Lords Sitting of 4 July 1918

Preamble
Lord ROTHSCHILD—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Read 2a.

THE SHELL FACTORY EXPLOSION.
LORD ARMAGHDALE: My Lords, I desire to ask the Government whether they are able to afford us any further information in regard to the recent explosion in the Midlands.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for having given me private notice of this Question, and I am glad of the opportunity of giving all the information that is now available as to the serious explosion which took place, as your Lordships know, last Monday evening. The explosion was instantaneous, and as far as can be ascertained it was not preceded by a fire, nor, I am glad to say, was it followed by any but small fires which were easily subdued. This was on account of the non-inflammable, material of which the factory was constructed. I regret to say that the loss of life has proved to be larger than was at first believed. About 100 persons, as far as at present can be ascertained, were killed, roughly two-thirds men and one-third women, in addition to which about 150 people were injured.
The House will realise that it is not always possible, in the case of an explosion, to say exactly what causes it, more especially in a case such as this when it is a question of a comparatively new explosive, but an independent Inquiry is going to be held into all the circumstances. One thing I can say, my Lords, and that is that it is quite certain that no factory, certainly not in this country, nor I believe anywhere else in the world, has ever been conducted with greater regard to the safety of the workers. I may add that less than a quarter of an hour before the explosion took place the factory had been thoroughly gone through by the military danger building officer, who is responsible for seeing that all the conditions of the safety
608
regulations are carried out. A very large number of workers were on the premises at the time, and, as previously instructed, they scattered at once on the explosion taking place, but returned immediately to assist in the work of rescue. There never was the slightest semblance of panic, and owing to the prompt measures taken by the staff and employees, as well as by the local authorities and others, the wounded were all taken to local hospitals in the neighbourhood in a marvellously short space of time.
I am glad to be able to state also that within twenty-four hours of the explosion taking place arrangements had been made whereby a portion of the factory will be able to continue manufacturing. This has been arranged on a continuous three-shift basis, and has been in operation since yesterday morning. I think that the House will agree that this is a magnificent proof of the courage and spirit of the employees in the factory. The loss in output will, therefore, I am glad to be able to say, be considerably less than was at first feared.
It is impossible to praise too highly the admirable arrangements that were made by the manager and staff in the event of any explosion taking place, and in the measures which they took when the disaster occurred; and it is difficult for me to express to your Lordships in any adequate fashion the magnificent spirit which animated every single person in the factory from the highest to the lowest. I think I can say that this spirit was really nothing short of heroism, and I am confident that I am only voicing the feelings of all present in the House in paying a sincere tribute to the splendid behaviour of every one on that occasion, and in offering our deepest sympathy to the relatives of those who have lost their liven, as they have done, in the service of their country just as much as any soldier on the battlefield.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am certain that the whole House will desire to echo the concluding words of my noble friend opposite in expressing profound sympathy with the relatives of those who have lost their lives in the performance of duty in this appalling accident, and also the sentiments of admiration which the noble Lord expressed of the coolness and

609
courage which was shown by those who were present. I think I understood the Noble Lord to say that an Inquiry would be held into the circumstances. This Inquiry will, I suppose, be of a purely technical character. There is no suggestion, as the noble Lord said, that any carelessness was shown in the handling of these dangerous materials. Of course, in one respect that is not in itself a rea-assuring statement. One can understand that human nature being what it is some lapse from perfect care may from time to time take place, but an unexplained disaster of this kind, due possibly to some physical or chemical qualities in the material which have not hitherto been understood, may be more serious, but I have no doubt that the Inquiry of which the noble Lord spoke will throw such light on this calamity as can be expected to be thrown after a devastating accident of this Kind.

LAND DRAINAGE (PINCHBECK) PRO- VISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
LAND DRAINAGE (WOODWALTON) PRO VISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
FINANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

RECONSTITUTION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE THE MARQUESS OF CREWE had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government when it is proposed to take action upon the subject of the reconstitution of this House, regarding which the Conference of Members of both Houses appointed by His Majesty's Government has recently reported.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, in asking His Majesty's Government the Question which stands in my name on the Paper, I desire to confine myself strictly to its terms. I say this because a few days ago there appeared in the Press a by no means unnatural conjecture that I intended on this occasion to raise a debate upon the
610
subject of the reform of your Lordships' House. In my opinion it would not have been wise to take that course. It would I think have been idle, until His Majesty's Government, who are the only people in the position to deal with such a subject, are prepared to bring forward some concrete proposals relating to it. I should never have thought of asking your Lordships, in the course of a day or two's debate, to traverse the whole field over which we plodded day by day in my noble friend's Committee during several months. No useful result could follow from such a proceeding.
I shall therefore confine myself to the terms of the Question on your Lordships' Notice Paper; but I desire to impress with the utmost gravity upon His Majesty's Government, and upon your Lordships' House as a whole, the danger which in my view, and I believe in the view of all those who have been able to examine this question, would attach to complete inaction upon it up to the time when a General Election takes place. It is, of course, impossible for any of us to say when the General Election will be. One hears that it is likely to be deferred somewhat later than was at first thought. It was freely estimated at one time that a General Election might have taken place in November, or even October, of this year, and I understand that His Majesty's Government have taken all possible steps to accelerate the preparation of the new Register. But the general belief in the public mind is that a General Election is at any rate not likely to take place before the early months of next year. I repeat that if, when that General Election takes place, nothing whatever has been done towards the reconstitution of your Lordships' House, there are possibilities of serious constitutional danger. We know what the present position is. Your Lordships are subjected to the restrictions of the Parliament Act, which are complained of by some as practically sterilising the energies of the House. The Parliament Act, by the admission of its authors, of whom I was one, was never intended to be a permanent measure. Therefore it is reasonable to say that men of all Parties and of all views agree that that Act, if not repealed, ought to be seriously qualified by further legislation. That is, as I have said, a matter of general agreement.
But although it is true that the Parliament Act powerfully restricts the possible

