owners for that payment to the miners the price of coal was advanced to the consumer by 2s. 6d. per ton. Therefore although the miners benefited, the action of the Coal Controller under this Agreement, and this Bill, will be to the detriment of the unfortunate consumer of coal, and will be a great hardship to the poor of this country during the coming winter, if it is a hard one.
Then as regards the transit of coal. I should have thought that that did not require an Act of Parliament to regulate it. The whole of the railways are under the control of the Government, and it would have been perfectly easy to say that coal should only be sent from particular mines in special directions, and that each district must provide for its own area. As the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, there is no charge upon the National Exchequer so far, although I am one of those who very much doubt whether it will not come in the future. If there had been any charge upon the Exchequer we should not have been discussing this Bill. It is proposed to put the charge upon the more prosperous coal-owners, who are to pay 15 per cent. in addition to the Excess Profits Tax of 80 per cent. That is to say, the men who are prosperous or energetic and active in furthering the coal production of this country are only to be left with 5 per cent. of the excess profits. That means that 95 per cent. is to be taken.
The noble and learned Lord has given us a very lucid account, as of course he would, of the Agreement, but I do not know whether your Lordships are going to insist on the right to discuss the terms of that Agreement. Perhaps that may be so, as
140
the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack-has discussed it. But there is no doubt, to members of the House who were in the House of Commons, that the Speaker, much to the disgust of men who wished to discuss it with knowledge, ruled that the Agreement could not be discussed at all, but only the Bill. I do not know what view your Lordships will take. It will undoubtedly make a good deal of difference in the Committee stage whether it can be discussed or not. One of the objects presumably of the Bill is to increase production. It is very doubtful to my mind whether increased production will result. Undoubtedly it would be a great advantage if increased production should accrue. But what has been our experience of State interference and management in the past? It has been not greater but less production. I know very little about the coal trade myself, but I know something about agriculture, and I say without fear of contradiction that any great agriculturist or farmer in the country will tell you that Government interference with agriculture and the fixing of prices has had the effect of decreasing production, and will continue to decrease production. For a very good reason. You take away incentive, and if you take away incentive the chances are, whether a man is an agriculturist or a coal-owner, that he will be less active and will produce less.
I noticed in another place that a Conservative member. General Hickman, who is well known as a large coal-owner, speaking on this very question, said—
"I put this to the House as a practical mine-owner myself, that, if a man or a company has a coal mine which made a certain profit standard before the war by getting out a certain amount of coal and he is committed by Act of Parliament to agree that if he gets out any more he will receive only 5 per cent. of the profit accruing from that additional production, he is not likely, especially if he is a director responsible to shareholders, to try and get more coal out of the pit. He will ask, Why should I get more out than is necessary to produce exactly my standard profit? Why should I get more out, if my shareholders are to receive only 5 per cent. of the profits on the additional output?' Mine-owners are common-sense people."
The hon. Member was speaking from a business point of view, and I think it will be found by the Government and by the Coal Controller later on that this is generally what will happen. Instead of getting more coal produced they will get less. The fact has already been told your Lordships

141
that the man whose coal mine is producing less than the average of the two years before the war that he will be able to select has no incentive to develop his colliery any further because he is perfectly certain of his profits, whether the mine is paying or not.
I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he will be so kind as to tell me what is the position of the royalty owner under this Bill. The royalty owner will suffer undoubtedly from the fact that less coal is being produced, and that less incentive exists to produce coal. From his point of view, the larger the amount of coal produced the larger is his royalty. Then, as regards the coal-owner, what is his position when a pit is shut up by order of the Coal Controller? I know that there is a great fear in the country—it exists in the part where I come from, where there is only a small coal field and only small mines, very often worked at little or no profit that these coal pits will be shut up. What will be the position of the coal-owner in such cases? He will be compensated, no doubt, for his loss, on the principle, as the noble and learned Lord told us, of the average of the best two years that he selects. But will he have to pay royalty? Will he have to pay wayleaves and other outgoings which are charges upon him, or will the royalty owner and the owner of the wayleaves have to suffer the loss? It seems to me that in such a case the coal-owner will have to suffer, that he will have to go on paying royalty. When no coal is being worked he will have to pay a heavy dead rent in the place of the royalty, while the wayleaves may or may not be enforced according to the lease. I should like to know what his position is.
