Lords Sitting of 6 August 1919

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM.
Baron Burnham, having been created Viscount BURNHAM of Hall Barn in the County of Buckingham—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a; Further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
WORKINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3awith the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting; and, further, That the consideration of the King's Message and the two Motions for recording the thanks of this House to the Imperial Forces and to Field-Marshal Foch have precedence of the Orders of the Day.—(Earl Curzon of Kedleaton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THANKS TO THE FORCES.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON rose to move—
That the thanks of this House be accorded to the Officers, Petty Officers, Warrant Officers and men of the Navy and of the Royal Marines for their sleepless watch over the seas and for the courage, resource and devotion with which, during four years of constant peril, they have maintained the blockade
464
of the enemy's coast, convoyed armies drawn from the most distant lands, and defended the commerce of the civilised world against the craft and subtlety of a lawless foe.
That the thanks of this House be accorded to the Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, Warrant Officers and men of the. Armies in the Field for the matchless valour and endurance with which, amid circumstances of unexampled hardship, they have sustained the shock of war in many climes, for the good humour, clemency and patience of their bearing, and for the undaunted spirit which has carried them through four years of strenuous toil to a complete and splendid victory.
That the thanks of this House be accorded to the Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and men of the Air Force for their brilliant daring and conspicuous services over sea and land.
That the thanks of this House be accorded to the gallant troops from the Dominions Overseas, from India, and from the Colonies and Protectorates for the promptitude with which they responded to the call of justice and freedom and for the noble part that they have played in conjunction with their comrades of the British Isles in securing the triumph of right over wrong.
That the thanks of this House be accorded to those subjects of His Majesty, who, inspired by the greatness of the issue, voyaged from foreign lands, to offer their lives in the service of their country.
That the thanks of this House be accorded to the members of the Royal Army Medical Corps and of the Indian Medical Service, for the skilful discharge of their humane office, and for the unprecedented success which attended their unremitting labours to preserve the armed forces of the Crown from the ravages of disease.
That the thanks of this House be accorded to the women of the Medical and other Auxiliary Services for their devotion in tending the sick and wounded and for ether duties faithfully and bravely discharged.
That the thanks of this House be accorded to the Officers and men of the Mercantile Marine for the fine and fearless seamanship by which our People have been preserved from want and our Cause from disaster.
That this House doth acknowledge with deep submission and reverence the heroism of those who have fallen in the service of their Country and tenders its sympathy to their relatives in the hour of their sorrow and their pride.
The noble Earl said: I ask the indulgence of your Lordships if, owing to an indisposition from which I have barely recovered, I am unequal to-day to the task of doing justice to the great theme which has been placed in my hands. The Motion that I have the honour to move is one conveying the thanks of this House of Parliament to the brave men in every branch of the Forces to whose valour, fortitude, and devotion we owe it that we have won the greatest victory that has ever been recorded in the annals of the British nation. The records of Parliament show that it has been for long past, I think for centuries past, the custom of both Houses of Parliament, in the concluding stages of a great national struggle, to offer a vote of congratulation and of thanks to those brave men who have upheld the honour, maintained the welfare, and added to the glory of the nation. This is, as I say, a time-honoured, but it is also, in my opinion, a praiseworthy practice. For, although we are essentially a peace-loving people, and although assuredly we did nothing, either by policy or by action, to provoke this particular war, yet when the lists are arrayed it is upon the valour of our soldiers and sailors, upon the skill of the Generals and Admirals who lead them, far more than upon any diplomacy of Statesmen, that we rely. Hence it is that upon these occasions the thanks of Parliament are given exclusively to those who have risked so much, who have in the majority of cases risked and in many cases laid down their lives, and to whose courage and genius we owe it that the victory which we celebrate has been won.