611
action of this House as it might have been taken before that measure became law, yet it leaves extensive powers to your Lordships' House. I will give only a single instance. Supposing it had been the view of the majority of this House that woman suffrage ought not to become law until after a General Election. Supposing this House had shown itself so closely wedded to a system of proportional representation that it would rather have sacrificed the Representation of the People Act than agree to its passage without it—will anybody say that your Lordships could have been regarded as powerless and futile if you had rejected that Bill? Will even my noble friend Lord Salisbury take that view? We should have been on the edge, at any rate, of a social revolution if your Lordships had thrown out that I say this merely to show that the possibilities of the future are not altogether on one side.
Nobody knows what the constitution of the majority of the House of Commons will be after a General Election, and nobody knows what Government that majority will advise His Majesty to form. The possibilities are, of course, numerous. It may be that a General Election will take place, not only before the war is in any sense over, but while its ultimate issue, though not uncertain—because we have never admitted any uncertainty of that issue—may yet be so obscure as not to make it clear what the future, either abroad or at home, will be immediately after it. Expressing a purely personal opinion, and speaking for nobody else, my own view is that if an Election were so to take place in the full currency of the war, the present state of affairs as between Parties ought to be maintained. I do not think it is possible during the actual course of the war to resume a clear-cut Party conflict, even though the two or three Parties in the State were to be constituted on different lines from those which existed before the war.
On the other hand, it is possible that the end of the war may be in immediate sight when a General Election takes place. If that were so, it is difficult to believe that some return to controversies between Parties would not be actively set on foot. I ask the House to consider what would be the position of this House in a revival of Party controversy of that kind. I confess I look forward with great dismay to such a prospect. Personally I have no fear of
612
the actions of any Government, whatever its complexion, which is chosen by the majority of the British people. We cannot always get a Government of the precise complexion which we prefer. But one thing I do dread, and that is the possibility of a conflict between the Government of the day and your Lordships' House, compared with which the conflict that took place a few years ago between your Lordships' House and the Liberal majority in another place would be merely a pale shadow, regarded as a constitutional conflict. It is impossible to say what the effect on the future of the Constitution, possibly upon the existence of any Second Chamber at all, might be if such a conflict were to arise. And it is for that reason that I implore His Majesty's Government to take into serious consideration the possibility of dealing with this matter before the life of this Parliament is closed.
Before very long, I suppose, we shall be invited to consider a further term of life for the existing Parliament. Unless I am mistaken, that has to be done during the present month. It is possible that the date which is then mentioned may give, or at any rate appear to give, some indication of the time when His Majesty's Government expect that a General Election may be held. But be that as it may, I cannot see why, in the course of the present autumn, your Lordships' House, to whom I should have supposed in the first instance consideration of the subject would be remitted, should not undertake the consideration of a Government Bill on this subject. So far as I know, the only important measure which we are likely to have to consider in the immediate future is Mr. Fisher's Education Bill, deserving, of course, the closest consideration and examination, which it will no doubt receive here, though not at the same length as has been devoted to it in the other House.
When that measure is passed there does not appear to be anything impending which should prevent the consideration in the autumn by your Lordships of this subject. I am assuming—and I do so confidently—that it is not proposed to adjourn your Lordships' House for a very long period. During the whole progress of the war the Government of the day has always assumed that the House would not wish to part for a period at any rate of months with the power of being called together for a consideration of public business. I assume,

613
therefore, that no very long adjournment will be proposed, and that we shall consequently have a considerable period in the autumn to consider such a measure. And I put it seriously to the noble Earl, the Lord President, whether, in view of the considerations which I have stated, and which, as I firmly believe, cannot be traversed, he will not advise his colleagues to proceed with the consideration of this subject; not necessarily, of course, precisely on the lines which my noble friend's Report indicate, though I hope that close examination will show that those main lines might reasonably be followed in preference to the many other alternatives which some would prefer. I can hardly think that His Majesty's Government would desire to give the whole matter the go-by, realising how deeply it has occupied us in the past, and realising also the untoward results which may follow a complete neglect of it in the immediate future.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I agree with the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition that the present time would be singularly inopportune for a discussion of the general question of the reform of your Lordships' House; or, indeed, for a discussion of the particular proposals that are contained in the Report of the Conference of which the noble Marquess himself was a member. Moreover, elastic as our system is in this House, I conceive that such a discussion would be out of order in strict relation to the terms of the Question which the noble Marquess has placed upon the Paper. That is the Question which I will endeavour to answer. But before I do so, may I take the opportunity—I am sure the House would wish me to, because it is the first occasion that has presented itself—of testifying to our general recognition of the immense amount of time, of care, and of thought, devoted by the members of Lord Bryce's Conference to the examination of this problem.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: To that I should like to add that it is really a great tribute to Lord Bryce personally that he should have brought his colleagues to so considerable a measure of agreement. Reading through the Report of his Conference for the third or fourth time, as I did this afternoon, it seemed to me to be a
614
model of patient investigation, of careful and well-balanced reasoning, and of an earnest desire to reconcile conflicting points of view; and of this we may be sure, that whenever this (10vernment, or any Government, proceeds to legislate upon the subject, this Report will be of invaluable assistance to them in taking up the duty.
I noticed that the noble Marquess did not ask whether any action had already been taken by the Government in connection with the presentation of this Report; and I assume that he did not ask the question because he was well aware in advance of the reply that I should be compelled to give. I will be candid about the matter. Since the presentation of the Report it has been simply impossible for the Government, amid the overwhelming duties connected with the war that have rained upon them, to address themselves to a question of this great moment with the time and the seriousness that it demands. In other times, under a pressure less severe, it would have been the duty of this Government, or of any Government, immediately to consider the Report of such a Conference. But not only have we ourselves been absorbed; Parliament has been absorbed with important business in what have been, as we all know, and what continue to be the most anxious days of the war, and we have not yet been able to turn our attention to this matter.
The noble Marquess's questions were addressed rather to the future. A considerable portion of his speech was devoted to a consideration of the circumstances that will arise when next we are confronted with a General Election. With what he had to say about the attitude of Parties on that occasion, the possible evolution of the Party system in this country, I, perhaps, could hardly deal; it would be scarcely germane to the subject to do so. I did, however, note with much interest that he stated most emphatically, and with all the authority that attaches to his position, that he—and I am sure he spoke also for his friends—regarded the Parliament Act as of an essentially temporary nature which must in time—and let us hope in no long time—be replaced by some better constitutional instrument.
The noble Marquess then went on to lay stress upon the grave consequences of delay, upon the desirability of not letting a matter of this description simmer, of not allowing public opinion to form in

615
hostility to it, and of taking advantage of such time as may be at our disposal between now and a General Election seriously to approach the matter. With a good deal that he said on that point I, in common with your Lordships, will be in general agreement; but I should like to put to him and to the House one consideration. It is this. The reference of this matter to Lord Bryce's Conference was an attempt, based upon the lines of a successful endeavour of a similar description elsewhere, to deal with an intensely controversial matter by agreement. Such agreement, or a large measure of such agreement, was secured and was acted upon in the case of the Representation of the People Bill. Now as regards these proposals I have already pointed out that great credit is due to the noble Viscount for having secured a not unsubstantial measure of agreement amongst his colleagues on the Conference. Whether that agreement would be maintained in debate upon a Bill in this House, it is not for me to conjecture—I take the Report of the Conference as it stands—but I respectfully point out to your Lordships that there are two other forms of agreement that are required in order to induce His Majesty's Government to take its hands off the war machine and devote itself energetically to legislation of this kind. They are some assurance of Parliamentary agreement, and some assurance of agreement in public opinion.
Let me remind your Lordships of what happened in the case of the Report of the Speaker's Conference. After Mr. Speaker had written his letter to the Prime Minister and his Report was made public property, a Motion was made in the House of Commons by no less a person than Mr. Asquith, calling the attention of that House to the subject and inviting an expression of general approval, and calling upon His Majesty's Government to legislate in the matter. That Motion was, if I remember aright, carried by a majority of 341 to 62—in other words, by an overwhelming majority of one House of Parliament in favour. On that basis His Majesty's Government felt justified in proceeding without delay. There were similar manifestations, I think, of public opinion throughout the country. I do not know whether the whole of the people are so absorbed in the war that they have not had much time to devote to the Report of Lord Bryce's Conference, but I have not yet observed any very general signs of public
616
enthusiasm in favour of these proposals, or of public desire that they should be proceeded with without delay. I do not want to exaggerate that, or to misinterpret public opinion, but if noble Lords are anxious that the Government should devote themselves in this matter to the preparation of a Bill and to placing it with Government authority on the Table of both Houses, I would suggest that they should take such steps as may be open to them to marshal and organise public opinion in order that His Majesty's Government, before taking such action as is suggested, may be assured that it has public opinion behind it. Such an assurance has, I must confess, not vet reached us, and I think that this preliminary stage ought to be gone through by noble Lords before they come, as no doubt they will at a later date, to press the Government to make some more definite declaration upon the matter.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I rise not, of course, to discuss the merits of this subject, but because I wish to make one or two observations upon points which fell from my noble friend beside me and from the noble Earl opposite. I do not find myself wholly in agreement with my noble frond Lord Crewe about the expediency of trying to take some step between now and the General Election. I think that all the objections which the noble Earl pointed out apply, and, more than that, that we are in this enormous difficulty, that it is evident that the Government has not made up its mind in the least on any question of principle in this matter. On that I want to say a word.
My noble friend Lord Bryce presided over a Conference in circumstances of great difficulty. Instead of, as is usual, being given a principle and asked to work it out, he was given no principle but was asked to preside over a Conference and to see whether agreement was possible. Of course, agreement was not possible, and there were dissents at every turn. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh headed one dissent, and there was another dissent by my noble friend Lord Loreburn and others who were associated with him. But all this was as nothing to the storm of dissent which arose in every quarter of public opinion as expressed in the newspapers; yet I venture to say that this nation owes my noble friend Lord Bryce a debt of gratitude for what he did, because it was obvious that he could not present