There is another class which to my mind is very hardly treated in the case of the small mines which will be shut up. I refer to the miners. Their position was acknowledged in the House of Commons to be one of great hardship. But instead of the House of Commons doing anything in this matter to protect the miners, the only thing that Members were able to extract from the President of the Board of Trade was that he would consider the miners case very sympathetically indeed. Sympathy can be very nice, but I am sure the miners would much prefer that some provision had been introduced into the Bill whereby they, like the coal-owners, were protected,
142
so that if they lost their employment they would be compensated. I know the answer that may be given to me is this, "What will it matter if small coal pits are shut up, such as yours in Somerset? The coal-owner is to be compensated, and the miners can go to South Wales or other districts to find employment there." I know that argument very well. It will not appeal to the men working in small pits. They will not wish to be forced, whether they like it or not, to break up their homes in order to go to strange places for employment. It is possible for this House to deal with this matter in Committee if they think fit. as the Bill is not a Money Bill. I hope that this House will look after the miners in such cases and make good the neglect of the House of Commons, and say that not only are the coal-owners to be compensated under this Bill but that the miners, the men who win the coal, at the risk of their lives in many cases, are to be compensated in the same way, instead of being merely told, as the President of the Board of Trade told them, that they would have sympathetic consideration. Much better than sympathetic consideration would be that there should be some provision in this Bill, in the Agreement if we can modify it, that they should have a statutory right to compensation. I am inclined to ask your Lordships very carefully to consider whether or not this Bill is really going to be a workable Bill, whether it is going to do what it professes to do and be a benefit generally. I can quite see that it is going to be a benefit to the man who has not got a good mine, or who is now working a mine at a loss. It is certainly not going to be good for the man who has a prosperous mine. And it has one great blot upon if. It will prevent men developing collieries in the future; it will prevent them making fresh sinkings or exploring. Coal development and exploration is more or less a speculation, and a man will naturally say: "I am not going to lay out a large sum of money under the conditions of the Bill, because it will not pay me to speculate in trying to develop my collieries and find new working." I think it is very unfortunate, that every inducement should not be given to produce more coal if possible, and that already the effect has been actually to raise the price of coal.
Amendment moved—
Leave out "now" in order to insert, at the end of the Motion, the words "this day three months."—(Lord Strachie.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords. I assume that my noble friend who has just sat down hardly cherishes the hope that the House will refuse to give this Bill a Second Reading, although he has, in form, moved its rejection. He really took the course he did from a desire to subject the Bill to a close, and by no means favourable, examination. It seems to me that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in speaking of the, minority and majority in another place (and presumably in the country also), opposed to and in favour of this Bill, was perhaps scarcely accurate in thus dividing the world into these two sharply defined classes. I think the two classes are rather those of the majority, who do not pretend to welcome the Bill but are prepared to accept it; and the minority who would, if they could, refuse to accept it, and indeed would destroy the measure. It would be, I am sure, quite incorrect to suppose that the majority who are prepared to accept the measure as it stands regard it with anything like enthusiasm, and I am bound to say I cannot myself conjecture any reason why they should.
There are, I think, two main lines of complaint which critics are likely to direct against this Bill, and indeed they have, done so in previous discussions. In the first place, it is pointed out that, as it is drawn, it cannot work fairly in the case of individual owners. I have no doubt that an attempt has been made to make it work as fairly as possible, but it cannot work favourably in the case of individual owners, and more especially in the case of those persons from whom profits are taken under the Excess Profits Tax I imagine that the reply which the Government will make to such a complaint is that they do not profess that the measure will work fairly; that they do not nourish any such hope; but that it is possible to get at the coal-owners as a class in a way in which you cannot get at other trades and industries. There is no particular reason why the prosperous and energetic coal-owner should pay compensation to the man who conducts his business unsuccessfully, any more than that the owner of a draper's establishment, or a butcher's shop, or any one engaged in any other industry, should in these times have to subscribe in order to compensate those who have done badly.
You cannot, as a matter of fact, speak
144
of the coal industry as one. It varies, as many noble Lords know, in different parts of England, in almost every possible respect. The coal concerns in Scotland, in Northumberland, in South Yorkshire, in West Yorkshire, in the Midlands, and in South Wales, are all entirely different industries, conducted on largely different lines by different methods; and although you may try to do so, and are assisted by the. Mining Association of Great Britain, you cannot treat the industry as one composed of people who can be altogether regarded as in pari materia. The result, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out in his admirably clear statement—if he will allow me to say so—is that the successful and energetic owner, if you like the more fortunate owner who finds it cheaper to work, is likely to be mulcted up to 95 per cent. of his excess profits, whereas in other industries the owner is mulcted up to only 80 per cent. You cannot regard that as being a fair result to the man who is thus treated. But the fortunate and the particular coal-owner does not so very much matter. What does matter—and I think it cannot altogether be disputed—is that in some cases where there has been a fortunate scale of profits previous to the war the Bill will not apply, but in some cases I do not think it can be doubted that this provision must operate as a direct discouragement to an increased output, and in particular to the application of improved methods. After all, as was pointed out in the quotation given by my noble friend, it is a great deal to expect a coal company to get out an increased quantity of coal at a scale of profit which is not increased.