No one would wish to have it otherwise. If we are wrong in hoping that this will be the end of all great wars, and if another war should—let us hope not in our lifetime—break out in Europe, I doubt not that the same custom will be followed in your
466
Lordships' House at its close. If, on the other hand, we succeed in abolishing war and no such occasion arises, then it may be that the time will come for the statesman, and a day may arise when a vote of thanks will be moved in this House, not to members of His Majesty's Government—that is a privilege which we seldom enjoy—but to the members of the League of Nations, who by their action may possibly have prevented the recurrence of such a catastrophe. Further, I venture to think that this form of tribute—the thanks of Parliament; which, after all, represents the organised sentiment of the nation—is more valued by its recipients than the loudest acclamations that they may get from the populace or the highest honours which it is in the power of Governments or of the Crown to bestow. I believe that the recipients of this compliment would sooner have it than the grants of money which are about to be conferred upon them, or than the coronets which in some cases are about to adorn their brows. As to the moment at which I make this Motion, it is true that peace has not been concluded with all our enemies, but the principal enemy, the most formidable of our antagonists, has been humbled and broken, and it was, I think, with a true instinct that as soon as the German signatures were placed upon the Treaty of Versailles the country—and not this country alone, but Europe—realised that the war was over and that the victory had been won.
This Resolution specifies all the Forces of the Crown, to whom we ask you to-day to express your thanks. In succeeding paragraphs you will find mentioned the Navy and the Royal Marines; the Armies in the Field; the Air Force; the troops from the Dominions overseas, from India and from the Colonies and Protectorates—those subjects of His Majesty who have come over to fight from foreign lands; the members of the Royal Army Medical Corps and the Indian Medical Service, the women of the Medical and other Auxiliary services, and the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine. But while I have briefly enumerated this list of those whom we desire to honour, I think that I shall be dispensed this afternoon from recording with any minuteness the individual services or exploits of these Forces. I think so for two reasons. Firstly, because they are already so well known that were I to recapitulate them this afternoon I should be merely re-telling an oft-told tale; and

467
secondly, because in October, 1917, at the beginning of the fourth year of the war; I proposed at this Table an interim vote of thanks to all those branches of the Services, and I dwelt at some length on that occasion on the records of each of those branches. The year that elapsed between that date and the conclusion of the Armistice in November, 1918, did but consummate their triumph; it could add nothing to their glory. It was a year more dramatic than any that had preceded it in the war. It was, perhaps, the most dramatic twelve months that have ever passed in the history of the world. It opened, as your Lordships will remember, with reverses that seemed almost to threaten the possible victory of our cause, but it ended with a victory so complete that there is nothing comparable to it in history. It was a victory that has altered the entire course of the history of the world, that has reconstructed the map of the world, and that has left. us with a future differing in all essentials—I hope it may differ in the beneficial results that ensue from it—from any victory by which it has been preceded.
It is surely not an unhappy coincidence that I should be making this Motion to-day, almost on the exact anniversary of the day five years ago on which we entered the war. None of us will forget that day. We recall the intense excitement, the pent-up emotion, the patriotic exaltation of the people. I can hear and see now, in memory, the crowds that surged past my window in the evening proceeding along the streets to acclaim the Sovereign in his palace. They went there to cheer him as the symbol and embodiment of the ideals and the aspirations of the people. That, if I may say so, was no feverish or artificial or ephemeral outburst; it was an expression of the profound conviction of our people. The whole country realised almost in a flash that this was a just, a necessary, an inevitable, and a righteous war—a war from which we could not have abstained except at the price of national dishonour. There were few of the people in the streets that day I expect, and I dare say there were few of us, who realised what lay before us—the long and agonising ordeal to be endured, the dark valleys of anguish and suffering through which our people must plod and stumble for more than four years before they could scale the peaks of hope or see the dawn of victory flood the hills. But such was the spirit of our people, so imbued were they with the
468
importance of the issue, such was their confidence in the indomitable heroism of our troops, that, had the curtain been lifted that day and had our eyes been able to, penetrate the dark and sombre gulfs that lay before us, I believe that no class and no individual in any class, would have faltered; that no parent would have refused to send forth his son to the ordeal, and that no man, upon whose brow was written in unseen characters the death sentence that was about to await him, would have shrunk or trembled at the impending decree of fate. Now five years have past. We see the same crowds—or, rather, they are not the same crowds; there are many gaps in their ranks—but we see the crowds parading the streets, we see them again massing in front of the palace and acclaiming the Sovereign, and we are met this afternoon to add our crown of tribute to that which has been already offered by the nation.
