Lords Sitting of 2 July 1918

MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR.
The Right Hon. John Campbell, Earl of Aberdeen, K.T., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., having been created Earl of Haddo in the County of Aberdeen and Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair in the said County of Aberdeen and in the County of Meath and in the County of Argyll—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS.
The Right Hon. John Wynford, Baron St. Davids, having been created Viscount. St. Davids of Lydstep Haven in the County of Pembroke—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
HAMILTON ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CORN PRODUCTION (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend subsection (3) of Section 11 of the Corn Production Act, 1917.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Bill read 1a and to be printed.

IRELAND.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House a Question of which I have given him private notice. It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that on Thursday last a debate took place on questions connected with Ireland, and that although the House sat at 3.30 p.m and the debate continued for several. hours, nine or ten Peers taking part, no reply was forthcoming on the part of the Government until my noble friend Lord Mayo intimated that it would be necessary to move the adjournment. Thereupon Lord Crawford intervened in a few sentences, but I think your Lordships who were present will realise that some very
496
important questions were left over on which no reply was made. Of course, I do not venture on a private notice question to argue any point, but I merely mention the subject of the supply of land for soldiers, on which the Government were pressed by many peers. No answer was given with regard to that, but there was a point which I understood the noble Earl to have reserved. On the first day of the discussion Lord Curzon said, with regard to whether the Government intended to proclaim the Sinn Fein Association—
"I should not like to answer that question without a further reference."
This led many of your Lordships to infer that we should have the advantage of hearing the decision of the Government on that question when the debate was resumed after a week's adjournment. I would only say that those who listened to the discussion must have felt what very grave importance attaches to this question, and I would invite the noble Earl, if he can, to supplement the information which we have received.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, when I used the language which the noble Viscount has quoted, I did not mean to reserve the point in the sense in which he has used the term. I meant that the question was of so much importance thatnaturally I could not answer it without reference to those responsible for the Irish Government. The noble Viscount has asked whether I have any statement to make or any further information to give upon the subject to-day. I am afraid I can say no more than this—that the matter, which of course is of the highest importance, is engaging the earnest attention of the Government, but that it would be contrary to the public interest to say anything more about it at this moment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Earl has replied to the Question of my noble friend, but I am not sure that we have got very much from the answer. It is a matter of a very urgent and important kind, and I am afraid your Lordships will feel that the Government have hardly shown a full sense of the great importance of the debate which took place on Thursday last. I know that my noble friend the noble Earl was absent from his place, for very good reasons, for which none

497
of us would complain, but it is a very striking circumstance that there was no Minister who was in a position to reply upon the debate on Thursday last. I am sure that if the noble Earl himself had been present he would have felt that your Lordships had some reason to complain of treatment of that kind. We heard at the end of the debate a few words from Lord Crawford, and I need not say that we all listened to hint with the greatest possible pleasure. There is no man better qualified than he is to make an admirable speech in your Lordships' House, but on that occasion it was evident that he was not prepared to speak. He had not the materials with which to reply, and although we are willing and anxious to show all the sympathy we can to the noble Earl (Lord Curzon) in the heavy work which falls upon him, we think that in a debate of that kind, if he cannot be here himself, some other Minister should be present to answer the points which fall from your Lordships. We hope that on another occasion things may be differently arranged.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: On the afternoon to which the noble Marquess refers there was a general feeling, I believe, that the discussion was likely to last throughout the evening. I was myself, as the noble Marquess has justly and generously remarked, engaged upon public business of importance which prevented me from being present in the earlier afternoon, and one of the chief losses which I thereby sustained was that I missed a speech made by my noble, friend Lord Salisbury. I did come to the House at seven o'clock with a view to answering any questions specially addressed to me, but as I entered the House I found Lord Crawford dealing with the case so much to the general acceptance of the House that I took refuge in silence. I hope, that upon another occasion I may be able to meet the requirements of the noble Marquess better than I did last week.

LAND DRAINAGE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (LORD CLINTON): My Lords, this is a measure to amend the Land Drainage Act, 1861, and to make further provision for the drainage of agri-
498
cultural land. The Act of 1861 was in itself an amending Act, and dealt with the laws which had been passed from long periods ago dealing with the same subject. We have a record from the date of Henry VIII, who made the first great advance in land drainage by appointing Commissioners of Sewers. The lineal successors of those Commissioners still act, but along with them, under the principal Act of 1861, have been appointed Drainage Boards with the same powers as the Commissioners of Sewers; and as they are elected bodies they are probably more in keeping with the spirit, of the age, and any new areas are put under their control.
The purpose of this drainage legislation has been to bring under cultivation and otherwise improve for agricultural purposes areas of low-lying wet land which, owing to their waterlogged condition, are incapable of producing to the fullest possible capacity. Great works have been carried out in the past under these different Acts, particularly during the middle part of the nineteenth century, which was a great time for agricultural improvement and also a great period of agricultural prosperity. It is, I think, worth noting that these agricultural improver rents have always gone hand in hand with the prosperity of the industry. But the circumstances which followed the middle part of the nineteenth century led to a want of energy in initiating new drainage schemes and a certain amount of carelessness, or possibly inability, in maintaining the schemes which were already in existence, with the result that large numbers of estates, particularly in the maritime districts of the country, bear marks of drainage schemes. Some of them still bear the burdens of the cost of those schemes, but in too many cases any beneficial results from these works are non-existent.
The causes for this are, I think, mainly two. There is an economic or agricultural cause and there is also a legislative cause. The great prosperity of agriculture led to a considerable activity in drainage improvement, but the following depression of the industry in the later third of the nineteenth century led to a discontinuance of all these schemes. No man had the heart, and, what was perhaps more important, very few people had the money, to carry on these improvements, and authorities found it impossible to levy a rate upon this much-harassed industry which had lost practically

499
its all in attempting to produce under almost impossible circumstances. Arising out of the same cause—this depression of agriculture—the need for drainage itself became less. Owing to force of circumstances— bad times, low prices, foreign competition, and the total neglect by the nation of the agricultural industry—we were compelled to abandon arable cultivation and start on grass farming, because the arable cultivation, owing to these circumstances, had become highly speculative and in most cases quite unprofitable. We embarked upon that grass farming, and as the result of getting into grass farming the need for drainage became less. I need not, of course, point out to your Lordships that you can carry on the farming of pasture land on land which is in a quite unsuitable condition, through wet, to be used for corn production.
Just as the problems which were existing at that particular time caused this alteration in our agricultural system, leading to less need of drainage, so the totally different set of problems at the present moment—which have no connection with the profit or loss of the agricultural industry itself, but are entirely connected with the present imperative needs of the nation—are sending us back to the former course of corn production, which necessitates a much larger attention being paid to the drainage of the country. That is, I think, the agricultural reason. But in addition to that there is a reason connected with legislation itself. The legislation of former days down to the Act of 1861, while no doubt suitable to the particular times in which it was passed, is too cumbersome, too inconvenient, and in many respects too expensive for the needs of the present day. In so far as the areas requiring drainage are not under the charge of the Commissioners of Sewers drainage districts have to be formed under the control of Drainage Boards, but there is no one person and no one authority charged with the duty of initiating the procedure for bringing these Boards into existence. It is left to a chance collection of a certain number of people, the proprietors of one-tenth of the area of the district to be drained, and unless it happens that among these proprietors there are sufficient men of energy, public spirit, foresight, and knowledge of agricultural requirements, it is quite likely that no drainage district will be initiated or constituted even in those places where it is most required.
500
I hope under this measure to alter that one of the main defects of older legislation, and also to introduce other amendments which will make drainage more possible and more satisfactory. Whatever the actual causes may have been which led to tire discontinuance of drainage schemes, there are certain facts quite clear. One is that there is a very large area of land capable of corn production which, owing to such causes as the blocking of the outfalls and the choking of the drains, has relapsed into an almost unimproved state, and consequently we have large areas which are withdrawn from that food production which is most urgently needed at the present time. Very careful inquiries have been made in different parts of the country as to the extent of this land, and the War Agricultural Committees have almost unanimously, I think, pointed out that defective drainage is at the present moment one of the greatest obstacles in the way of increased food production.
In the same Report the Committees give us the estimated area of land which can be reclaimed or improved, and it amounts to a very large figure. As one may expect, it is largely in the eastern parts of the kingdom. In Yorkshire and Lincolnshire alone there is an area of 500,000 acres which is capable of improvement by proper drainage. In Norfolk and Cambridgeshire there are 100,000 acres. There is a somewhat similar amount in three counties in Wales, and there are various other districts where larger or smaller amounts require to be brought under survey for the purpose of improvement by drainage. Altogether we estimate that the land to be dealt with amounts to close upon 1,000,000 acres. It is so large a figure that if it is correct—and there is no reason to doubt its substantial accuracy—I think it raises this measure at once to a position of very great importance among all those Acts and Regulations and Orders which, during the past four years, have been passed into law for the purpose of improving production from the land.
The Board of Agriculture have already taken some powers to deal with the matter. Under the Defence of the Realm Act they have obtained powers to enforce the cleaning of drains and of streams and repairing river banks, and also powers to put pressure upon drainage authorities to get the necessary work carried out. This has had such an effect that we can