The inducement to enlarge your operations is less in the case of a mine than it is in the case of any manufacturing trade, and for the reason that your raw material is limited in amount. A coal-owner is in the position of a man who has fifty drawings by Turner, and fifty etchings by Rembrandt, and is prepared to sell one each year for fifty years, after which his supply comes to an end, and he will have no more upon which he will be able to make money. A coal-owner may work from ten up to fifty acres of coal or more in the year, but even if he has 5,000 or 10,000 acres the life of his pit has a visible termination, and therefore he is likely not to increase his output at a time when he is not making a large profit for himself or his shareholders.

145
Of course, it has always happened in the past that when the price of coal has been low the tendency has been for the output also to diminish and to be kept up only to an extent at which the standing charges can be met—not to get out more of the article, of which there is only a limited quantity in your possession, than is necessary at the time when you are not making a large profit.
The other point of doubt and complaint is on the question of control. In relation to another matter, I mentioned that the word "control" as used by the Government was one which had not a precise and accurate definition. It might mean a great deal more or a great deal less, but I have no doubt that in the minds of some who are concerned with the business of coal production there is a fear that this degree of Government control is likely to remain permanent, I noticed that in the course of the discussions in another place any such intention was indignantly denied on behalf of His Majesty's Government. I think that the representative of the Department said that their one hope in the world was to get rid of this kind of control as soon as possible, but it cannot be denied that there is a certain uneasiness in the minds of a great many people connected with the coal business in regard to the possibility in the future of close inspection and supervision of their doings, and possible limitation of the larger profits which the more energetic man makes and which the stupider and slower man does not make. If those fears can be in any way dispelled by His Majesty's Government, I think it would be a distinct advantage.
The only other point on which I wish to say a word is this. I agree with what fell from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack about the success with which the Coal Controller has conducted the matter of coal transport. Naturally, by his great experience in these matters the Controller has been able to conduct, as far as one can see, with great skill, and, I hope, with great success, the organisation of the transport of coal. This is a matter of which he is, of course, specially cognisant. I am quite certain that all those who are interested in this business would desire to pay him a tribute on that point; at any rate, it is one which I should be sorry to omit making.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the foundation of this Bill is an agreement with the coal-owners, and the object of the Bill is simply to give legislative and Parliamentary sanction to that agreement. That makes the Bill itself a difficult one to oppose, even if I had any desire to oppose it; indeed, I might state that if I did desire to do so, even after the lucid exposition of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I am by no means prepared to say that I understand its financial provisions. They seem extremely complicated, and one would require to have, I think, a series of examples with figures before one could understand them.
I only rose to say that it appears to me that in this matter an opportunity has been lost by the Government. I think that there was an opportunity here, other than that taken by this Bill, which might have been seized to take over and acquire permanently and work for the interest of the nation the whole of the coal production in the country. That would have been a large and dramatic experiment in State Socialism, and no doubt for this reason it did not commend itself to the Government and would not commend itself to many members in this House.
I do not know whether those who have studied this matter on behalf of the Government have considered the schemes which have been put forward. There are schemes which have been worked out rather carefully for taking over the whole of the coal industry, and there was, I think, an opportunity for putting some scheme of that sort into practice, because the majority of us are not coal-owners but coal consumers, and the sympathy of the public on the whole, I think, is not with the coal producer but with the person who endeavours to get coal for domestic or for business purposes. If those schemes have been seriously considered, it would be interesting to know whether they were put on one side on the ground that they were Utopian and impracticable, or merely on the ground that they constituted, as they undoubtedly would in one sense of the word, an attack upon the capitalist. In this matter it does seem to me that we have taken a half measure where we might with advantage to everybody concerned have taken the whole measure of nationalising these mines. That is all I wanted to say on that head.