The character and value of the services which we commemorate to-day may, I think, best be measured by a contemplation of the nature of the struggle through which we have passed. It is a commonplace to say that this has been no ordinary war. It is not a war upon which oblivion will presently lay its chilly hand and which will speedily pass into the limbo of the forgotten, to be explored only by the military student or to be annotated by the historian of the future. It is a war that has been waged for four years with unparalleled intensity, without a respite, without any intervals of repose, without any of those retreats into winter quarters which we used to read of in histories of the Peninsular and other campaigns more than a century ago. It is a war which has been waged not in a single theatre or in a single continent; it has been waged in every continent on the surface of the globe except that of America, and, unable to fight in their own continent, the Americans had to come over to conduct the struggle in ours. It has been fought upon every sea. One of the most memorable incidents in the early stages of the war occurred in the seas that surround the Australian continent. Two of the most famous engagements—that of Coronel and the Falkland Islands—were fought in the waters that lie on either side of the Horn. It has not been a war as many have been—of two countries or of two peoples; it has been a war in which scores of countries and countless peoples have been engaged.
I imagine, my Lords, that a larger number of men have been under arms in this war than in all the accumulated wars of the past, century, and I dare say much longer. I hesitate to estimate the number of men who, directly or indirectly, have been engaged in fighting this war, but perhaps we may form some dim estimate of it if I say, as I believe to be true, that in the course of it something like 20,000,000 human beings in different parts of the world have laid down their lives. Again, this war has been famous for the revolutions which it has introduced into the science and practice of warfare, for the development that we have seen in the arts both of assault and of defence, in the new principles of strategy and tactics that have been evolved, in the devilish instruments and agencies of war that have been created, in the fearful devastation which has been wrought, and in the inconceivable destruction which the armies have left behind them. It is the first great war that has been fought both in the air and under the seas. I cannot help thinking that when history records its impartial verdict these scenes it will also say that it was war notable for the calculated and inconceivable savagery of one of the combatants, who had not even the excuse of the medieval barbarian for his crimes, because he claimed himself to be the finest creature of providence, the finished product of culture and civilisation, and the predestined master of the world.
All these aspects of the war which I have briefly touched upon seem to me to throw into startling relief, and to invest with an exceptional lustre, the services of those who fought and won it. If passing from that field of obervation we look at the war for a moment in the way in which it has affected ourselves in this country, I think we may claim that it has been equally unprecedented and equally remarkable. It is the first war in our history that has been waged, not by a professional class of soldiers appointed and paid for the purpose, but by the whole nation. There is not a class or community, or section of a class or community, there is not a trade or occupation in the country that has not been involved—men and women, even boys running away from our Universities, falsifying their ages in order to escape from our public schools in order that they might not be missing when the great trial came—all have been imbued with the same ardour and all were equally
470
convinced of the righteousness of our cause.
There is one other sharp distinction between this war and previous wars, some of them within our own recollection. On some of those occasions there have been sharp differences of opinion at home among ourselves as to the policy or as to the conduct of the war. Such was the case to some extent with certain phases of the Napoleonic Wars. It was more the case with regard to the Crimean War, and still more, again, with regard to the South African War—in the recollection of so ninny of us who now have seats in this House. In the case of those wars, my Lords, to a greater or less degree, at certain times and dates the nation was divided, grave dissensions occurred, party spirit was aroused, and charges were hurled to and fro from one side to the other of the House of Commons. But here there has been no discordant note. The country has been unanimous. The feeble twitterings of the pacifists have been drowned in the great chorus of national approval, and although we have been told by a famous man that this country hates Coalitions—and I am not certain that sometimes it is not true—yet the measure of the national agreement has been typified by the fact that for four years and a quarter you have had a Government administering the country which is composed of representatives of all parties in the State.