501
show that 80,000 acres are at the present moment in process of improvement. To this extent it has been improved that already a very considerable number of aeres ate under crop of this year, and it is hoped for the year 1919 drat there will be a very largo amount, put under cultivation. I have endeavoured to show that there is in the country a very large area capable of being improved for corn cultivation. that drainage is essential for the purpose, but that the present law is not sufficient, and if your Lordships will allow me I will, by reference to the Bill itself, show the steps which are proposed.
The most important clauses of the Bill are Clauses 1 and 2. Under the old system, and also under the new, drainage districts require to be formed where any system is going to be put in operation under the Drainage Boards, but under the old Act as I have already told your Lordships, they can be initiated only by the proprietors of one-tenth of the area included in the scheme. No other body has power to bring them into operation, and, further, any scheme can be vetoed unless it has the consent of two-thirds of the proprietors within the area Where it is opposed, or unopposed, it has to proceed by the somewhat cumbersome process of Provisional Orders, to be confirmed by Parliament. Under Clause 1 and Clause 2 the necessary alterations are made. In the first clause power to make Orders constituting drainage districts is given to the Board of Agriculture. They may by their own Order constitute an area a separate drainage district, and it is only if it is opposed within thirty days that it requires any confirmation by Parliament. They can also make Orders for altering the boundaries of any drainage area. Under the older Acts no drainage area could be altered except by carrying through a Provisional Order, in exactly the same way as constituting a new district. The Board could make an Order defining the limits of the Commissioners of Sewers. The Commissioners of Sewers have charge of the maritime districts of the country—a phrase which I understand has no meaning either in law or practice, with the natural result that in most of these cases they are unaware, or ignorant, of the area which they control. There is no power at present for defining that limit. Under this measure the Board take power to make the necessary definition. They also have power to make an order for conferring upon the drainage
502
authority certain additional powers in respect of the provisions of any local Act muter which they are constituted. At present they would have to go to Parliament and pass through a new private Act to get an alteration of those powers.
As I have said, these drainage districts cannot he formed unless one-tenth of the proprietors petition for it. That is very largely altered in this measure. To constitute a drainage area, or to alter the boundaries of an existing area, the Board may proceed on their own initiation; and in addition to that county councils are authorised to petition the Board for the purpose, or, as by the original scheme, one-tenth of the proprietors can make the application. Therefore we have three bodies any one of whom can put this into operation. The same bodies can apply for the alteration of private Acts, and the Board can make the necessary Orders. The proposal for the definition of the limits of the Commissioners of Sewers must come from the Commissioners themselves. These are, I think, large alterations, and they should make the carrying out, of this Bill very much simpler, less costly, and much quicker than before.
The next clause to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention is Clause 4, subsection (2). This provides for differential rating. It is quite obvious that in almost all of the schemes different portions of the land are affected to different degrees. Formerly there was a level rate upon all; now they can be rated in accordance with the benefits they receive. Clause 5 enables the local authorities, either the public health authorities or the highway authorities, to contribute towards drainage expenses. There are a considerable number of instances where drainage is of importance to the health of the locality, and also where it is of great advantage to highways. In such circumstances the local authorities can contribute to the expenses such an amount as the Local Government Board, having regard to the public benefit derived therefrom, may sanction. Clause 7 of the Bill enables a drainage authority and a navigation authority to enter into arrangements for carrying out the duties of the navigation authority. There are cases where the navigation authority, having charge of rivers, or waterways, find that they are under their Acts bound to keep up a certain head of water for navigation purposes, although those purposes are no

503
longer required. The result of keeping up that head of water means that the lands further back become flooded and spoilt for agricultural purposes. By arrangement with the district authority, subject to the approval of the Board of Trade, this drainage can he carried out. Clause 9 requires a report of the proceedings to be placed before the Board every year so that they may see that the drainage authorities are carrying our their duties. Clause 15, which is the first clause of Part II of the Bill, enables the Board to step in if the drainage authority is not fully exercising its powers.
Clause 16 is, I think, the only new feature in the Bill, and it is one to which I invite the attention of your Lordships. It brings in the power of compulsion—
"Where the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries are of the opinion that any agricultural land is capable of improvement by drainage works, but that the same cannot be conveniently dealt with by an order under Part I of this Act and that the expenses of executing and maintaining such works will not exceed the increase in the value of the laud arising therefrom, the Board may, in accordance with the provisions of a scheme made under this section, enter on the lands and execute such drainage works as appear to them desirable."
This provides for cases of small areas which are not properly looked after by the owners. Where improvements might result from drainage works, then the Board takes upon itself the power to enter in and carry out the works, and charge the cost of the same to the owner or owners. Section 17 allows a delegation of the powers of the Board to the Committees. Those, my Lords, are, I think, the important sections of this Bill. We believe that the Bill as a whole is of considerable importance, and that, if your Lordships are good enough to pass it, it will remedy some of the very considerable defects which now arise from the faulty drainage of agricultural land. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a—(Lord Clinton.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I was not able to be present in the House the other day when my noble friend Lord Clinton first spoke as representing the Board of Agriculture. Therefore I hope he will allow me to take this the first opportunity I have had of welcoming him to his new post. There is no member of your Lordships' House who is more qualified by his experience, and study, and complete
504
knowledge of all agricultural questions to represent the Board of Agriculture here, and I think that we are very fortunate to have bad him selected by His Majesty's Government to represent hen) for this purpose.
I doubt whether it will ever be my noble friend's luck to bring to the notice of your Lordships a modest Bill which is really more important than the one which he has asked you to read a second time to-day. This is a subject which has during the last two years come before me constantly in my capacity as Chairman of the Agricultural Policy Sub-Committee of the Reconstruction Committee, the Report of which was laid on the Table of your Lordships' House only a few days ago. We had many witnesses of great authority on all sorts of agricultural matters summoned before us, one to speak on one subject and another on another subject, but it rarely happened that a man finished his evidence without asking if he might say something more, and that something was always connected with drainage. I assure you that my noble friend has in no way exaggerated the urgency of this problem. It has never been dealt with in England or Scotland in anything except the most haphazard and piecemeal fashion. I believe that we are almost the only civilised country in which any attention has been given to agriculture where the question of drainage has not been dealt with in a thorough and systematic manner.
The only fault that I have to find with the Bill that my noble friend has just introduced is that it can only in my judgment be a stop-gap Bill. It may serve for the purpose of the war emergency, but it will not settle the question. I do not believe that the question can be settled by any less scheme than the establishment of drainage authorities for the whole country, so that the whole country may be dealt with. I will give your Lordships only two examples. There is no adequate power existing which would enable me, if my farm or my estate is water-logged by the indifference of a neighbour, to get him to remedy the grievance and allow me, by the expenditure of money and the execution of proper works, to free my land from that water-logging which is caused by outlets on my neighbour's land. I do not say that there is no provision for that purpose; there is a provision passed about the middle

505
Of the last century, but it is quite inadequate. Again, there has never been, except in the case of a river like the Thames, an attempt to deal with a whole watershed or with a whole riper as one thing. A case was brought to our notice of one small river of which there were no fewer than forty-one drainage authorities. I ask your Lordships to consoler what would be the natural result on the land drained by that river when there were forty-one different authorities to act in a circumscribed area wholly independent of each other and usually with entirely different ideas as to what ought to be done. The result, of course, was that the land was flooded. Therefore I welcome very heartily the introduction of this Bill. I have not had time yet to study the details, but I am quite sure that your Lordships will be well advised to give it a Second Reading.
TEE EARL OF LICHFIELD: My Lords, I should like to say a few words upon this Bill during the consideration of the Motion for its Second Reading. I will only attempt to deal with such parts of it as affect county councils. No doubt some of the more ardent members of those councils desire that county councils should be made the drainage authorities for their respective areas. This Bill does not go to that length, the drainage power being entirely retained by the Board of Agriculture, but when the Bill was introduced by the President of the Board of Agriculture in the House of Commons there were hardly any provisions in it —or none at all—which enabled county councils to take part in this work. During the passage of the Bill in the House of Commons, however, the President of the Board was most ready to meet the wishes of the County Councils Association in this respect, and as a result you will find in the Bill most valuable provisions under which county councils are given a status.
For instance, in the first clause, subsection (2), on petition from the county councils the Board, after consultation with the Local Government Board, may by Order make the county councils the drainage authority. Again, in Clause 2, subsection (1), the Board may by Order constitute a drainage district, or alter the area after consultation with the county councils. Further, subsection (2), paragraph 1, says that county councils may petition to alter or supplement a Drainage Act. In my
506
opinion Clause 9 is a very important one. It decrees that the drainage authorities shall in every case render to the Board of Agriculture once every year a report of their proceedings in such a manner and under such conditions as the Board may require. A copy of this report is to be sent to the county councils who, therefore, when they get the report of these Drainage Boards in their different areas, will be able to see and judge for themselves whether the work that they are carrying out is efficient, and, if not, they will be able to appeal to the Board of Agriculture to remedy the state of affairs existing.
We know now that it is most desirable in the interests of the country that all possible land should be drained, and should no longer be water-logged, so that the output of crops may be increased. In Part 11, Clause 17 of the Bill says that the Board may authorise and delegate their powers to drainage bodies, in which case at least a majority of members shall be members of the county council. That is a very important clause, because the county councils interested in the particular drainage area will thereby secure at least a majority of the members of that Board.
There is also the very important provision that county councils may combine for the purposes of the Act. There was no provision before in any Act by which they could combine for this particular purpose. Finally, in the First Schedule the Board before making an Order must cause notice to be sent to the county council. So that under these various clauses the county councils will be really brought in for active and useful work in helping the Board of Agriculture to see that the drainage within their respective areas is sufficiently and properly maintained or improved. In these circumstances I think that the measure is a very useful one, and I hope that your Lordships will pass it.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, though with other noble Lords I fully recognise that something will have to be done in the near future as regards the drainage of agricultural land, at the same time we should be very wrong to suppose that the matter is a simple one, or one that can be dealt with by an Act of Parliament passed rapidly through both Houses of Parliament in war time. At any other time this is certainly a road which would be a very difficult one to tread, because

