Lords Sitting of 6 March 1918

MARQUESS OF CARISBROOKE.
Sir Alexander Albert Mountbatten, G.C.V.O., Knight of Justice of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem in England, formerly known as His Highness Prince Alexander Albert of Battenberg, having been created Viscount Launceston in the county of Cornwall, Earl of Berkhampstead, and Marquess of Carisbrooke—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of March 5.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Aldershot Gas, Water, and District Lighting. [H.L.]

British Gas Light Company (Norwich). [H.L.]

Brixham Gas. [H.L.]

Chepstow Gas. [H.L.]

County of London Electric Supply. [H.L.]

Gloucestershire Electric Power. [H.L.]

Harrod's Stores. [H.L.]

Nitrate Railways. [H.L.]

Pontypool Gas and Water. [H.L.]

Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Stafford-shire Electric Power. [H.L.]

Wandsworth, Wimbledon, and Epsom District Gas. [H.L.]

Yorkshire Electric Power. [H.L.]

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

Alliance and Dublin Gas.

Basingstoke Gas.

Dublin and South Eastern Railway (New Works).

Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water.

Sheffield Corporation (Consolidation).

Examiners' Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Wednesday the 13th instant.

CANVEY DEEP-WATER WHARF AND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Second Reading put off to Thursday, the 21st instant.
RAILWAY PASSENGERS ASSURANCE BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2a on Tuesday the 26th instant.
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  RED CROSS AND ORDER OF ST. JOHN BILL. [H.L.]
  Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General received and ordered to lie on the Table.
ALDERSHOT GAS, WATER, AND DISTRICT LIGHTING BILL. [H.L.]
  GLOUCESTERSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
  To be read 2a on Wednesday the 13th instant.
BRITISH GAS LIGHT COMPANY (NORWICH) BILL. [H.L.]
  BRIXHAM GAS BILL. [H.L.]

    CHEPSTOW GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    COUNTY OF LONDON ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
    Read 2a, and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  HARROD'S STORES BILL. [H.L.]
    NITRATE RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
    Read 2a, and committed.
PONTYPOOL GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]

    WANDSWORTH, WIMBLEDON, AND EPSOM DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    YORKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
    Read 2a, and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

    BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    Read 2a (according to Order), and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

    RED CROSS AND ORDER OF ST. JOHN BILL. [H.L.]
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    VISCOUNT GALWAY: Before your Lordships read this Bill a second time, may I ask the noble Earl whether it in any way affects the status and constitution of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem.
    THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF KINTORE): In reply to the noble Viscount, I have to say that the Bill is to enable the British Red Cross Society and the Grand Priory of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem in England to apply to the public advantage the residue of their property acquired for the purposes of the present war.
    On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed.

    IMPORTATION OF CATTLE.
    LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had the following Notice on the Paper—
    To call attention to the statements of the Secretary of State for the Colonies and of the President of the Board of Agriculture at the Imperial Conference on April 26 last, in reference to the admission of Canadian cattle into the United Kingdom; and to move, That it is inexpedient to repeal those sections of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1896, which prohibit the importation of cattle except for slaughter, and which the above-mentioned Ministers have expressed their intention of doing; and to move for Papers.
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, I want to make it perfectly clear at the beginning that this Motion is put down at the unanimous request of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, who regard with great fear, and are much disturbed at, the utterances of the President of the Board of Agriculture on this matter. Until lately we had thought—I speak for the Chamber of Agriculture, as Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee—that this was a
    250
    question which would never be raised during the present Parliament, and that for a long time we should have that safety from disease in respect of our flocks and herds which we have had up to the present moment.
    I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fad that I am moving a very innocuous Resolution; not a want of confidence in the Board of Agriculture, but a Resolution to the effect that it is inexpedient to repeal those sections of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act which at the present moment prohibit the importation of cattle except for slaughter, and which have been found so efficacious in the past. I hope, after this explanation, that the Government will recognise that I do it in no hostility to the Government or to the Ministers who have made these declarations. I myself have had experience in another place of admirable support, under very difficult circumstances, from Mr. Walter Long, when I was representing the Board of Agriculture and had on this question to fight a large number of Members on my own side who were anxious to admit store cattle into this country quite regardless of our own flocks and herds. But I am afraid that if the Government give way we may have a movement in favour of legislation to repeal this Act.
    It will be necessary for me to quote somewhat largely from the Parliamentary Paper which was laid on the Table of this House in September giving extracts from the Imperial War Conference of 1917 with regard to the admission of Canadian cattle. Mr. Rogers, who was a protagonist of this question, said the embargo on Canadian cattle had been put on in 1892. It was true that, in 1892 it could be put on or taken off simply at the wish of the President of the Board of Agriculture for the time being; it was not until 1890 that Mr. Walter Long, then President of the Board of Agriculture, seeing the extreme danger of its being dependent on the sweet will of the President of the day, introduced legislation, bitterly contested in another place, making the measure compulsory upon all Presidents of the Board of Agriculture. Mr. Rogers said that since 1892 Canadian cattle numbering over 3,000,000 head had come into this country, and that there had been no disease in any case. That, of course, is a mere assertion. Whether it is so or not it is impassible for us to say,

    251
    because both pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease are very difficult to trace; especially is this so in regard to foot-and-mouth disease. At the present moment that disease is what is called ultra-microscopical, and therefore what the cause of it is or how the outbreaks arise is not known, apart, of course, from contact with diseased animals. But animals often have it very slightly indeed, and those cases are a great danger.
    As to the outbreak in America in 1908–09, Mr. Rogers said that Canada was quite free during that period, and that it had been quite free from 1892 up to the present year. He admits, and it is well known, that there was a great outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in America in 1908–09. I remember that very well indeed, for at that time I was at the Board of Agriculture myself. Our fear of having the infection in this country was so great that it was considered necessary not only to forbid cattle being brought here from America except for slaughter, but a regulation was also passed saving that no cattle should be brought in at all even for slaughter from a large part of America. It cost that country a very large sum indeed to exterminate the disease. The Canadian representatives seem to think that the mere fact that Canada had been free from foot-and-mouth disease for a large number of years was a reason why there could be no possible risk of infection from there. But we have to remember as regards America, where there has been no foot-and-mouth disease lately, and as regards South America, where there is always foot-and-mouth disease, that if you once open the boundaries and let in cattle there is no safeguard or certainty that you may not get infection brought in from South America or even from America itself.
    I should like to draw the attention of the House to a statement that was made when this question was being considered as late as June, 1910. There was a very strong attack made upon the Government of the day by the present Attorney-General, who was anxious that Canadian and other cattle should be brought into this country not only for slaughter but as stores. The Irish Members then opposed the proposal, as they had always done, and Mr. John O'Connor quoted the opinion of Sir William Butler, who for military reasons had lately been going all over the frontier between Canada and America. From what he saw he said that it was quite impossible to
    252
    police the immense border between the United States and Canada in order to prevent cattle being brought across the border so that they might be shipped as Canadian cattle. That bears strongly upon the argument that as Canada has been free of disease for twenty years therefore we should allow stores to be imported from there, and that if we did so there would be no danger of the disease being brought over here from America. On that I would repeat that as late as 1908 to 1909, when Sir William Butler was examining the frontier for military purposes, he declared that it was impossible to prevent cattle being sent across the border.
    I should also like to quote the opinion of a gentleman who is well known to your Lordships—namely, Sir Horace Plunkett. Speaking upon this very question of restrictions, he said that if the restrictions were removed—that is, the restrictions forbidding the importation of stores from Canada into this country—he did not believe that it would be possible to police the thousands of miles of territory bordering between America and the Dominion of Canada so as to safeguard the danger of cattle being sent from the United States over the border into Canada. Sir Horace added that he spoke with some knowledge of the subject, as he had been in charge of large herds of cattle there. That is the opinion of a gentleman who I am sure the House will regard with respect. If you once allow Canadian stores to be brought over here, it is impossible also to prevent American stores being sent; for, if we say we are quite satisfied to bring them over from Canada, America will at once ask to be allowed to send their cattle over freely, and then you will have South America also asking for the same thing.
    I want to draw your Lordships' attention to a statement of Mr. Prothero. Before doing so I will point out that Mr. Prothero has taken a different line from any other President of the Board of Agriculture, with the exception, I think, of Mr. Herbert Gardner, now Lord Burghclere. All other Presidents have said that there has been great danger in admitting these cattle, and have always treated the outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia and of foot-and-mouth disease as being of great consequence. Mr. Prothero, speaking at the Imperial Conference last year, said—
    "The alleged outbreak in 1892, as far as I can see, was not a case of pleuro-pneumonia at all.

    253
    I also believe that at the present moment and for many years past, as far as I can make out, Canada has been free from the disease, and on those grounds, therefore, we should receive the present suggestion for the removal of the embargo very sympathetically."
    I ought to say that Mr. Walter Long afterwards agreed with Mr. Prothero, and accepted his view that there was no danger at the present moment; yet he did at that Conference put in a caveat, and stated that there was a difference of opinion between the scientists on each side about the disease.
    Mr. Prothero goes on to fortify his argument not only on the ground that Canada is perfectly free of foot-and-mouth disease, but he also says that the home demand for store cattle in the Eastern counties has been rather imperfectly met for years past. That is the argument with which I was very familiar when I sat in another place. You always had the great graziers of Norfolk and the whole of the large pasture counties saying, "We do not care about disease. We do not believe there is any disease. All we want to do is to get cheap stores." Exactly the same argument was used by the people of Scotland. I well remember a friend of mine in the House of Commons who was in favour of removing the restrictions saying to me, "You are destroying my business by not removing these restrictions. Until they were put on I used to import stores from Canada, and I only had to keep them six weeks or so, and then I sold them at a profit of £5 a head as the best Scottish runts."
    With reference to the home supply of stores, I cannot do better than quote Mr. Walter Long himself. Speaking as lately as June 20th, 1910, in the House of Commons he said:—
    "If we had the courage and determination to impose restrictions such as these we may be able to give to our country, as we have given it, an absolutely clean bill of health. What the value of that is to stock raisers it is impossible to exaggerate. … Experience tells us that though our restrictions may not be logical, though they may be open to attack here and there, under their protection we have made our cattle healthy, and we have given an impetus to the cattle-raising industry without which the figures would have been very different from what they are now."
    I must say that I prefer Mr. Walter Long's views to those of Mr. Prothero. If you want to get a large supply of stores in the country, if you want to make this country self-supporting not only in the matter of corn but also as regards cattle, then you must
    254
    do everything you can to encourage people to raise stock in this country as much as you encourage them to grow corn. You will not do that if you are going to have the cattle subject to disease through this country being flooded out with stores from Canada and other parts of the world.
    Mr. Prothero went on to say that the supply of Irish stores was likely to diminish, and assured his listeners that so far as the English Board of Agriculture was concerned they were in favour of removing the embargo. "We do not believe there is now," he proceeded, "or has been for a good many years past, the slightest ground to exclude Canadian cattle on the score of disease." It will be very interesting if the noble Duke who represents the Board of Agriculture will tell us whether Mr. Prothero means the political heads of the Board of Agriculture when he says, "I can assure you the English Board of Agriculture." I know very well that Mr. Prothero's views are the smile as those of the graziers of Norfolk and Scotland. In the old days in another place the Under-Secretary for the Board of Agriculture, Sir Richard Winfrey, was a very strong advocate of repealing this Act altogether, and was always very strongly in favour of bringing stores from Canada, altogether regardless of disease, which he said did not exist. So I rather fancy that it is only the political part of the Board of Agriculture which is anxious for this change. I venture to ask the noble Duke whether the Chief Veterinary Inspector, Sir Stewart Stockman, is entirely in favour of doing away with protection in this matter, and also whether the other veterinary experts of the Board of Agriculture agree with Mr. Prothero that the present restrictions are entirely unnecessary and that there is not the slightest danger of introducing disease into this country if this Act is repealed.
    Then I would draw the attention of the House to another point, and here again I have to deal with quotations. This point is with regard to what was said about stores and Ireland. Mr. Prothero said that he had not consulted the Irish Department. I think that was very strange indeed, and I should like to ask why he did not consult the Irish Department before he told the Canadians that he was ready to allow store cattle to come into this country.
    THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I am sorry to interrupt, but Mr. Prothero

    255
    never said that he would repeal the Act. Can you find the passage where he said that?
    LORD STRACHIE: It conies to the same thing. I will find the reference. Mr. Prothero even went further. He said—
    "There is one point I might mention. I think if I might use a slang phrase we were rather jumpy at that time about cattle plague, because just before 1896, when this new legislation was made, we had been bringing in cattle from Argentina, and on the voyage a whole shipload of cattle were discovered to be actually suffering from food-and-mouth disease. That was no doubt one of the reasons why we made this more drastic alteration."
    Then he went on to say that he had power under the Act to admit cattle for exceptional reasons, which is perfectly true. Mr. Prothero, at the Conference, said that he could merely by Order admit Canadian cattle. Does the noble Duke deny that he said that?
    THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My point was that Mr. Prothero never said that he was prepared to repeal the Act, and I asked the noble Lord where he found that stated.
    LORD STRACHIE: The noble Duke does not deny that Mr. Prothero said that he could, merely by a stroke of the pen, admit Canadian cattle. That is even more dangerous than the other statement, and it is quite true, because under the Act of 1896 there is power under Section 1, sub-section (b), which refers to "foreign animals intended for exhibition or other exceptional purposes, and the landing of which is allowed for the time being by the Board, subject to the provisions of Part II (quarantine) of the Third Schedule of this Act." Under that section it is quite true that it can be done in exceptional circumstances; and it is well known that just before the beginning of the war Mr. Runciman did, acting under that provision, introduce into this country a large number of cattle from Holland. It is quite true that he quarantined them, but had it not been for the war there would have been a great row in both Houses of Parliament. Of course, Mr. Prothero would have to quarantine them, but they might be brought over and simply quarantined for a week or so. There is no doubt that he could do that if he liked. On the other hand, under the Defence of the Realm Act it seems to
    256
    me that the Government can do anything they like, and the Minister probably might say that it was in the interest of the country to introduce cattle.
    The noble Duke further challenges me and says that Mr. Prothero did not agree to the repeal of the Act. Well, what did he say at the end of the Conference? I will quote from the White Paper—
    "CHAIRMAN: Now the position is that the restriction is to be removed, and the Board of Agriculture will take such steps as are necessary, for this purpose, but upon the understanding that, there being no tonnage, there cannot be any arrivals.
    "Mr. ROGERS: I do not want to have any understanding about it. If there is no tonnage, that follows.
    "CHAIRMAN: NO, I do not want it to be a misunderstanding.
    Sir ROBERT BORDEN: It cannot become effective because there is no tonnage.
    "CHAIRMAN: We cannot do it; I am quite sure that the Shipping Controller would stop it at once, and he would say, 'We cannot let live cattle come because they take up too much room.'
    "Sir ROBERT BORDEN: We perfectly understand that.
    "Mr. ROGERS: Yes, but still, we do not want to be placed in a false position. This is an old sore and an old grievance, and now is the proper time to have it cured, because the facts are all in our favour.
    "CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Agriculture had undertaken to do it.
    "Mr. ROGERS: Do not you think we should have a Resolution about it?
    "CHAIRMAN: You do not want a Resolution do you—or if you like you can simply move that the embargo on Canadian cattle be removed as speedily as possible.
    "Mr. ROGERS: I beg to move that.
    "CHAIRMAN: Mr. Prothero accepts that, and there is an end of it."
    Therefore I am correct in saying that Mr. Prothero did promise Canada that at the earliest possible opportunity he would remove the embargo on Canadian stores, and I cannot see what reason the noble Duke had for interrupting me and saying he did not do anything of the kind. There it is in black and white in the White Paper.
    The agriculturists in the Chamber of Agriculture were simply horrified at the statement made by Mr. Prothero the other day, and the only thing they can think is that he was led away for the moment by his good nature and did not realise what an intense feeling there is in the country on this question. If you take away what agriculturists consider as a Charter, which preserves their flocks and herds from infection, you will do a great disservice to them indeed. I must ask your Lordships, after what the noble Duke