617
a Report from the whole Conference, but what he did present was one of the most illuminating and helpful State Papers of Our recent records. So long as this subject is under discussion, so long will those who discuss it turn to the composition which my noble friend signed with his own signature and sent to the Prime Minister, indicating the course of the inquiry and the various views presented. Why did my noble friend take this course? Because the Government failed in the duty of the Government, which was to make up its mind on some policy and lay that policy down for the Conference to try to bring about an agreement. If ever there was a question on which it was hopeless to expect agreement without a principle being given in advance it was this question, and because no principle was given it was obviously impossible for the Conference to come to any sort of agreement.
In this condition of things, and with this hopeless disagreement, I am entirely with the noble Earl in thinking that it would be most inexpedient to make any attempt to bring a Bill before Parliament unless there is general agreement, which I do not think is possible, upon the form which that Bill should assume. It is perfectly plain that there is not going to be perfect agreement in the form expressed in Lord Bryce's memorable letter, and I do not gather that the Government have anything more in their heads. Nor is it much to be wondered at. I take a great interest in this question. I was in a Government which did not neglect it but was constantly considering it, and we found it intensely difficult to come to a conclusion. That was the reason for the delay in regard to the Preamble of the Parliament Act; but there were views which very definitely presented themselves and present themselves now.
At one extreme is the idea that in a reformed Chamber you should get a Second Chamber with a large hereditary clement. At the other end is the antithesis, which is that the most conservative and effective of Second Chambers is one which is nearly a replica of the House of Commons, and should not hold office longer than the House of Commons, and should be elected by the House of Commons. It may be paradoxical, but I believe that to be the most conservative and effective Second Chamber which you are going to get in this country; that with any other, you are
618
likely to be in conflict. You have just added to the electors at least 8,000,000, and probably a good many more. You are also verging upon a new state of social questions upon which it will be very easy for the two Houses to come into conflict and about which unity of policy is essential. It is perfectly obvious that democracy is progressing at a tremendous pace in this country. The war has accelerated that pace; all old notions are being reconsidered, and there is a general feeling that the distance between the conditions of the poor and the conditions of the rich should be réndered much less than it has been hitherto.
Another very serious consideration which arises out of the war is the financial prospect. My noble friend Lord Emmott made a most interesting speech on Tuesday in which he gave some figures of a reassuring kind, but economists have not been unanimously satisfied about Mr. Bonar Law's figures given in the House of Commons. Those who are interested in the subject have only to turn to the current number of the Economic Journal and read the articles appearing there, in which you will find an estimate, supported by a good deal of plausible reasoning, that we might to expect as at least possible that we shall have to make provision for a debt of £8,000,000,000 at the end of the war. I will not go into the reasons for that. If that be so, then we have to provide £400,000,000 for the interest, £80,000,000 for a 1 per cent. sinking fund, £50,000,000 at least for pensions, before we can begin to live; and to begin to live with the social problems in front of us, and with the new outlook, suggests that the provision of £800,000,000 will not be too much. All sorts of changes will have to be made. Cottages have to be provided in enormous numbers. The State has already undertaken large obligations. The electrical supply has to be forthcoming if the production of the country is to be developed, and on all hands the prospect is one of largely increased expenditure. Therefore, though I think it the idlest of all things to prophesy, the last thing I should wish to commit myself to is, that those economists are wrong who think that we cannot look forward to an expenditure of less than £800,000,000 as the amount which we shall have to meet as the annual expenditure if the war goes on a little time longer.
If this be so, it gives rise to a set of social problems in which it is most im-

619
portant that the two Chambers should be as nearly as possible of one mind. I say, parodoxical as it may seem, that I believe this to he a real source of Conservative instinct. The First Chamber will agree with a Second Chamber with which it is in sympathy and will delegate to it powers, even of checking itself and retarding its action, which it would never tolerate in a Chamber that was different; and in the face of these tremendous changes of which I have spoken, what chance is there of your Lordships here—if you desired it, which I am sure you would not—being able to resist the demand of the coming democracy for a change in the constitutional relations in this country?
I have risen to say these things, not because I wish to speak in an alarming way, not because I wish to speak as a pessimist at all, but because I think they are enormously serious. I feel that our great comfort and mainstay is that we are dealing with a great, sane, generous, good-natured people, which has never been revolutionary when it has been properly treated, and which is not likely to be revolutionary in the future if we do not raise revolutions. It is because I am afraid that to take action on the footing of the proposal in the letter of my noble friend Lord Bryce to the Prime Minister, or anything remotely approaching to that—or anything falling much short of what I have indicated to your Lordships as what seems to me the view which is gradually looming out and likely to be pressed on—will be a source of great danger, that it is with some relief I learn from the noble Earl that the Government is not in the slightest degree likely to take any action at present, and, as I gather, has not even made up its mind in the least on the principle which it will desire to follow.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, I had not intended to take any part whatever in this debate, but some remarks which have just fallen from my noble and learned friend make it necessary for me to do so, because it would not be right that some of his statements should go uncontradicted. I thank my noble friend for the kind words he has been good enough to use about the Report, and the small share which I bore in that Report, but I must express my regret that he should have thought it necessary, in spite of the remarks with which my noble friend Lord Crewe opened the debate, to diverge into what was prac-
620
tically a discussion of one of the schemes which was before the Conference and which was dealt with in it. I think it extremely undesirable that we should venture at this stage to enter into any discussion of the schemes or of their merits, and I am sorry it should have been begun.
I cannot follow my noble and learned friend into the general consideration—economic, financial, and others—into which he seemed to me to diverge, and whose relevance to the particular question I confess I have failed to discover, but I do want to point out to your Lordships that I think he has, unintentionally, very much exaggerated the amount of what I will call the haste and comparative indifference with which this scheme was received. The scheme appeared at the moment when the mind of the country was entirely occupied by two questions of the gravest import. One was the position of our Front in France; the other was the situation in Ireland. It was perfectly impossible for the newspapers or for public opinion in the country to devote themselves with due deliberation to a question of so very difficult a nature, and I think that to speak of a storm of disapproval is a complete, though unconscious and unintentional, misrepresentation of the facts. It was my duty to read a good many—I think nearly all—of the statements which I saw in the Press, but I did not find them always very illuminative. They did not all seem to be the result of a close study of the proceedings of the Conference, but I certainly did not gather that they were in any sense whatever an indication of general disapproval, either by the Press or by the public, of the suggestions which the Conference had put forward.
Similarly, my noble friend has, I think, very much exaggerated the differences of opinion which, as he stated, arose in the Conference itself. You could not possibly have any body of men treating a question which bristles with so many difficulties—which in time past has been the subject of so much controversy, upon which in time past so many people have committed themselves to views—without having some difference of opinion; and I do not believe, if I were to take my chance of any five members of your Lordships' House, that you would find that those five members, even if they belonged to the same Party, would necessarily be agreed upon all the rules or principles which ought to be laid