With regard to the Bill itself, if there is to be control, and if this is the method to

147
be adopted. I have nothing to say. I think that there is always an inherent difficulty in what I cannot help calling a sort of unnatural partnership between the private capitalist and the State, which represents the people as a whole. There is always a difficulty in rendering anything of that sort successful. This, of course, is only a war measure but it may successfully survive the war, particularly if it is administered, as I gather it has been in this case, with success.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, may I make one remark with reference to what has been said about the success that has attended the Coal Controller in regard to transport arrangements. I have no knowledge of this matter in its larger aspects, but it, is not in all cases quite the success which has been represented. I will quote one instance which is within my own knowledge. In my own locality we used to buy coal from a colliery twenty-two to twenty-four miles away. We are now debarred from getting it there, and have instead to get our coal from a place fifty to sixty miles away. In consequence of this the people have to pay increased freight. The result is that we have to pay very much more for coal which is of an inferior quality to that which we formerly obtained. I know that when the Government, take control of anything they always pride themselves on the great success of their vast operations and make very large and valuable and exhaustive Returns, but only those who know where the shoe pinches realise that there are certain anomalies, and, it may be, great hardships inflicted upon some people in the carrying out of these very large operations by public officers.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, some questions were put to me by the noble Lord who moved the Amendment which I desire very briefly to answer. He asked why the Government had not proceeded under the Defence of the Realm Act. Has he satisfied himself that there is power under the Defence of the Realm Act to do what this Bill does? He may rest assured that the Government would not have rushed into the introduction of a Bill if they could have found another and a simpler course of doing what they wished. The noble Lord also made an observation about what happened in the House of Commons to which I desire to make a reference. The Speaker did not debar
148
discussion on the terms of the Agreement; he could not do that. What the Speaker ruled was that it was quite incompetent to move an Amendment to the Agreement because the whole scope of the Bill was to give effect to an agreement arrived at, and that the House could not possibly amend the Agreement at which the parties had arrived. The Agreement must be taken as a whole or not at all. The noble Lord further asked what would happen to the royalty owners. If a mine is not working above the minimum and is closed, the royalty owner may suffer. That cannot be helped in the circumstances. It is the closing of the mine which is required in the public interest.
LORD STRACHIE: And the dead rent and the wayleaves?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is provision made whereby, at the request of the local branch of the Mining Association, individual coal-owners may be relieved from the pressure of demands upon them. The noble Lord does not suppose that the control of the coal mines in Great Britain could be effected without some provision of this sort. He does not propose, I presume, that each individual who thinks he has a grievance should be left to possible litigation. Some provision must be made. In the public interest we must have control, and control necessarily involves in these days, unless it is to be attended with very great hardship and difficulty in the working, some general provision such as is made in this Bill for compensation. The noble Marquess was more kind to the Bill than the noble Lord who spoke first. The Bill hardly mulcts the owner in 95 per cent. of the profits; it is only the excess profits that are touched. The owner is mulcted in 80 per cent., not by this Bill at all, but by the general taxation of the country. Then, with regard to the balance, you must take some of it for the purpose of starting the fund, which is absolutely necessary if you are to make provision for the compensation which the Bill is intended to provide. The truth is you must have some scheme, and no alternative is suggested. This Bill comes before your Lordships with much greater authority than if it were elaborated in a Government Office. It represents the result of prolonged conferences between the Board of Trade and men who know their business, if any men do—the representatives of the Mining

149
Association. It has been put into shape by practical men who are interested in the matter, and I submit, to your Lordships that it is entitled to very much more respectful consideration than a Bill would he entitled to if it merely proceeded from the Government draftsman without such a foundation as is provided by these negotiations and this Agreement. I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to the Bill.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I ask ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I propose to take the Committee stage on this day week.
LORD STRACHIE: I thought that the Leader of the House indicated that the Committee stage was going to be taken on January 3, and I have been told since then that there had been some arrangement come to for that date.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: It is quite true that I named this Bill among those which would be taken upon our return after the Christmas recess, But in the paper containing the proposed arrangement there is included a sentence which unfortunately I did not read to the House—namely, the proposal that the Committee stage of this Bill should be put down for Thursday of next week, and that the final stages should he taken after our return. Of course, if the noble Lord feels strongly oh the point and is anxious that the Committee stage should not be taken next week, but postponed until January, I shall be anxious to meet him in the matter. But the arrangement we had contemplated all along was to take the Committee stage next week and the final stages in January.
LORD STRACHIE: I should be very glad if the Leader of the House would not take the Committee stage until January 3, as I understand those who are interested outside this House are very anxious to have sufficient time in which to consider what Amendments they should draft and bring up.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON indicated assent.
Bill accordingly committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday, January 3.

EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, as the title indicates, this Bill deals with the provision of meals for school children in Ireland. Its object is quite simple and, I believe, not subject to contest. It is, briefly, to assimilate the law in Ireland to the law which already exists in this country with regard to feeding necessitous children in urban areas and county boroughs. This is all that the Bill does. From what I can learn the case for the Bill is well founded because in some of the larger towns of Ireland there is unquestionably distress, which, of course, reaches the children, and although something like twelve or fourteen urban authorities in Ireland have put the existing Act into force they have found it necessary to supplement the small sum raised from their rates by appeals to local charitable funds and well-disposed persons. The three subclauses of Clause 1 go no further than assimilating the law of Ireland to the existing law as regards urban districts in England. When the Bill is taken in Committee I shall have to ask your Lordships to make a very small and uncontroversial Amendment in the first line of Clause 1, to the effect that the local authority, instead of "may spend out of the rates," "may be authorised to spend out of the rates." I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I will put the Committee stage of this Bill down for Monday, in the hope that if it proves uncontroversial I may get it through on that day. If discussion is required, I will postpone the Committee stage until a subsequent date.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS, &c. (COMMITTEES) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
CHEQUERS ESTATE BILL.