507
there are a great many interests concerned and the matter requires the very greatest consideration.
I am fully aware that there has been a considerable demand in the country for greater powers to be given to some authority, whatever it may be, to enforce the better cleaning out of streams and the better drainage of land. All of us who are acquainted with lands which are likely to be submerged, and which very often are submerged, know that there are many authorities and private owners, who should clean out the streams and do the drainage, who do not do their duty. This Bill is a step in the right direction in compelling those authorities and private individuals to do their duty and to benefit the drainage of their neighbours' land.
There are, however, some provisions in the Bill on which I should like to make some remarks. For example, Clause 4, as I read it, will give the Courts of Sewers who have the power of dealing with coast defence the power of raising rates on land to stop erosion from the sea. In the parts of Lincolnshire with which I am acquainted I believe that in a very large number of cases where lands would suffer if the sea broke in and submerged the hinterland a great deal of that hinterland does not pay rates towards coast defence; whereas higher land does pay rates though the higher land very likely would not be submerged. As I read the provisions of the clause the Courts of Sewers would have power to raise a rate on all land likely to be submerged, whether that land was subject to be rated or not. This appears to be a fair and proper way of dealing with the matter, but we have to consider that within the last two or three years an enormous amount of that land has changed hands. I think there has been as much dealing in this marshy land as in any other land—it is very valuable land—and at the auction sales it is almost always stated what the drainage rate for the past year has been. Land which has been free from rates perhaps for centuries has been bought up at a very high price, whereas other land which has always been held to be liable for rates has fetched a much lower price. In that respect you may have a certain amount of difficulty. You will have to convince those people who have recently purchased land which has not been liable in the past that in future they will become liable and
508
will very likely have to pay a very heavy rate.
The noble Lord in introducing the Bill referred to Clause 15 dealing with the compulsory powers of the Board to enter and drain land, and enabling it, having taken steps to drain the land, to call upon the proprietors to pay a rate to cover the cost. That, again, sounds very well, but I am quite certain it is a clause that will want a considerable amount of watching. I profoundly mistrust any engineering or expert opinion in dealing with water. I have had the honour of sitting on several Private Bill Committees upstairs, and have heard a good deal of expert evidence from water engineers, and I think it would be the experience of most noble Lords who have had anything to do with drainage or water that in almost every case the engineers' and contractors estimates are doubled, and sometimes trebled. I think that before compulsory powers are given to make people drain waterlogged land you ought to make it very plain that there can be absolutely no doubt that the experiment will be a success. It will be very hard if some war agricultural committee or county council or other authority complain that a certain area of land is in a waterlogged state and ought to be drained, and an expert engineer makes an estimate of the cost, and then when the work has been carried out it is found that the value of the land will not pay the drainage rate.
I do not think this is an extravagant fear, because I have known a good deal of the land in the Fens of Lincolnshire which in days gone by scarcely paid the drainage rate. It was a very close thing whether the people who owned the land were not better without it altogether owing to the very heavy drainage rate upon them. At the same time I fully admit that it is most important at the present time that we should grow food, and corn is fetching a big price. The expense of carrying out these works will certainly be double what it was before the war, and after these expensive drainage works have been carried out, when the price of agricultural produce falls again to its normal level— which I expect will occur at no very distant time after the war is ended—we may find ourselves in the predicament of having very heavy drainage rates to pay while the produce of the land is not sufficient to pay them.

509
For these reasons I thought it desirable to utter a word of warning. At the same time I feel that it is most important, where it can be clearly proved that owing to the want of energy and public spirit either of public authorities or private individuals, water is being held up, that Parliament should compel those people to carry out their duty. I hope, however, that in the administration of the Act compulsion will not be employed with the idea that marshes can be turned into wonderful corn-growing land at very little expense and with the certain prospect of success. I have always heard the story—I do not know how true it is—that the draining of Whittlesey Mere ruined three lots of people. Three different lots of people tried it and all went bankrupt one after the other, and it was not until the fourth man stepped in and reaped the benefit of what had been done by his predecessors that this rich Fen country was successfully drained. I am a little afraid, therefore, that there may be an inclination with such wide powers as are given that authorities may think it is easy, if every marsh in this country is drained, to obtain corn-producing land which will pay for the previous expense.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether there are two proportions of landowners who have a right to be consulted, the one-tenth who initiate the scheme or the one-third who object to it? As far as I can understand the Bill it must mean one-third and one-tenth in area, and it seems to me that the fairer way would be to make it one-third and one-tenth in value. That is not clear as vet, but I hope it will be made so in Committee.
LORD CLINTON: The proposal in the Bill is that one-tenth in area can initiate the proceedings for the formation of a drainage district; then there is the power of veto conferred upon one-third in area.
LORD SHEFFIELD: Also in area?
LORD CLINTON: Yes.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I think it would be fairer if it were in value.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MIDWIVES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee —(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Amendment of section fire of the principal Act with respect to finance.
2. The approval by the Privy Council of any balance against the Central Midwives Board shown in any financial statement made under section five of the principal Act shall be, and shall be deemed always to have been, binding and conclusive as to the amount of the balance to be apportioned under that section, and any apportionment of any such balance between the several counties and county boroughs under that section shall be in proportion to the population of those counties and county boroughs according to the returns of the last published census for the time being, instead of in the proportion mentioned in the said section.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, after "of" ["under section five of"], to insert "the Midwives Act, 1902, in this Art referred to as". The noble Viscount said: The amendment standing in my name is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 7, after ("of") insert ("the Midwives Act, 1902, in this Act referred to as").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Provisions as to suspension.
6.—(1) The power of the Central Midwives Board to frame rules deciding the conditions under which midwives may be suspended from practice shall include a power of framing rules—

(a) authorising the Board to suspend a midwife from practice for such period as the Board think fit, in lieu of striking her name off the roll, and to suspend from practice until the case has been decided, and (in the case of an appeal) until the appeal has been decided, any midwife accused before the Board of disobeying rules or regulations or of other misconduct;

511

(b) authorising the local supervising authority which takes proceedings against a midwife before a court of justice or reports a case for consideration by the Central Midwives Board to suspend her from practice until the case has been decided.

(2) Where in pursuance of any power conferred by any such rule a midwife has been suspended from practice pending the decision of her case by a court or the Board and the case is decided in her favour, or where in pursuance of the duty imposed by paragraph (3) of section eight of the principal Act a midwife has been suspended from practice in order to prevent the spread of infection, the Central Midwives Board or the local supervising authority by whom she was suspended, may, if they think fit, pay her such reasonable compensation for loss of practice as under the circumstances may seem just.
THE EARL OF MEATH THE EARL OF MEATH moved to delete the words "may, if they think fit, pay her such reasonable compensations for loss of practice as under the circumstance may seem just," and to insert "shall pay her reasonable compensation for loss of practice."
The noble Earl said: I desire to draw your Lordships' attention to this clause because it seems to me that there is a want of elementary justice in the second subsection. By Clause 6 your Lordships are giving power to the Central Midwives Board and to the local supervising authoritise to suspend midwives for certain offences. Now, I wish to break a lance for the midwife. It appears to me that she is hardly properly treated. You give power to the Central Midwives Board and to the local supervising authority to suspend her, but if it is proved that she is innocent it would be only justice that some reasonable compensation should be given to her for loss of practice. Under subsection (2) of this clause as it stands in the Bill the Central Midwives Board or the local supervising authority by whom the midwife is suspended may, if they think fit, pay her such reasonable compensation for the loss of practice as under the circumstances may seem just. My Amendment is that the subsection shall react "shall pay her reasonable compensation for loss of practice." Once upon a time Mr. Gladstone said that we in this House lived up in a balloon, but I think we know enough of affairs terrestrial to be aware of the fact that a prosecutor is not likely to do justice to a defendant if it is proved that the defendant is innocent, and that the prosecutor is the very last
512
person to give compensation and thus be likely to stultify himself.
I am not going to detain your Lordships because to my mind the thing is simple, and I feel certain that you will agree with me that these ladies are engaged in a work of the very first national importance, especially in these times when we shall want to build up a strong and healthy race to fill the gaps which, unfortunately, have been made not only in our own country but throughout the world. I leave it, therefore, to your Lordships to consider whether it would be possible, with the consent of the Government, to substitute the words appearing in my name on the Paper for those printed in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 18, leave out from ("suspended") to the end of the clause and insert ("shall pay her reasonable compensation for loss of practice").—(The Earl of Meath.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not think the noble Earl need display any anxiety that there will not be plenty of noble Lords in this House who will break lances on behalf of midwives, because in my experience they have many strong friends not only here but in the other House.
As regards this particular proposal of the noble Earl, however, I am advised that, in the first place, it will make little, if any, difference in practice, because, whether the noble Earl's words are inserted in the clause or whether the words are left as they now appear in the Bill, the Central Midwives Board will in any case have to decide what is a reasonable amount of compensation; consequently they will be in effect masters of the situation. Further, I believe it would be far better to leave the whole matter to the fair discretion of the Board, considering of what. a body of experienced men and women that Board consists.
There is another consideration, moreover, which was not mentioned by the noble Earl, and which may possibly have escaped his notice—namely, that the proposal in the Bill is really the same as the provision already enacted in the Scottish and Irish Acts; therefore what the noble Earl is trying to do—or to suggest, because I do not think it will have that effect—is to put the midwives in England, in this particular respect, in an apparently stronger position than the midwives in Scotland and in Ireland. I hope that the noble Earl will not press his proposal to do any such thing,

513
because, knowing the subject as well as he does, he can imagine what an amount of difficulty will be created if the midwives in this country are placed in a better position than their sisters in Scotland and Ireland. Perhaps the noble Earl will see his way, therefore, to withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF MEATH: The noble Viscount has alluded to the Central Midwives Board, but not to the local supervising authority, which is the body least likely to give the compensation needed.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Delegation of powers.
12.—(1) The power under section nine of the principal Act of county councils to delegate their powers and duties to district councils shall, after the commencement of this Act, be exercisable only with the consent of the Local Government Board, and where at the commencement of this Act any powers or duties have been delegated under that section the delegation shall, as from the commencement of this Act, be revoked unless the Local Government Board otherwise order.
(2) Where any powers or duties of a local super vising authority are delegated to any other body, references in the principal Act or this Act to the local supervising authority shall, as respects the powers or duties so delegated, be construed as references to that other body.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, after subsection (1), to insert a new subsection. The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment to Clause 12 which raises, I think, a point of some controversy. This Amendment deals with the question of delegation by a county council to a district council of its powers and duties as a local supervising authority under the Midwives Act in England and Wales. The supervising authorities under the Act of 1909 are the counties and county boroughs, but under Section 9 of the principal Act they have the power to delegate without restriction or condition any of their powers and duties to district councils, borough councils, or metropolitan borough councils in London. The Midwives Association are opposed to this power of delegation. Clause 12 proposes to limit this power, and the Amendment or fresh subsection which I am now proposing to introduce still further limits this power of delegation.
If your Lordships will look at the Amendment you will see that any future
514
delegation to rural district councils is entirely forbidden, and delegation to non-county boroughs and urban districts— and urban districts include, of course, boroughs—shall not take place, "except after consultation with the Central Midwives Board, and unless that council undertake to appoint as inspector of midwives a person who is a registered medical practitioner or a woman who holds the certificate by examination of the Central Midwives Board and has had not less than six months' experience as a practising midwife." This Amendment, therefore, is an alternative to the more extreme proposal, if I may say so, of the noble Marquess opposite and of the noble Lord behind me, who wished to do away with delegation altogether.
I should like to say one or two words on this point. It is true that delegation or much of it practised under the Act of 1902 was not of a very satisfactory kind, and it was condemned by the Departmental Committee which reported in 1909. At that time county councils had no medical officers of health at all, and were perhaps only too ready to delegate their duties to local sanitary authorities, and the smaller authorities did not always perform the duties very well. But that power is entirely taken away by the subsection which I suggest. The position of county councils with regard to delegation was a good deal altered by the Act of 1909. In that Act every county council was required to appoint a medical officer of health, and from that time the power of delegation by county councils to these local authorities —any kind of local authority, in fact—has gradually diminished, and so at the present time there is hardly any delegation at all. Delegation only remains, I understand, in the case of four local authorities. So much for the present situation.
The recent development of maternity and child welfare schemes has introduced a new element into the situation. Many schemes have been carried out by towns of 20,000 inhabitants and upwards, and in the remainder of the county by county councils; and, of course, there is a natural association between the administration of the Midwives Act and these schemes which are set on foot. In the circumstances it does appear to the Local Government Board that it might be better if some power of delegation should still be retained. There are, for instance, very large urban districts such as Willesden,