    257
    has said, apparently under a misapprehension, to pass this very mild Motion, which the Chamber of Agriculture has asked me to bring before your Lordships' House and to press your Lordships to accept it.
    Moved, That it is inexpedient to repeal those sections of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1896, which prohibit the importation of cattle except for slaughter.—(Lord Strachie.)
    LORD HINDLIP: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that those of your Lordships who are interested in agriculture—and they are no inconsiderable number—will be grateful to my noble friend for having brought forward this Resolution to-day. I have no right to speak for any one but myself, but I sincerely hope that the Government will accept the Resolution and that it will be pressed to a Division. I take that view, not only because of the Resolution itself, but also because I think His Majesty's Government have been inclined to treat this matter in rather too free and easy a fashion.
    What is the Government's case? I cannot see that they have a case at all. There was the Imperial Conference last year, at which two Canadian statesmen, Sir Robert Borden and Mr. Rogers, naturally put forward what claims they thought Canada had for the removal of this embargo. I do not think I shall be accused of saying anything disagreeable when I remind your Lordships that at the time of the Imperial Conference, when the Canadian Government were making these representatins, they were going to face a General Election in Canada. I have no doubt that the noble Duke, when he comes to reply to the noble Lord who has just sat down, will base his case upon Canada, and that he will say there is a great demand throughout the length and breadth of Canada for the removal of this embargo, and for the exportation of store cattle from Canada to this country.
    When the subject was raised in this House in 1906 the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, speaking as an ex-Governor-General of Canada, said that he had not the slightest doubt that, as far as Canada was concerned, the people in that country would think that we had the right to deal as we thought proper with what was a domestic matter concerning ourselves. I know something about Canada, and I do not believe that there is the slightest real
    258
    feeling there for the removal of this embargo. May I draw your Lordships' attention, and particularly the attention of the noble Duke who I believe is going to reply, to what is going on in Canada in this connection? In the western part of Canada there are hundreds of thousands of acres crying out for store cattle—for mixed farming. In Manitoba, in Saskatchewan, in Alberta, in British Columbia, the cry to-day is, and has been for years, for mixed farming. They want their cattle in the west of Canada, and not to be sent over here.
    Now, what is Mr. Prothero's ease? His case, as my noble friend has already said, is based upon the opinions and the wishes of a certain number of breeders in this country, chiefly inhabitants of the Eastern counties. Mr. Prothero said in the White Paper, "If"—he admits that there is an "if"—"there is to be a large extension of arable farming after the war we shall want to increase our reservoir of store cattle." I agree. That is what some of us are trying to do; but, if I may say so, as everybody connected with the Board of Agriculture seems to hate the sight of an animal on four legs (except a racehorse), it is not an easy task. Your Lordships will remember when some of us were trying to impress on the Ministry of Food the necessity of store cattle for making manure. That was last summer; but the idea was rather put on one side.
    If this embargo is removed, what is going to be the position of the two classes of stock-owners in this country—the breeder of pedigree stock for export, for dairy produce, and for beef; and also the ordinary farmer who breeds his calves and sells them as calves, or keeps them for a while before he sells them to the butcher? Mr. Prothero asked us to rear all our calves—and, as a matter of fact, all our pigs. Calf-rearing, as many of your Lordships know, is a rather expensive amusement; and at the end of the war, in six months time, in a year's time, or possibly in two years' time, what is going to be the position of the breeder in this country if this embargo is removed and store cattle are brought from Canada and dumped in this country? I do not think that the noble Duke himself would very much care for his market suddenly to be flooded with cheap Canadian store cattle. I do not see that anybody will be benefited except a very few people; and, on the other hand,

    259
    you are going to injure a great many more people and some very valuable industries. The attitude of the breeders in the Eastern counties in connection with this matter reminds me of the Manchester cotton man who wants Protection for himself and Free Trade for everybody else.
    There is another matter which came to my notice the other day in connection with the importation of cattle. I understand that a proposition was put forward, quite unofficially, either by the Board of Agriculture or by a member of that Department, to import a certain number of Danish cows. The Danes have not a great deal of feeding-stuff, and they are, I believe, beginning to slaughter some of their cows. Denmark is also particularly free from disease. Was this proposal welcomed with open arms? No. The Board of Agriculture said, quite unofficially, that they would not do this as they were afraid of opposition. Opposition from whom? Opposition from the Eastern counties. So we have this position—opposition from the Eastern counties on the one hand against the importation of cows from Denmark; and, on the other hand, the same people trying to induce the Government to remove the embargo on the exportation of store cattle from Canada. We have been pretty free from disease in this country, but the breeder has had a good deal to put up with. We have had a good number of infantile ailments like measles; we are suffering from Lord Rhondda and Sir Arthur Lee; but these are minor diseases, and, although they will leave bad after-effects, we shall recover from them. But I hope that His Majesty's Government will pause before they run the risk of infection from really serious diseases. The noble Lord (Lord Strachie) has dealt with disease on the frontier between America and Canada, and has shown how impossible it is effectively to police that frontier. In the Livestock Journal of December 28, 1917, there was a cutting out of the Shorthorn World of Chicago saying that tuberculosis was prevalent both in cattle and pigs throughout the East and Middle West of America, and that the losses occasioned by animals dying from that disease were extremely heavy; that, in fact, it was estimated by the Department of Agriculture that those losses amounted to £5,000,000. That is not a very cheering statement as to the health of cattle not many miles away from the Canadian frontier
    260
    If this embargo upon Canadian cattle is removed it will be only the thin edge of the wedge. You will have to remove the embargo from all other countries. What will the Argentine people say to that? Will they continue to send their buyers to Birmingham and other places and pay what is practically a record price—2,000 guineas—for a young bull? Will they be content to do that after we have opened the door to disease from everywhere, which disease it will be impossible to locate until it is too late? May I say that I do not think that the Government have been very successful in their meddling—shall I call it?—with animals. They have meddled with pigs, and with fat cattle. There is too much of this "Hidden Hand" business pulling Mr. Prothero and the people whom agriculturists trust; and I hope that, with regard to this most valuable industry, there will be a little less "butting in" by people who no doubt mean very well, but whose misdirected efforts generally have a disastrous effect.
    THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, as I have for a good many years occupied the position of chairman of the Veterinary Committee of the Royal Agricultural Society, which is greatly concerned in this matter, I should like to be allowed, before the noble Duke replies, to make a few observations. I entirely agree with what Lord Strachie said just now, namely, that the statements—perhaps the not very carefully-considered statements—which Mr. Prothero made at the meeting of the Imperial Conference on April 26, and especially his concurrence with the resolution that the embargo on Canadian cattle should be removed as speedily as possible, was received with dismay by stock breeders in this country. They took it as an indication that the Board of Agriculture had decided without previous consultation with the Agricultural and Breed Societies in this country, and without ascertaining the views of the stock breeders here, to abandon the policy which for twenty years had given security to our flocks and herds from infection by disease imported into this country with foreign cattle, and that the Board were prepared to revert to the policy, or rather to the position, that was in force before the passing of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1896, when the Board of Agriculture had power to put countries on the free list. Experience had shown that that position was an exceedingly

    261
    unsatisfactory one and did not give the stock breeders of this country the protection which they desired and deserved.
    To show you, my Lords, how very unsatisfactory the position was at that time, I need do no more than quote from the statement that was made by Mr. Prothero at the Imperial Conference on April 26. He pointed out that shortly before the passing of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1896, the Board were permitting cattle to be brought from Argentina and that on the voyage a whole shipload were found to be actually suffering from foot-and-mouth disease. That is a risk to which stock-owners in this country do not wish to be subjected again. The Veterinary Committee of the Royal Agricultural Society very carefully considered the Report of the proceedings of this Conference on April 26, and on their recommendation the Council, in the month of November, passed the following resolution:—
    "That the Board of Agriculture be asked to give an assurance that no proposal shall be brought forward for the repeal of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1896, until the Royal Agricultural Society and the breed societies interested have been consulted."
    We received a reply, signed by the Assistant Secretary of the Board of Agriculture, in which it is stated that—
    "In the case of cattle from Canada, no legislation will be introduced unless and until the importation of live cattle born and reared in that country is found to be both practicable and consistent with domestic policy after the war, and in any case the Board would naturally, before any legislation is proposed, take steps to obtain the views of breed societies upon the subject," and so on.
    The Council of the Royal Agricultural Society on the whole considered that this reply was satisfactory, but I should like to call your attention to this fact—namely, that a resolution very similar in character to that passed by the Royal Agricultural Society was passed by the Parliamentary Agricultural Committee. That resolution was forwarded to the Board of Agriculture, and in due time, on December 18, a reply was received, signed by Sir A. D. Hall, Secretary of the Board of Agriculture, and I wish to quote to your Lordships the concluding paragraph of that letter. He said—
    "With regard to the other resolution of your Committee concerning the importation of Canadian stores, I am to say that the question cannot arise during the war, and, moreover, that legislation will be required before any steps can be taken
    262
    to permit of the entry of Canadian stores. All that Mr. Prothero has done is to agree with the Canadian authorities that the entry of Canadian store cattle could no longer be resisted on the score of their possible infection with foot-and-mouth disease or pleuro-pneumonia, leaving the future question of their importation to be determined by considerations of general agricultural policy. You will see that no promise has been given to permit of the entry of these stores now or after the war, and should the question come up later the breed societies and other interests concerned would have ample opportunity of stating their case against a change of policy."
    If the noble Duke, in replying, will give an assurance on the part of the Government on those three points—first, that no promise has been made to Canada on the matter; secondly, that no action shall be taken until after the war; and, thirdly, that before any action is taken the agricultural and breed societies and all interests concerned shall be consulted and be given a full opportunity of stating their opinions, and, if possible, their objections to any proposals which are made—I think, speaking for myself, and I believe speaking for the Royal Agricultural Society of England, we should be satisfied. We feel that we cannot ask the Government to do more than that; and if the noble Duke will give us such a pledge, I hope and believe that it will be unnecessary to press this Motion further.
    THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH): My Lords, I understand from the remarks of the noble Lord who initiated this debate that he is disturbed at the idea which has been set abroad, that store cattle might be brought into this country from Canada. He pointed out to your Lordships in the course of his remarks that he had grave fears that these cattle, presuming they were allowed to come from Canada, would not be born and bred necessarily in Canada, but that they might come over the border from the United States, and that consequently this country might be the recipient of cattle from the United States which were infected. The noble Lord also went on to remind the House that there had been foot-and-mouth disease in Argentina, and that cattle had been known to have pleuro-pneumonia in Canada.
    Might I briefly remind the House of the history of this matter? From 1865 diseases of animals broke out very frequently in the United States of America, and also in

    263
    Europe. The worst year I think was the year 1892, when Europe in particular was scourged by diseases like foot-and-mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia. The Government then decided to pass legislation to protect the home breeders from the contagion of their animals, and the Diseases of Animals Act, 1896, was passed. Previous to that, in 1894, an Act was passed which did permit of certain consignments of cattle coming into this country from abroad, but in 1896 the Act was quite drastic and it embodied the principle of total prohibition except for slaughter of cattle at the port of entry. The noble Lord referred to Clause 27 of that Act, and reminded the House that under it, under very special conditions, certain animals might be allowed to come into the country. It is perfectly true that that particular clause was never repealed, but I do not think it has ever been put into operation except in the case of animals for exhibition.
    LORD STRACHIE: Mr. Runciman.
    THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I believe I am right in saying that there have been cases in which animals have come from Australia and Argentina for exhibition and have been refused entry at the ports. The noble Lord made great play with the occasion when Mr. Runciman admitted Holstein-Friesland cattle from Holland in 1914.
    LORD STRACHIE: Just before the war.
    THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I do not want to pursue the discussion in that avenue. I do not know the conditions under which Mr. Runciman let them in, but I know great pressure was put upon him at the time to do so, and I am bound to say, being an owner of Holsteins myself, that I consider Mr. Runciman's action was extremely beneficial to the British Holstein Breeding Society. Therefore, the position was that all cattle were prohibited from coming to this country since the year 1896, except those cattle which were killed at the port of entrance. It is alleged, and I believe with justice, that since 1896 none of the Canadian cattle have been infected with disease. The Paper from which the noble Lord quoted is very conclusive on this point. Mr. Rogers, who was the representative of the Canadian Government at the War Conference, stated most emphatically that in his opinion the
    264
    Canadian store cattle were completely free from disease. These are his words—
    "Since that date I may say for the information of the Conference that over 3,000,000 head of cattle have been shipped from Canada and slaughtered on arrival in Great Britain and no single case of disease has been discovered."
    I rather gather that the noble Lord did not place very great confidence in the statement Mr. Rogers made. I am not capable of expressing an opinion. I presume that Mr. Rogers, who was a representative of Canada at the Conference, must have been speaking with authority and with due weight. The noble Lord will bear in mind that Mr. Prothero said this—
    "We do not believe that there is now, or has been for a good many years past, the slightest ground to exclude Canadian cattle on the score of disease."
    Then Sir Robert Borden said—
    "That is absolutely so."
    Furthermore, Mr. Long, the Colonies, said.—
    "I think the time that has elapsed has shown that Canada has a complete and clean bill of health during the last fifteen or twenty years."
    Well my Lords, what conclusion may we draw from this testimony? Surely, it is this, that so far as contagious disease is concerned there is no justification for the British Government refusing to allow Canadian stores, born and bred in Canada, to come into this country. That is the conclusion which I think we are entitled to draw, and that conclusion—that is the point the noble Lord asked me particularly—is strongly supported and endorsed by all those at the Board of Agriculture who are competent to express an opinion on the veterinary side of the question. The noble Lord who moved this Motion took me to task for saying I could not find any statement from Mr. Prothero in which he said he was willing to repeal the Act. I think we got a little bit at cross-purposes, but the conclusions of the Conference, which the noble Lord read, were really not in relation to the repeal of the Act but in relation to the removal of the stigma contained in the statement that Canadian cattle were not free from disease.
    LORD STRACHIE: I did not understand it in that way.
    THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: He will find that Mr. Rogers said—"to remove the stigma from which we are suffering."
    LORD STRACHIE: The noble Duke has only quoted from the original. What I laid emphasis on is on page 6, at the very end. When Mr. Walter Long said, "Mr. Prothero accepts that, and there is an end of it"—he meant he accepts the removal of the embargo, which must mean legislation—Mr. Hazen said:
    "I think, as we have a statement from the President of the Board of Agriculture that this restriction will be removed, and that he does not see why it should not be done at once, we might leave it there."
    THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Only to remove the stigma on Canadian cattle.
    LORD STRACHIE: The embargo, not the stigma.
    THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I can assure the noble Lord that is what was intended, and that is the proper interpretation which he should place upon the statement made at that Conference. I think the noble Lord himself is aware that more or less that is the proper interpretation to place upon it, and I am bound to say I am fortified in my view, because here is a report of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, to which the noble Earl, Lord Northbrook, referred. The noble Lord, at a meeting of the Society on December 5, raised this very point; and what did the noble Earl, Lord Northbrook, say? He said the matter had been raised at the last meeting of the Council and a communication was addressed on the subject to the Board of Agriculture; that a reply had been received which had been read that day before Lord Strachie had entered the room; that, for his Lordship's information, he might say that in general terms the letter was satisfactory inasmuch as it gave an assurance that the Government at the present time had no intention of introducing legislation; and that before legislation was contemplated the President of the Board of Agriculture would consult the breeding societies. The noble Lord is in possession of that statement, and perfectly aware of the intention of the President of the Board of Agriculture.
    LORD STRACHIE: I said I was not satisfied.
    THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Yet the noble Lord tries to read into the White Paper a point of view and an intention on
    266
    the part of the President of the Board of Agriculture which he knows from the letter referred to at the Royal Agricultural Society was not his intention.
    LORD STRACHIE: I said I was not satisfied with the statement at the Royal Agricultural Society.
    THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. That is not recorded in the book.
    LORD STRACHIE: That is not a verbatim report.
    THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I am sorry to hear that, because Lord Northbrook and those who are members of the Royal Agricultural Society expressed their complete satisfaction and agreement with the letter which was received from the President of the Board of Agriculture. I admit the point is not worth arguing further. I now turn to the consideration, on general grounds of policy, whether it is expedient to allow store cattle to come into this country or not. The noble Lord who moved this Motion made great play with the words which Mr. Prothero used—
    "We shall want a great many more store cattle if we have this great extension of arable farms. We shall want more animals to trample the straw, and eat the root crops."
    That is purely a pious expression of opinion on the part of the President of the Board of Agriculture. He does not say it is essential they should be let in. He points out that this is one of the considerations which should appeal to some people, which might appeal to some people; but he does not pledge himself that because store cattle are required in this country therefore they must be let into England from Canada. Personally, I am not prepared to express any opinion on the merits of the subject. I gladly, for the moment, subordinate my views to those of the noble Lord, Lord Hindlip, who has a far greater knowledge of Canada than I have, and I should infinitely prefer to leave the question of whether it is wise or unwise to increase our home stock by the supply of cattle from Canada for consideration at the termination of hostilities. Therefore really the position is this. In the opinion of the Board of Agriculture, supported by the representatives of Canada and fortified by our own veterinary experts, we believe that Cana-