There is another test that I would apply. I suggest that really the best evidence of the general concord of which I speak has been the readiness with which, after the first year and a half of war, compulsory service was accepted in this country. It was not because the people had abjured the voluntary system. We all of us see how eagerly they are endeavouring to get back to it. It was not because they liked compulsory military service for its own sake, but it was because they recognised and accepted it as an overwhelming necessity in this case. I believe myself that the country was converted and convinced in this respect before Parliament. There were some of us who from the start pleaded for the introduction of compulsory service, not merely as a sound principle, not even merely as a national duty, but as a military necessity without which a war on this scale could not be fought or won. When, however, the plunge was taken, I ask you to recall how

471
admirable was the spirit in which it was accepted by the nation as a whole. None of those gloomy forebodings to which we listened from the prophets of evil was found to be true; none of those invidious distinctions were drawn between the voluntary soldier and the soldier who came in under the Military Service Acts. Both were inspired by the same devotion and sense of duty, and now that the war is over both classes can look back with equal pride and without any distinction upon the part which they played in the struggle.
There is one feature, too frequently, I think, ignored, which I would like to mention in estimating the services of the men whom we are here to-day to honour. Every British soldier and airman who has been fighting in this war, with the exception of those brave heroes of the air who were defending us from aerial attack in this country, has been fighting throughout on a foreign soil. There has been wanting to him the stimulus of the knowledge that the frontiers of his country had been violated; that the territories of his people had been over-run; that his home had been broken up; that his family had been taken off into slavery, even if it had not suffered a worse fate. Such has not been the case of our Allies. In Belgium the brave Belgian people, fighting in the little corner of their country that was left to them, could see daily before their eyes the smoking débris of the territories from which they had been evicted; France could see, within a few miles of her front, the ruins of her fairest fields and her richest factories; the Italians, looking forth, could see the enemy from the towers of Venice. Our soldiers had no such incentive. They were fighting throughout in foreign lands, amid a foreign people speaking a different tongue from their own. Now, it was the trenches of France and Flanders; anon, it was the murderous slopes of Gallipoli; yet again, it was the hills of Palestine, or, it might be, the banks of the Tigris. But in all those distant places, in every variety of climate, exposed to every sort of privation, our men fought with as much ardour as though they were fighting on, behind, and for the shores of Great Britain. I have sometimes wondered in my own mind, though I have hardly dared to confess the sentiment, whether the gallant troops of our Allies would have fought with equal spirit, so cheerfully and for so long a time as they did had they been engaged in the High-
472
lands of Scotland or on the marches of the Welsh border.
The first of these paragraphs relates to the services of the Navy, and if I turn to that subject it is, I am sure, unnecessary for me to recall in any detail the great deeds or surpassing services which have been rendered in this war by the Navy, including the mercantile marine. If the statement might challenge criticism—though I have heard it made—that it was the British Navy which won the war, certainly no one would dispute the proposition that without the British Navy it could not possibly have been won: I do not propose to recall this afternoon the exploits on the sea of the past four years—Beatty's famous dash into the Heligoland Bight, his frustrated victory on the Dogger Bank, Jellicoe's and Beatty's great naval battle of Jutland, de Robeck's landing in the Dardanelles, the heroic disaster of Coronel, the swift retribution of the Falkland Islands, the glorious and immortal exploits of Zeebrugge and Ostend. The heroes of these combats are mentioned in the Message which will shortly come before us from His Majesty the King. One of them, Lord Jellicoe, has already a seat in your Lordships' House; the other, Sir David Beatty, will shortly follow him.
I prefer for the moment, in the few remarks that I devote to the subject, to look at the services of the Navy, not from the individual but from the widest point of view. There has never been so supreme a manifestation of what is meant by sea power in the history of the world. There have never been results so tremendous that flowed from the command of the sea. I ask you for a moment to reflect what the command of the seas has meant to us and our Allies. From the beginning of the war the merchant fleet of these world-conquerors was doomed either to capture or to internment in a neutral port, or to lie helplessly and uselessly in its own harbours. With one exception, the fighting Navy of Germany feared to meet in action the British Flea, and that experiment was never repeated. Not a single transport containing German troops ever crossed the sea. Not a single German soldier landed on our coast, except as a prisoner; and perhaps we had too many in that category. Not a single German warship came in sight of our shores except to fire a few shells upon unoffending and, as a rule, sleeping seaside towns, and only came

473
in order to scuttle away the moment there was a chance either of engagement or of pursuit. Germany had to look on in helpless impotence while the whole of her colonial empire was wrested from her. Not a regiment, not a squadron, not a platoon, not a gun could be moved from Germany to rescue any one of these possessions upon which hundreds of millions of pounds had been spent. A degree of immunity unparalleled in the history of naval warfare against hostile vessels navigating the surface of the ocean was given to the merchantmen of our Allies, and, if the submarine menace could not be wholly guarded against, it was one which, as time went on, we had learned to master and which we managed to defeat.