515
with its 150,000 inhabitants, or the Rhondda Valley, which probably would discharge these duties quite as well, with a great deal of local interest, and with as much efficiency as if they were confined only to the country councils.
It has often been said that the case of Scotland is analogous, and that in Scotland there is no delegation and therefore there ought to be none in this country either. In fact, that argument has been widely used. It rests entirely upon a misconception. It is not true to say that delegation is forbidden in the Scottish Act, for the very good reason that it would be entirely unnecessary so to say, for there are no authorities in Scotland to whom these powers could be delegated, because in Scotland all these local bodies are supervising authorities. I should like to give some figures to show to what extent delegation has gone in Scotland. Many of the sanitary authorities in Scotland are very small. Of the 203 burghs twenty-four only are over 20,000 inhabitants, nineteen are between 10,000 and 20,000 and 160 are under 10,000. Yet we are asked to assimilate the law in England to that in Scotland and to forbid delegation to places with 150,000 inhabitants, whereas in Scotland the duties are performed by small places with 10,000 or 20,000 inhabitants. Of course, there is no idea of delegation to such an extent in England, but I believe there is strong reason for allowing some sort of delegation in this country; and I think I have shown clearly by these figures that the cases are so different that no argument can be drawn from them in favour of trying to assimilate the law in England to that in Scotland.
I know that there has been some criticism even of this very limited amount of delegation, and I should like to say that, with one small change as regards the introduction of women, this proposal about delegation entirely meets the views of Sir F. Champneys, Chairman of the Central Midwives Board, and Sir Donald Mae-Alister, President of the General Medical Council, and I feel sure that the view of these distinguished medical men, so closely associated with the work of the Midwives Acts, will carry great weight with the House. After all, how can the power of delegation be exercised? First of all, movement must be by the county councils. If the county councils want to exercise the power themselves there is no question at all. If, however, in their opinion—
516
and they are very competent bodies—these smaller bodies in particular areas can exercise the powers more efficiently than themselves, then they tan move. Secondly, the Local Government Board has to approve. Thirdly, the Local Government Board will not approve until after full consultation with the Central Midwives Board indeed, I am authorised to go so far as to say, especially with regard to London, that if any strong expression of opinion is made by the Central Midwives Board that there should not be delegation the Local Government Board will follow the suggestion of the Central Midwives Board. In those circumstances I hope your Lordships will accept the Amendment, which does give some elasticity to the law, allows some very limited power of delegation, and is so hedged about with powerful restrictions that I do not think there is any possibility that the power can he misused.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, after subsection (1) insert as a new subsection:
"(2) The Local Government Board shall not in any case consent to the delegation to a rural district council, and shall not consent to the delegation to a metropolitan borough council or to the council of a non-county borough or urban district, except after consultation with the Central Midwives Board, and unless that council undertake to appoint as inspector of midwives a person who is a registered medical practitioner or a woman who holds the certificate by examination of the Central Midwives Board and has had not less than six months' experience as a practising midwife."—(Viscount Peel.)
THE MAROUESS OF SALISBURY: I recognise that the noble Viscount is anxious to meet the views of those who are opposed to this clause, but I hope I shall be able to show him that, even as the Amendment now stands, it hardly goes far enough. From the point of view he has put forward, I am a little surprised that he cares so much about it —I mean those who instruct him—because, as he says, he has limited it in a considerable degree. I should like to place before your Lordships the case against delegation. In the first place there is the strength of authority against it. I do not dwell upon the question of similarity between the English and Scottish Acts, because I quite follow the argument that the noble Viscount has submitted. But the first strong argument from authority is a statement made in your Lordships' House a fortnight ago by the Lord Privy Seal in moving the Second Reading of the Bill,

517
when he said that delegation had been found to be, I do not think he said a complete failure, but altogether unsuccessful as a system.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I did not quite say that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not quite so strongly, perhaps.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No; not in those words.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl was in very good company, because he agreed with the Committee of 1909. That Committee found—and, so far as I know, there was no doubt in the mind of the Committee—that delegation was a great mistake. The then Secretary of the Central Midwives Board, who was a witness before that Committee, spoke of it as being an "unmitigated evil." That is very strong language, and from a very high authority. Therefore, we start with authority against the system of delegation.
What is the principal argument against it? The first argument is that if you delegate to a smaller authority you submit these midwives to inspectors who are of a lower status than the inspectors employed by the county authorities. That is bad in every way. It is bad because the inferior status of the inspectors deprives the public of the guarantee which proper inspection ought to give them, and it is bad also because this inferior status makes the profession of midwives unpopular. There are these two main arguments. Moreover, having this lower class of inspectors involves want of uniformity of practice in the areas, and this is a serious matter. Then, again, it involves confusion, because a great many of the smaller areas are not such as to occupy in every case the full time of the midwife. She has a clientele outside the boundaries of the particular local authority, and in that case she is subject to two different sets of inspectors—the inspectors of the local authority to which delegation has been granted, and the inspectors of the county at large when she passes the boundary.
This produces confusion, and the upshot is that the midwives themselves are very much opposed to the system, You may say that they are wrong, but the point is that the fact of their being opposed to it, as
518
I have already said, acts as a deterrent to women joining the profession. That appears to be established, and it also appears to be a pity, for the matter is of very great importance. The profession is Specially important at this moment, because of the great lack of medical men in all parts of the country (in consequence of the great demand now being made upon them) which makes the existence of midwives most essential, and nothing should be done, if I may say so, to deter suitable women from jointing the profession. These are some of the main arguments against delegation.
There is yet another argument. The noble Viscount said, "We have hedged this elastic provision which we propose with every kind of safeguard." Now what is the principal safeguard? The principal safeguard is the consent of the Local Government Board. I want to speak on this occasion with all respect due to the Local Government Board, but, for some reason or other, the Local Government Board is very much criticised in connection with work of this kind. It is not too much to say that the Local Government Board inspires no confidence whatever. I am not speaking generally. I have the greatest possible regard for it. I hope the noble Viscount does not mistake me. I was speaking with regard to this particular matter. I should be very sorry indeed to commit myself in a general way to such a blasphemy against one of the main Departments of State. The Local Government Board, for some reason, does not command confidence in this respect. The reason is that in past times the, Local Government Board has used its influence to produce delegation. This has caused a feeling of suspicion amongst all those who take an interest. in this subject, and they are very much afraid that the possibility of the Local Government Board giving or withholding consent will be used as a means of pressure on the county council to grant delegation where delegation ought not to be granted. Therefore this safeguard of which the noble Viscount speaks, so far from being regarded as a safeguard by those in whose name I am very imperfectly speaking at this moment, is regarded as precisely the contrary and as involving a risk.
It is for this reason that they do not accept this provision as a real safeguard. It is true, I think—speaking, as I say again,

519
with all respect for the Local Government Board—that there has been in many respects for some years a tendency in the Local Government Board to prefer operating through the minor local authority rather than the major local authority. One meets it very often in different relations. In the matter of housing, for example, you will find the Local Government Board has a policy of operating through the minor local authority, whereas many of us think that the history of the last twenty years has shown that the local authority which has been the most successful in English local life has been the county council. The suspicion with regard to the Local Government Board is, therefore, not altogether without foundation. For this reason it is thought that delegation ought to be entirely obliterated. By the confession of the Government it has been a failure. It was found by a Select Committee to be a mistake. It was characterised by a most important witness as an "unmitigated evil," and it is now viewed by all those interested in this question as a mistake. The noble Viscount at the end of his speech quoted two eminent legal authorities as being in favour of the Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Medical authorities.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Medical authorities. Let me read a list of the authorities against it altogether. I may speak of the Midwives Association in my own county, or I may speak of the chief of the Somerset County Nursing Association; but I will take the central ones. The Standing Committee of the County Nurses Association have passed a resolution in favour of the Amendment which I shall have the honour to submit to your Lordships when we reach it. The Council and Advisory Committee of the Midwives Institute, the Association of Inspectors of Midwives, and the Association for the Promotion of Training and Supply of Midwives, all these great, important and central bodies—I believe I speak in the name of the Central Midwives Board also —these great training authorities, agree in condemning delegation and urge the acceptance of the Amendment I have ventured to put on the Paper. They drafted it themselves, no doubt under proper advice, and have submitted it. In these circumstances I suggest to the Government that the best way is to accept it. They themselves say that the system
520
of delegation is not a success, and if it he true that this feeling continues to produce confusion and unpopularity, and that the Local Government Board's intervention so far from being a safeguard is considered to be rather the reverse, the simplest way is to strike the clause out of the principal Act, and abolish delegation altogether.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I think His Majesty's Government, and my noble friend opposite, must have felt somewhat surprised at the strength of the feeling which has been displayed in many quarters against any form of delegation. It is only fair to recognise, as the noble Marquess behind me did, that His Majesty's Government have done their best and gone a considerable way in order to satisfy that feeling by the Amendment which the noble Viscount has just moved. The noble Marquess stated the general case against delegation very fully and with great force. One argument which I think has been used against it and which is akin to one he used, although not identical, is to remind the public that even in the case of the larger minor authorities, up to populations of something like 100,000, the number of midwives who would be employed is, in fact, very small. It is quite easy to calculate the average number of births in a given population. Then it is to be remembered that the services of a midwife are by no means required for all those eases, and it is almost surprising to reflect that two or three midwives can serve a very large population indeed. It is argued that, this being so, if they are under a separate authority the inspector who, as the noble Marquess said, is specially appointed to inspect them is not likely to be of as high a calibre as if a larger number have to be dealt with. That is an argument of some considerable force.
What I take it is felt by those who object to delegation—if they cannot obtain what I have no doubt they would prefer, the proposition of the noble Marquess behind me that the power should be stopped altogether—is that the restriction placed on the system by the Amendment of the noble Viscount should be somewhat further stiffened. It is, I am well aware, never satisfactory to the palate of a Public Department to be subject to the absolute consent and agreement of those who are not themselves a Public Department. On the other hand, the Central Midwives