    267
    dian cattle are entirely free from disease: and the President of the Board of Agriculture has pointed out that store cattle might be of assistance to the agricultural community in this country.
    Now I come to the pledges which the noble Earl, Lord Northbrook, asked me to give. I can assure him that no promise has been made to permit the entry of store cattle from Canada into this country, but I cannot promise him that no Act may be passed permitting them to come before the end of the war, because I am not at all certain what Government may be in power, or who may be in a position to decide these matters, before hostilities are terminated. I can give him this further promise, that no change can take place until the Act of 1896 is repealed and fresh legislation brought in in its place. It is quite obvious that if, and when, fresh legislation is brought forward, there will be ample time for all the breeders of England, and for any noble Lord or any Member of Parliament, to lay their views thoroughly before the President of the Board of Agriculture and the officials of the Department. They will be able to express their views in Parliament and out of it before the passage of the Bill, and the noble Earl may be quite sure that no Bill will be passed in which the views of the breeders are not fully considered by those responsible for such a measure.
    VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, as I was responsible, now many years ago, for the Act of Parliament by which we were enabled, as we hoped finally, to exterminate pleuro-pneumonia from this country, perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words in this debate. As there appears to be some misapprehension on the subject I hope I may be allowed to deal, as briefly as possible, with what appears to me to be the merits of the whole question we have discussed this afternoon in connection with the Paper which was circulated to us some nine months ago. I became aware of it almost immediately afterwards, and I naturally took upon myself to examine it with great care. I came to certain conclusions upon it at once. One of them was this; that I thought it might be exteremly prejudicial to raise the question at that time, because no doubt great feeling was expressed at that particular Conference upon this subject, and I believe it accurately represented the feelings in
    268
    Canada. I thought, therefore, it might be highly prejudicial, if hostile comments in public and hostile debates on the subject were to occur in Parliament or elsewhere, to the success of the election which was about to be fought by Sir Robert Borden and his friends. I went so far as to write to the Secretary of the Chamber of Agriculture urging this view upon them, and begging that at all events any discussion on the subject might be postponed until the election was over. That was very rightly and properly observed.
    Now, having said that, I wish to say a few words on the merits of the whole question as it appears to me. On Page 3 of this White Paper the opinion is expressed by Mr. Prothero that the alleged outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia, in 1892 from Canadian cattle which were landed here was extremely doubtful. With all respect to Mr. Prothero that was not so. I took the trouble, immediately afterwards, to go through all the old papers on the subject which I had in my possession, and the facts proved beyond doubt that, as far as expert opinion in this country was concerned—there was one exception, and he only said that there was one case which was extremely suspicious, and therefore he should call it doubtful—with this exception, of all the other veterinary surgeons (if I recollect aright, for I have not examined the short analysis I made on the subject since then) not one of them would say it was not pleuro-pneumonia, and the great majority said they had not a doubt but that it was. That was the opinion of the experts at that time, and why Mr. Prothero should say it was extremely doubtful I cannot imagine, unless, as I think it is reasonable to suppose, he had never given full consideration to this branch of the subject, which at one time was considered of the first importance to agriculture. Seeing that we had been for years free from this disease, and that with only occasional exceptions we had kept foot-and-mouth disease successfully out of the country for a great number of years, there was no particular reason why he should have gone back to years gone by in order to make himself completely master of the question. On page 4 he says, "It applies to all countries as a general principle, but we could admit for exhibition or other exceptional purposes." That, I believe, is perfectly true. But, of course, no one can suppose that any President of the Board of Agriculture would sanction

    269
    importation, such as those which were desired and asked for by the representatives of Canada at the Conference, in the face of the specific statement in the general Act, which lays it down in one of the Schedules that, with regard to foreign animals, "they shall not leave the port alive."
    To those who are not versed in this subject, let me say why those few simple words were of vital importance to the herds of this country. Unlike foot-and-mouth disease pleuro-pneumonia can be conveyed only by the immediate contact of one animal with another, and therefore there was an absolute and perfect safeguard as long as that clause was maintained, because all the animals were slaughtered at the port of debarkation and never went out of it, and therefore it was impossible that the disease could be conveyed by them. That is a cardinal point in considering this question which never ought to be lost sight of. Once you part from it I am convinced that sooner Or later—it may not be for some considerable time afterwards perhaps—you will certainly find an Outbreak of pleuro-pueumonia again in the country. It is one of the most insidious diseases in the world, and it is now held to be impossible to detect it in a living animal. It lies dormant sometimes for years. How then is it possible to know whether Canada or the United States or any other country is positively safe from this disease?
    I remember that at the time that I was at the Board of Agriculture as President we spent an enormous sum of money and an immense amount of labour on this matter, and I was brought into contact with the greatest and most famous experts of this disease of that day. That is why feel so strongly upon this question. On page 4 Mr. Long said something in support of the views I have just put before your Lordships. He said—
    "It was said just now that I was responsible for this policy and for advising the Government. It was certainly not that at all. Nor did we accept the view (which my friend Mr. Prothero has said obtained twenty years afterwards) that we had not abundant evidence" [of the disease coming from Canada]. "There was a difference of opinion between your scientific people and ours. Our people held a strong view about it. There was a great agitation in this country about disease, particularly about pleuro-pneumonia, and our scientific people differed from yours."
    All that I have said upon that branch of the subject is therefore fully supported by what I have just read from Mr. Long. At
    270
    the close of the Conference he said some thing else to which I will come later. You must remember that, it is many years since these things occurred, and being at the Colonial Office, as he was at a most interesting period, it is more than probable that he would not have hall the time to recur to all the documents and considerations hearing upon this matter in the same way that I did. Probably if he had done so his opinion would have been still more closely allied to my own than it actually was.
    Let me now refer to another statement of Mr. Long. He thinks that Canada has a clean bill of health. Canada may have—I am not here to deny it—but I am quite certain that throughout the vast districts of Canada it is impossible to speak with absolute certainty. More than that, nobody pretends to deny that the United States is not still suffering in many parts from the disease, and when you consider that there is a frontier of 6,000 miles between Canada and the United States, how can you say with certainty that some of the diseased animals in America may not pass over the border into Canada, especially when you consider that farmers are crossing and recrossing with their flocks and herds from the United States into Canada as they have been doing day by day for the last two or three years. That being the case, how can you say that this insidious disease may not he discovered perhaps in a few years afterwards in some parts of Canada also? These are considerations which ought to be borne in mind.
    The labour and expense that have been incurred in this country in stamping out disease have enormously added to the value which has been given to our herds by the certain and assured knowledge that they are quite free from disease. Personally I think that it would be an unpardonable act if any English Government with all this knowledge in their minds—and the Board of Agriculture ought to have it in their minds—were to depart from this policy, and so risk our herds in this country again being infected and injured probably for a great number of years to come. I must give just one other quotation from Mr. Prothero. On page 5 he said—
    "There is one point that I might mention. I think, if I might use a slang phrase, we were rather jumpy at that time about cattle plague, because we had been bringing in cattle from

    271
    Argentina, and on one voyage a whole shipload of cattle were discovered to be actually suffering from foot-and-mouth disease. That was no doubt one of the reasons why we made this more drastic alteration, but we could, not by legislation but merely by an Order of the Board of Agriculture, put Canada into the free list to-day."
    Both those statements—the possibility of putting Canada on the free list and the other—may lead to a confusion between cattle plague, which is the most frightful disease in the world, and foot-and-mouth disease which is a totally different thing. It does seem to me that Mr. Prothero was speaking without adequate knowledge of the subject with which he was dealing at that particular time. I am not surprised at that, because we have had no cattle plague in this country during his Presidency of the Board. I well remember the first outbreak a very great number of years ago. There is no reason why Mr. Prothero should have had any occasion to examine these questions with the closeness they deserve. Mr. Long went on to say that before the Act of 1896 an Order in Council would be sufficient. That was what Mr. Prothero thought. But that is not so. That is not the case now. Mr. Long said it would have to be by the repeal of the Act of Parliament. That is exactly what the noble Duke said, and in my humble judgment the noble Duke and Mr. Long are in that respect absolutely right.
    And therefore I come to this, that there is nothing immediately imminent. That is a great relief, and if the conditions laid down by Lord Northbrook can be accepted by the Government—it is rather difficult to see how they can be, because it seems to me that they are exactly in conflict with some of the opinions expressed by the two Ministers at the Conference—but if those conditions could be accepted, and we were assured that they would be carried out, that would be not unsatisfactory to me. For what were they? First of all, that no promise has been made of the repeal of the Act of Parliament; secondly, that no action will be taken until after the war; and, thirdly, that before any action is taken which should have the effect of admitting cattle from Canada into the interior of the country all the great societies—the Royal Society and other great societies—should be consulted.
    The noble Duke seemed to be much impressed by the fact, which was stated at the Conference, that 3,000,000 animals had been landed from Canada during the
    272
    last 20 years or more, and not a single case of disease had been detected. Naturally. Why should it be detected? The animals landing, it was perfectly certain, could not convey disease into the country and conequently they were not examined. Why should they have been? It would have been simply labour thrown away. They were just slaughtered and killed, exactly as every animal is killed by the butcher. But they are not examined for pleuro-pneumonia. So that that argument, which was considered a very strong argument in favour of Canada, as a matter of fact is perfectly worthless. Then I did not quite follow the noble Duke, and perhaps he will tell me if I was wrong. I understood him to say that there was no doubt in the mind of the Government, under all the circumstances of the case, that they ought to be admitted. Was I right in that?
    THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I do not think I ever said that. I have no recollection of it.
    VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I hope you did not. Then I am quite satisfied; because at the close of the proceedings of the Conference Mr. Long, for whose opinion I have the greatest respect, and for whom personally I have the greatest possible regard, made a statement which, I own, rather horrified me. It was asked whether the Minister of Agriculture had undertaken to do it. I quote from the White Paper—
    "Mr. ROCERS: Do not you think we should move a resolution about it?
    "CHAIRMAN: You do not want a resolution, do you—or, if you like, you can simply move that the embargo on Canadian cattle be removed as speedily as possible.
    "Mr. ROGERS: I beg to move that.
    "CHAIRMAN: Mr. Prothero accepts that, and there is an end of it:"
    Well I venture to think that that is not an end of it; and, what is more, if ever it is proposed to repeal that clause in the Act of Parliament, as far as I am able to judge and as far as it is right in any circumstances to prophesy about the future, I am afraid I must say that I am convinced thatthere would be in the interests of agriculture and food in this country—I think also that there ought to be—the most determined opposition to any such proposal, and I, at all events, am one of those who would fight against it for all I am worth.
    LORD STRACHIE: I think I am right in supposing that the noble Duke is not

    273
    willing to accept my Motion on behalf of the Government?
    THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The Lord Privy Seal will tell you.
    THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): I did not intend to speak; but, it seems to me that if a decision is to be taken by the House on this subject, the Second Reading of the Bill, if ever a Bill on the subject is introduced, will be the obvious and concrete method of recording your Lordships' Judgment.
    LORD STRACHIE: Then do I understand that the Lord Privy Seal does not accept my Motion, which merely says that it is inexpedient to remove this embargo, though Mr. Long and Mr. Prothero declare their intention of doing it? We have apparently got to wait for future legislation. That may be a very long while.
    THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No harm could be done in the meantime.
    LORD STRACHIE: I would not desire to press this Motion if I could get an absolute understanding on the matter. I must say that the noble Duke was very careful not to refer to the Central Chamber of Agriculture and its view. He simply quoted against me the Council of the Royal Agricultural Society, of which I am a member. But the Royal Agricultural Society only said they were satisfied that they were going to be consulted. Well, the Central Chamber of Agriculture is not such a confiding body. It is a more democratic body and more representative of the farmers of this country, being composed almost entirely of tenant farmers, and they were not satisfied with the assurance. They wanted something a great deal stronger, and they really believed that it is very little use to be told that they will be consulted, because you can act just as you like. What they are frightened at is the statement made in the White Paper. But if the noble Duke will give me this assurance I will not press my Motion. Will he give me the assurance that he has the authority of Mr. Prothero to say that Mr. Prothero made no promise at the Imperial Conference to remove the embargo, notwithstanding any impression that may have been left, and notwithstanding the statement, which apparently so impressed the Canadians when they moved a Resolution, and Mr. Long
    274
    said that Mr. Prothero accepted that Resolution for the removal of the restriction, and when Mr. Hazen said that they had a statement from the Board of Agriculture that the restriction would be removed and that he did not see why it should not be done at once. If, on the other hand, the noble Duke says all this is entirely a mistake, and that Mr. Prothero did not mean what he said, then on behalf of the Central Chamber of Agriculture I will say that we are perfectly satisfied that Mr. Prothero made no promise to remove the embargo upon Canadian cattle.
    THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I think it will simplify matters very much indeed if I say that the letter which the noble Earl, Lord Northbook, read out from Sir Daniel Hall to the Royal Agricultural Society, sets forth clearly and in concise language the precise views of the President of the Board of Agriculture. It will be better for me, I think, to confine my reply to the noble Lord to stating that I prefer to pin my views on that letter, because it is the carefully considered and chosen language of the President; and I do not feel authorised in any way to go beyond it. If that letter will not satisfy the noble Lord, I am sorry.
    LORD HINDLIP: My Lords, I can speak again only by the leave of the House. The noble Duke in his speech said that Mr. Prothero had promised to remove only the stigma and not the embargo. Now I rather gather that the noble Duke is going back on that, and wishes to lead us to suppose that Mr. Prothero has made a promise.
    THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I only wish to remove a misapprehension on the part of the noble Duke. The letter from which I last quoted with regard to no promise having been made was not the letter addressed to the Royal Agricultural Society; it was a letter addressed by Sir Daniel Hall in reply to a resolution passed by the Parliamentary Agricultural Committee. Speaking for myself, may I say that I am satisfied with the assurance given by the noble Duke. I understand that he was reluctant to give an assurance that no action should be taken during the war, because, as he says, there may be a change of Government. But I hope that I may take it from him that, so long as the present Government remains in office, no action will be taken.
    VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, may I ask, with the leave of the House, in order to try and come to a unanimous decision—
    Several NOBLE LORDS: Order, order.
    VISCOUNT CHAPLIN:—that nothing will be done in the way of repealing the Act, at all events until after the war?
    THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I really must appeal to the House. The noble Viscount now asks that nothing should be done with regard to repealing the Act during the continuance of the war. It is impossible for this Government to give any decision on that point; it may not be in office.
    VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I mean as far as they are concerned.
    THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If this point is to come to an issue, it must be via legislation. I appeal, therefore, to your Lordships to defer a decision on this subject until it reaches the House in a concrete form by a Second Reading of the Bill. It is quite impossible, as Lord Strachie must know, for the Government to acquiesce in a Motion which in terms censures, or repudiates, two members of that Government. I think the situation is clear. It is obviously impossible for us to accept the Motion; and actually there is a conflict of opinion between two sides of the House as to what the statements made at the Imperial Conference involved. I submit to your Lordships that the proper time and occasion to take a verdict upon this subject is when the matter is put before you in a concrete form.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Is the Motion pressed?
    LORD STRACHIE: Yes.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord wish to include the words "and which the above-mentioned Ministers have expressed their intention of doing"?
    LORD STRACHIE: I assure the House, as I carefully said in my opening remarks, that I did not wish to express any censure on Mr. Long or on Mr. Prothero on this subject. I was merely expressing the views of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, that it was inexpedient to repeal these
    276
    particular parts of the Act. If the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal desires, I am willing to leave out all the words except the Resolution itself.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I understand the Motion to be as follows—
    "That it is inexpedient to repeal those sections of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1896, which prohibit the importation of cattle except for slaughter."
    On Question, Motion negatived.

    GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENT.
    LORD RIBBLESDALE LORD RIBBLESDALE rose to call attention to the growing number of semi-Ministerial, semi-Departmental, and semi-Official appointments (whether salaried or unsalaried) made by His Majesty's Government; and to move for a Return. The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I begin by indicating the main reasons which have led me to put down this Motion? I think I may take it as a self-evident proposition that we are living under new methods of control, of administration, and of economics, which daily make the self-determination which we are always recommending to remote peoples and countries—of whose ways and feelings we know little—very much more difficult every day for the individual. In the next place, may I take it as a second self-evident proposition that in running with patience—with on the whole, I think, remarkably little inconvenience considering all things—the race that is set before us, we are becoming more and more girt about and impelled in our journey by an ever increasing and almost legionary host of officials? Unless one has taken honours in the Pelman system, or unless one keeps a pocket book for the particular purpose of following the new appointments over one's early tea in the morning, it is almost impossible for an ordinary individual to keep pace with the rapid growth of our officials. In the third place—this is not a self-evident proposition, but it is a fact in which many believe, and still more are under the impression that it exists—the new methods, and some say even the Government, are largely controlled and animated by an able, aggressive—I do not use the word in a disagreeable sense; I mean active and alert—and highly opinionated group of newspapers. For

    277
    myself, I am a little sceptical about that. I think that the position of the Press is, of necessity, rather an incident of the times and the everyday circumstances through which we are going at the moment. But if too much may be made, as we are told, of the influence of the Press, it is possible that at the same time the Government may be making a little too little. Be that as it may, the impression of a newspaper ascendency is abroad. That impression is not popular, and that impression is to my mind unfortunate, and it certainly does connect this growth of all kinds of official semi-Ministerialists with the general abdication and disappearance of Ministerial responsibility, and the consequent weakening of the proper functions of Parliament. Now, my Lords, I will say a word or two on that part of my Motion which moves for a Return of these appointments. I think the present Prime Minister came into office in January of last year.
    Several NOBLE LORDS: In December, 1916.
    LORD RIBBLESDALE: Anyhow, I will pass from that, as the lawyer says. His style in the matter of appointments has all along been cumulative, but I think lately in this matter of outside appointments he has, in the words of a well-known hymn, been going on "From strength to strength" As regards this particular Return, I recognise that there are certain difficulties in it. If we go too far back it will be a tremendous document, and on the whole I think if we could have a year of the appointments made in the Return that would go a good long way to meet my point. I also recognise this difficulty, that a good many Departments have been created and that very considerable powers of appointment—I think up to a sum of £400 a year—rest with the heads of those Departments. Just as I came here to-day I was handed a letter from a gentleman who had written about this Motion, expressing a hope that I was going to include all officials appointed by local bodies. The writer says that on returning he found that the County War Agricultural Executive Committee had appointed a number of executive officers at salaries ranging from £175 to £100, and he then goes on to say that these officials have power to drive motor cars and to career about the country—no doubt doing a great deal of useful work.
    278
    That letter shows the difficulty of making the Return for which I am asking. On the other hand, I believe this Return would remove a great deal of misapprehension and satisfy a large number of people who wish to have detailed information on this largely uncovenanted, unsalaried, and irresponsible new bureaucracy.
    It is only quite lately, within the last month or so, that we have had two very interesting appointments of members of your Lordships' House to two very important posts. I refer to the appointments of Lord Northcliffe and Lord Beaverbrook. One noble Lord is to be in charge of propaganda abroad and the other in charge of propaganda at home. This is, after all, the fourth year of the war. I heard the other day that one of these noble Lords—I do not recollect which, and it is immaterial—said that propaganda was the thing which was likely to play a very important part in winning, and I am not sure he did not, say it would win, the war. I am of a hopeful disposition, and have always been glad to hear of any new plan for winning the war. So far as I am concerned, I wish the new Propaganda Ministers every success, but I wonder what they are going to do—how they are going to win the war with propaganda. I cannot conceive that there is very much to be done in proclaiming and reverberating the justice of our cause and the singleness of our aims. That we have been doing ever since we began; but I suppose that all this matter is secret, that the particular propaganda which is going to be put in motion by Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Northcliffe is their own secret, and that if we ask to know anything about it we may be conveying information to the enemy, which would never do.
    Perhaps I may here say something about my personal experience of propaganda. In the first year of the war accident and design took me to Dunkirk two or three times. Dunkirk at that time was extraordinarily full of all kinds and conditions of people involved in the war—military, civilian, transport, doctors, nurses—you can hardly conceive what Dunkirk was. On arrival I had the greatest difficulty in getting a bedroom. It was uncommonly cold weather, and it looked as if I should have to sleep on the floor of one of the hotels. However, I was able to get a bedroom, not a very nice room, but it was a bedroom in one of the large cabarets on the quay. I was there some days, and as the bedroom

    279
    was rather desolate I used to spend the long cold evenings reading a novel in the cabaret downstairs, and listening to all sorts of stories of people relating their experiences in the war. They were French and Belgian soldiers. One man interested me a good deal, but the patrons of the cabaret did not like this man. I asked why they did not like him, and the reply was "It s'occupe de propagande." After that I managed to join the group where the propaganda was going on, and I had a very pleasant evening, but beyond standing the drinks I do not know that he did very much beyond telling us what a glorious thing war was and how well everything was going on.
    I also know something about the form that propaganda has taken in Spain. I believe that in Spain German propaganda has been very successful, and I will tell you how it has been successful. I am afraid, however, that it is a little late even for Lord Beaverhrook and Lord Northcliffe to set about doing anything of this kind. In Spain, in the lonely roadside ventas and little villages I am told you find in every house a photograph of a Kaiser, and a tariff of all the domestic products and necessaries most popular in the small households of Spain at prices which will regulate those commodities if the Central Powers get the best of the Allies. That kind of propaganda is certainly propaganda which is likely to make an impression on poor people. But I do not for a moment suppose, as I said just now, that we shall be able to do anything of the kind. However, my Lords, if, as we are told, diplomacy is out of court, propaganda is evidently in. Witness these two particular appointments of members of your Lordships' House, upon which I am sure we should all be most anxious to congratulate them and wish them every good wish in the prosecution of their duties and in winning the war.
    One thing does occur to me. If the propaganda is to help us to get on with the war, is there any chance of the propaganda taking the form of getting on with the peace? I said just now that diplomacy was said by Mr. Balfour the other day to be out of court. It is true that a week ago—I think on Thursday last—Mr. Balfour patched it up again. And here I should like to say one or two words not germane, I admit, to my Motion, but I am bound to say, in regard to what Mr. Balfour had to tell the House of Commons the other night
    280
    as an authoritative dictum coming from him in his high position, that I regret the stone wall, fixed attitude which Mr. Balfour then took up as regards even considering suggestions which come from the other side. Nor do I think that that attitude is sensible, or, in our present circumstances, correct. In private life, or in matters of business, business on a large scale, we do not act in that way. Often and often it is only after and through the various stages of conversation and discussion that any basis of potential agreement can be reached. Having said that, I will return for one moment to the main object of my Motion, which was to call attention to the growth of officialdom.
    When the Representation of the People Bill was in this House, I listened with great interest to an eloquent passage, which fell from the noble Earl who leads the House. I think it was during the evening when the woman suffrage clause was discussed. I remember very well the noble Earl made an important speech, and in an interesting passage he told us that it was a great mistake to think that this country would not resume every-day life very much as it was directly after the war. He said, for what his opinion was worth, that he believed that everybody's desire was to get rid of the shackles which at present have thrown a great many of our notions of liberty and our notions of freedom into abeyance, and that we shall all get back very much to where we were before. I think—the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong—it was Aristotle who pointed out, when he was discussing the science of probability, that in all inferences and estimates based on probability the main factor that you have to bear in mind is that it is the improbable that is likely to occur; and I should rather like in this connection to remind the noble Earl, Lord Curzon, and the House, too, of the story of Sinbad the Sailor. If you remember—I looked it up the other day in the London Library—when Sinbad the Sailor meets the Old Man of the Sea he is very courteously greeted by the Old Man of the Sea, and he is rather taken with his general appearance. Well, the Old Man of the Sea gets on to the back of Sinbad the Sailor, and you all probably remember what happened. He finds himself comfortable there and he is very indisposed to get off. Sinbad does all he can, makes every possible suggestion and even every possible movement to remove the Old Man, but he

    281
    finds the Old Man had twisted his legs round his neck and that he pressed his neck with his feet and squeezed his throat. I do not wish at all to compare with the Old Man of the Sea the splendid body of new officials, who, I am certain, do most devoted and most useful work, and who are in very way deserving of our admiration and thanks; but I think it is just possible that in creating this very large body of officials (who are not to my mind as responsible to Parliament as they ought to be) we may find ourselves in a position of not being able to resume the healthy current of political life, of Parliamentary life, as we have understood it in old days under the old-fashioned Party system, as the noble Earl thought would be possible when he made his speech.
    I have now only to move for a Return of these appointments. I am not very pleased with the wording of the Return. "Semi" is a tiresome sort of word, but I could not think of any better, and there is no doubt as regards the actual fact that we are just now being administered and controlled by a very large number of semi-Ministerial, semi-Official and semi-Departmental individuals, and it is a Return of these that I should like to receive.
    LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I have been instructed on behalf of the Treasury o reply to the noble Lord who has just made this Motion. I hope the noble Lord will excuse me if, in the course of that reply, I do not follow him in all the topics which were mentioned in his speech. I think he himself acknowledged that some of them were hardly germane to the terms of the Motion. The noble Lord, as your Lordships heard with admiration, covered considerable ground. He wandered almost from China to Peru. He spoke of Dunkirk and his experiences there, and of Spain. He referred to Pelmanism and the Press, and to such high matters as the appointment of noble Lords to Cabinet office. Into this I cannot-attempt to follow him.
    I hope the noble Lord will not think it is a case of insult being added to injury, as he has put down this Motion about semi-official and semi-Ministerial posts, that a Minister has not risen to answer him. I may remind the noble Lord that it was the great Mr. Gladstone himself who was the first to delegate to persons holding what I dare say the noble Lord would call the semi-menial post of Lord-in-
    282
    Waiting, certain duties of answering for Departments. The noble Lord and the House too will, I am sure, agree that in these times it is quite impossible for Cabinet Ministers and heads of Departments, with the enormous amount of work they have to do in attending War Cabinets and Committees, themselves to answer all Questions in the House.
    The terms of the Motion of the noble Lord are, as I think he himself admitted, somewhat vague, and many noble Lords, I imagine, hardly knew what to expect when they came to the House this afternoon, except to hear a very amusing speech from the noble Lord, in which, of course, they were not disappointed. It is true, it is a commonplace, that in the last few years, the last four years since the outbreak of war, a great number of new offices have been created; new Departments, new Executive Committees, and so forth. Your Lordships are aware that the number has increased from month to month, from year to year, and you are also aware that these new offices are spread over ducal mansions, mammoth hotels, and, finding the surface of the earth not sufficiently extensive, some of them have been obliged to descend into the bed of lakes. They have obliterated parks and squares, and, naturally, considerable staffs have become necessary in the case of each of these new offices.
    In former days any of us with a fairly good memory, if we had been asked the names of the Ministers of the day, could without much difficulty have given the answer, but I think that would be a difficult task to perform now. I cannot give your Lordships a complete list of the number of new offices that have been created during the last three or four years. I have made a list, and although I do not profess that it is complete, I think it may be a fairly accurate one. There is the Air Board; the Conciliation and Registration Board for Government Employees; the Development Commission; the Ministry of Labour; the Ministry of Munitions; the National Health Insurance Committee (with its English, Scottish, and Welsh Commissioners); the Ministry of National Service; the Ministry of Pensions; the Ministry of Reconstruction; the Road Board; the Ministry of Shipping; the Emergency Departments of the Board of Trade (fourteen in number); the National War Savings Committee; the National Trade Department; the War

    283
    Trade Intelligence Department; the War Trade Statistical Department; the Food Control Ministry, and the Ministry of Propaganda, to which the noble Lord has alluded. As I say, the list may not be complete.
    Your Lordships are perfectly aware that the creation and institution of these new offices and new Ministries is due to the irresistible pressure of events, and few of your Lordships will dispute the fact that they have been made inevitable, from time to time, by the circumstances of the war. They are part and parcel of the incalculable price the country has paid, is paying, and will have to pay, probably during the lives of the youngest amongst us, to use the words of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, speaking in another connection the other evening; it is part of the price the country will have to go on paying for the fact that, when the war broke out, the country was vulnerable not at one but at a score of different points.
    I feel I am uttering a commonplace in this matter, but as the noble Lord who has brought forward the Motion has criticised, as I understand, the Government for allowing these great number of new offices to be created, I hope I am not wasting time in stating what I believe to be the cause. As I say, the country four years ago was vulnerable, not at one, but at a score of points. We were vulnerable in respect to our Army, at all events as regards numbers; vulnerable also as regards munitions, and certainly very vulnerable as regards our food supplies. We were also vulnerable with regard to timber supplies, dye stuffs, chemicals, drugs and so forth. I am not going this afternoon to attempt, in the few words I have to say on this point, to try and argue that any individual or Party was responsible for the state of things when war broke out. I am merely pointing out the fact that these deficiencies existed, and that new offices became necessary to cope with them.
    As regards the expenses of these offices, the great expense no doubt connected with their creation and maintenance, that matter has to come before the House of Commons, who can regulate where they like, cut down salaries, or refuse to vote the amount. I think the noble Lord hardly did justice to the great services performed by many unpaid officials. In his Motion he speaks of semi-Ministerial, semi-Departmental, and semi-official appointments,
    284
    whether salaried or unsalaried, but I am sure he would be the last not to bear witness to the patriotic sacrifices made by many gentlemen of education and skill in banking, commerce, business, and so forth, who have voluntarily given their unpaid services to the country in connection with many of these new Ministries and Departments. And great as the expense has been, and is no doubt, to this country for the maintenance of the new offices in question, still greater would obviously have been the expense if the country had not been fortunate enough to procure in one case after another the services of gentlemen who were willing to take office without salary. The noble Lord in his speech did not allude to the fact—I do not quite know whether he was aware of it—that a White Paper was presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of His Majesty last year on Commissions on questions arising out of the war. To a certain extent, perhaps, that Return might meet what the noble Lord was asking for. Has he seen that Return?
    LORD RIBBLESDALE: I called attention to the fact that it is growing, goes on and on. That is my point.
    LORD HYLTON: That is a Paper which was presented to both Houses of Parliament last year, and I thought perhaps, if the noble Lord had not seen it, it would have answered the purpose that he was seeking. With regard to the Return that the noble Lord has asked for, the Government is not prepared to meet his request. This list of Commissions and Committees set up to deal with public questions arising out of the war has been laid as a Parliamentary Paper only a few months ago, and the labour involved in producing such a Return as the noble Lord has asked for would be very great. One other result might be even to increase the number of people employed in public offices which he so much deprecates; and it is notorious in regard to one article that would be necessary for his Return that the country is suffering from a considerable shortage of it at the present time, one evidence of which is, as I understand, that the price of The Times is now to be 3d. Paper is short and labour is short. An exhaustive document has been laid before Parliament only a few months ago dealing with this subject, and I am instructed that the Government cannot comply with the noble Lord's request.
    LORD BURNHAM: My Lords, as I have been Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Propaganda, and as my name was mentioned in the other House as one partly responsible for what has been done, perhaps I may be allowed to say something to the Motion moved by Lord Ribblesdale. In common with your Lordships I always listen with pleasure to the speeches of my noble friend which are embellished by flights of fancy and touches of imagination, but I confess that to-day I could not understand the connection between the two streams of his argument. That there has been a great increase in the number of Departments we know, and we know also that there has been a great increase in the sum spent for propaganda, but I do not see that the newspaper Press itself affords any connecting link between these two facts which will account for them being put together in the Resolution which has been submitted to your Lordships.
    I cordially agree with a great, deal of what my noble friend said about the multiplication of Departments of State. At the same time, my Lords, you are not going back to the pre-war days of anarchy plus the police constable. You will have to have in the future a State far more highly organised than in the past, and that necessitates an increase in the machinery of Government. You cannot therefore expect the Departments to be brought back to their former number, but whether you want all the Departments that you have now, certainly in their present form, I very much doubt. It seems to me indeed that before we have a reduction of armaments we are likely to require a reduction of Departments and a co-ordination, to use that blessed word, which nobody can say now exists. I was shocked myself to find on a Committee upon which I sat in the Law Courts that on the same floor there were no less than forty-six reconstruction committees meeting weekly, and I am assured that the total number of such committees is ninety. These figures, of course, imply a great increase not only in the number of committees but in the number of officials which serve them.
    As my noble friend said, the Civil Service, though it is not covenanted, is none the less tenacious of its place and of its emoluments. In fact, I am not sure that the new officialdom is not more official than the old, and that the tite barnacle qualities which distinguish the
    286
    Civil Service with all its many merits have not been taken over en bloc by those who have joined that Service since the war. There is not the least doubt that many Departments stultify one another, and that Committees cross one another in their functions at every turn. Instead of making for efficiency this redundancy has led to cross divisions and double work, and that certainly has not produced the results that were expected or desired.
    Although we have to increase the machinery of Imperial Government in order that we may meet the new conditions and the harder life that is before us, we must guard against the obvious dangers of being subjected to a bureaucracy to which I think our natural genius is alien. I cannot help thinking of a story that I heard in India. A Pathan who was asked whether it was not much better to live under the Sirkar than wider the Ameer, replied "I do not know. Under the Ameer you meet a tiger once, but under the Sirkar you have the locusts always with you." We do not want to have locusts always with us in the sense that he meant. I quite agree with my noble friend that we can never get back to the beautiful simplicity of Government that we have abandoned for ever, but the enormous surplusage of agencies and committees that now exist will have to be largely diminished even though we cannot afford to part with them all.
    I fail to see, however, what this has to do with propaganda Propaganda is a wide and nebulous term. It means anything or nothing, but mainly I suppose it means organised publicity. I have always wondered whether we have not a congenital inability for propaganda. We have got such a good conceit of ourselves that we think the best way of presenting our merits and virtues to other people and in other places is to paint our own virtues as we see them. I do not think that we make good propagandists. We have a poor talent for intrigue, and intrigue is in a certain sense at the bottom of propaganda. But propaganda covers such a multitude of things. Propaganda for the war is quite different from propaganda for peace, and at this stage I am bound to say that when guns and stomachs are speaking so loud as they are now I very much question the value of war propaganda at all. At the same time I do not question that, it was necessary to have it in the earlier days of