To be read 2a on Tuesday next.—(The Lord President of the Council).

MINISTERS' SPEECHES.
LORD BERESFORD LORD BERESFORD had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call attention to the various statements made lately by His Majesty's Ministers and authoritative persons, and to ask whether such statements represent the view of the War Cabinet as a whole; and to move a Resolution.
The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, I should like to call attention to various statements that have been made lately by Ministers and authoritative persons which are not always consonant with each other, some of which are exaggerated, and many of which convey wrong inferences, which I think is a very serious state of affairs now that we have arrived at the crucial moment of the war, when language should be perfectly plain and clear and absolutely in accordance with facts. I may describe what has occurred as a sort of oratorical camouflage; that is, the language either conceals the object altogether, or it makes it represent in many cases what it does not represent. I think Ministers should be most careful not to be too optimistic—certainly not to be pessimistic; but they should be careful that what they state; is absolutely clear to the public.
I am rather afraid that at the present moment more particularly, when you want all the historical grit of our race, which is faced with great dangers both within and without, there is a sort of wave of timidity and anxiety going through the country, which has certainly not been lessened by a letter that was written by my noble friend Lord Lansdowne. This is a moment when we want the whole nation together—absolute unity of purpose, absolute, unity of determination. And what for? War aims. There is a great deal of talk about war aims, but you can put the matter in one word. Our war aim is "victory," and if we do not succeed then it is the end of the British Empire. Either this country or Germany has to go down.
I would refer notably to some remarks made by the Prime Minister. I hope that my noble friend opposite will not think that I wish in any way to undermine the Prime Minister; I would support him with all my efforts. What I am afraid is that in many of the remarks he is making he is undermining himself. First of all, he said that the people "wanted cheering
152
up," or some words like those. The people do not want cheering up at all. The best people in the world, if you tell them the truth, no matter how bad it is, will always set their teeth and try to pull through. Many of the statements which have been made by the Prime Minister have been entirely refuted by subsequent events. It is a pity that this should be so, and I do not think it helps him towards winning the war, or gives him that unanimous support in the country which he desires. The other day Mr. Lloyd George spoke of the "impenetrable barrier" in France, and deplored the casualties. In my opinion, that was a mistake. You cannot fight without losses. It does not cheer the, troops at the Front to be told that they are up against an "impenetrable barrier." But that was refuted shortly afterwards, because, with magnificent heroism and wonderful organisation, they smashed the great Hindenburg Line.
I wish that somebody in the War Cabinet would invent some effective though painless muzzle for the Prime Minister whenever he speaks of sea affairs. He generally puts the Navy in a secondary position, but when he does speak about it he makes statements which are. I will not say contrary to facts, but which are made in a way that conveys a wrong impression. At the Queen's Hall the other day he said that we were going to build four times the amount of shipping this year that we built last year. I am afraid we shall do nothing like that. Certainly we shall not if we judge by what has been done in connection with standardised ships. We ought to have had a great many more than seven standardised ships by now, and one of these seven has already been sunk. The Prime Minister ought to have told the public that we built only 500,000 tons of shipping last year as against our ordinary output of over 2,000,000 tons.
Mr. Lloyd George then said that we had sunk double the number of submarines in the last ten months compared with the number we had sunk in the preceding twelve months. He would, of course, know more about that than I should. I dare say it is true. At the same time, it is well known how difficult it is to say whether a submarine has really been sunk and destroyed. Yet even if the Prime Minister's figures were true, the enemy submarines put down in the ten months more than double the tonnage that was

153
sunk in the previous twelve months. I do not believe that we can build ships at a rate anything like equal to our wastage; at any rate for some considerable time to come. If that is the case, the public should be told the truth. We are going to have a very hard time in this country between next February and the following autumn. At present we have not the tonnage. The winning of the war entirely depends upon our having sufficient tonnage. Two-fifths of our food is water-borne; and, in addition, the Americans will have to be brought over in effective force before we can consider that the end of the war is at all in sight.
The Prime Minister has also said that he had no fear of the submarine menace in the future. That was after one ship of over 1,600 tons was logged in the Weekly Return as having been lost. Immediately after that the losses went up. In the week following that in which one ship was logged as having been lost, the losses given in the Weekly Returns were 11; in the next week, 13; in the week after that, 16; and last week they were 14. All these ships were over 1,600 tons. That statement of the Prime Minister was, again, far too optimistic, far too encouraging and cheering, and, as in previous instances, was immediately refuted by subsequent events.