521
Board come very near to being a Public Department. I am not authorised to speak for anybody, but I cannot help thinking that, if the noble Viscount is altogether unprepared to accept the Amendment to be moved by the noble Marquess and other noble Lords, he would to some extent mitigate opposition if he were to agree to allow the delegation in any particular case to depend on the actual concurrence of the Midwives Board, instead of its merely taking place after consultation with them. I merely throw that out as a possible solution in the event of the noble Viscount not being willing to agree to the Amendment of the noble Marquess.
LORD ABERCONWAY: I hope the noble Marquess, who is to propose an Amendment to leave out Clause 12, will press his opposition even to a Division unless the Government see their way to accept it. The force of the arguments he has used has been such that I have never listened to a speech of a more destructive character. In fact, there is hardly a single authority in the country, except perhaps the Local Government Board, which is in favour of this power of delegation. Since the Act of 1902 there have only, I believe, been ten cases of delegation, and in every one of those the delegation has been revoked. It shows that the particular bodies which are entrusted with these powers, and they are the most successful administrative bodies in the country—the county councils —have felt that to give small authorities the powers of examining and awarding diplomas to these women would be a very disastrous mistake. Your Lordships will remember that these diplomas are of a very important character; and no one, in the case of an ordinary academic distinction, would allow Universities or colleges to delegate examining powers to more or less unofficial persons. The public has a right to demand that the very highest class of examiner should be employed, and that there should be no question of local favouritism, which comes in too often where you have the ordinary board of guardian person to deal with.
There is a very important recommendation made by the Midwives Committee of the London County Council. They submitted the following resolution—
"That the Council is of opinion that the delegation to Metropolitan Borough Councils of
522
the powers at present exercised by the Council under the Midwives Act of 1902 would be prejudicial to the public health of London, and that the Local Government Board be urged to endorse this view and explain the Board's attitude to the local sanitary authorities in London."
This recommendation was passed unanimously by the London County Council. If there was a case where you would think delegation would be a success it would be in the metropolitan area. Here you have in London the most eminent medical personages, large administrative areas, every advantage you would think for success; yet the London County Council, having tried it themselves, come to the conclusion that the thing is wrong. Why should the Local Government Board struggle to maintain its grasp over the administration of this Act. I look upon this simply as an attempt to wrap "red tape" again around the administration of local affairs in this country.
I think the Government ought to see that there is not a single authority in the country that has supported their view of this case. Every journal devoted to nursing or therapeutics is opposed to it. Although two eminent medical authorities have been quoted, I should very much prefer to be guided by the opinion of the county councils on a matter of this kind, and by those eminent women who have taken a great interest in this question who are not perhaps themselves medical women but who understand the needs of the country, than by the Local Government Board.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords. I must confess that the Amendment of the noble Viscount has improved the position to a great extent. But personally I hope that we will have delegation deleted altogether. I think that it is far better that it should go, because almost everybody outside, and I believe a good many in your Lordships' House, are persuaded that delegation is an absolute mistake. There are so many different dangers—dangers of jobbery and ignorance and politics. We wish to get that entirely out of the way. We do not want the possibility of having inspectors who do not know their business. In Ireland we have known inspectors—I am not talking now of midwives—who have not known anything at all about their business, and we want to place the power only in the hands of the largest corporations and bodies like county councils, who are

523
likely to be above all these petty intrigues. Another point which I do not think has been mentioned is that your Lordships' House passed in 1910 a Bill against delegation. It really is, I think, a matter which would be far better dealt with drastically by getting rid of delegation. Therefore I shall support the noble Marquess and Lord Aberconway if it goes to a Division.
LORD ASHTON OF HYDE: My Lords, I regret very much that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill does not accept the proposal of the noble Marquess opposite. The noble Viscount has gone a great deal further than the Bill in the concession that he has made, for he has almost given a Parliamentary undertaking that without the consent of the Midwives Board this shall not be put into operation in the form of delegation—at any rate, in the case of the metropolitan boroughs it certainly shall not be put so into force without the consent of the Midwives Board. Though it may be that the Midwives Board has not passed any resolution on the question, it is very well known that that Board is entirely opposed to delegation.
VISCOUNT PEEL: No; I must give that a denial.
LORD ASHTON OF HYDE: I spoke only from information given to me, and of course I accept the denial of the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I read out the statement of the chairman that he accepted this Amendment; therefore I do not think it is possible to say that the Midwives Board is against all delegation when I have the acceptance of this by the chairman.
LORD ASHTON OF HYDE: I spoke merely from information given to me, and of course I accept at once the statement made by the noble Viscount. There are, at any rate, a large number of members of the Midwives Board who accept the position I have stated. If the noble Viscount is prepared in this Bill to put matters in the hands of the Midwives Board, he might, I think, go a point further and do away altogether with delegation, which I believe the Midwives Hoard generally desire to see done. We have, moreover, the very powerful record of the Nursing Association. We have a record that the Standing Committee,
524
I think it is, of the Nursing Association has Massed a resolution condemning delegation and supporting the noble Marquess.
It seems to me that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill might have gone a little further than he has, and might have accepted the noble Marquess's suggestion. Why is it that the Local Government Board is not willing to accept this? It has been said that in 1909 the Committee that went into the matter refused delegation. It has been stated that a Bill passed this House—it did not pass the other House — in 1910 refusing delegation. Why is it that now the Local Government Board is not prepared to accept it? My impression is that there is one great county which perhaps has not quite done its duty in this matter, and I believe this has been used as an argument for delegation, but it is hardly fair, I think, to condemn on account of one big county. I am informed, moreover, that that great county is at present putting matters into order, and that, it is not likely that it will be an offender in the future as some people think it has been in the past.
I do not wish to go over all the arguments that have been brought forward, but there is to me one very strong reason against delegating these powers to a small local authority, and it is this. The inspector will, I presume, nearly always be a local medical man, and one knows the great influence that can be brought to bear upon such a man by the local people. There are always a large number of local people who are not desirous of having changes or improvements made, and these people can very often bring serious influence to bear upon the local medical man, and make his position an extremely difficult one. I know of one case myself where a medical man who was officer of health and was always trying to do his duty in improving housing, whose life was made such a burden to him that he lost his practice and was obliged to leave the place. Everybody who has had to do with local government knows that such cases are quite frequent, and we ought to guard against them. If you put the whole thing into the hands of the county councils you will, at any rate, succeed in giving an opportunity for the appointment of a man at a good salary who will be independent. I feel that this is such a very strong point that on this ground, apart from others, I shall certainly support the noble Marquess.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: May I say a Word before the reply is given on behalf of the Government? I hope that the Government will see their Way to accept the Amendment of the noble Marquess, and repeal Section 9 of the principal Act. Perhaps your Lordships will be interested to hear the view that the county councils take upon this question. This matter has been referred to a committee of the County Councils Association, and they have reported upon it. It is a strong committee, but unfortunately their report has not been submitted to a meeting of the executive council, because a meeting of that council has not yet been held. I know, however, that the committee are unanimously reporting in favour of the repeal of Section 9 of the principal Act. That is not the same thing as informing your Lordship that the executive committee have passed a resolution to that effect, Still it is as near as possible in that direction; and from all I have heard—and I have spoken to several of the members there is no difference of opinion that they most earnestly desire for the efficient working of the Act that this section should be repealed.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Have they considered my Amendment, which appeared on the Paper only on Thursday?
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: No; the wording of Lord Peel's Amendment was not before them, and they had no opportunity of seeing it. Of course, it is a great concession. But I appeal, like other speakers, to the Government to take the whole thing and sweep away all powers of delegation. There was an argument used by the noble Lord who spoke last about the efficiency of inspection, and I know in our own county we feel very strongly on this matter, and we are most anxious to have this section repealed. With smaller areas it is very difficult to get efficient inspection. If you want efficient inspection you must pay highly trained and highly salaried women to do the work and the smaller areas cannot afford to pay experienced women to the same extent that county councils can. The result is that the work of inspection is not so efficiently carried out, in the smaller areas as it is by the county councils in the larger areas. For all these reasons I hope that the Government may agree to the noble Marquess's Amendment.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am sorry that my noble friend's (Lord Peer's) Amendment only appeared on the Paper, I think, on Friday last. I am convinced that had the very large concession now moved by Lord Peel been known to the authority in Hertfordshire, the authority in Somerset and others which have been mentioned, and also to the County Councils Association, their opposition to this clause would have been very largely modified. Does the County Councils Association realise that no delegation can take place except at their own instance? If they realised that, surely they need not take such exception to the clause. That seems to me to be a final answer, and had they known it I cannot help thinking that they would not have authorised my noble friend Lord Lichfield to oppose in so uncompromising a manner.
I cannot help thinking that the opposition is based on two principal grounds of suspicion and mistrust. Lord Aberconway was very emphatic about the Local Government Board, about its interference, its being much enamoured of red-tape. I do not think this is a just criticism; in fact, I think it is a very unjust criticism indeed. This power of delegation does not add to the red-tape of the Local Government Board; it does not help its power of interference. Rather the contrary; and, where delegation does exit, it is largely the fault of Parliament, which for years past has pressed delegation in many cases to a ridiculous degree, notably in certain aspects of education. I do not think that it is just to blame this Government Department for a fault which, in my opinion, is directly attributable to Parliament itself.
The other main ground of opposition is in a fear that delegation will place power in the hands of small local authorities which are not to be trusted. Four or five of your Lordships have opposed Lord Peel, but none of them has answered the concrete case which he put. Lord Aberconway said he was afraid of power falling into the hands of what he called "the sort of board of guardian people"—I do not know exactly what he means—which would lead, he said, to favouritism; and Lord Meath mentioned "jobbery, ignorance, and intrigue" which would result from this clause. May one just analyse how this-is going to arise? At the present moment there are scores of authorities in Scotland under 10,000 inhabitants who have full and complete rights under the existing Act. Nobody objects. Is it, then, in authoritie