    287
    the war. We were amateurish in its beginnings, we were confused in its processes, and the results have been correspondingly ineffective. There is no doubt that we suffered, too, from the jealousy of the exclusive spirit of departmental patriotism. We did not get any common action as between the different Departments of State. Each Department carried on its own propaganda in its own way, and by its own machinery. Though the lines were often parallel they seldom met, and the communication between the different Departments was of the most formal and perfunctory kind.
    Well, that was not a desirable state of things, and there is no doubt that we allowed the enemy to obtain a tremendous advantage over us in the early stages of the war by the effectiveness of their organisation for this purpose. At the same time, it would not be fair to those who have been carrying on the work of propaganda to say that they could ever have played the game as efficiently as the Germans have done. The Germans have all the machinery to their hand. Their tradition has been a tradition of intrigue. The whole of that process of penetration and permeation, of which we hear so much in commerce and in finance, in politics and in war, had been prepared long before the war. The supervision of the propaganda, as we had to fashion it, was, as I say, perhaps not very successful, and it was not very well established in the first place.
    Recently it was found necessary to reorganise it. My noble friend has spoken of two noble Lords who have been appointed to responsible posts in connection with propaganda. I would only say this, that if, for the purpose of war, propaganda is organised publicity, then, on the whole the best men to carry it out are newspaper men. That is their trade. They know the ropes or wires, and therefore it is not a reflection on the Government in any sense that they appoint men with the experience of managing newspapers and organising news to posts of that kind. I do not say that the present division of propaganda is satisfactory, but I do say that it was necessary to establish certain principles for its own organisation, and that the Government could not be blamed—on the contrary they ought to be congratulated—for having taken the necessary steps to divide it into its proper spheres. Whether what is done now will be of much avail in the great
    288
    struggle in which we are embarked is another matter altogether, but you could not leave it where it was, because it was in such a state of hopeless and chaotic confusion that it had in some way or another to be dealt with. That does not mean that many of the officers connected with it have not shown the greatest ability in the service that they have given to the State, but they were working under impossible conditions.
    I hope one day to be allowed to bring before your Lordships' House the whole story of the propaganda that has been undertaken by this country during the war, because it is a matter of infinite importance. After the war we shall hear of it in another connection, because it is not likely that the system which has been once commenced will be allowed altogether to drop. Of course it is true that if you wish for peace you must be prepared for war, and it is equally true that if you wish for a successful and lasting peace you must prepare for that peace. We shall of necessity have to do something, to take such action to keep touch with public opinion in other countries, friendly no doubt but uninformed, as will ensure the permanence of our friendly relations with them. If that is so, I cannot think that my noble friend would have any real reason to complain if that machinery is being more or less set up and put in order now. If it is soundly organised, in its divisions and sub-divisions, you can use it after the war, and there will be no danger, I fancy, that those gentlemen who are now connected with it, whose names he has given, would wish to play any prominent part at that time. If they are particularly fitted for the present and urgent duty then the Government, I think, has done quite right to appoint them, and there can be no question that any Minister, surveying the field and seeing the waste that was going on, and the confusion in the propaganda as it has been carried on for so long, could do nothing else but try his best to reform and reorganise it. Therefore, I think it is hardly necessary for your Lordships to express any opinion that would condemn the Government for doing what was their obvious duty, and what was a real necessity, in our organising of State.
    LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I cannot help thinking it is a little unfortunate that some words that fell from the noble Lord who made this Motion have led

    289
    this debate somewhat astray. The real point of the Motion was to call attention to the growing number of Government officials, and the debate has gone off on an elaborate discussion as to the necessity of officials in connection with propaganda. The subject is a very inviting one, but I desire not to follow it, although there is much that. I should like to say upon it, because I think that the real question that is asked here demands a little closer attention. I should just like, however, to say this, that, if the noble Lord who has just sat down is fight in saying this system of organised propaganda is going to he imposed on us permanently, it is a system which I believe to be entirely foreign to our nature, and one which, I believe, the country will bitterly resent.
    LORD BURNHAM: I did not say the same system. I said there must be some.
    LORD BUCKMASTER: Well, any system. Particularly if, as I understand, part of the system consists of propaganda at home, which can have no meaning whatever, excepting that somebody is to be appointed at the Government's expense, for the purpose of propagating the views of the Government.
    Now, I think the noble Lord who replied omitted to look at the Question itself, because he proceeded to read out to us a large number of officers who had recently been appointed, and overlooked the fact that what was asked was, what were the officers that His Majesty's Government had appointed not the officers who had been appointed from time immemorial, but those for whom the present Government have been responsible. To that no answer of any kind was given, and the suggestion that a White Paper which referred to Commissions and Committees has anything whatever to do with them seems to me, with all respect to the noble Lord, to be a profound mistake. The noble Lord said that the whole of these appointments were due to the irresistible pressure of events. Well, of course, it is precisely that about which the public is so concerned. They are themselves quite unable to believe that it is so, and they think that the enormous multiplication of these offices and officials, during the period of office of the present Government, points to a method of governing this country which they regard with a considerable uneasiness and annoyance.
    I do think that the noble Lord might
    290
    have given some more definite answer to this very plain and simple Question. The only real answer that I could gather that he gave was this—that His Majesty's Government has appointed so many people, it has increased such a large number of Departments, that it has lost all count and check of the number it has appointed, and that, therefore, it is unfair, at a moment of stress like this, to put them to the difficult and arduous labour of compiling accounts of the people whose existence they have created. I think that very likely may be true. That being so, it may not be well on the part of the noble Lord to ask that this added burden, which I should think would probably be extremely severe, should be thrown upon the Government. But it seems a little strange that, when the Government are creating all these new offices and making these new appointments, they should not keep some check and record of them themselves, and, when a request is made, be able to furnish some better information than that which has been given this afternoon.
    EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Lord on this Bench, or my noble relative who asked this Question, into any of the details which are not strictly relevant; but I do propose to follow the noble Lord who replied in the first instance. I think, if he will allow me to say so, that he really almost toyed with the House in his reply; and I will point out to your Lordships how I take that to be so. First of all, he knows perfectly well that the Question was directed to recent appointments of this kind, and to the enormous daily growth of these appointments and semi-Ministerial people whose very names one does not know, let alone their functions and salaries. As typical of the sort of appointment, and by way of giving a list of them, the noble Lord permitted himself to include the Road Board, which was appointed years before the war began, and which has nothing to do with these appointments. This is one instance of what I mean by "toying with the House." The noble Lord then referred to a Return, which my noble relative is not able to identify but with which I am familiar, as to these Committees. That Return, I think I am right in saying, deals with Reconstruction Committees only, and it certainly does not give the number of people employed in the Department.
    THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That is not the case.
    EARL RUSSELL: It deals with a good many Committees, but it does not give the number of people employed in the Department; it does not give the cost of the committees or of that Department to the public, or the salary of the semi-Minister who is in charge of it. Is it not a rather strong order that we should not be told by whom we are being governed and what they are being paid for it? My noble relative's Question is, reduced to its simplest terms, merely asking for a list of the people by whom we are governed and what they are paid for it out of the public funds. It is true that your Lordships' House does not administer public, funds and is not able to interfere with them; but Questions of this sort have been asked in this House, and I suggest that it is a strong order that we should not know even their names, or their salaries, and the Departments which have been created.
    When the noble Lord spoke of the amount of paper which would be involved in making the Return, surely it is not comparable to the paper which is wasted now in half an hour in Government offices. Let me recall to your Lordships an instance which occurred in this House when we were discussing the Reform Bill. Day after day the Bill was reprinted with the Schedule. If there had been any desire to save paper the Bill could have been printed in one part and the Schedule in another; and I am sure that the paper wasted in that connection alone would have covered all the paper required for the Return which is now asked for. If there were any independence left in either House of Parliament this Motion would be carried against the Government; and if my noble relative takes it to a Division I shall vote with him. It is absurd that we should not be told this. If the Government cannot make the Return, let them put on some of those energetic people who are working without salaries to do it. I am sure that the Daily Mail could get out the Return in a short time with the assistance of their staff, and as the Government has their assistance let them prepare the Return.
    THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I should like to say that my noble friend had no intention of toying with the House
    292
    or of acting discourteously towards your Lordships. But if he did so I am sure he regrets it very much indeed. When I read Lord Ribblesdale's Motion it never occurred to me, as Lord Buckmaster said it should have done, that it referred only to the last twelve months. I thought it was referring to the growth of bureaucracy since the beginning of the war.
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No; to appointments made by His Majesty's Government.
    THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: He did not even put it to the beginning of His Majesty's Government.
    LORD BUCKMASTER: Yes. It is, "made by His Majesty's Government."
    THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I read it assuming that it was referring to the growth of bureaucracy under which the country is now suffering; and I say that the bulk of the bureaucracy of to-day is not appointed by the present Government.
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: A good many of them are.
    THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The bulk of public appointments existing to-day were not made by the present Government; and my noble friend declined, on behalf of the Treasury, to sanction a Return which is quite undefined in its terms and in its date, for a reason which I think is adequate. If noble Lords will show the superfluous Department, then it is the business of Parliament to deal with that Department; to dismiss its officials; to reduce its emoluments; to disperse it, if necessary. But to prepare a huge Return—and it would have to be an enormous Return—in order to find out some Department to which objection may be taken, is, in my opinion, putting a burden upon those very Departments which it is almost outside the province of Parliament to impose. The noble Lord, Lord Ribblesdale, quoted only one case to which he took objection, and that was the Propaganda Department, so far as the Government is concerned.
    LORD RIBBLESDALE: I do not admit that I quoted that as a case; I quoted it as a fact.
    THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: As a fact?
    LORD RIBBLESDALE: Yes. That is not the same as an objection.
    THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The noble Lord calls our attention "to the growing number of semi-Ministerial, semi-Departmental, and semi-official appointments." I ask, to which does he object?
    LORD RIBBLESDALE: None.
    THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Let us be clear.
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: We do not know what they are.
    THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Let us be clear. The noble Lord does not object to the Propaganda Department?
    LORD RIBBLESDALE: I believe that I moved; therefore I have an opportunity of replying. I am prepared to meet all these small debating points when my turn comes.
    THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am sorry that the noble Lord should convey that rebuke to me. They are not small debating points. I ask, To what Departments is objection taken? The noble Earl says he does not know what they are. If that is so they have clearly not, so far as he is aware, interfered with the public service. Let us know what the concrete case is, and then let Parliament go into the particular case. Surely that is the right thing to do. It is no good assuming that the appointments which have been made are improper or wasteful appointments unless examples can be quoted. The only other example quoted by Lord Ribblesdale was an appointment not made directly by the Government at all, but by some county agricultural committee. Does the noble Lord want those appointments to stop? The chief appointments made by the present Government—not, of course, the Munitions Department, which is out and away the biggest group of appointments that have been made; that was made by the last Government—are the Shipping Control Department which is I take it one of the most important; and the Food Ministry also. I do not know whether any noble Lord here desires, or thinks it advisable, at this stage to do away with either of those Departments. It may be argued that they
    294
    are over-staffed; it may be argued that their energies are directed along wrong channels; but I will engage to say that it is perfectly impossible at this juncture to cut out of our polity of to-day either of those great Departments which have been established by the present Government.
    In preparation for this debate, although acting under a false impression, I had prepared certain examples of semi-Ministerial, semi-Departmental and semi-official appointments, which in my opinion seem to be wholly justified. Some, however, of these examples date back to the time of the last Government, and therefore I will not trouble to quote them, but I do really wish to enter a protest against the view which has been expressed in two or three speeches this afternoon, that these new Departments are redundant, inefficient, costly, and, as Lord Burnham said, worse than the old Civil Service.
    LORD BURNHAM: I said some of the new Civil Servants were more tenacious of their privileges than the old. I did not attack the Departments.
    THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I beg your Lordships to understand that where in the course of a few months, or a year or two, it has been necessary to extemporise an enormous public Department—the Munitions Department if you like, or the Shipping Department—where it has been impossible ex hypothesi to secure the assistance of more than a mere handful of trained Civil Servants, it is not only unjust but it is ungenerous to attack those Departments for inefficiencies which unquestionably occur.
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: There was no attack. We want to know what they are.
    THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I wish to reply, if Lord Camperdown will allow me, to attacks made on these new public Departments, which I say in my opinion are not only unjust but ungenerous as well.
    LORD BUCKMASTER: I certainly never made any such attacks.
    THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I have heard such attacks not only to-night but on various occasions, and I confess, having had to see some of the work done,

    295
    that I cannot express too high a tribute to the public spirit and devotion which are shown by these people, many of them utterly untrained in public work. The devotion and public spirit which they have shown have filled me with admiration and with pride, and yet we are told that they are uncovenanted, unsalaried—even the fact that they are unsalaried is a subject for a sneer. I know of men who are working in Government Departments today, themselves controlling trades and industries which they have left because the Government has had to take charge of those industries, and who are slaving day and night actually themselves fettering control over the industries in which they were themselves concerned—unsalaried men, and yet the fact that they are unsalaried is made almost a source of complaint.
    EARL RUSSELL: If the noble Earl is referring to me, I never made any complaint about their being unsalaried. I merely asked for information. I made no complaint about their being salaried or unsalaried. I merely said we should like to know who they are.
    THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Where? What is it that the noble Earl wishes to know?
    VISCOUNT HARCOURT: In all the Departments created in the last fifteen months.
    THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Then the Munitions Department does not interest the noble Viscount?
    VISCOUNT HARCOURT: It interests me very much, but it is not the question.
    THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Does the noble Viscount want to know the names of every man and every clerk in, say, the Shipping Department?
    VISCOUNT HARCOURT: The names of the heads of the Departments and the numbers of those employed.
    THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That does not come within the Return, because it is a Department created by Statute. The noble Lord has put down a perfectly vague Question on the Paper which does not refer to the Shipping Department or to the Food Department. What we want to
    296
    know is what is in the minds of noble Lords. They are not themselves agreed. If the noble Lord will tell us actually what he does require to know, specifying the Departments concerned, and will tell us what he means by semi-Ministerial, then I have no doubt it might be possible to meet him; but to ask for a Return giving the names of every official employed in every Department would I think be superfluous, and would give no satisfaction to the noble Lord when he received the Return.
    LORD WEARDALE: I confess, my Lords, that I have rarely listened to a less satisfactory official statement from any Minister of the Crown. Here we are asking in simple language for a Return of the appointments made during a stated period.
    THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No.
    LORD WEARDALE: Well, I have no doubt that the noble Lord will be quite I willing to put in "by the present Government." Here we are asking for a specific Return of appointments made during a stated period, and we want it for the one simple purpose of public information. We are all of us taxpayers. We may not have anything to do, it is perfectly true, with finance, except in the present unpleasant form of having to contribute largely to it, but I say outside this House in every quarter you will find a growing anger at the enormous accumulation of offices, many of them believed to be useless, purposeless, and unnecessary, which are being created by the Government. What we are asking for is a Return, not of every small minor office, but of all the principal subordinate offices in these different departments, with the names of those appointed, specifying the salary if there is a salary. If there is no salary, which is to the honour of the holder of the office, it should be stated. No attack has been made in this House, or anywhere else so far as I am aware, on the efficiency of these officials, but we do want information, and I hope the House will take this opportunity of asserting the right of Parliament to claim full information upon this subject. Really for a Minister to take up the position which the noble Earl has taken on behalf of the Government, and to tell us that it will mean a great quantity of paper, which is, at this moment, as we all know, scarce, is an excuse which I trust the House will not accept. I hope that the House will