621
down for the constitution of a Second Chamber. There must be objections taken to every scheme. We are perfectly well aware that objections could be taken to this scheme, and that they would be taken to any scheme that has been proposed or will be proposed. If you were to go, as some of us have gone, into an examination of the conditions of the Second Chambers in other countries you would find that there is no Second Chamber against which serious objections cannot be and are in fact taken; but, nevertheless, this does not prevent these Chambers from rendering extremely valuable services to tae countries in which they exist.
Upon one thing at any rate the Conference was, with hardly an exception, agreed, and that was as to the extreme importance and gravity of this question. I think the longer our deliberations lasted the more I was struck by the sense which emerged from the discussions of the extraordinary value which a properly constituted Second Chamber would have in the constitution of this country. Therefore I have ventured, if I may do so respectfully, to support what was said by my noble friend Lord Crewe when he commended this question to the very earnest attention of His Majesty's Government, and I regret that any different opinion than that should exist in the mind of my noble and learned friend, because I can safely say that the longer our deliberations lasted the more we were impressed—and the more I think those who have outside Parliament addressed themselves to the subject have been impressed—with the undesirability of leaving things where the Parliament Act now leaves them, and the urgency of bringing this question to a permanent settlement.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I am quite conscious that there are other Questions upon the Paper, and I certainly do not desire to abstract any great quantity of time from the period which the noble Lords in whose names these Questions stand will desire to use in placing them before the House. But there are one or two points that I should like to submit for your Lordships' consideration.
The noble Earl the Leader of the House has led us to understand that the Government is so occupied with other matters that it finds itself quite unable to give time for the consideration of this question. I must say I heard the statement with great
622
regret. Every one knows how absorbing must be the questions of a wider and more international character with which the Government is engaged, but it is their first duty to provide us security at home, as well as victory in the field. It is no use pursuing this war without regard to the effect of the social fortes that are fermenting in this country and may produce dangerous results if they are not properly guided and controlled.
There are two things to which, I think, we should all agree. The first is, that in order to obtain stable and wise government—and at no time in our history will stable and wise government be more needed than when this war is ended—it is necessary there should be two Chambers to our Constitution. I think also that most of us, possibly not all, would be in agreement that this House as at present constituted will be quite unable to stand the storm that will be raised against its existence by the large and newly enfranchised electorate that will take part in the next election. It would be, to my mind, something both pitiable and dangerous if, when this war is over, we were once more to be restored to some of the old barren controversies that have occupied the platform for the last thirty years. Unless we can clear them out of the way, and proceed to deal with the other new and difficult problems which will await us, we may run the danger of a great disaster. There can be no doubt that one of the most important of all these questions is the proper constitution of the Second Chamber of our two Houses of Parliament, and the proper adjustment of the relations between the two Houses themselves. I am uneasy lest this matter should be treated as one that can be postponed and put off, and it may be found that the growing tide of popular opinion will make short work of the whole matter and sweep the Second Chamber completely away. I sincerely hope the Government may find time, among their very many grave and arduous duties, to consider a question which, in my mind, is one of the most important and serious to which their attention could possibly be directed.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I rise with some reluctance to take part in this debate, but I should like to say one or two things, having been a member of the Conference to which allusion has been made. I venture, very respectfully, to express my agreement with much of what

623
the noble and learned Lord has just said. I am very glad to hear his adherence to the principle of there being two Chambers, and I am afraid I also rather agree with him that there are dangers to us in the present constitution of this House. I do not want to go further into that point, because it would be debating the subject upon its merits, which almost every speaker heretofore has refrained from doing. I could not sit down without bearing a word of additional testimony to the well-chosen words which have been used by more than one speaker as to the skill, courtesy and knowledge which the noble Viscount (Lord Bryce) brought to bear upon our deliberations. I agree that his letter to the Prime Minister is perfect monument of learning, and will be useful for a long period of years to any one who desires to study this question.
On other matters I want to express, respectfully, my agreement with the noble Earl the Leader of the House as to the position in which the Government is placed. I should like to see them take up the question, but I do think the challenge he used was a perfectly fair one—that more evidence should be given of general agreement before the Government are asked to attempt to formulate a scheme. I think that perhaps the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, went a little too far as to the amount of dissatisfaction which was expressed at the proposals contained as the result of the Conference, but I hope it will not go out—and this is the one point on which I am rather inclined to dissent from the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce—that it was in any sense an agreed Report. Much of it was agreed, but there were very serious divergences of opinion upon some other points. I personally felt all along, and I feel now, that it was a grave mistake not to let those who disagree state their disagreement in their own language. Pressure was put upon us not to do so, and we consented but I am bound to say, excellent as I think the letter of the noble Viscount to the Prime Minister was in many respects, I am one of those who think it gives but a very pale reflection of the feelings some of us hold as to the proposed new constitution of the Second Chamber. It contained an inadequate statement of our objections, and I think no real progress will be made unless and until those who think the scheme, as a whole, can be carried into effect will make some public demonstration in this House or the other House of Parliament to see what
624
amount of agreement there really is, not amongst those who composed the Conference, but amongst those who will have to live under the two Chambers. I do not conceal that I think the particular method suggested for the constitution of the Second Chamber is the worst that could possibly be devised.
LORD BURNHAM: My Lords, as I am the only member who sat throughout the whole of these two constitutional Conferences, I should like to say a few words on the speech of Lord Haldane. To my mind, it was a gross caricature of the proceedings of the Second Chamber Conference, and it did not hear any sign of his being informed of the proceedings of the Speaker's Conference. I can assure him that there was no more guidance given from above, or from the Government, in the one case than in the other. All the Speaker did, when his Conference assembled, was to say that a hope had been expressed by the Government that we might arrive at some sort of national agreement upon the suffrage and electorate of the country. There was no other guidance than that; and in the same way the noble Viscount who presided over the Second Chamber Conference said that it was hoped to arrive at a measure of national agreement. There was more agreement in the Second Chamber Conference than there was in the Speaker's Conference.
In the Speakers Conference there were two great divisions on the main questions—woman suffrage and proportional representation. With regard to woman suffrage, those who disagreed reserved their liberty of action in the House of Commons when the Report appeared in statutory form, and, I believe, took advantage of the independence they had claimed. There was a reservation made in the course of the proceedings in the Conference held in regard to the reconstitution of the Second Chamber, but there was a larger measure of agreement on the real principle at issue, because I do not believe there was a single member of either House who took part in the Second Chamber Conference who did not take it as assumed, from the first, that the existing constitutional arrangements under the Parliament Act were unsatisfactory and ought to be amended. I do not think Lord Balfour of Burleigh would disagree with me as to that. Therefore we started on common ground, and, more than that, for the particular plan that was put forward in this House this afternoon by