I have many times brought before your Lordships the misleading nature of our Weekly Return. In the week when we lost one vessel there were lost considerably over the average of Allied and neutral vessels—the vessels which are really feeding us, and which are never put into the Return at all. Therefore our Return is misleading. People were cheered up by seeing that only one ship had been sunk, but they did not know that the actual losses for that particular week were considerably over the average. No mention was made in the Weekly Return of the convoy of twelve ships attacked a short time ago. Those were Swedish and Danish ships, and nine of the twelve were sunk. I trust that my noble friend will use his influence to get a proper Return put before the public as to what ships are available for feeding this country, and showing how imperative it is that we should economise by every means in our power if we wish to get through the months between next February and next autumn. The Prime Minister then took the best month and the worst month of losses—
154
April and September. In April the British, Allied, and neutral losses were 763,000 tons for the four weeks. In September the losses were 329,000 tons for the four weeks. The rate of progress is satisfactory. I acknowledge that matters are improving in this direction; but such a statement as that made by Mr. Lloyd George gives the country too rosy and too cheery a view of the real situation.
I also have to complain of the fact that the Government speak in one House of Parliament with one voice and in the other House with another voice. I do not see my noble friend Lord Lytton in his place, but he distinctly told me that, in the case of the "Apapa," the naval escort was not withheld when the ship was near the critical zone. Yet Dr. Macnamara said in the other House that the "Apapa" parted company on Admiralty instructions. Those two statements are entirely different. The facts are that the ship was convoyed as far as a certain point—I know the point, but it would be very unwise to say it. The "Apapa" was then ordered to go on alone, and within three-quarters of an hour she was sunk. That is very unsatisfactory, and the loss of that ship ought not to have occurred. I know the enormous difficulties of the Admiralty in the matter of providing escorts. We went to war about 500 destroyers short, notwithstanding warnings that had been given for years. But I maintain that if ships cannot get an escort in the danger zone they should remain in harbour until an escort can be provided. It has been necessary for some ships, owing to engine defects and other causes, to go with cargoes of food into harbours where there are no wharfs, no lighters, and no derricks with which to get the food out of them. But the food could remain on board, as most of it is stored in ice chambers. I wish my noble friend Lord Lytton were here to explain this matter of different statements being made, by two members of the Government. For on another occasion when I brought forward the question of pensions for the men in the Navy, I must say that although he answered me in most admirable and polished language, he at the same time inferred that I was mischievous and somewhat troubled with mendacity. The case of the "Apapa" is one of many such cases, the brutality of which cannot be too frequently brought before the country. The enemy actually get the men and the women into the boats, and getting them into the boats could only have been

155
for the purpose of making a better target for murdering them with machine guns. I think those things ought to be brought forward as often as possible. What astonishes me is that men like my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, and others with most brilliant and distinguished careers, representing what I may call the best stamp of British gentlemen, can think for one moment, of suggesting that we are ever going to negotiate with these people. There cannot be any negotiations with people of this sort. There must be nothing but orders at the point of the bayonet and with the assistance of machine guns when the Allies choose to indicate their terms.
Then on December 5 Mr. Thorne, in the House of Commons, asked whether there was any truth in the statement that fast ships and slow ships were convoyed at the same time, and Sir Chiozza Money, on behalf of the Admiralty, said it was absolutely untrue. Why say that? I do not mean that Sir Chiozza Money told an untruth, but he certainly made a mistake, because I know of a ship of 13½ knots being convoyed with a large number of other ships that could only go 7 to 9 knots, and they were escorted by two armed trawlers that could only go 7 knots: and this 13½ knot boat, being a big ship, was singled out by an enemy submarine and torpedoed. The speed of a convoy is the speed of the slowest ship; the other ships have to conform to that speed, and most of the escorts have to be slow because we have not got proper vessels to escort convoys. In the case of the nine ships which were sunk, they happened to have the best convoy possible for submarines namely, two of our most modern, most speedy, and best armed destroyers—but it happened that two cruisers came up and sunk the destroyers and nine of the twelve vessels. This shows the enormous difficulty with which the Admiralty have to contend. They ought, if possible, to have not only destroyers with convoys to defend the, convoys against submarines, but also cruisers to defend the convoys against cruisers if they appear. That being so, it is all the more, necessary that Ministers should be very careful not to make mis-statements unintentionally, and not to make any statement that may be misunderstood.