    297
    support the Motion of my noble friend, and that we shall obtain from the Government a Return to which I think the public are entitled.
    LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I have had a good deal of experience in another place in having to accept Returns which involved a good deal of labour and even expense. I have also had considerable experience in connection with having to refuse Returns during my Parliamentary career; but I do not think I ever listened to a speech from a Treasury official which seemed to me more unsatisfactory than that of the noble Earl in reply to Lord Ribblesdale's request. It is usual for the Treasury to intimate to an hon. Member in another place if it is unable to meet his request for a particular Return, and to communicate the reasons why it is impossible to do so. All that we were told by the noble Lord this afternoon was that owing to scarcity of paper and labour it would be impossible to meet the noble Lord's request for this Return. Now it was open to him, I think, to inform us that if the Return was put in some other form it could be acceded to, and suggest to the Government that there is a real feeling outside this House, as well as within it, that information should be granted as to the recent appointments that have been made. We do not want a long list of names a large bulky document. But I think what the country does want, and what this House would like, would be a Return of the various Government Departments, whether Ministerial or semi-Ministerial, which have been created during the last fifteen months while the present Government have been in power, with the numbers of persons who are in those Departments, and as nearly as possible their aggregate salaries. If there is any difficulty in giving the last-mentioned particular I am quite sure we should accept such information as could be given without great expense or trouble on the part of the Government.
    LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I think I said—I am certain I did say; we shall see it in Hansard—in the few observations I directed to you, that I quite understood the difficulty of the Return, and that if the Government would accept it in good part, understanding that I mean by it a Return showing the growth of appointments, I would be quite willing to recognise that they would do it in the way in which it
    298
    should be done, and give the public the information it required. From the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, just now—for it amounted to that; he intervened on all sorts of points that nobody had raised—I do not think the noble Earl appreciates the position which was raised by my Question, and I do not think he appreciates the position of the Government as regards the public outside with reference to this tremendous outcrop, the daily outcrop, of fresh appointments. He said that I had complained about the Government, that the whole of what I said was complaining, lodging charges against particular posts, particular offices, and particular people.
    THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: On the contrary—perhaps I did not make myself quite clear I said the noble Lord quoted no particular case, except that of propaganda, to give an example.
    LORD RIBBLESDALE: Quite so, because I was not calling attention to your misdeeds but to your proceedings. If I say that there are a great many birds in a field, it is not the same as saying that I dislike birds or disapprove of birds. There was no logic in the noble Earl's comment. He started a number of hares of his own which he coursed with moderate success, and left out altogether what was the real object of my Question, which was I hope at last conveyed to him by Lord Russell.
    Really, what I wanted to do—what we must try and do, I think—was to call attention to the large increase of the standing and running charges of our establishment. As the noble Lord said, we are taxpayers here although we have no vote, and it is as a taxpayer that I look at a great many of these things. If you go on piling up these expenses, no doubt you will find your financial position sooner or later considerably worse than it is now. I do not know that there is anything more that I want to say. I think I paid a tribute to the devotion and zeal and good work of these people who have given their services for nothing. When I said they were unsalaried, I stick to that; but a large unsalaried officialdom not reachable by any Parliamentary process is a danger to the country, and that is what you are beginning to accumulate. I do not know how far Lord Burnham represents the Government. He is on an important Committee—the Propaganda Committee.
    LORD BURNHAM: I was.
    LORD RIBBLESDALE: The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, told us that we might be perfectly well satisfied, from what he knew of the working of things, that all this would have to go on after the war. That is exactly what I wanted to bring out. That is my allegory of Sinbad the Sailor. We shall find this outcrop, which the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, thinks so desirable, squeezing our throat and interfering with our shoulders. I am very glad that has been brought out. We know now that the Government will not face this Return for this reason—because they know the country would say this is not the way to manage our business, and that the circumstances of this war do not warrant or justify the enormous increase in officials which the present Government have seen fit to make.
    THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I had no desire to take part in this discussion, but I am not certain that there has not been a good deal of misunderstanding on both sides as to what is in the minds of noble Lords on the matter. I certainly plead guilty to the charge of not having altogether succeeded in appreciating the point which my noble friend Lord Ribblesdale desired to raise. I entered the House this afternoon certain that I should listen to an agreeable and facetious speech from him an expectation which was far from being disappointed—but I was a little uncertain as to the information which was sought from us, and I am bound to say that in the course of his speech, as he gave us those agreeable personal experiences of his own in different parts of the world, I found it increasingly difficult as time went on to ascertain exactly what he meant. My noble friend who answered on behalf of the Treasury had sought to obtain the information, which was not at once per ceptible from the terms of the noble Lord's Motion. I believe he wrote a letter to the noble Lord and asked him what he meant, because, like myself, Lord Hylton was in complete doubt as to what was in the background of the noble Lord's mind. The noble Lord, who is not only facetious but secretive, declined to give the information.
    LORD RIBBLESDALE: I answered the letter.
    EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My noble friend had an answer, but the answer, I believe, contained no information. Therefore, we entered the debate this afternoon having only the phraseology of my noble friend's Motion, to which curiously little attention has been paid in the discussion in which we have so far taken part.
    Now, my Lords, what is the gist of the whole matter? There have been a great many offices, a great many appointments, a great many persons selected to perform this or that work in connection with the war. We none of us, perhaps, have a very clear idea of how many there are, and only those of us near the centre have a really clear idea of the necessity for their selection. We all of us know that we are engaged in the biggest war that has ever taken place in the history of the world, and one that makes the greatest demands or the energies of every class of people. When you remember, my Lords, that at the present moment you are putting into the field and supplying in the field an Army of many millions of men, when you remember that the Government has taken control of almost every branch of national industry—beginning with railways, and going on to mines, to canals, to timber, to food, and to shipping—you can imagine the enormous organisation that is required to control and administer these affairs; and so far from being surprised at the number of committees or offices that are created, or at the number of men—and I may add women, too—who are called upon to administer them, I am on the whole surprised at the moderation with which the thing has been done.
    And, let me point out that the reason I why there has been moderation, if there has been, as I contend there has, is the enormous amount of unpaid and unsalaried labour that has been given. I must endorse what the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, said on that point, that your Lordships would be astonished, when you are apt to criticise this great mass, as you regard it, of official posts, if you realised how much of this service is rendered without any hope of reward or any demand for payment, but simply out of a. patriotic regard for the interests of the country. On that point we are all agreed, I am sure, and I do not imagine for a moment that any noble Lord who has spoken to-night

    301
    desired to say one word in disparagement of the efficiency, honesty, or sincerity of the work that has been done.
    Now we come to the demand that has been made—and here I confess that, even after the last speech of Lord Ribblesdale, I am in very grave doubt. We have had several definitions in the course of the discussion of what noble Lords opposite desired. For instance, the noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt—I think I am correct in saving it was he—in the course of an interruption, said that what he wanted was a list of the number of offices and officers created by the present Government, with the names of those appointed to them and the salaries which they enjoy. That is not what the noble Lord, Lord Ribblesdale, asked for, and it is not in the least consistent with the terms of the Motion on the Paper. Then we have the noble Lord, Lord Weardale, who was only anxious for a list of recent appointments—I took down Ins words—"recent appointments to various Departments, Ministerial or semi-Ministerial." Then the noble Lord, Lord Ribblesdale, in his concluding remarks, was not so much interested in the number of appointments and the scale of the offices as in the burden which, he thought, was being placed upon the public.
    LORD RIBBLESDALE: The reckless burden.
    EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Yes, the reckless burden which he thinks is being placed on the public. On these points I can understand the curiosity, anxiety, and interest, and if you ask me for any definite information on any of these points, I will try to give it. We are here to give the information that noble Lords desire to seek. But how can you accept a Motion which is couched in these terms?—"To call attention to the growing number of semi-Ministerial, semi-Departmental, and semi-Official appointments." What does that mean? I confess I have not the least idea what a. "semi-official" appointment is. I thought that when a man received a post and did work for the State he became an official. I do not understand what a "semi-official" is. If the noble Lord pushes his Motion to a Division, and supposing he carries it, I invite him to contemplate the frame of mind of the person in the Treasury, or elsewhere, who is called upon to satisfy the curiosity of your Lord-
    302
    ships and draw up a list of "semi-official" appointments.
    And what is a semi-Minister? Is a semi-Minister a man who is half a Minister and half something else? The noble Lord was once a Minister, he was once a Whip, and when he talks about propaganda I detect reminiscences of his earlier career. But what is a "semi-Minister," and what is a "semi-Department"? The noble Lord is famous as being a joker, but he has never before carried his joking, so far as I know, into the terms of a Motion submitted to your Lordships' House. His Motion goes on to say, "made by His Majesty's Government." I cannot help thinking, with a certain amount of amusment, that it is is not so much in the public interest as it is in relation to His Majesty's present advisers that all this curiosity is shown. It was not shown when Mr. Asquith was Prime Minister, although to the best of my recollection, when the noble Viscount opposite was a colleague Of mine, he and I witnessed without dismay, or at any rate with well-concealed dismay, the considerable increase in Departments and offices that took place; but the moment Mr. Asquith disappears and Mr. Lloyd George comes in, and the noble Viscount takes his seat on that Bench, public curiosity is aroused—and this interest in the great burden that is being borne by the public only starts into existence in December, 1916, a date about which the noble Lord, Lord Ribblesdale, was extremely uncertain.
    Let us take the concluding words of the Motion. The noble Lord calls attention to the "growing number," and then moves for "a Return." What on earth is the meaning of "a Return"? Again I ask the noble Lord to contemplate the position of the Treasury clerk who, confronted with this Motion—carried if it were by your Lordships' House—began to compile "a Return." What would be the Return? He may well give you a Return that the whole thing is superfluous and unnecessary. Really, I cannot imagine for a moment that my noble friend, whatever may be his interest in moving it, can seriously ask your Lordships' House to pass the Motion that he has submitted. There is also the additional point made by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, that to compile a Return of this description, if we were certain what was wanted, would consume a great deal of time and labour—quite apart from the expense, as to which I

    303
    will say nothing—and would in itself involve the employment of a large number of officials, the increasing multiplicity of whom the noble Lord deplores. I venture to suggest that if he wants information on any definite point he should put a definite Question on the Paper, to which I or any member of the Government would be pleased to give an answer, but that he should refrain from placing on the Treasury the altogether undeserved burden of attempting to decide what was in the noble Lord's mind when he put this Motion on the Paper.
    LORD RIBBLESDALE: Would the noble Earl like this Amendment to my Motion: "To call attention to the growing number of Ministerial Departments and official appointments, whether salaried or unsalaried, made by His Majesty's present Government during the last fifteen months, and to move for the Return of such appointments."
    EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I am very reluctant indeed to accept one of these sudden Amendments, moved at the last moment by a noble Lord who, having put down a Motion which is absolutely impossible, tries to squeeze Ministers into accepting something which they have had no opportunity of examining and to which they might regret having given their adherence. I hope, with all respect, he will not ask me to accept his amended Motion.
    LORD RIBBLESDALE: I shall divide the House.
    LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, the debate, I submit, cannot be concluded by the ex cathedra declaration such as the noble Lord has given. I have to pay some respect to my own position as an independent member of your Lordships' House, and I hope the House will resist the Motion, which is limited to a fifteen months administration, thus fulfilling well the proverb that "the net is spread in vain in the sight of the bird." We have seen the noble Viscount below me moving about the House arranging for a Division.
    VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I only asked my noble relative whether he was going to divide, and he informed me that he was.
    LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I adhere to my description of the operation. I want to know whether the object of the Motion is to promote public economy or to inflict humiliation on His Majesty's Ministers, because if it is for the latter operation I myself will not be a party to it unless we are to get an advantage out of it at the same time. We all know perfectly well that this extension of the number of appointments, if it was excessive, this multiplication of buildings, and this enormous expenditure of public money, if it was useless, did not begin fifteen months ago. We all know much too well what is the reason for the limitation of this inquiry, and this quite unnecessarily restricted period.
    This is a very serious subject and a mistake has been made by some noble Lords, if I may respectfully say so, taking part in this debate who have complained of the answer of Lord Hylton as being the answer of a Treasury official. We all know that the noble Lord is not a Treasury official, and it is because he is not a Treasury official that he is put in a position which is very hard upon him. He has not an administrative post which gives him the smallest right or power to control any of the things that have been done. I am glad that the noble Earl who leads this House saw it to be his duty to intervene. This is a very serious question because of the existence, I do not say the justice, of the very grave public suspicion as to these Departments. People see these enormous buildings being run up, and they suspect that a totally undue standard of cubic space per official is probably being laid down. They see the numbers employed and they think that probably a highly Utopian view of the maximum hours of labour that can be requited has been adopted. Everybody knows that if you multiply Departments you probably are only adding to the evil of circumlocution, and that very likely you will merely be adding to the number of pigeon-holes. What is worse than that, in all these creations of fresh Departments you get more and more centres of departmental amour propre, one Department spending a great deal of its time in quarrelling with other Departments. As Lord Burnham said, You know perfectly well that you are creating cross divisions.
    I for one have to complain not merely of the things that have been done which create public suspicion. I have to complain also of Lord Ribblesdale himself who,