625
the noble Viscount I do not think there was one single champion in the Conference. He has produced here the official programme of the Labour Party, which was that every session there should be elected as a Second Chamber a sort of Revising Committee which should have to deal simply as constitutional experts with the drafting and re-drafting of Bills. There was only one member, I believe, at the Conference that sat with regard to your Lordships' House who was of that opinion.
With respect to the question that has been put by my noble friend Lord Crewe, I am bound to say that I largely agree with him that it was the hope and expectation of us all that something would be done during the currency of this Parliament to produce a legislative proposal for the reform or reconstitution of the Second Chamber. I think that it is urgent, but not only for the reasons that have been put forward. It scents to me that the best reason for reconstituting this Chamber is that unless your Lordships regain confidence in yourselves you are not likely to exercise that amount of public authority in the future which will be so virally requisite. I am afraid that you fear your fate too much to try in any way to revise what has been done elsewhere.
I would only, in conclusion, draw your Lordships' attention to this fact. I am told by those who are electoral experts that the increase in the electorate and the power of our democracy is far greater than was anticipated. All the calculations have proved wrong. It was said, when the Representation of the People Bill was under discussion in another place and here, that under its provisions a greater number of men and women were being enfranchised than under all the Reform Acts of the last century put together. It has turned out that the increase is larger still; in fact, it is difficult to imagine who will not exercise the franchise as the Registers are being made up. In these circumstances I think that we all want to feeel a little more the sense of public responsibility, and still more that we should enjoy that public confidence that I am afraid can never be extended to your Lordships' House as it is at present constituted.

INTERNED N.C.O'S AND MEN.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can give any information regarding our non-
626
commissioned officers and men interned in Holland—(1) as to food; (2) as to clothing.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking this Question, I want it to be made perfectly clear that none of the information which I shall use has been received from any non-commissioned officer or man. I do that because I de not know what the consequences would be to any one in the Army giving such information. All my information comes from civilians who have had it given to them when they were abroad, and who have been able while in Holland to go about and see for themselves the conditions under which our prisoners are, living. There is no doubt that these prisoners have been suffering very much from want of food. I have heard that 2 ozs. of meat a week was the ration about a fortnight ago, but I have also heard that they did not get even that; in fact, that they have received no meat at all for over a month.
We are not now allowed to send food parcels to our prisoners. The tremendous depreciation of our own money is another factor, because it makes it extremely difficult for the non-commissioned officers or men to supplement their rations by buying food. I do not want to make very much of this, but it seemed to me that this is the time for bringing it forward when we have a Commission over in Holland. Surely advantage should be taken of the presence of that Commission in Holland to take up the question of putting the feeding of our prisoners on a better footing. I have been told that they have not been getting a ration equal to that provided for the civilians in Holland. That does not seem to me to be a right thing.
Whatever may be the excuse arising from the scarcity of food in Holland, I think that the manner in which our prisoners are dealt wits as regards their clothing is a most serious matter, and one it regard to which them can be no excuse. I understand that many of our non-commissioned officers are still wearing the prison clothes that they wore in Germany, with yellow stripes upon the trousers and yellow bands—the prison badge—round their arms, and that they are pointed out by Germans and by various spies in the hotels as being incorrigible scoundrels, and as having been put in prison for that reason. That is not a very happy or a healthy state of things for these unfortunate men who have been rescued from prison

627
in Germany and sent to a neutral country; and when we consider that German prisoners who have been confined in this country and then returned to Holland are swaggering about there in purple, blue, grey, or whatever be the colour of the uniform of their regiments, I think it is time we did something to provide new clothes for our own men. It is highly undesirable that they should be left in the very miserable condition in which they now are. I can understand that there may be a scarcity of khaki in this country, and that it may all be required for our soldiers, but why cannot we send out to these men the peace uniforms of their regiments which are now stored away in the depots at the headquarters of the regiments? Surely those uniforms could be used in order to clothe our men decently, and enable them to look respectable in the country where they are interned. Except for the boon of the liberty which they have obtained, the unfortunate non-commissioned officers—I think there are no men there now, all of them having been sent back—in Holland are in no better condition as regards clothing than they were when imprisoned in Germany.
I do not wish to press my point unduly, but I think it is one which should be taken up while we have a Commission in Holland. There may be, and very probably there is, considerable difficulty, if bales of clothing are sent over to Holland, in getting tailors to make the clothes, and this is an additional reason for sending the uniforms which are already made and which the men themselves could easily alter if they required alteration.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE WAR OFFICE (EARL STANHOPE):My Lords, the rations for the non-commissioned officers at present interned in Holland, as originally planned, were on a liberal scale, and I have here a summary. Approximately a little over 1 lb. of bread a day was given to each man and a little over ½ lb. of meat, inclusive of 20 per cent. of bone. There were also coffee, butter, vegetables, potatoes, and so on. Unfortunately, the Dutch civil population became very dissatisfied with this arrangement, as the ration given to British prisoners was very considerably in excess of what was available for the Dutch civil population. We found it difficult to make the Dutch civil population realise that meat and bread were being imported from England for the purpose of feeding our own
628
prisoners, and therefore it was somewhat difficult to allay their dissatisfaction. His Majesty's Government were very anxious that the good feeling which exists between the Dutch people and our prisoners should be continued and, above all, that no difficulty should be placed in the way of the Dutch Government's accepting further prisoners as we managed to get them released from. Germany.
Therefore, after very full consideration, it was decided that we must reduce the ration for bread and meat given to our prisoners to the amount which was available for the civil population of Holland. In regard to bread, I understand it is about 200 grammes daily. Substitutes are provided in lieu. I have a copy of the weekly diet sheet, which is rather long to readout to the House, but I should be very glad to show it to any noble Lords who desire to see it. But I may add that His Majesty's Government were not satisfied that the conditions with regard to the feeding of our prisoners in Holland were all that we could desire, and therefore when our delegates were sent out to effect an exchange of prisoners with Germany they were asked to go into the whole question of the feeding of our prisoners now interned in Holland. I understand that is is being done.
In regard to uniforms and other clothing required by non-commissioned officers interned, these are sent out from England. There was at first some delay, owing to transport difficulties, in getting our supplies out to that country, and the officer in charge was authorised to purchase immediate requirements locally. Large consignments of clothing have been despatched, and I understand that matters are now on a satisfactory footing. I believe I am correct in saying that more than 5,000 suits of clothing have been sent out to Holland within the past six months, a large part of that having been comparatively recently. I trust, therefore, that our prisoners in Holland are now clothed in the way in which we should desire to see them clothed as members of His Majesty's Forces.
LORD SALTOUN: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for the answer he has given. The only thing I would point out is that my information is not more than a fortnight old, and then the men were not getting the food, even the reduced amount to which the noble Earl has referred. Furthermore, they were at that time in

629
prison clothes. It is only a fortnight since I was told these things, and they were seen only three weeks ago. I should be very glad to hear that the Commission had been called upon to undertake the smatter at once and get it done.
EARL STANHOPE: I can assure the noble Lord that it is really being done. The clothing was, as I have said, sent out fairly recently and I believe has now arrived, though I cannot guarantee that.