Then Sir Chiozza Money spoke of the standardised ships and told us we had seven. We are a long way behind our
156
estimate. We have had difficulty with steel, labour, etc., and I think the Government can have been hardly well advised to put down the national yards, certainly with the present yards not full. It will not tide over our dangerous time, which I maintain is from February to the autumn. You cannot get ships in time, and the Americans cannot get ships in time. In my opinion we shall never get 6,000,000 tons next year, and we shall not get them in time to avert the dangerous period which I have tried to describe. Sir Chiozza Money said that we were within measurable distance of making up our losses. He meant for the month, but he ought to tell us how close we are to making up our losses. I venture to say that he has made a mistake, and that we, are not within measurable distance of making up our losses for that month, or anything near it. Therefore the public ought not to be confused by this statement, which, if by the force of circumstances it is proved to be wrong, will have a very serious effect upon the minds of our working classes.
The whole point of winning the war is tonnage, and I should like the Returns to be more accurate, or at any rate to include information which the public ought to have. I should like Ministers to throw away what I may describe as delusions and distractions in their speeches, and to tell the country the truth now before it is too late. There is no time for pessimism or for optimism, but certainly there is necessity for telling the truth at the present moment, as matters are far more serious than the public are being led to believe. I hope that my noble friend Earl Curzon will not think that I have said anything in any way to weaken the Government. I want to strengthen the Government, and I say that many of the speeches that have been made lately are more likely to undermine the Government than anything else. They have been controverted and have led people to believe that things are much better than they are, instead of inducing people to see how serious is the state of things now and how serious it is going to become, and how necessary it is for every man and woman to exercise every possible economy.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I believe that your Lordships' House is commonly regarded as an embodiment of all that is most law-abiding and respectable in our Constitution. In my view, as regards our procedure and the advantage often

157
taken of it here, we are about the most lawless body in the world, and I am not certain that the most lawless member of your Lordships' House is not the noble Lord who has just addressed us, though I should have thought that from very long and distinguished experience in the best disciplined Service in the world he would have acquired a very different character from that which he constantly presents to us.
Let me ask your Lordships to contemplate what the noble Lord has done in the present case. A few days ago I saw for the first time in the limbo of Notices of Motions and Questions for which no date had been fixed this astonishing Notice
"To call attention to the various statements made lately by His Majesty's Ministers and authoritative persons, and to ask whether such statements represent the view of the War Cabinet as a whole; and to move a Resolution."
When I read those words I confess that I had not the remotest idea what they meant or to what they referred. I concluded that it was some little amiable jest on the part of the noble Lord. He proposed to call attention to various statements of Ministers. There was no indication what those statements were. There was no hint of who His Majesty's Ministers were. The Resolution also referred to statements of "authoritative persons." I had no idea who those authoritative persons were. The noble Lord then proposed, at some unnamed date, to ask your Lordships, or the Government, whether such statements, unnamed, represented the view of the War Cabinet as a whole, and, finally, to move a Resolution of the nature and wording of which not the smallest hint was given.
As long as it rested in that limbo, I did not pay much attention to the Notice. But judge of my amazement when I took up the Paper this morning and found that the noble Lord had mobilised his reserves and was bringing into the front rank this extraordinary Motion. At least I expected that in the course of the morning I should receive some, indication as to who were the Ministers and authoritative persons whose speeches were in question, and as to what it was I was to be called upon to defend. I hoped, but hoped in vain, that I might have some clue as to the nature of this portentous Resolution, to which your Lordships are now being asked to give your assent. I come
158
down to your Lordships' House and I sit here in a state of tense expectation for the best part of two hours, and then finally, after listening to the noble Lord, I ascertain that what he is really after is a covert but most courteously delivered attack upon the Prime Minister, or rather a denunciation of words used by the Prime Minister, and a general repetition of views with which we are already familiar upon tonnage, shipping, and all that kind of thing.
Next as to His Majesty's Ministers. It turns out that His Majesty's Ministers are (1) the Prime Minister, (2) Lord Lytton, (3) Sir Chiozza Money. Who the. "authoritative persons" are, I have not the slightest idea. The only one alluded to in the speech of the noble Lord was Lord Lansdowne and if he wants to know whether Lord Lansdowne's recent utterances were considered by the War Cabinet before they were delivered or whether they met with any general approval on our part, I can at once answer that question by saying, No! Then as regards the Resolution. The Resolution has disappeared, and as to what the noble Lord asks your Lordships to do this afternoon we are still in absolute doubt. I said that this House, though supposed to be the embodiment of all that is law-abiding, is the most lawless Assembly in the world. Is it conceivable that in any other Assembly it would be possible to submit a Resolution and to make a speech of the character which the noble Lord has made? Why, in the House of Commons over the way the thing would be utterly impossible; and the noble Lord, who was a model of propriety when there, comes here and, taking advantage of the irregularity of your Lordships' procedure, really conducts himself in a manner that is almost impossible to meet.