Your Lordships may expect me to allude, in passing, to the fact—which I will not develop only because it is so notorious—that during the five years of war it was the British Fleet, that transported the armies of Britain and of the Allies to every theatre of war, carrying no fewer than 20,000,000 of men to and fro, with a loss from enemy action of only 4.400 out of that number, carrying in the same period 2.000,000 horses and mules, and conveying not less than 50.000,000 tons of food and other materials in British ships to British shores.
But there are three less advertised services of the Navy to which I would like to devote a sentence. The first is the ceaseless watch which was kept by the. British Fleet over those 140,000 square miles of the Northern Sea, a watch pursued by day and night, in fair weather and in foul, in fog and mist, for over four and a-half years. The patrol boats and destroyers and mine-sweepers with which we conducted that operation were only twelve in number in 1914; when the Armistice was concluded there were 3,700 engaged in that task. I ask your assent when I say that this was one of the greatest and most sustained and most heroic feats of endurance in the history of naval warfare. The second service was the sentinel watch kept by the Grand Fleet in Scapa Flow, a post of incessant and almost incalculable danger. Had the German Fleet possessed a Jellicoe or a Beatty it is scarcely conceivable that they would not have attacked that most vulnerable position by night. That, I believe, is the opinion of Lord. Jellicoe himself. All honour to the brave men who held that post, and who, when they sallied
474
forth to fight, only did not carry their fight to complete victory because the enemy would not allow them to finish it. The third feature to which I allude was the development of the system of convoys, by which entire fleets of merchantmen were escorted over thousands of miles of ocean, guarded against the perils that lurked below the sea, and without which the American Expeditionary. Force could not possibly have reached the shores of France.
Such have been, in brief, the exploits of the British Navy. It is an incomparable record. It includes, of course, the services of the mercantile marine which has been frequently acknowledged in this House, and to which the citizens of London paid their great tribute in the procession which we witnessed from these windows two days ago. As regards the mercantile marine, I cannot sum up their services better than in this single sentence—that not once in the war did a crew or any individual member of a crew that had once been torpedoed refuse to join another vessel and continue to fight when the chance came of doing so. That gives you some idea of the spirit and daring with which that body discharged their account.
The next paragraph in the Resolution is devoted to the deeds of the Army in the field. It seems almost laughable to attempt to do justice to the feats of the Army in a paragraph. It would be impossible to comprise them within time limits of a few sentences in a speech. I have no time this afternoon to tell the story of battles which will be immortal to all time. I cannot talk to-day about Mons, about Ypres, about the Marne and the Somme, about the slopes of Achi Baba, or about the beleaguered garrison of Kut. I cannot recall to-day the wonderful feats of Lord French and Sir Douglas Haig and the other Commanders. I cannot take you to Palestine or give you a bird's-eye view of what I believe, on the whole, was the most artistically conceived and executed little campaign that has ever been waged. Still less can I repeat the countless tales of bravery everywhere that seem to have transcended human experience and human powers. The records of the Victory Cross, many hundreds of which have been pinned on the bosoms of those who won them, tell the tale.
But there is one feature of the British Army in fighting to which I must allude and that is the chivalry, the humanity,

475
and the high bearing in every field of battle of the British soldier. The paragraph of the Resolution which refers thereto speaks of the good-humour, the clemency, and the patience of their bearing. I think those words, if anything, fall short of the reality. In face of the awful provocation which they experienced, with every incentive to inflict a speedy and bloody retribution on the enemy, the British soldier and sailor—what I say applies equally to both—rarely lost his temper, and never lost his head. They exhibited an example of self-restraint, moderation, and mercy in face of the brutal and pitiless conduct of the enemy which has never been equalled, and which has cast an imperishable lustre not merely on the. British Army and Navy but on the British name.