ENEMY ALIENS.
LORD BERESFORD LORD BERESFORD had the following Notice standing in his name on the Order Paper for Tuesday next—
To call attention to the number of uninterned aliens in the country, and to ask whether a Return can be given of uninterned aliens; whether a Return can be given of the number of aliens who were naturalised since the war; if it can be stated how many naturalised aliens are employed in Government offices; whether particulars can be given of Mr. Wendt, at present serving under the Road Board; whether he is of German birth, what salary he is getting, and what work he is doing, and who were the persons who undertook to be sponsors for his loyalty; can a Return be given of the number of Germans who have changed their names during the last five years, and whether enemy aliens are now permitted to change their names; who is the official at the Home Office to whom the powers are entrusted for relaxing regulations laid down as regards visits to prisoners of war or interned aliens; to ask for particulars as to the storage of coal by Baron Schroeder; what amount of coal he had ordered during 1917–1918; what amount of coal was found to be in his possession; whether he got permission from the Coal Controller to buy the coal; has the coal been removed, and if not, can a reason be given; and to move for Papers.
The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that I be given the permission of the House to advance my Motion (now standing for Tuesday next) to Monday next. It would not be respectful to your Lordships if I did not give quite shortly the reasons why I wish to do this. I put down this Motion about inquiry into the aliens in this country twice. It is now
630
down for Tuesday, and I see that the Government have put down four Bills on that day. I do not suppose that the Land Drainage Bill and the Midwives Bill will take long. The Loans (Incumbrance of Benefices) Amendment Bill may; but; the Corn Production (Amendment) Bill will certainly take a long time. Therefore I should again have to postpone my Motion. The Government must be quite aware of the great excitement in the public mind about the aliens—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): We agree to the Motion.
LORD BERESFORD: Then there is no need for me to say anything further?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I cannot guarantee that the Government will reply, but we agree to the Motion to advance the Notice to Monday next.
Moved, That the permission of the House be given to Lord Beresford to advance his Notice (now standing from Tuesday next) to Monday next.—(Lord Beresford).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AMENDMENT OF THE CRIMINAL LAW.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is a fact that, while the proposals to create new criminal offences are awaiting the consent of Parliament in the Criminal Law Amendment Bill (H.L.), an Order has been issued whereby a proposal contained in the said Bill has been created into a new criminal offence without awaiting Parliamentary sanction.
The noble and learned Lord said: Lords, when I put down the Notice which stands in my name a Question by the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, stood on the Paper dealing with the same subject-matter. I understood, in fact I know, it was the object of the noble Earl to expedite, if he could, proceeding with the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, of which the Second Reading has been passed in your Lordships' House. The main object of the Question which I put down was in the same direction. No doubt I expressed my objection in rather a different form, because until the Bill is passed you might get matters of this kind dealt with under the procedure of the Defence of the Realm Act, and as a matter of fact a Proclamation dealing with this same subject-matter—namely sexual offences—has been promulgated

631
under the Defence of the Realm Act and known as Regulation 40D.
This question of sexual regulation—I do not want to go into it at any length to-day—is undoubtedly a very difficult one, and it has raised a great difference of opinion both in the other House and here. Last year a Criminal Law Amendment Bill was introduced into the House of Commons, and afterwards went to a Standing Committee. The particular provision dealing with the contamination of venereal diseases was dealt with in that Committee, with the result that the penalties to be imposed were made applicable equally to men and women, which, to my mind, is a matter of great importance, because if legislation of this kind is to be introduced, you want it to be introduced with as little friction and on as equal and fair lines as possible. It appears to me to be not very just to introduce Regulations of this kind throwing a penalty upon women, whereas men, who very often may be the authors of the offence, are to go exempt.
One other thing I should like to say on this point. In all matters of this kind I think the leading consideration should not be punishment, but the attempt to reform, and these women are rather subjects of pity than subjects of punishment. If you deal with these matters in the ordinary way by Parliament, of course you get the opportunity of introducing reformatory regulations at the same time as you introduce penal punishment, and that is one of the features of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill which has been before your Lordships' House for Second Reading this year, and which has been reefrred to a Joint Committee, in reference to which Lord Beauchamp put down his Question. I call the attention of the noble Lord opposite to the provision of Clause 5 of this Bill. It is in the same terms as the section of the Bill after it had been considered by the Standing Committee last year in the House of Commons. In the first place, as I pointed out, it applies both to men and to women, and I think that is an essential condition of a provision of this character. Secondly, there are two safeguards in the provisos also having a very important and material bearing. One of these safeguards is that—
"a person shall not be convicted under this section if that person proves that he or she bad reasonable grounds to believe that he or she was free from venereal disease in a communicable orm at the time the alleged offence was committed."
632
I doubt whether even in that form the safeguard is sufficient, but at any rate it introduces the well-known criminal protection that persons shall not be held guilty of an offence in reference to which they have no guilt; intent or knowledge.
But, as I shall point out in a moment when we come to the Regulation issued under the Defence of the Realm Act, there is no similar protection of any kind. In fact, under the Criminal Law Regulation 40D, although a woman may have perfectly good ground for believing that she was free from venereal disease—the Regulation does not apply to men at all—yet she may be found guilty and subjected to heavy penalties for the offence which she has committed. It appears to me extraordinarily harsh that where in the Second Reading of a Bill in this House, and after consideration in the House of Commons, you have had a provision of that kind introduced as a safeguard, you find on the other hand an Order issued in which no such safeguard exists.
The second proviso to the proposal in the Criminal Law Amendment Bill is this—
"No person shall be convicted of any offence under this section upon the evidence of one witness unless such witness be corroborated in some material particular by evidence implicating the accused."
There, again, is a most valuable safeguard introducing what is really a new principle in our Criminal Law. As regards (b) I should like to emphasise this fact—although it is well known to Lord Sydenham, who has taken so much interest in this question—that it was not in the Bill as originally introduced in the House of Commons last year, but was introduced by the Standing Committee. It is fair if, in the consideration of Parliament, a Regulation of this kind should apply to both sexes equally, and that there should be these two very important safeguards, that we should have a Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act applying it to women only, with both of those safeguards omitted. I do not want at the present moment to go into the general question, about which I feel strongly, of introducing by Proclamation and without Parliamentary sanction what are really new criminal offences.
Let me turn to the Regulation in question, because I know the noble Earl opposite