527
of 6,000, 8,000 or 10,000 inhabitants that jobbery, favouritism, and intrigue are to be expected? It is placed on the question of population—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is based on our knowledge of the working of local government in England.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: In England?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Is 25,000 what you call a "sort of board of guardian area" in England where jobbery is possible? Because there are areas in England of 25,000 inhabitants which have full and complete powers under the existing Act. Does the noble Marquess object to that? And yet, in the same breath, he objects to the Rhondda Valley with 150,000 inhabitants exercising these powers. That is really unreasonable; it cannot really be sustained. Willesden is a town of 120,000 inhabitants. You say that town shall be forbidden to exercise power under the Midwives Act. And yet there are fifty other towns in England smaller than Willesden which already do so. That is not reasonable; it is not just. And unless that case is answered I really think that the proposal of my noble friend Lord Peel holds the field.
The safeguards are not paper safeguards; they are very material. It is essential to get the assent of the county council; you have to get the assent of the Local Government Board, which, in spite of the attack upon it, is not going to delegate or assent to delegation merely for fun; you have to consult the Central Midwives Board, and, as my noble friend indicated, in certain instances you have to carry their assent with delegation. I cannot help thinking, therefore, that on grounds of propriety as well as logic it is difficult to refuse to the Rhondda Valley powers which are exercised by fifteen local authorities elsewhere in combination whose aggregate population is smaller than that of the Rhondda Valley. I should have thought myself that in view of the safeguards which are proposed, the knowledge which your Lordships have that delegation will not be allowed except where good cause is really shown, and that in any case delegation can only be offered to authorities far bigger than scores, even hundreds, of
528
local authorities which already exercise those powers, your Lordships would have done well to accept the Bill as amended by my noble friend Lord Peel.
EARL RUSSELL: I am quite ready to meet the Lord Privy Seal upon the ground which he has chosen. I have had personal experience of some of these smaller local authorities as well as the larger ones, and I am quite prepared to associate myself with what was said by Lord Meath. It does happen, unfortunately, that these smaller local authorities are very often to a large extent centres of intrigue, and that their affairs are run by a very small group. Indeed, I have a perfectly clear recollection of a period fifteen years ago when one of the metropolitan boroughs of London was in fact run by a close corporation which could easily meet round a table, and where the affairs of that borough were settled entirely by those people over the heads of the electors. So much for the integrity of administration which sometimes goes on in bodies of that sort, and of which, I think, you may have a reasonable fear in a case of this kind.
Then I was very much impressed by the argument of the noble Marquess below me as to the inadvisability of having a separate authority and a separate inspecting officer for a matter of from two to six midwives, instead of having an inspecting officer for the midwives of the whole county. I was also impressed, because it is a matter of practical importance, by his argument that it did not necesarily follow that the practice of a midwife was circumscribed by the demarcation of the area. I take now the point which the noble Earl has just made—namely, why should you not give a larger urban district area, like Willesden or the Rhondda Valley, these powers if you give them to smaller county boroughs? I think that is a rather false analogy unless he is prepared to carry it a little further; if that argument applies in this case why does it not apply to all the other matters of local government given them in that case, such as the powers of a borough in respect of centralisation. A borough has a certain corporate life and corporate existence which, I think, one would hardly say the Willesden urban district, for example, can claim; and if you give them all the powers which are incident to it there is no reason why they should not have this power as well. But why give them this particular power?

529
The noble Earl suggested that if the Amendment on the Paper had been known to those concerned their views would have been different. I speak without any communication with them and without any knowledge of their affairs, but from what we have heard this afternoon from those who are in touch With them it seems to me that this is hardly so, and I think that the Government will be well advised to how to what appears to be the general opinion in the House and to accept the Amendment to leave this clause out altogether. I should certainly vote with the noble Marquess below me if the matter is carried further.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I hope your Lordships will pardon me for saying two or three words on some of the points raised, although my noble friend behind me (Lord Crawford) has already dealt with most of them. First of all I must say a word in reply to the rather vehement attack which was made on the conduct of the Local Government Board by the noble Marquess. I think he will see, if I give one or two facts, how extremely unjust that attack was. I am not concerned to defend the Local Government Board in any sense than as regards this particular matter. The noble Marquess says the Local Government Board has used its influence to promote delegation. Now, what are the facts of the case? In the early stages there was no doubt a good deal of delegation by the county council represented by the noble Lord opposite, but it was at their own initiative, and it was done because in those cases they had not proper medical authorities who could do the work. But after the first two or three years of administration there has been a gradual movement towards reduction of delegation, and at the present time throughout the whole of the country there are only four cases of delegation. If the Local Government Board, as the noble Marquess suggests, has been using its influence in favour of delegation, all I can say is—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As the noble Viscount knows, I do not speak from any personal knowledge, and if I have been wrong I shall apologise and withdraw; but the information put into my hands was to the effect that the Local Government Board had, I will not say recently, but had been at one time the one to press for delegation and then asked the Central Midwives Board to approve of
530
delegation in cases where the population reached the very small figure of 20,000. If that is not true I will at once withdraw it, but if that has been part of the conduct of the Local Government Board it would be a reason, and a good reason, for being a little suspicious of their intervention in the present ease.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I can say positively that the Local Government Board has not only not encouraged but has discouraged delegation in the case of these smaller local authorities, especially in the rural district councils; and I wish to point out again, if I may, that not only is it discouraged in my Amendment but it is actually forbidden; that the county council is unable to delegate its powers to the rural district council; and that as regards what the noble Earl said with reference to county councils, as the initiative must come from them and as no delegation can take place unless they ask for it, I do not understand why they should distrust their own powers. With regard to the suggestion of red tape, and so on, on the part of the Local Government Board, the Local Government Board cannot act at all unless the movement takes, place from the county councils.
This is really a matter of convenience in the cases of these very large authorities where it is desirable for administrative purposes that this delegation should take place. Here again do the noble Marquess and the noble Lord suggest that all these matters about inspectors, about the class of woman, and so on, are unknown to the county councils? As a matter of fact they are fully seized of these matters. If theythink that the powerswill be improperly exercised in these particular areas, all the authorities have to do is not to delegate them; and it is precisely because experience shows that the powers are well exercised in these areas that I think it is better to make some loophole. It is not my business to criticise the county councils. I have said things in this House strongly in support of what they have done; but it is necessary to say that there are cases where they have not done the work very well, and that where they have in some cases delegated the work it has been far better done. I do not want to mention names, but in one or two cases if the work had been delegated it would probably have been better done. With regard to what the noble Marquess (Lord Crewe) said about the Central Midwives Board, when

531
he suggested that virtually the entire power of dealing with the matter should be invested in that body—
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: It scarcely amounted to that—that they would have a practical veto.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes; I should say they probably have that under my Amendment. The noble Marquess knows, of course, that as this Central Board is not represented in Parliament it would be necessary for the final deciding authority to be with the Local Government Board. But I have already mentioned that, as regards the London boroughs, the Local Government Board has distinctly said that it would follow the advice of the Central Midwives Board; and in other cases it would, of course, be also very largely guided —I am authorised to say this—by the advice of the Central Midwives Board.
I do not know what will be the fate of this Amendment after the criticism it has
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to leave out Clause 12. The noble Marquess said: I need not repeat any of the arguments. I will content myself with moving that this clause be struck out of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 12.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
received in your Lordships' House, but after the words "unless that council undertake to appoint as inspector of midwives a person" I should like to insert "preferably a woman." That would, perhaps, strengthen my Amendment; but on the whole I strongly urge the House to allow this one point of elasticity to he left in the Bill, and not absolutely to cut off all delegation which would have the effect of destroying some useful work that is being done by large local authorities in this country.
Amendment moved to the Amendment—
Line 6, after the word ("person"), insert ("preferably a woman").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question whether the proposed new subsection, as amended, shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 23, Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Colebrooke, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.) (L. Privy Seal.)

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Elphinstone, L.

Devonport, V.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Peel, V.

Lambourne, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Lytton, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Ranks borough, L.

Northbrook, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Stanhope, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Clinton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Yarborough, E.

Burnham, L.

Carnock, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Chaplin, V.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Salisbury, M. [Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Hutehinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Brassey, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Cottenham, E,

Knaresborough, L.

Grey, E.

Llandaff, L. Bp.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Harrowby, E.

Rotherham, L.

Lichfield, E.

Aberconway, L.

Saltoun, L.

Mayo, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Sanderson, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Balfour, L.

Sydenham, L.

Selborne, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Weardale, L.