In this war over 5,000,000 men were recruited from the British Isles; the largest proportion of them from England. Of those, 720,000 have laid down their lives and nearly 3,000,000 bore, at one time or another, upon their body the glorious evidence of honourable wounds. And let us remember this—that just as the old Expeditionary Force of 100,000 men which left our shores in the first week of August, 1914, was, I believe, the finest force that ever left these shores, so we are told, on the indisputable evidence of all military critics, that the Army, approximating to 4,000,000 men, which remained at the conclusion of the Armistice was by far the most efficient fighting force this country, or any country, has ever beheld.
Six of the Generals who were engaged in winning this great struggle are about to join, by the favour of the Sovereign, Your Lordships' House. You will welcome them here. One, outside the six—Viscount French—is already here. His was the Army of the "Old Contemptibles"; his was the glory of the Marne and of Ypres; his the splendour that can never fade. Soon we shall have another place on these Benches occupied by his successor, Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig, a model, if I may say so, of what a British Commander should be—a man devoted to his profession, never thinking of himself, with a mind open to the broadest conceptions as well as to the narrowest details of war; always equable, courteous, resolute, and calm. No Commander ever so well typified the qualities of the soldiers he led, and no Commander in this war could have worked so loyally with the
476
great Field-Marshal who was placed above him.
There is one paragraph of this Motion which relates to the services of the Dominions, of India, and the Crown Colonies. It is not for the first time in recent history that they have come to our aid. The Indian Army for half a century at least has been fighting our battles in almost every portion of the Asiatic and African Continents. We recall how the Forces of Canada. New Zealand, and Australia came to our aid in South Africa and on the Nile. But never before have we seen these countries converted, as they have been through this war, into great armed camps, enforcing in some cases compulsory service on their people, treating the struggle as though it was—which, of course, in the last resort it was—a struggle which affected their own existence and their own homes; crossing thousands of miles of sea, feeding the Forces in Europe with recruits month after month and year after year, accepting for years separation from their homes and families, performing prodigies of valour in action, and leaving thousands of men to sleep in foreign graves. The deeds which the Dominion troops wrought in France, in Gallipoli, and many other places which I could mention, are already a national epic which will be enshrined in the glories of our race. The 460,000 who came from Canada the 400,000 who came from Australia, the 112,000 from New Zealand, and the 76,000 from South Africa, meant much more than the numeral strength of the million which these figures when added together compose. They were a moral asset which it was impossible to estimate or over-estimate, and which left an indelible impression on the conscience of the world. I may say the same of India. When we remember that India during this war has raised 1,300,000 native troops, of whom nearly 1,000,000 crossed the seas, it cannot be said that she did not prove her loyalty or play her part. The Indian troops, as we remember, arrived in France almost in the nick of time. They bore the brunt of fighting, in a trying climate, at a critical occasion. Without them some of our greatest victories would not have been won, and the incidents of which we were witness in the streets of London a few days ago are a sufficient evidence that this country knows and appreciates that fact.
Neither, my Lords, might we to forget the services of the Crown Colonies and Protectorates. They came from East and West Africa, from the West Indies and the Straits Settlements, from the Pacific Islands to Cyprus, and from Bermuda to Wai-Hei-Wai, and where they could not find troops for fighting they found carriers and labour battalions to go to the front; while the white colonists, where they could, sent contingents and where they could not, sent sums of money, raised loans or defrayed the cost of local services. Not inferior services were rendered by those mentioned in one of the paragraphs of the Motion—namely, the men who from all quarters of the world, subjects of the King living in foreign countries, remembered the call of blood and voyaged here in great numbers voluntarily to offer themselves and their lives in the service of their country.
Among those whom this House, upon the gracious initiative of the Sovereign, will I, asked to honour with a money grant, is General Trenchard. That officer is an embodiment of the fighting force and spirit of that glorious force which he led at different times at home and in the field. In his person the entire force is honoured. When we recall the tiny flotilla which flew across the Channel in the first week of August, 1914, and when we remember that at that time the two forces into which it was then divided—the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service—numbered only between them 1,000 officers and men, and not much more than 100 machines, and when we compare these exiguous totals with the vast fleet of aircraft of every description which we now possess, with the enormous Army, numbering tens of thousands of men, who now make, man, and fly them, we realise something of the great advance which has been made and of the individual part which has been played by airmen in this war. The history of the aerial combats in these years of fighting has been a series of epics, each one of which might demand a Homer. An Iliad would be only too short to do justice to their principal features. But whether we think of the amazing development of the machines, the resourcefulness of the airmen, the incredible bravery and audacity of their flights in the skies, or the toll of human life exacted, I venture to say that there is not a more admirable page not merely in the history of the war but in the records of the British race.