633
is going to reply on behalf of the War Office. It is true that this Regulation applies only to members of His Majesty's Forces, whereas the provision in the Bill will be general; but surely there is no difference, so far as the criminal offence is concerned, whether you make the matter general or applicable only to members of His Majesty's Forces. I mean that you ought to have the same provision that a woman who is really innocent, because she does not know she is guilty of the offence, ought not to be protected. Your Lordships will feel that even a woman who is in what is called a degraded position is hopelessly penalised as regards any reform if she is sent to prison under a provision of this character. It is very hard, therefore, that a protection, which in the consideration of Parliament one may assume is necessary, is not open to her under this particular Regulation. In the same way as regards corroborative evidence.
It may be said, in answer to my objection, that the soldier is subject to special penalties in matters of this kind. I accept, that. But that is no reason whatever why a woman should not have the protection which is contained in the provisions that I have read, both in the Criminal Law Amendment Bill which was dealt with in the last session in the House of Commons, and the Criminal Law Amendment Bill which has been read a second time your Lordships' House. The importance of this matter for those who intensely desire reform, as I do, in these questions of sexual offences, is that by introducing your reform in a method which raises, and, I think, not unjustly raises, opposition owing to its unfair incidence, you do all that you can to excite public opinion against what in my view is a most important amendment of our law which ought to be introduced with proper precautions and under Parliamentary sanction.
The other point on which I feel strongly is that in the Bill You not only impose penalties, but you also have provisions for reform; and if you are to deal anything like successfully with this difficult question pat ought to put reform in the foreground; you ought to do all you can to bring back into respectable social conditions a large number of these women, and not, by additional penalties without any chance of reform, push them still further into the bottomless pit into which they have been brought by the degradation of their lives. As I have said before, the object
634
should be pity and reform, not penalty and punishment. I do not want to raise any wider question upon the present occasion. I have now put forward the views on which my Question is founded, and I will ask the noble Lord to answer what I have said.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I hope, and I think, that my noble and learned friend in putting down this somewhat cryptic Question did not intend to prejudice in advance the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, and especially Clause 5.
LORD PARMOOR: Certainly not.
LORD SYDENHAM: That Bill, for the first time, enables our law to take cognisance of an offence which in many cases is, in my opinion, a worse offence than murder; and I think it is a disgrace to our law that it has not hitherto had that power. The reason is that it is only in late years, in fact, perhaps, only in the last year or two, that people have begun to realise the terrible consequences of venereal disease.
I will not follow my noble and learned friend in discussing Clause 5, because think it would hardly be in order, as that clause is not before your Lordships' House at the present moment. I think he forgets that Regulation 40 D was discussed in detail in your Lordships' House on the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and on that occasion the noble Earl the late Secretary of State for War (Lord Derby) explained the Regulation at considerable length, and showed clearly that the man was far more penalised than the woman. I think my noble and learned friend said that the man went scot free. As a matter of fact, if I remember correctly, the man can get two years hard labour. There is, however, as he has pointed out so well, an inequality between the sexes in the working of this Regulation, and very strong resentment has been aroused, quite naturally and quite justly. I feel it as much as my noble and learned friend.
But the Regulation has also been discussed in the other House. On June 18 the Under-Secretary of State for War said—
"I cannot, on behalf of the Government, say that we will withdraw this Regulation, because we believe it is useful, and it may prove effective in a very difficult, a very delicate, and a very dangerous situation."

635
I believe that the Government are right in maintaining this Regulation in spite of all the difficulties, because the present conditions in certain areas are distinctly dangerous. But the moral I draw is this, that Clause 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill ought to be passed with the least possible delay, because it equalises all conditions between the sexes, and would remove the very legitimate grievances to which my noble and learned friend referred.
I have already begged that the Government would take up that clause and pass it as a separate Bill; and I would again ask the Government if they would take that course, without waiting for the Report of the Joint Select Committee, which body, I am afraid, has not yet been set up. I believe that if that clause could be passed it would remedy the great defect which my noble and learned friend has pointed out, and do away with the marked resentment which is now being felt by a large number of women.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, Section 40 D of the Defence of the Realm Regulations does deal with a part of the subject covered by Clause 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, which I understand is now being considered by a Select, Committee of both Houses.
LORD SYDENHAM: The Joint Committee has not been set up yet.
LORD PARMOOR: The Bill has been referred to a Joint Committee.
EARL STANHOPE: It is not quite correct, however, to say, as I think appears in the Question, that this Regulation was made while similar proposals were awaiting the consent of Parliament. Section 40 D of the Defence of the Realm Regulations was issued under an Order in Council of March 22 last. The Criminal Law Amendment Bill was not ordered to be printed until a month after that date—namely, on April 24. It was read a second time in your Lordships' House on May 7, and was then referred to a Select Committee.
The history of this question is briefly this. The representatives of the Oversea Dominions pressed very strongly at the imperial War Conference last year that steps should be taken to prevent the spread of venereal disease in this country.
636
A Bill was therefore introduced last year in another place and was given a Second Reading and made considerable progress in Committee. The clause dealing with sexual intercourse of persons suffering from venereal disease passed the Committee stage. The Bill then failed to make satisfactory progress, and therefore did not become law.
Your Lordships, in the various debates which have taken place on this unsavoury subject, have, I think, all agreed as to the urgency of the matter; and you will therefore perhaps not disapprove of the Government taking action in the only way that it was open to them to do without having to undergo the delay necessary before a Bill could be passed into law. It is an open secret that the Army Council urged strongly that if any Regulation were to he promulgated it should be a Regulation dealing with the entire population, civil as well as military, but we were advised that it would be ultra vires to deal with the civil population on this matter under a Defence of the Realm Regulation. It is for that reason that Section 40 D has taken the form which it has, although, as noble Lords know, it does not contain the whole policy of the Government. The full proposals of His Majesty's Government were contained in the Criminal Law Amendment Bill. It is, of course, for that reason that we have found it impossible to deal with the male population other than those in the Army, but, as I have already pointed out, the Army Council were only too anxious that if it had been possible this should be done in a Regulation.
In regard to the unfairness as between men and women, the penalties, as the noble and learned Lord himself pointed out, that are imposed upon men of His Majesty's Forces if they conceal the disease, as a woman would conceal her disease under this particular clause, are infinitely more severe than are shown by this Regulation. As Lord Sydenham pointed out, it can amount to two years imprisonment with hard labour instead of six months or a fine of £100. The noble Lord referred to the inadvisability of making new criminal offences under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, but as he himself, I think, pointed out, this very often happens under the Defence of the Realm Regulations; and it was with that object that Parliament gave authority to the Government to issue Regulations when it was found to be

637
necessary and urgeat, as this case. I think that is all that the noble and learned Lord asked me to reply to, and I can assure him that it is the wish of the Government that the Bill dealing with this question should receive early consideration, and, if possible, be passed into law.
LORD PARMOOR: I thank the noble Earl for his answer and for the lucid way in which he gave it, and I hope the result of this discussion may be that the Bill will be pressed on in order that matters may be considered and sanctioned fairly by Parliament.
LORD SYDENHAM: May I ask whether the Government would consider my proposal that Clause 5 should be taken as a separate Bill, thus avoiding the delay which will necessarily occur if the Bill is taken as a whole?
EARL STANHOPE: I will consult the Home Office on the subject.