What am I to do? What am I to say? Am I called upon to defend the speeches of Lord Lytton and of Sir Leo Chiozza Money? If the noble Lord desired to attack those speeches, why did he not either give me notice or give notice to the noble Earl (Lord Lytton) who was concerned? Lord Lytton is at the present moment ill in bed, but I have no doubt, had he known that his remarks were going to be challenged, he would have taken steps to request the noble Lord to postpone his attack to a later date. As regards the Prime Minister, am I called upon here to defend every utterance that has fallen from the Prime Minister? The noble Lord seems to think

159
that the speeches that are made by Cabinet Ministers are discussed at the War Cabinet in advance, and that we have a certain collective responsibility for them when they are delivered. I can assure my noble friend that we have other and much more important things to do. He suggested that a muzzle should be put on the Prime Minister in respect of speeches about naval affairs and shipping. I think that this suggestion had better be submitted by the noble Lord to the Prime Minister himself, and I can well imagine the reception which it will meet with at his hands.
Now what the noble Lord seems to complain of is that speeches are sometimes delivered in an optimistic and sometimes in a pessimistic vein, and that it is possible on occasions to point to a certain contrast or contradiction between the two. I dare say that is the case. The fact is that optimism and pessimism are largely a temperamental matter. Some of us look at things through rosy spectacles, some through spectacles habitually clouded. This is so well recognised that now and then you have epithets indicating an optimistic temperament attached to some persons, and the reverse to others. I have heard of persons in my own experience known, for instance, as "Cheerful Charlie" on the one hand, or as "Dismal Jimmy," or whatever may be the name, on the other. It represents the point of view from which you look at things. The Prime Minister is constitutionally an optimist, and I submit that, at a time of national crisis and emergency, on the whole it is better to have in your Prime Minister a man who looks through bright-coloured than a man who looks through dark-coloured spectacles at the affairs of the great crisis through which we are passing.
Let me make another point. The incidents of the war themselves vary so much from day to day that it is possible, with strict regard to truth, to be making an optimistic speech one day, and before the close of the week to have to make the reverse. Look at what happened at Cambrai during the last ten days. There occurred that great and splendid forward thrust of our troops, taking the enemy by surprise and resulting in the capture of several miles of country. So that anybody speaking on that day would naturally have made a speech full of pride and encouragement. Personally I regret any excuse of that sort for very often premature congratulations.
160
Nothing distressed me more than when I heard that the joy-bells were ringing after the Cambrai victory was announced, because I felt that the joy-bells might be turned into bells of sorrow and suffering before a fortnight had passed; and so it has happened. Suddenly there is a kaleidoscopic change in the scene, a great forward movement of the enemy is made, our line is pierced, grave events take place, and undoubtedly anybody making a speech ten days after the first event would have to pitch it in a very different key.
My Lords, these are the ups and downs of warfare, and the speeches of Ministers to some extent, and inevitably, reflect these ups and downs. The only way to avoid that, it seems to me, is that Ministers should never speak at all, or that they should never speak about the progress of the war. If we took that attitude, if we sat mum, who would be the first person to challenge us I Who would be the first noble Lord who would say, "What are you people there for except to get up and tell us what is going on?" That is what we are there for, my Lords, and we do our best to meet the situation when it arises. I do not claim for a moment that there is always complete consistency in all our observations, and I know not how to attain it, unless we appoint somebody like the noble Lord to sit in a censor's box and look over our speeches when we make them and see that they all dovetail in, and that we satisfy the severe standards of consistency, exactitude, and moderation invariably illustrated by himself. In the absence of the noble Lord to assist us, I am afraid that we shall sometimes continue to err; and all that I can do will be to pass on to my colleagues the fact that we have incurred the censure of the noble Lord and ask them to be very careful that they say nothing in future to expose them to the same rebuke again.
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, in his more or less humorous speech my noble friend has criticised what I had to say. I still maintain that my remarks were perfectly justified and correct. The public have not got the real facts of the case placed before them as they should have them up to date, and, though I agree with the noble Earl that perhaps I ought to have told him or Lord Lytton before I brought the matter forward, still I thought it was so important in the present crisis that I ventured to raise the question. I was very glad to hear my noble friend deprecate the ringing

161
of the joy-bells. I thought it was a great mistake, and I see from some remarks that Mr. Bonar Law made yesterday that he thought the enthusiasm evinced in the House of Commons when he made his statement as to the glorious battle of Cambrai was overdone. If he thought the enthusiasm was overdone, surely he could have stopped those bells being rung. My noble friend (Lord Curzon) shakes his head.
162
Anyway, I agree with him that it was a pity the bells were rung.
Moved, That the House do adjourn, except for Judicial business, until Monday next.—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at half past six o'clock.