There are other paragraphs of the Motion to which I can do no more than allude in passing. The services of the doctors and surgeons and female nurses are alluded to. Amid the horrors of war those persons of both sexes presented a picture of the highest ideals of peace. On the battlefield, behind the lines, at the clearing stations, in the hospitals, amid shot and shell, face to face with human agony in all its phases, living constantly in the ante-chambers of death, they pursued their merciful and blessed tasks. The procession which escorted a few weeks ago through the streets of London, to Westminster Abbey, the exhumed body of a single woman—a woman not differing from scores of others, a woman unknown to fame till in one single hour she attained immortality, was an epitome of the services which countless others of her sex have rendered, and which have placed a new crown on the brow of woman.
The concluding paragraph of this Motion asks the House to acknowledge with deep submission and reverence the heroism of those who have fallen in the service of the country and to tender its sympathy to their relatives in the hour of their sorrow and their pride. I have often in this House before spoken of these losses. They are very visible here. Fifteen members, I believe, of your Lordships' House went out never to return. There have died in the war 160 sons of Peers, in many cases the hopes and heirs of their line. These losses, my Lords, are typical of those endured by every class of the community. There is not one amongst us, in all probability, sitting here to-day who has not lost relatives of his own. Some families have been almost wiped out. We read of fathers and mothers giving two, three, and four sons to the war, and there is not a village, scarcely a hamlet, in this country which does not mourn those they have lost. The simple wooden crosses mark their graves in distant lands, and everywhere you see sculptured memorials and tablets being set up to keep their memory green at home.
We can offer here no consolation to the bereaved. The thanks of this House—of both Houses of Parliament—are not heard in the grave, and they can give but little comfort to the living. But, my Lords, in their hearts those who have lost must be conscious of a great exultation. Any one of us in whose family was one who died at Waterloo, and who sees in the church where he worships, either on the walls or on a

479
tombstone in the churchyard, the record of that sacrifice, thrills even to this day with honourable pride at the recollection. It becomes a family treasure and an immortal possession. So will it be with those who have lost their dear ones in this struggle. The record of their sacrifices and the memory of their daring will gild the family annals for centuries to come, and later generations, as they see the memorial, will say of him who fell in this war, "He died on the field of honour; he lives for ever in the fields of fame."

THANKS TO THE FORCES.

  TRIBUTE TO MARSHAL FOCH.
  My Lords, there is a second Motion which stands in my name about which I do not propose to make a second speech, because it would be more apposite to include the few remarks which I have to make about it in this speech. That Motion runs—
  That this House accords its profound sense of admiration and gratitude for the supreme services rendered to the British Nation by Field-Marshal Foch, Marshal of France, as Generalissimo of the Allied Armies, in which great position he displayed a military genius worthy of the foremost Captains in history.
  This, my Lords, is a novel, and so far as I know an unprecedented but a very fitting, addition to the tribute we are paying to-day. It will be impertinent for me here, a mere civilian, to eulogise the merits or services of this great soldier. Those who know him best and have worked with him in the war will tell you that clear-minded, far-sighted in conception, swift in decision, and alert in action, Marshal Foch is one of the great captains of history. Character and intellect seem to be blended in him in most harmonious proportion. No one ever heard Marshal Foch say a superfluous word, rarely has he been convicted of taking a rash or ill-considered step. At the critical moment he stepped into the breach. When he was appointed Generalissimo he was not found wanting. And, my Lords—may we not regard this with a special pleasure—Marshal Foch was one who always believed in the British Army. He showed it in the first battle of Ypres, and when he became Allied Commander in the spring of 1918 he gave to Field-Marshal Haig his constant and invaluable support. Finally, my Lords, when the moment came for taking the offensive, well did he choose the moment of assault, and skilfully did he co-ordinate
  480
  the successive attacks of the Allied Forces. "A great Commander and a gallant gentleman" will be, I suggest, the verdict of history upon the latest addition to the Field-Marshals of Great Britain.