PATRINGTON SMALL HOLDINGS COLONY.
VISCOUNT GALWAY VISCOUNT GALWAY rose to move, That a detailed balance sheet, differentiating between capital and annual farming expenditure for the Patrington Small Holdings Colony, for the farming year April, 1917, to April, 1918, be presented to both Houses of Parliament forthwith.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in accordance with the notice that I gave yesterday I propose to move the Motion which stands on the Paper. The reason for my doing so is that I think we have a right to know the result of one year's working; and as the Board of Agriculture took over this farm in the spring of 1937, we should be told what is the result of the working for twelve months from that date. My noble friend was good enough to give me some figures yesterday, but, as I gather, the result would have been to put the value of two harvests into one Return. I cannot see why the Board of Agriculture are not prepared to give a Return for the year from the date at which they took possession of the farm, whether Lady Day or Michaelmas. I am anxious to have the opinion of the House upon this, and although I hope my noble friend will not refuse this Return, if he does refuse it, I should wish, as there are so few members of the House present, to put the matter off.
Moved to resolved, That a detailed Balance Sheet differentiating between capital and annual farming expenditure for the Patrington Small Holdings Colony for the farming year April, 1917, to April, 1918, be presented to both House of Parliament forthwith.—(Viscount Galway)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (LORD CLINTON): The noble Viscount has asked me, on behalf of the Board, to agree to a Return showing the position of this colony at Patrington at Lady Day, 1918. Under the Act of 1916 it is our duty to submit to Parliament in each year the results of the colony working. A Return—I admit a very incomplete Return—has been submitted, and last night I gave the noble Viscount certain further particulars in my possession. The noble Vicount is not satisfied with those particulars, for two reasons. Firstly, because the Return includes two harvests. That is perfectly correct, the time being for eighteen months from the date on which we took possess in, estimated forward to Michaelmas of this year. It seemed to be the only way in the circumstances by which I could put the proper information before the House. It is true that it entails two harvests. It is equally true that it entails two expenses of working, as applicable to both those harvests, and in giving the Return I stated that it was for eighteen months; but in showing the profits I allocated them to the or e year only. That is to say, I took one-half or two-thirds of the total sum by which the credit side exceeded the debit side and gave that as the profits of the year.
The noble Viscount now says that the Return should be to Lady Day. We discussed that question last night, and I said that in my opinion, for purely grain-growing farms like Patrington the Michaelmas term is much the better term to which to make up our accounts. That is the opinion of the Board. As your Lordships know, the Board have a considerable number of farms in their possession, some Lady Day and some Michaelmas entries, and it is an obvious convenience to settle them all up to the same date. There is a practical difficulty, which I would point out, at this moment in endeavouring to comply with the suggestion of the noble Viscount that we should bring the accounts up to the Lady Day which has just passed It is perfectly clear that merely to put the

639
cash statement so far as payments and receipts are concerned can be done quite easily, but your Lordships know very well that such a statement would in no sense disclose the position of the farm, because the bulk of the value of the farm is included in the valuation. How I am to go back three or four months now to Lady Day and value the stock and crops as they existed at that moment, I really do not know. I think it is a serious practical difficulty, if I am to do anything more than make a guess at the whole thing; but, apart from the unpractical nature of it, the labour and cost and time involved would be out of all proportion to any advantage which your Lordships would get from it.
I submit that our proper course is the one that we have suggested, which is to lay before the House, immediately the Michaelmas year is ended, a full account of the cash, valuations, and all transactiens if the farm up to that date. That complies with the Act, and I am quite certain it will give the House much more information than any partial statement we could give at this moment. I am, of course, perfectly ready to give the noble Viscount the statement from which I quoted last night and all the data upon which the accounts are based. I hope that this will be satisfactory to the noble Viscount.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: 11v Lords, I intervene with some reluctance. It is no use dividing on this now, because there are not thirty members in the House and the result would be that it would be postponed to another day. On one point I am in great sympathy with the noble Lord who represents the Board of Agriculture, and that is that the financial year from Michaelmas to Michaelmas is a very much better period for English farming than any other period of the year. In Scotland, we should take it from Martinmas to Martinmas, November to November, but then our harvest is later and the work following on it is not all done, potatoes are not gathered, and so, on. I agree that Michaelmas to Michaelmas is better for the debtor and creditor accounts of English farms. But—and this is one point on which I was not quite satisfied—the noble Lord did not seem to give a promise that his Return, whenever it comes, will make a real difference between capital and ordinary expenditure. A great point for enabling us to decide whether these small farms and farm colonies are a success or
640
not is to discover whether the accounts as between capital and expenditure are fairly distinct. You may stock a farm very largely, but unless you have the valuation of what remains at the end of the year and compare it with the beginning you cannot settle the question whether the farm is being run on commercial and successful lines or not. Capital expenditure may mean buildings, but also it may mean management and the amount of stock and implements on the farm. Therefore I think it is of the greatest importance that in these accounts there should be a distinct differentiation as between what is put down in the name of capital and in the name of ordinary expenditure. We may differ as to these items, but if they are stated separately we can form our own opinion.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, every one who pays Income Tax on farming profits, apart from paying on a rental basis, has of necessity to make an account in which differentiation is made between capital and annual farm expenditure. Unless that was done, it would be impossible to bring forward any balance sheet which would comply with the requirements of the Inland Revenue Department. I think the noble Lord, from his know ledge of these matters, appreciates this. I understand that the desire of the noble Viscount is to have the same sort of account made out as is necessary when making out farm accounts for Income Tax purposes—that is to say, he should have a balance sheet which would really show what was the profit during the year in question, differentiating entirely what is a mere matter of capital expenditure. What I want to ask the noble Lord who represents the Department of Agriculture is this. Assuming, as I will assume in his favour, that generally Michaelmas is the more convenient date up to which it is desirable to make farmers' accounts, will he in such an account, when made up to Michaelmas, show a differentiation between capital expenditure and annual farm expenditure such as you would have to make for Income Tax purposes, in order that any one who sees the accounts may know whether there has been a profit or not, and what the true extent of the profit may be? If the account is given in that form, although in a number of instances it would be for more than a year and subsequently from Michaelmas to Michaelmas, that would be satisfactory
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that a valuation is a necessary part of the accounting to enable any one to understand the financial position of a farm. I stated that, but not sufficiently clearly, when I was replying to the noble Viscount. It is one of the reasons why I find it so difficult to make out the account up to a time previous to the present when I cannot get at the valuation. A model form, which I have had under discussion for two or three days, is being got out, and it will show quite clearly the capital which the farmer has in the undertaking at the beginning of the year and the capital which he has when he comes out at the end of the year, and it will also show the capital which he has expended on the estate, expenditure which is for cottages and other buildings, and the farm as a farm will pay interest upon that expenditure. I think that is the main point which both the noble Lords raised, ask I can assure them that the account will snake a proper differentiation between income and capital, which, I quite agree, is the only possible way in which you can fairly present farm accounts.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, I did wish to have the Return for the year, as for Income Tax purposes, and that is why I specially suggested a differentiation between capital and farming. I want to point out, if time noble Lord is going to try and make everything go from Michaelmas to Michaelmas, that in the case of all the farmers who make out their accounts now in my pan of the country and elsewhere, Lady Day tenancies will be the only tenancies. I think that fact might have led to the Board of Agriculture saying that the two dates were equally good for Income Tax purposes and valuation of stock. As Income Tax has been referred to, I should like to point out that there is great danger if, for Income Tax purposes, the valuation of stock is included. If a man has £200 more stock at either Lady Day or Michaelmas, 1918, than at Lady Day or Michaelmas, 1917, he might be called upon to pay Income Tax on that sum, while it would only be producing income in the year 1918–1919. In that case you would be forcing the tenant to pay Income Tax twice over. If the stock was sold in 1918, then you would bring it into the profits of the farmer on
642
which he would be justly charged Income Tax, but if the increased valuation is brought into the return made for Income Tax, I think a great injustice is liable to be done to the tenant farmer. I hope the noble Lord will bear that point in mind. With regard to my Motion, as there are only a small number of noble Lords present—and I desire to consult some of my friends with regard to pressing the Motion further—I should like to withdraw it for the time being.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I desire to give notice that, as it is inconvenient to several noble Lords interested in the Land Drainage Bill that the Committee stage of that measure should be taken on Tuesday next, it is proposed to defer that stage to Wednesday. I now beg to move that the House do adjourn until Monday next.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of July 3.]
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
BELFAST HARBOUR BILL.
  LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past six o'clock.