    305
    when he talks about semi-Ministerial, semi-Departmental and semi-official demands, is using semi-accurate and semi-definite language which is unworthy of serious acceptance on a Motion made to this House. The proper Return to his Motion, if it were accepted by this House, would be a blank piece of paper, because during the last fifteen months, and indeed for a longer period during the war, no appointments have been made which are semi-official. All have been official. Anybody who does public work is doing an official duty. Any Department engaged in public work is a public Department. Therefore the proper return to the noble Lord's Motion would be that no such appointments exist. I had myself a good deal to do a long time ago, when I held office, with the framing of Returns, and I know perfectly well how idle it is for anybody who wants a Return to try to escape from the responsibility of making that demand by leaving to somebody else the duty of devising the necessary form of words which must make the heading of a Return, in other words shaping the question to which you want an answer. The noble Lord I submit ought not to put this House in the position it would be an undignified position—of making a demand and getting no reply to that demand merely on the ground of his failure to formulate what it is that he really wants.
    LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I think, from having listened to this debate, that there has been a want of appreciation of what the real question involved is, and that to a certain extent the noble Lord is responsible owing to the terms in which he puts his Motion. I should like to suggest, if I am in order, for the purpose of preventing any difficulty upon this point, that the debate might be adjourned now, and that before it is begun again further attention might be given by the noble Lord to the terms of his Motion in communication with the noble Earl who leads this House, or with the noble Earl Lord Crawford, or with Lord Hylton or whoever would be the appropriate Minister. I think that there is a strong objection to giving the Return in its present form. At the same time I am of opinion that the demand for information is fully justified in substance. If we adjourn the debate there might be some communication between the noble Lord and the Treasury Bench, and probably, if an arrangement should be come to, the matter need not be reopened again.
    306
    I think that would prevent any misunderstanding, and therefore with that object I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
    EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I venture to think that is not the best wav of dealing with the matter. If the debate is adjourned it will be resumed upon this Motion. We almost all agree that the Motion in its present form is one that no one understands. The noble Lord who moved it is not quite certain himself what it means. The information that he asks for could not conceivably be given under the terms of that Motion. No one, I say, understands it; and therefore I submit that there is not much use in resuming the debate upon an impossible Motion. I said just now that all information that I could properly give I should be very glad to give. The real thing for the noble Lord to do, if I may venture humbly to advise him, would be to withdraw his Motion and put some other Question upon the Paper. I would rather not myself have responsibility for his Question whether it is friendly or not to the Government. The noble Lord can put down the kind of Question he wants on his own account, after consultation with his friends. I would rather, therefore, decline the proffered assistance which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Parmoor. I would suggest that this Motion should now be withdrawn, and that, the noble Lord should put, down whatever Question seems most suitable to him.
    LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, having regard to what the noble Earl has said, I would not put the House to the trouble of a Division on the question of adjourning the debate, and I therefore withdraw my Motion.
    LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I think that the noble Earl has given us good advice. I will put down another Question in a form in regard to which I will take advice. There is one thing, however, that I should like to say. The noble Earl just now spoke of me and of my friends. What I have done in this matter I have done entirely on my own responsibility. I have asked nobody's advice, and nobody is responsible except myself if I put down a vague Motion. As to the question of my not having answered Lord Hylton's letter, I did—
    LORD HYLTON: I told Lord Curzon so.
    LORD RIBBLESDALE: Then Lord Curzon has misled the House. I will take Lord Curzon's suggestion, and put the same point down in a form upon which your Lordships can either divide or not, if it comes to a Division. In the meantime I withdraw my present Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    SHIPPING LOSSES.
    LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the serious losses of vessels conducting traffic between Great Britain and Ireland; and to move a Resolution. I must apologise for bringing this subject forward at so late an hour, but it is of such vast importance that I think it my duty to do so. I wish to refer to the serious losses on the trade route between England and Ireland, and to call attention to the fact that the loss of these steamers is affecting the food supply of our country to a very considerable degree. The submarine attacks are increasing and the position is becoming more perilous and getting worse every day. The reason is that there is no efficient defence. I do not blame the Admiralty for that. We went to war with about 500 destroyers and a large number of cruisers and small craft short, and we are suffering for that now. From October 12, 1917, to March 2, 1918, in the waters from Arklow to Bardsey Point and from the Boyne to the Mersey there were forty-four attacks by submarines, out of which twenty-five ships were lost in these seas, and 700 lives were lost. Two of these ships went down with all hands, and there was a patrol ship lost as well.
    Then I would refer to the hospital ship "Glenart Castle." There are 153 of the people on board who have not been accounted for, and I hope the noble Lord in his reply will tell me if anything has been heard of them. I know there was in one of the boats that got away a medical officer named Young, who was one of the best boat-sailers and handlers of boats that I know, and if there had been any possibility of those boats getting to the shore he would have managed it. There were two more ships sunk the same day. There is intense anxiety among the relatives about the "Glenart Castle" particularly,
    308
    and I hope the noble Lord can say whether any of those people have turned up.
    It is generally supposed in the West that these vessels have been put down by spies. I have been down to Swansea and Cardiff lately, and there is a general sentiment there that there are a large number of aliens knocking about there who ought not to be allowed in those docks. Sir Edward Nichol, who was examining officer there for two and a half years, says he is well aware that there are spies there, and, at any rate, there are a large number of aliens who are allowed in the docks, and I do hope that will be stopped. There is no doubt that many vessels have been put down by information given by some persons, aliens or others.
    Then there was the "Beechley," the tank ship torpedoed on February 23, and I call attention to the fact because the escort left this ship, as is done on many other occasions when the ships have been torpedoed almost immediately afterwards. It has occurred three or four times, but I want to call attention to the behaviour of the captain of the "Beechley." He gave no order to fire, the ship was given one hour's grace, which is most unusual, he gave no order for lowering the boats, and he was eventually taken prisoner in the submarine. I think full inquiry should be made as to those circumstances and as to what induced the captain to do anything so apparently futile and so careless as he has been accused of doing. I believe on the same day that that ship was lost five other ships were sunk—that is between last Saturday and last Monday. At any rate I know three were, the "Carmelite," the "Pemmern," and the "Kenmare," and I see just now on the tape that a 17,000 ton ship has been sunk in the same waters and forty-eight lives lost.
    There is profound distrust and bad feeling getting about with regard to the management of the patrol. That should he explained. Holyhead is a continual procession of torpedoed crews. There was one torpedoed off the Smalls—another was torpedoed in the same place under the same conditions, the escort leaving her and she being torpedoed shortly afterwards. The "Apapa" was sunk coming from the East Coast of Africa—another ease where the destroyers had just left her after escorting her. She had two torpedoes sent at her, and there were 100 people drowned, including women and children—all in those waters.

    309
    With regard to food I will give a few of the food ships sunk. There was the "Cork," which had on board 156 cattle, 360 sheep, 139 pigs and 230 tons of food stuffs. There was the "Adela" with 400 cattle and 200 sheep, and there were others. Then there was the "Alfred Read" which was sunk with forty lives lost, sixteen being pilots—an examination ship. I think it is necessary to mention all these ships because they were all lost in the same waters. "Mexico City" and "Cresswell" were both sunk on February 5, and there were line survivors picked up by the "Leinster." The City of Cork Steamship Company commenced the war with seventeen vessels, they have built two, making nineteen—now they have only got five. I do not say that some of these vessels have not been commandeered but a large number have been lost, and that again affects the food supply of this country. It also affects the coa1 supply of Ireland, for they want 7,000 tons a week for the railways. The Irish ports are continually closed and the stores are rotting there.
    Since the appointment of the Shipping Controller matters have been a great deal worse, simply because it is not clear whether the Admiralty or the Shipping Controller controls these shipping routes. We have started convoys for the ocean-going routes, but we have no convoys for the coast-wise routes. I think that should be undertaken as soon as possible. We should have convoys for the coast-wise routes, particularly in these seas. May I ask my noble friend if, when a convoy is lost—we have got to lose convoys in this war, but we have lost singularly few—the Government will at the same time publish the immense number of ships that we have convoyed over safely. That would be a very wise thing to do, because the public get very distressed when they see a convoy put down. I do not think the management is good with regard to the traffic in those seas. I agree that we must have a head centre, and the sole man responsible is the Admiral at Cork. But I think there ought to be independent men, that is, men who can close the ports and control the whole of the traffic. There ought to be a Naval officer at each one of these ports who is independent of the Admiral and reports what is done to the Admiral. In many cases the ships are delayed at ports, in many cases the ports are closed by order from outside, and not by order of the people at the ports. That is very confusing, and leads
    310
    to delay, and to so many of the accidents that have occurred.
    Another point that I should like to call attention to is that there are no escorts for the mail steamers. There are escorts for the cargo boats, but none for the mail steamers, excepting those which carry Americans, and there is only one of those steamers gunned. Every one of them ought to be gunned as soon as possible; it was asked for some time ago and refused. There was only escort for the mails from December 28 to January 8, although the Chief Secretary promised that there should be an escort for those mails. But the escort was taken off after the date I have named. I want to know who overbore the Chief Secretary, because this is very important. The "Leinster," one of the mail boats, has been nearly sunk, and if one of these mail ships is sunk there is an enormous loss of life. They have been missed several times—very close shots both ahead and astern—owing to the dexterity and seamanship of the captains, but they ought to have an escort, in view, of the enormous loss of life if they were blown up.
    We have got thirty-one routes now. There were originally forty—we have taken nine off. Out of those thirty-one routes across the Channel there ought to be sonic, method of concentration where an escort is ready to take a convoy over. It may be difficult, but I feel satisfied that you would save those ships. The delay might be irksome, but it would be a better system than the one we have now. We are losing these ships so fast that if we go on at the present rate we shall have no cross-Channel traffic at all over the Irish Sea. I should like these ships concentrated at points to receive their escort and be convoyed over, and all mail ships should have an escort at once. It is better to delay the mail and have an escort than to lose the ships, as we are doing now.
    It is impossible to speak of the loss of ships in the Irish Sea without speaking of other questions which are affiliated with it. One is the tremendous losses we have had in our shipping since the war began. I am not going to mention now the total of Allied and neutral slipping lost, because the Germans would at once double it, and then it would look as if we were going to starve. We are not going to starve, and there is no reason for pessimism. I have asked three or four times in this House,

    311
    and three or four times in the other House, that we should have a better detailed list and more publicity with regard to our losses. The Weekly Return is most misleading; it tells the public nothing definite. They get cheered up one week and depressed the next week. If they are told the truth they will know exactly how matters stand.
    I would not, of course, say anything that would help the enemy, but I wish to put on record something which will help our people to know the facts. I am going to take the latest losses and not refer to what has occurred before the date I shall give. From February 1 to the present time, British shipping has been lost at the rate of over 7,000 tons a day. That sounds enormous, but you have to add to that the losses of neutral and Allied shipping (which really is feeding us at the moment), and that means an addition of over 2,000 tons a day. It is a very serious proposition; but bad as that is, it is really very much better than it has been. Some of our losses, especially those of last April, were colossal. The First Lord is justified, in my opinion, in saving that the curve of losses is better, and that the curve of destruction of the submarines is better—both in our favour. I do not think that the enemy, whatever they do, will starve us; but I want to point out the necessity for using every possible endeavour to bring to the notice of the country the fact that more shipping is necessary for our life. The building of ships is at present not nearly making up our losses. We are now about 4,000,000 tons short of what we had at the beginning of the war. What I complain about that the output of shipping has gone Lack lately. The reason for that going back should be a matter for a public inquiry. I believe myself that the output has been considerably affected by the 121 per cent. extra in wages that was given. Those who did that did not understand the difference between time-work and piecework. The piece-workers are now doing all they can to get on to time, because of the higher pay in proportion to the work done. A good piece-worker will do in twelve hours what a time-worker will do in twenty hours; so that your Lordships can see how the country is losing by the present method.
    Another reason why I want this question of our losses ventilated, and the truth told to the public, is that the Germans enor-
    312
    mously exaggerate our losses. They double them. We have heard a good deal about propaganda to-night. In my opinion, the Germans have won what they have won in this war a great deal more by propaganda than by the sword. They certainly won the Russian war by propaganda; and their methods in that connection had a bad effect in Italy and in France, and they are now doing their best to bring about a bad their effect in this country. To their own people the Germans are magnifying our losses; therefore our Government should publish what we are actually losing and what we are doing to make up for our losses. I believe that shortly we shall turn the corner and be making up our losses, but at present we are not doing that.
    Mr. Barnes made a very alarming state the other day. He told the truth when he said that our output in January was less than half the output of the month before. We must remember that the United States programme is not coming up to expectations. They spoke of 6,000,000 tons in the year, but I do not believe that they will do more than 2,500,000 tons; and I am certain that the millions of tons that we were promised in this country are not likely to be forthcoming. Once more I wish to expostulate against optimistic speeches by Ministers. The First Lord made a hard-featured, honest speech yesterday, and my noble friend Lord Curzon made an optimistic speech; but the worst of all was the Prime Minister, who said that we should put out four times the output in 1917 that we put out in 1916; but he did not say that we built only 500,000 tons of shipping in 1916 as against nearly 2,000,000 tons in 1913.
    I think we are going to work in the wrong way to fill up the gap which has been made. I will take first of all the standard ship. The idea of a standard ship was an excellent one, but why not carry out the idea in its entirety? The utilisation of the standard ship is lost in the following manner. I am informed that one firm had on a slip a ship, which we will call a standard B ship. This ship was first changed to standard A; then changed to an oil tanker; then changed back to standard A; and finally changed back to an oil tank again. Look at the enormous expense incurred, and the whole utility of standardising a ship lost, by such proceedings. Then, again, there are different ships of different standards on the same slip.

    313
    Those who know anything about a slip know that the ships are only a short distance apart; and if you have ships of different standards, say, A, B, and C, you defeat the object of standardisation; you have men working with different angle-irons, different scantlings, different plates, and different rivets; whereas, if you do what you ought to do, let the shipowners choose the particular standard to be laid down and allow them to build nothing else but that, an enormous improvement would be effected. By having different standard ships on the same slip you upset the whole of the working routine.
    There is another thing in connection with standardisation—namely, the shortening of double-bottoms, which is reducing cargo space and necessitating enormous extra expense for decking which need not be incurred. From the truck to the keelson everything is altered with regard to the standardised ship. The whole routine of the yard is altered; the tools are altered, as are the overhead cranes, angle-irons, and rivetting appliances. They are also putting back the reverse angle under this system. I might explain that the reverse angle is a system of building which was employed about thirty years ago, and necessitates double rivetting. Why these things are being done, no seaman can understand; and it certainly is not the way to increase our output of ships. I object also to the national yards. Anybody who knows anything about a slip knows that it takes eight months to build one and another seven months before you can get a ship water-borne off the slip. Men have been taken away from other yards, and material has been taken away, and the whole system is bad; and if once we get or continue Government control of shipping, good-bye to shipping, for all will be ruined. It will kill the individual energy and enterprise which has made our great shipping interest.
    I will ask my noble friend once more if he will do his best to get an Inquiry of a public character into why the output of shipping has decreased at the present moment, which is the greatest crisis of the war. We are fighting for our lives now, and depend entirely upon shipbuilding. I would ask my noble friend if he will answer the points to which I have referred—namely, standard shipbuilding, national yards, and also how it is that the output has been threatened and decreased lately,
    314
    and what is the reason for it. Further I would ask him again if he will seek out some method of publishing a better Return and making more public to the country the actual state of our losses and how we are filling them up by shipbuilding.
    THE LORD BISHOP OF BANGOR: My Lords, I feel that I must ask the patience of the House not only on account of the lateness of the hour but also because of the fact that when such a person as myself ventures to take part in a debate which one would naturally think ought to be confined to those who have proper technical knowledge, you may very well say that this is a difficult problem and men who have made a life study of naval strategy and devoted their best attention to it ought not to be hampered and bothered by the criticisms and suggestions of people who cannot know anything about it. I plead this, however, in excuse, that when things are going very wrong it is sometimes worth while for those who are trying to put things right to ask the advice of those who are living on the spot.
    If I may quote an example, I think in September of the first year of the war the Lord Privy Seal drew attention to the unsatisfactory state of things on the coast of Scotland. Just in the same way I would wish to draw attention to what is said by the people on the spot. You must remember that they look at things from quite a different perspective to the generality of the public. The generality of the public reads the return of ships sunk by submarines. They are grieved if they find the number going up and pleased if they find it is going down. But the people whose anxieties I am now trying to voice occupy something like a first-aid position just behind the fighting line. The crews of sunken ships come in almost daily, and it is their privilege to minister to these poor people and they hear their stories and complaints. Take for instance these three ships. March 1, ship torpedoed, name not known at present. March 2, S.S. "Carmelite," twenty-seven saved, two drowned. March 2, S.S. "Pennearn," thirteen saved, twenty-one drowned. These three all torpedoed in the same area and rescued men brought in. The hotel was crowded Saturday afternoon at three with survivors who were some of them being carried into the wounded room and were lying on the beds, a pitiful sight, being attended to by nurse and doctor Two negroes were being

    315
    put into a motor to be taken to the hospital. The large billiard room was filled with half-clothed men being given suits by the representative of the Shipwrecked Mariners' Society and his daughter. Now that is the kind of thing always going on in this port, day by day, and naturally these people cannot but have their own opinions about it.
    Now let me venture to give what are the chief causes of their anxiety. One anxiety which they have is this, that they consider that their port does not receive the same attention from the Government that other places do. I am not blaming so much the Admiralty, or perhaps the Board of Trade, but I am speaking generally, whoever is responsible. Before the war there was a captain of the port, an admiral, who is dead. He died a short time ago, and no successor has been appointed. The report is that no successor will be appointed and that Government House, with its important view of the harbour, is going to be let. The great railway that has its terminus there had a most able superintendent. He went off to active service, and died, and he has not been replaced. The great shipping company had its superintendent there and he has gone. They naturally feel under these circumstances that there is not much attention being given to them. Again, there was a wireless position—a "listening post," I think it is called—and that has just been dismantled.
    Then, if I may refer to the admirable speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty, he mentioned three areas in which we are fighting the submarines—namely, the North Sea, the North Atlantic, and the English Channel. He did not mention the Irish Sea and St. George's Channel, yet this is the area where all these losses are happening. A Member who followed him remarked that in one single day in that area six ships had been sunk. That is in excess of the number I have been told of, but I dare say it is true, and one really wondered whether it was accidental or not that in his survey of the situation the First Lord did not refer to that important place.
    As to another cause of the anxiety of those for whom I speak, perhaps I may give you a little anecdote to illustrate what I mean. The boys of a training ship had their shooting practice and a boy was shooting too much to the left. The instructor said to him, "If you miss the
    316
    target, next time take care your shot is to the right, and not to the left again, because if you make the same mistake twice running, I shall think you are not taking pains." The anxiety of these people is something of this nature. They had a ship sunk an hour after the escort left, and three days after another ship was sunk in the same place. There is that ship which the noble and gallant Lord referred to, one of four ships sunk without escort. Then they say—
    "Fresh sailors from the Beachleaf having come to the hospital to have their wounds dressed, make it clear that there is something suspicious about the escort leaving ships in a danger zone to be shortly afterwards attacked by submarines. … One would think it a moment of such serious consequence that not an hour would be lost in sending down most capable officials even as a precaution to diminish this death roll."
    Then I have another letter—
    "There seems increasing distrust and suspicion as to influences at work here and the way the losses of ships in this immediate part is treated lightly. The ship torpedoed in the Channel which Mr. Maenamara was asked about was the one young Lewis Parry saw sunk close to his vessel. This took place Sunday week. We have had several since then. It seems one more form of courting disaster to treat precautions here lightly—as to Government House with a caretaker when dangers surround us. There is much that should be known as all feel, but find a deaf ear turned. It has begun to be realised all over Anglesey."
    Then, again, this came in to-day—
    "It seems that several vessels that had put into the harbour the end of last week and had arrived with convoy, complained of being sent on without convoy to another port to unload their cargoes. It was at the very time the submarines were sinking the ships last Friday and Saturday. There is no real provision against unauthorised persons landing at Holyhead, and precautions generally seem inadequate.—said he landed from his yacht and passed quite unquestioned by any one into the hotel. The feeling is that the naval base is quite inert under the present authority."
    Now he writes about these four ships being turned round and sent back. I art only describing how it looks to a civilian. Four or five ships arrive in harbour under convoy and are told to leave to go to another port without convoy. These are the kind of things that are said here. I do not want to ask the noble Earl to tell me what he is going to do. It would be very improper of me to do so. What I would ask is that he should go and look into these things very carefully. It is complained that these things have been represented and that everybody turns a deaf ear to the repre-