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I move to insert, after Clause 12, the new clause standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Insert as a new clause:
Repeal of section nine of the principal Act.
. Section nine of the principal Act (which enables county councils to delegate their powers and duties to district councils) shall be repealed.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
Medical assistance in case of emergency.
14.—(1) In case of any emergency, as defined in the rules framed under section three I. (e) of tile principal Act, a midwife shall call in to her assistance a registered medical practitioner, and the local supervising authority shall pay to such medical practitioner a sufficient fee, with due allowance for mileage, according to a seale to be fixed by the Local Government Board, and such fee shall cover one subsequent visit.
(2) It shall be a condition of the payment of such fee that the medical practitioner so called in shall state in his claim to the local supervising authority the nature of the emergency.
(3) The midwife shall report forthwith to the local supervising authority each case of emergency in which she has called in a registered medical practitioner to her assistance, stating the nature of the emergency and the name of the medical practitioner.
(4) The local supervising authority shall have power to recover the fee from the patient or from the husband or other person liable to maintain the patient either summarily or otherwise as a civil debt, unless it be shown to their satisfaction that the patient or her husband or such other person is unable by reason of poverty to pay such fee.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to delete from subsection (1) the words "and such fee shall cover one subsequent visit." The noble Viscount said: These words are really unnecessary because the fees and number of visits will be defined by the rules, and they rather confuse than make clear the result.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 18, leave out "and such fee shall cover one subsequent visit."—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule:
Provisions of Principal Act Repealed.
In section 5 the words "in proportion to the "number of midwives who have given notice "during the year of their intention to practise "in those areas respectively. "
In section 10 the words "or to the body to "whom for the time being the powers and duties "of the local supervising authority shall have "been delegated under this Act, and the words "or delegated body."
Section 17 from "The General Medical Council" to the end of the section.
THE EARL OF MEATH THE EARL OF MEATH moved to insert as a new paragraph in the Schedule "Sec-
534
tion 9, the whole section." The noble Earl said: This is simply a question of drafting. I thought it better that it should be in the Schedule than in the body of the Bill.
Amendment moved —
Page 6, after line 12, insert as a new paragraph ("Section 9, the whole section ").—(The Earl of Meath.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will not oppose the Amendment, because I certainly think that if it is to be done this is the best way of doing it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

FINANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, for reasons familiar to your Lordships it is not usual to accompany the Motion for the Second Reading of the Finance Bill with a speech. I, therefore, merely beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Hylton.)
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not think me presumptuous if I make a few observations on the Second Reading of this Bill. It was my fate in another place to preside through the long Committee Stage of the Finance Bill in 1909, and I cannot help thinking of the difference in regard to this year's measure, where a Bill making a much heavier demand upon the pockets of the people has received far less discussion and hardly any opposition at all. This, of course, is due to the entirely different circumstances of the moment. There is another personal (observation which, perhaps, I may make. It is that it may surprise your Lordships, or those of your Lordships who were members of the other House in 1909, that I, who had to listen to so many weary hours of debate on finance, should ever care to speak myself on any Finance Bill or even to hear a speech from any one else. I think it would be a pity, however, if it became a habit in your Lordships' House for the Finance Bill to be passed entirely sub silentio. There have been in the past great financial authorities who were members of

535
your Lordships' House, and if at present there is no member of the great financial weight, say, of the late Lord St. Aldwyn or the late Lord Goschen, there may be such members of this House in future, and I am sure both the House and the country will desire to hear them from time to time on the Finance Bill of the year.
May I at this point explain that I do not speak as an authority on finance. I have no pretensions in that direction. I do not intend to offer any criticism upon the Bill, and I only want to make this one observation with regard to it—that, considering the enormous liability to which this country is committed, I do not think the demands made upon us as individuals are at all too large. That being the case I, of course, shall not discuss any matter of detail. The point to which I wish to ask your Lordships' attention for a few minutes is a comparison between the provision which is being made in this country and in Germany respectively for the finance of the war and for finance after the war. I choose the United Kingdom and Germany for the comparison because they are the two strongest members financially of the two groups of Powers that have been fighting since the beginning of the war, and I think the comparison is worth making because its results on the whole, at a time when the military position does give rise to a good deal of anxiety, are satisfactory to this country and unsatisfactory to Germany. I often wish that His Majesty's Government would keep us better informed about German finance. The people of Germany are infinitely better informed about our finances than we are about theirs. Quite recently I saw it stated that a White Paper had been issued in that country, written by an expert in our finance, and I think the comparative superiority of the provisions that we have made for this war has been the subject of praise even in pan-German newspapers in that country.
I know the objections that our Treasury officials would raise against giving any figures about German finance. Our finance is honest; theirs is dishonest in this sense—that the figures are unreliable. For instance, they still take credit for their pre-war revenue, about £150,000,000 sterling in all. In that pre-war revenue there is an item of about £36,000,000 from Customs, but, owing to the blockade, the commodities that are going into Germany at the present
536
time are so small that no large revenue such as that can possibly be raised from Customs at present. In regard to Excise, which produced £32,000,000,the chief items were brandy, malt, and sugar. Far less of all these commodities is being consumed in Germany at the present time than was the case before the war; yet they are taking credit for receiving the same sums which they received in peace time. Of the rest, about £50,000,000 came from non-tax revenue, chiefly from the Post Office and railways, and from extraordinary revenue, including loans; and the amounts which it was necessary to spend out of the non-tax revenue on the organisations which gave that revenue absorbed almost the whole of the sums that were received. In addition to Germany crediting herself with the old peace time revenue when she does not receive it, she does not on the other side debit herself with the £70,000,000 that used to he paid in peace time for the upkeep of the Army and Navy. That item is eliminated from the account, and the acknowledged deficit for this year of £144,000,00 sterling is arrived at, therefore, by over-estimating her receipts and underestimating her expenditure. It is a fictitious figure and it does not represent the facts, which, apparently, the German Government dare not disclose to the German people.
I quite understand the reluctance that might be expressed by our officials in such circumstances as these to give a definite account of German finance. None the less, I think an authoritative digest of the figures, as far as they are known, would be of great interest and use in this country, as only very few individuals here have even an elementary knowledge of German finance. Our papers give only scattered excerpts, disconnected one with the other, and even from Government publications—which I have a chance of seeing and which are not generally available to the public—I found it impossible to get any connected account of their finances. Fortunately, I found an expert who was able to explain matters to me, and the results seem to me so interesting that I am venturing to bring some of them to your Lordships' notice to-night.
It will be remembered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, in the very interesting and valuable reference which he made to German finance, stated that he estimated that the German

537
debt on March 31, 1919, would amount to £8,000,000,000 sterling. That is, of course, not only the funded debt but the unfunded debt, because there is always an unfunded debt in Germany of approximately £1,000,000,000 at any particular time unless it is immediately after a new loan. Interest at 5 per cent, and a sinking fund at one-half per cent. would amount to £440,000,000 per annum. He calculated that pensions after the war would cost Germany at least £150,000,000, and he thought a great deal more. He stated the normal pre-war expenditure at £130,000,000. In that, I think, he rather under-estimated than overestimated, but, if so, so much the better. These figures—£440,000,000, £150,000,000 and £130,000,000—add up to £720,000,000, which is the amount that Germany would have to meet if the war ended about March 31 next. The corresponding figure for this country, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, would be £650,000,000, made up of our pre-war expenditure of roughly £200,000,000, the extra amount to which we are committed for education and other items, the additional sum that will be required for pensions after the war and the interest and sinking fund on a net debt which he estimated would amount at the end of the current financial year to £6,856,000,000. These two figures, of £720,000,000 for Germany and £650,000,000 for this country, are fairly comparable. I think, on the whole, they are more in favour of Germany than of ourselves.
I am going to make three comparisons. The first comparison is the amount of permanent taxation that is being raised in Germany and in this country respectively to meet the sums which will have to be provided after this war is over. As regards this country, the whole of the £650,000,000 is provided in the Finance Bill of this year, with the taxes that have been levied before this year, and this is entirely independent of the sums raised from Excess Profits Tax and from the newly projected but not yet imposed Luxury Tax. The figure Germany has to provide is £720,000,000. Of that, so far as I can see, from permanent taxation she has only provided £342,000,000, made up of the £150,000,000 I have already referred to from pre-war revenue, a good deal of which is fictitious, £32,500,000 of new taxation imposed in 1916 (the first year in which she raised any war taxation), £40,000,000 of extra taxation raised in
538
1917, and £120,000,000 of new indirect taxation which she imposing this year. Therefore Germany has provided less than half of the amount from permanent taxation that will be required if the war came to a conclusion and she had to do no more borrowing, after March 31 next. We are providing the whole.
The second comparison I want to make is the provision for this year in Germany and in this country from taxation of all kinds, whether permanent or temporary. The acknowledged deficit in Germany, on the basis of the expenditure, is £144,000,000. That deficit is arrived at by over-estimating the receipts and under-estimating the expenditure, but I take it as stated for my purpose. To meet that deficit £120,000,000 of permanent taxation, new permanent taxation, is proposed in Germany for this year, but only half will accrue this year; and, in addition, certain war profit taxes. The net result is that Germany has budgeted for only £366,000,000, whilst we have budgeted for £842,000,000, and the taxes, which will produce £842,000,000 this year, will provide £888,000,000 in a full year. Again there emerges this difference, that Germany is not doing half what we are doing.
I come to the third test, and that is the total extra taxation raised from the beginning of the war to the present time in Germany and in this country. Count von Roedern stated in his Budget speech that Germany had proposed a burden of taxation, including this year, since the beginning of the war, of £200,000,000 from indirect taxation—I need not trouble your Lordships with the details—and £375,000,000 from direct taxation; and of this the details are a little interesting. He stated that £275,000,000 had been provided by a Capital Increment. Tax which was levied in Germany. The capital levy imposed in 1913, a storm signal of which comparatively little notice was taken in this country, provided £50,000,000, which he took credit for in the £375,000,000, because it had actually been paid since the war began. There was an additional Property Tax of £20,000,000, and a new War Profits Tax, proposed this year, of £30,000,000. That makes up the £375,000,000. In addition to the figure of £200,000,000 indirect taxation, and £375,000,000 direct taxation, there is a sum of £100,000,000 for which he claimed credit, raised by the Federal States and Communes. It is, of course, the fact that a good deal of the expenditure which is