    317
    sentation. I would ask him mist humbly to go down to the place or send somebody down to talk to the people on the spot, to talk to the men who have been landed from these torpedoed boats, and hear what they have to say. It may be that these ships are to blame, as the First Lord of the Admiralty said, for having lit their lights when they should not have done so. That, of course, we do not know. There may be many contributory causes of that kind, but the men do complain—and people accept those complaints—rightly or wrongly that there is some want of control, something wrong in the way that that great port is managed. And I would only ask that this matter might be looked into.
    If I may say one word in conclusion, I would say that these criticisms of mine may be just, but I can quite understand that they are possibly unjust, because I speak in ignorance. There are facts I know nothing about, and when a person who does not know all the facts criticises, he is so apt to do great injustice. Whatever I have said about those who sit in office chairs and administer these things, there is one class of men who are above my criticism and every one else's criticism. They are men about whose work I do know something, and we who know their work give them the most undgrudging admiration. They are those who man the small patrol boats and trawlers and do their best to guard the ships coming in and going Out of our harbour. Their devotion to duty, their courage, and their fortitude are equal to and unsurpassed by the devotion, courage, and fortitude of those brave men in the other three zones mentioned by the First Lord of the Admiralty.
    THE ADDITIONAL PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF LYTTON): My Lords, there are a great many points in the two speeches to which we have just listened with which I am unable to deal to-night. Many are new to me and I have not the information at my disposal. I can assure both the noble Lords who have spoken that any matter which I am unable to deal with in my reply now I will certainly take steps to investigate, and, if necessary, will send them written information. It is, of course, quite true as the noble and gallant Lord has just said, that German submarines have been particularly active during the first two months of this year in the Irish Channel, and consequently our losses in those waters
    318
    have been greater than they have been at any previous period of the war. It is inevitable that wherever enemy submarines may happen to congregate at any particular moment there must be losses of ships in those waters. At one moment it is in one part of the world, and at the next moment in another, according to the waters which the submarines choose for their hunting-ground, but no action that the Admiralty can take can completely prevent any loss of ships from taking place.
    I really do not see that very much is to be gained by emphasising at particular moments losses in any particular part of the world and representing them as being due to the lethargy or inefficiency of the Admiralty; still less in encouraging the public to believe that ships are sunk through the operation of enemy agents resident in this country. It is a popular delusion that everything unfortunate which happens in the war is due to German spies in this country who have escaped the vigilance of the authorities. I believe, my Lords, that that is a profound delusion, and I think it is a misfortune to encourage anybody to believe that it is the case. The question of dealing with submarines is, of course, an extremely complicated and difficult matter. These questions have been raised in the House of Commons a great many times, and the Financial Secretary has always replied that this complicated matter is receiving the closest and most anxious attention of the Admiralty, who are attempting to provide within their means the most efficient protection. I think the noble and gallant Lord—if he will forgive me for saying so—is apt to treat the matter as if it were rather more simple than it really is, and perhaps not to give quite sufficient credit for the intelligence of the Admiralty authorities in dealing with it.
    LORD BERESFORD: I know the difficulties.
    THE EARL OF LYTTON: I will deal with the points he has raised in order in a moment, but before doing so I would like to make one answer of a general kind to the right rev. Prelate who has just spoken. I can assure him that, whatever losses there may be in the Irish Channel, they do not arise from the fact that the Naval authorities are paying insufficient attention to these waters, or to any port in particular. If that idea is abroad in the

    319
    place of which he speaks, I should be most anxious to do all I can to dispel it. Far from our not paying attention to this part, it is a district which has occupied the closest attention of the Naval authorities for the obvious reason that, at this moment, it is a centre of submarine activity. If the right rev. Prelate says that because two ships are sunk in the same waters it is evidence that the Admiralty is not taking pains, which I rather gathered was the analogy of the anecdote he told us. I must express dissent from that view. It would be quite impossible, merely by sending down a capable official, to prevent a second ship being sunk in the seine district when submarines are operating there.
    Although there has been much regret-table loss of life in the waters of the Irish Channel, it is necessary to point out that the losses of the Irish local traffic compare quite favourably with those of other parts of the world, and, really, it is a great exaggeration for the noble and gallant Lord to say that soon there will he no traffic left across the Irish Sea if sinkings go on at the present rate. I agree with the right rev. Prelate that it reflects the greatest possible credit upon the crews of these ships that they have not been deterred from following their trade by the dangers which they have to face, and it is entirely dace to their courage and devotion to duty that the Irish traffic has not been more seriously interrupted.
    The noble and gallant Lord complained that we had too many routes across the Trish Sea. It may be true, as I think he stated, that there are something like thirty-one different points of departure for this traffic, but the noble Lord must not suppose that, because there are thirty-one or so points of departure, these ships are left free to follow what routes they please from one port to another. The routes which they have to follow are carefully prescribed for them and they are given the most detailed instructions as to the safest course which it is desirable for them to pursue. These routes, of course, are constantly being changed as the submarine situation requires, and the position is watched with the most anxious attention. The noble and gallant Lord suggested that, instead of the various points of departure, we should confine the traffic to three or four selected routes only, and that the ships proceeding along these routes should
    320
    proceed under escort. The peculiarity of the trade between this country and Ireland, which consists largely of perishable goods, is such that if we were to adopt that course it would involve consequences which would be far more serious to the trade and, manufactures between the two countries than the present system.
    After all, it is not only the object of German submarines to destroy life and ships; their object, also, is to interfere with trade. We could preserve lives and ships if trade was not carried on, and possibly, if we adopted the suggestion of the noble and gallant Lord, a certain amount of saving in life and shipping might result, but it would only be at the cost of the trade which is now being carried on between the two countries. There would be great congestion at the ports owing to the arrival of groups of vessels at one time and the delay which would result in the delivery of goods would really paralyse both trade and manufactures. It could be arranged, of course, so far as the Admiralty is concerned, but if we were to adopt that course there would be a very great outcry from the industries that would be affected. I think if we were driven to such a procedure as that, that the Germans really would have accomplished most of what they set out to do, and hope to do, with their submarines, whereas at the present time, in spite of the rather gloomy picture drawn by the noble and gallant Lord, I can assure Your Lordships that the results of their campaign have fallen very far short of their expectations. The noble and gallant Lord suggested that we should have at each port a Naval officer with powers to regulate truffle, close the port and send out ships as he thought fit. Tine noble Lord is, perhaps, unaware of the extent to which this exists at the present time. There is a senior Naval officer at each port who has very full powers indeed of holding up shipping and regulating traffic, so far as the port at which he resides is concerned.
    LORD BERESFORD: I know that, but he is not independent.
    THE EARL OF LYTTON: No; and it would be impossible, as I will explain, for these officers to be all independent. There must be some central controlling authority, otherwise this sort of thing might result—a Naval officer might, in his discretion,

    321
    close a particular port and prevent a ship that was about to sail leaving the port, but he would have no power to prevent another ship, which had sailed from a distant port not under his control, arriving outside the port. In order that all the different ports of arrival and departure may be part of the same system there must be some general co-ordinating authority.
    LORD BERESFORD: May I interrupt the noble Earl? That is the point I raised. If this independent Naval officer closed the port he would open the port to let the other ship in. That is where he would be independent. Now he has to refer to another authority.
    THE EARL OF LYTTON: Yes; but it would be impossible for officers in the individual ports to have all the information which is available to the central authority, in co-operation with which they work, and which knowledge is absolutely essential to the formation of a right decision at any particular moment. I think the central supervision, which is provided at the present time and which is thy result of long experience, is really working quite satisfactorily. The Admiralty have from time to time made various experiments in dealing with the problem, and they feel that at the present moment, the system which is in vogue, on the whole, works well. The noble Lord said matters were worse since the Ministry of Shipping had been created because nobody knew whether it was the minister of Shipping or the Admiralty which controlled the shipping routes. I should like to take the opportunity of explaining this duty to the noble and gallant Lord. The duty of the Minister of Shipping, apart from the provision of ships, only arises when the vessel has arrived in port. The Minister of Shipping has authority over the cargoes of the vessels, and over the distribution and transport of the cargoes when they arrive. But he has nothing to do with the routes taken by ships nor with the protection to be provided for them when they are on the high seas. All that is entirely under the control of the Admiralty, and is in no way shared in or interfered with by the Ministry of Shipping.
    LORD BERESFORD: The Ministry of Shipping directs the ship to the port.
    THE EARL OF LYTTON: The Ministry of Shipping says to what port the ship
    322
    shall go, and it is the business of the Admiralty to give instructions to the ship as to how it shad get there. The two functions are quite separate and distinct. The Ministry of Shipping is responsible for the distribution of cargo, and therefore it directs a ship to go to one port and not to another because from the one port and not from the other the cargo can be transferred. But the Ministry of Shipping has nothing whatever to do with the route to be taken by the ship or with the provision to be made for its safety upon the seas.
    The noble Lord told me that he was going to raise a point in connection with the traffic manager of the London and South Western Railway who is acting as a transportation officer. He did not mention it in his speech. I am informed that that officer is attached to the Ministry of Shipping. He is not representing the Admiralty, and his duties deal only with the distribution of cargo and questions of transportation for which the Ministry is responsible. They selected this gentleman as the best individual that they could find for the post, and they are confident that he carries out his duties very satisfactorily.
    Reference was made by the noble and gallant Lord to the present unsatisfactory position with regard to shipbuilding. He said that our output had lately been going back, and he asked that some public Inquiry should be held into the circumstances. I really do not think that that is a matter which could be at all elucidated by a public Inquiry. The circumstances and the causes for the falling off of the shipbuilding output in January have been made the subject of the closest investigation by the Government. All the causes are perfectly well known to the Government, but whether they should publish them or not is another Matter. That any authority could be set up to hold an Inquiry from which any information not now at the disposal of the Government would result I very much doubt. I think that the object the noble and gallant Lord really has at heart is that the general public should be made aware of the precise nature of the shipping position, and that above all the workpeople themselves should understand to what extent the whole nation's existence at this moment depends upon their activities. That is a point to which the Government has given the closest attention, and it is with the object of giving that situation in a true and detailed form that we are hoping before long to publish the kind of return

    323
    for which the noble and gallant Lord has many times asked. I have in this House repeatedly given the noble and gallant Lord reasons why in our opinion it was inexpedient that this return should be made. We think, however, that the circumstances at this moment are such as to justify us in giving it. The situation in the shipbuilding trade was one of the factors which induced us to reconsider our decision, and another was the exaggerated figures put out by the German Government to which the noble and gallant. Lord referred. I may inform him that we are this moment in consultation with our Allies in regard to this subject. Obviously we cannot give any figures of world tonnage without the consent of our Allies. As soon as those negotiations have gone through we hope to be able to place the country in possession of the true position with regard to shipbuilding in order that it may be realised that our very existence as a nation depends at this moment, and will depend during the coming year, upon the extent to which we can produce ships from our shipbuilding yards. I am afraid that I cannot give in public a more detailed account of the arrangements made by the Admiralty for the protection of traffic in the Irish Sea, but if the noble and gallant Lord or the right rev. Prelate or any other noble Lord desires more definite information I shall be very pleased privately to give them any information that I can.
    LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his speech. A large portion of it is most satisfactory, more particularly that with regard to publishing a proper Return of our losses. With reference to the output of shipbuilding, I think that if the noble Earl would ask the Government to publish what they know about it, it would have a good result. They have inquired into it, and I do not ask for another Inquiry but only that they should publish the real reason why the output has declined at the present very serious crisis in our life. The people would then know, and if it had anything to do with labour the Government would have behind them the enormous force of public opinion which would insist that the men must do the work. If that is done I shall be perfectly satisfied.
    With regard to the transportation officer having nothing to do with the trade routes, I knew that. I know that the man that
    324
    they have got at Dublin is an able man, but I would rather see a sailor there who knows all about the business than I would the traffic manager of a great railway who, I think, is not the most suitable man for this work. I am not finding fault with him, but I think that things would go better if you had men there to do this work who understood their jobs. One of the great reasons that we have spent such enormous sums of money and have had so many disappointments in this war is that we have put people to do things which they did not understand.

    COUNTY COUNCILS AND HOUSING.
    THE EARL OF LICHFIELD THE EARL OF LICHFIELD rose to ask His Majesty's Government when they propose to proceed with the Bill prepared by the Local Government Board to confer additional housing powers on county councils. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the position of affairs briefly is as follows. The county councils have for some time past been anxious to obtain legislation to enable them to borrow money for housing purposes to meet the demands of their employees (policemen, roadmen, &c.) on better terms than they can do at present. The county councils are not the local authorities under the Housing Acts. At present the district councils are the housing authorities under those Acts, and they are able to borrow money for repayment on a long term extending for as much as eighty years. The county councils, on the other hand, are only able to borrow for this purpose for thirty years, and they have to go into the open market and get the best terms they can there, whereas the local authorities under the Housing Act can borrow money on the best terms from the Public Works Loan Commissioners. The President of the Local Government Board has prepared a short Bill which gives power to the county councils to obtain money for the housing of employees on the same terms as are given to the local authorities under the Housing Acts—that is to say, spread over a term of eighty years. This is one of the provisions of a very useful little Bill which he has prepared and submitted to the county councils, and of which the county councils thoroughly approve. Anything that can help the housing question, in however small a degree, is of great importance at this present time, and I very much hope to get a favourable answer to the Question I have put—that is, that

    325
    the Government are prepared to bring forward this very useful and at the same time small measure which the Local Government Board have prepared, and that they would allow it, instead of being relegated to an official pigeon-hole, to be brought forward as soon as possible as a Government measure. I do not know whether it would be possible to introduce it into this House in the first instance, but I am pretty sure that, if that could be done, your Lordships would pass it through its various stages in a comparatively short time, and with great sympathy and very little difficulty. I hope, therefore, that I may receive a favourable reply from His Majesty's Government about the introduction of this Bill.
    THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, the Bill to which the noble Earl refers is a small measure which forms part of the general scheme of the Local Government Beard for securing the building of houses for the working classes after the war. The general scheme is under the consideration of and before the War Cabinet. The Bill to which the noble Earl refers proposes to confer further powers on county councils in connection with the housing of their employees.
    THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: Is the Bill part of a much bigger Bill, or is it a separate Bill?
    VISCOUNT PEEL: It is not necessarily a part of a bigger Bill—I said "of the scheme." Of course, they have a large scheme in contemplation, as the noble Earl knows, but this is that portion of it
    326
    which will require a Bill. The Bill confers further powers on county councils in connection with the housing of their employees, and also facilitates the machinery whereby a county council may be authorised to provide houses under the Housing Acts in place of another local authority who are not taking adequate steps to carry out their duty in the matter. The Departments have been in communication with the various interests concerned, including the County Councils Association, and I understand the noble Earl on this occasion is speaking on behalf of that Association.
    THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: That is so. They would welcome the introduction of the Bill.
    VISCOUNT PEEL: I understand that the County Councils Association are strongly in favour of such a measure, and I will convey their views to the Department concerned. I cannot, of course, undertake to say what course the Government will take as regards the Bill, because, as I have told the noble Earl, the whole matter is before the Cabinet, but when the Cabinet comes to a decision, if that decision is favourable to the scheme, no doubt the Bill will be pressed forward as actively as possible. I will take note of the suggestion of the noble Earl that the Bill should be introduced into this House in the first instance.
    THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount, and I hope to refer to the matter on a future occasion and to jog the memory of His Majesty's Government in the hope that the Bill may see the light of day.
    House adjourned at five minutes before nine o'clock.