539
borne by Imperial funds in this country is borne by the Federal States in Germany, and it is quite fair to add that sum of £100,000,000. These figures —£200,000,000, £375,000,000, and £100,000,000—bring Germany's contribution which will have been raised by March 31, 1919, towards the cost of the war and other purposes by extra taxation since the war began up to £675,000,000. The figure we have raised, or shall have raised by the same time, is £1,686,000,000. I take that figure from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget speech, and again I point out that Germany is doing less than half what we have done. In each year we have provided something towards the capital cost of the war, besides paying interest on our debts. Germany has paid interest to some extent out of loans, and has provided nothing towards the cost of the war. Thus by three different tests—the permanent taxation which will presumably last until after the war, the total taxation raised this year, and the total raised during the war—Germany has not made half the provision we have.
I should like to say one or two words about the proposals for new taxation this year. The taxes are not finally through the Reichstag, but they have been examined by Committees and have assumed probably very much their final shape. It is a curious fact that the Reichstag has immensely greater power over finance than the House of Commons in this country. It is impossible for any member of the House of Commons to propose any increase in taxation, but the Reichstag increases as well as decreases taxes proposed by the Government quite freely. So far as I can discover, the Reichstag parties will renounce the demand they were inclined to make for a regular Imperial Income Tax. They will renounce it at the persuasion of the Government, because such a claim would bring the Imperial authorities into direct conflict with the Federal States. Indirect taxes will be granted without diminution of revenue, but subject to increases and decreases in detail; and the Government have promised, in addition a War Profits Tax. A non-recurrent levy on property will also be imposed. Some of the new indirect taxes are interesting because they show the same fault of over-estimating what is likely to be produced by them. The Beer Duty, it is said, will produce an extra £17,000,000, but that figure is based on peace time consumption. I am credibly informed that the
540
amount of beer being consumed in Germany is something like one-tenth of the pre-war consumption, and therefore they cannot obtain during the war the £17,000,000 which they have budgeted for, or anything like it. In the same way the new spirit monopoly, it is stated, will produce £32,500,000, but as very little spirit is being used for drinking purposes, and nearly all of it is going for munition purposes, the spirit monopoly will not produce anything like £32,500,000.
A similar over-estimate is made in regard to the new duties on tea, coffee, cocoa, and chocolate, for hardly any of these commodities are going to Germany at the present time; yet they assume that these new taxes will produce £3,750,000, which is quite impossible. These proposals are all part of the dishonest make-believe finance which still takes credit for peace time receipts in regard to new and old taxes.
This question of German finance is not a matter which is merely intellectually interesting. The nations of the world, for the most part, are at present living on their capital. It is true that the capital is holding out much longer than might have been expected, but the day of reckoning must come, and I confess that for this country, if this war lasts much longer, I look forward to the day of reckoning with a good deal of apprehension. I do not want it to be supposed, from what I am saying, that I am satisfied as to what our position is going to be when the war is over as regards finance. I do not want to strike too optimistic a note. What I am dealing with is the relative position of Germany and ourselves, and whilst, if the war goes on much longer, I shall regard our financial position with a good deal of apprehension I should, if I were a German, regard the future of Germany with absolute terror.
This is a pan-German war. Welt Macht oder Niedergang is the phrase that made the war. That is the spirit of the war, and which keeps it going to-day, and one difficulty of ending this war is that the pan-German's day is over unless Germany obtains indemnities as well as territory. There were some people in Germany a year ago, and there were some people in this country, who said that Germany would win this war if she did not lose it, and they used the Seven Years War as an analogy. But there is one great difference between the Seven Years War and this. There was no debt, I believe, at

541
the end of the Seven Years War, and there will be an enormous debt at the end of this. But it is not the pan-Germans who made that remark in Germany. The pan-German is a simple minded mortal who presses his conviction with something of the crude dogmatism and absolute cocksureness which is assumed, if I may say so without offence, by the Morning Post in this country. But the Pan-German has been consistent. He has said all along that Germany will be ruined if she does not get indemnities, and I unity say incidentally that some well-informed neutrals who are friends of the Entente and not of Germany have expressed the same opinion to me. But the most extreme pacifist of whom I have ever heard in this country has never suggested that Germany should get indemnities at the end of this war, and I hope that we may take it as a certainty that she will get nothing of the kind. If she does not, then she must raise, in addition to what she is now raising, some £300,000,000 to £400,000,000 per annum of taxation, and to judge by our experience and by her recent efforts she must get the bulk of that £300,000,000 or £400,000,000 from direct taxation, and she will have to get it at a time when war profits will have ceased, and when the world is slowly recuperating after the most devastating and costly and wasteful] war that has ever been fought.
What are the inevitable results of that? The inevitable results are, I think, friction between the Federal States and the Imperial Government. The Federal States have always claimed the monopoly of the Income Tax in Germany, and the Income Tax in one form or another—you may put it under a different name if you like—is the chief and the best and most fruitful source of direct taxation. If there is serious trouble between the Imperial authorities and the Federal States in Germany, that must have a fissiparous tendency. There is a second result. If this large sum must be raised chiefly by direct taxation, the Junkers and the capitalists who are chiefly responsible for this war will have to pay for it. In so far as there is a difficulty in raising the necessary revenue to pay for this war, Germany is less likely to be able to prepare for the next. The cost of future wars must be enormous, and Germany, it seems to me, is marching into bankruptcy now. It will take an immense effort to set her on her legs financially after this war. In these circumstances she is less likely to desire to prepare for new wars, and less
542
likely to be able to prepare for a new war even if she does desire it. I trust that the "will to war" will be a wasting asset after this war is over.
There is one further corollary which it is not unfair to make. If Germany receives no indemnities, it is clear that the longer the war lasts the more her people will be called upon to pay. These huge extra sums will have to be paid, and when it becomes apparent to Germany that she will receive no indemnities, and that the people who made the war will have to pay for it., then we may see a change of spirit. That conviction would no doubt come most quickly from military factors, and at the present moment, of course, the military factors are not such as to discredit the extreme pan-German view. With that observation, my Lords. I leave the question with the expression of the hope that the military prospects will change for the better before long.
I have stated the case as it appears to me. I do not know how far my arguments will appeal to His Majesty's Government, who have much more complete information on these matters than I possess, but if they have appealed, I venture to suggest (not as a matter for immediate reply, for I have no desire to raise a debate to-night) that such arguments, stated as they would be far better than I have stated them by a statesman whose voice is powerful enough to reach Germany, would not be without use in that country if they came at the right moment. This may not be, probably is not, the psychological moment for anything of the kind. A year ago, I think, arguments on this line would have been given heed to in Germany if spoken by our most prominent men, and the time may come again when they will be useful once more. I trust, if that time does come, His Majesty's Government will not hesitate to use them.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, before the Question is put by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I think the House will wish that the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, should be thanked for the very interesting speech which he has just delivered. The information that he has imparted to the House is based upon statistics which are not very easy for the ordinary man in the street to obtain in this country, but I have checked all the figures

543
which the noble Lord has given with the information that has been provided for me by the Treasury for that purpose, and I believe that I am justified in saving, from the information in the possession of the Treasury, that the whole of the figures which Lord Emmott has given to your Lordships are absolutely accurate so far as it is possible to obtain accuracy in such matters. Your Lordships know that, unfortunately, our speeches in this House are very often passed over by the newspapers with very little regard indeed, but I most earnestly hope that the Press will take notice in a fuller way than they are often accustomed to do of the observations that have fallen from Lord Emmott this evening. I can assure noble Lords that it will be my first duty to put before the Treasury his suggestion that if possible some further use may be made of the speech which he has delivered this evening in order to spread abroad the very remarkable facts and figures which he has given to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2a

DECIMAL COINAGE.
LORD SOUTHWARK LORD SOUTHWARK had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to carry out the understanding on which the debate was adjourned when the Motion was before the House for the Second Reading of the Coinage (Decimal System) Bill [H L.] and reference to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament; whether the Committee to be appointed, pursuant to that understanding, will consist mainly of members of the two Houses in equal numbers and, if necessary, also comprise some other members with special knowledge; whether the reference will invite consideration both of the scheme described in the Bill, and also of the other specific plans mentioned in the recent debate; and whether the Committee will be empowered to embody such recommendations as they may make in the form of a Bill so that Parliament may, if it thinks fit, consider the matter without delay.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, considering the length, and I hope the clearness, of the Question which I have put upon the Paper, I think that my best policy will be to
544
wait and hear what my noble friend who replies for the Government has to say in the hope that when he concludes I shall have nothing to do but to express thanks for the answer he has given.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend, I have to inform him that the intentions of His Majesty's Government are generally as indicated in the Question which he has put upon the Paper. It is proposed to recommend to the King that a Royal Commission should be appointed at an early date, to consist of members of both Houses of Parliament and other persons with special qualifications, to consider the question of the desirability or otherwise of making any change in our coinage system. The Commission will, it is intended, be specifically invited by the terms of reference to consider the proposals embodied in the Bill which was recently introduced by my noble friend into this House; otherwise the reference will be of a general character, and it will be open to the Commission, if they decide in favour of recommending a change. either to adopt the proposal contained in my noble friend's Bill or to make any other proposals which may commend themselves to their judgment. The Commission will, of course, be able, if they think fit, to put forward their recommendations in the form of a draft Bill. I cannot give my noble friend the names of the gentlemen who will be recommended to His Majesty as members of the Commission, but I can assure him that the Government have not the smallest wish or intention that any unnecessary delay should occur in the matter.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, it only remains for me to say that on the whole I am very pleased with the reply that the noble Lord has been able to give to my Question. During my now rather long Parliamentary experience Royal Commissions have nearly always been regarded as suggesting postponement, but I am very glad to hear from my noble friend that neither he nor the Government have any desire for delay. On the occasion when I moved the Second Reading of the Bill the general desire was that there should be no delay, either in the forming of the Commission or in its proceeding with its work; therefore all I can ask the noble Lord to say is that the Commission will begin its proceedings at once. I can assure him and the Government that this question of

545
decimal coinage is considered by the business and commercial community of the country at large, by the bankers and Chambers of Commerce, and all those other great bodies, as a very urgent question. In the interests of our foreign trade and the business of the country generally it is one which ought to be considered and the Report produced at the earliest moment. I am not at all doubting the sincerity of the answer of my noble friend. I am very much obliged to him, and I only hope that the Commission will soon be formed and set to work.

THE SUPPLY OF COAL.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is a fact that the new conditions and Regulations regarding the supply of coal for the metropolis are to come into force early in July, and, if so, when we may expect to see the text of the Regulations.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, the Household Fuel and Lighting Order, 1918, appears in to-day's Gazette. The Order will date from July 1, and will therefore come into force at once. The Order should have appeared last Friday, but owing to a serious difficulty in printing, caused by the influenza epidemic, it has been impossible to produce it before to-day.
EARL RUSSELL: If the Order dates from. July 1, I hope the offences are not
546
retrospective. We are used to a good many unusual things now, but we shall not, I hope, find when the Order appears that we have committed offences that we did not know of. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us that the Order will contain something intelligible. I have heard all sorts of statements about equivalent values of tons of coal and units of electric light, and what you may do in regard to one thing and what you may do in regard to another. It is frightfully complicated and difficult to understand, and I think the noble Lord will probably agree that, with the best will in the world to obey the law and not to commit criminal offences, it is very difficult, because the Orders are so hard to understand and to remember. I hope this Order is full and clear.
LORD STANMORE: I think the noble Earl will find that these equivalents are made very clear in the Order.

THEIR MAJESTIES SILVER WEDDING.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I should like to give notice that it is proposed that on Monday next a special meeting of your Lordships' House should be called, at the usual hour, to consider a Motion offering congratulations to the King and Queen on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of their Majesties' wedding.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.