  In offering this tribute to Field-Marshal Foch, I like to think that we are tendering it not merely to him as an individual but to all the Allies whom he commanded. Do not let us ever forget, in our own jubilations, that throughout this war we fought alongside great and noble nations whose sacrifices and sufferings have been, in some cases, much greater than our own. With them we have bled, and with them we now triumph. The gallantry of Belgium, the unflinching and invincible ardour of France, the indomitable spirit of Italy, the heroic endurance of Serbia, Greece, and our smaller Allies—all these were component factors in the victory. And in thanking our own heroes. I ask you to bear in mind that we also eulogise them. We are all proud to have lived to see this day; and in inscribing this Resolution, as I hope your Lordships will now do nemine contradicente, on the Records of this House, we shall be associating ourselves, in a spirit of the most profound and admiring gratitude, with some of the greatest achievements that have been written in the records not only of the British Empire but of the human race. I beg to move.
  THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the noble Earl was surely right in regarding this Motion as the final and conclusive expression of the nation's gratitude towards those who have in many different capacities served the Crown in this war. Those who have served have already shared with us the thanksgiving to Almighty God for the victory which they were enabled to win. They have enjoyed the approval of the Sovereign, they have been acclaimed by millions of their fellow-citizens as they marched through our streets, and they have received the historical tributes of our great civic corporations. And now, following, as the noble Earl has pointed out, the custom of centuries past, both Houses join in this formal Motion of Thanks—formal, but expressing the deepest feeling of all our hearts. It is indeed an old and worthy custom. Blake, Rodney, and Nelson, Marlborough, Wellington, and Cohn Campbell, all in turn received the thanks of Parliament as men who helped to create or to save the British Empire. But this occasion differs from all others in this, that

  481
  behind the Regular Service, of whom we first think, even behind the ordinary reserves and auxiliaries of the Fleet and the Army, there came out that vast host of men and women, ranged behind the Regular Forces, who exchanged their quiet civilian existence for hard and dangerous service both by sea and. land.
  I will not presume to reiterate any of the tributes paid by the noble Earl in the course of his eloquent speech, either to the great naval and military leaders individually, or collectively to the ninny branches of the Public Service enumerated in the course of the Motion. There is one comparatively small omission from that list which I would venture to correct. Nothing is said of the special and gallant service rendered in many parts of the world by the ministers of religion belonging to many different Churches, who ministered to the spiritual needs of the Army and of the Navy, and who in most cases risked and in ninny cases sacrificed their lives for the common cause. The country is of one mind in desiring that the honours conferred by the Crown and the rewards voted by the representatives of the people should be awarded with no grudging or careful hand. But to those who receive them, and to the whole of the Services, behind and above all these things is the knowledge which they possess that they have done their duty, and that in doing it they have earned the undying regard and respect of millions of their fellow-citizens.
  The Motion in its final paragraph tells of those who have passed beyond that knowledge, of whom the noble Earl spoke with so much feeling. Perhaps, although one does not desire to enumerate names, I may be pardoned if I mention in this connection the name of my colleague and friend Lord. Kitchener, not merely because he was the creator of the new Army but because he was the only British Field-Marshal and the only British Minister who ever laid down his life in war. One thinks, too, of the gallant Admirals who went down with their ships—Cradock, Hood, Arbuthnot—and of all the innumerable crowd of men of the most mature service and achievement, and of boys of boundless promise who were the light of their homes, and who will return no more to their native country. In this war the country has passed through the fire. It is due to those whom we are honouring and commemorating that it was not a consuming fire; and
  482
  it is for the country, sobered and strengthened in a steady resolve, to see that it is a cleansing fire, through which having passed, we shall become a wiser and a better nation.
  One word on the second Motion of the noble Earl, that in honour of the great French soldier to whom we desire to pay a unanimous tribute. Marshal Foch, from all one knows of him, seems to be the ideal French soldier, and to represent in the fullest degree the genius of Southern France to which he belongs; always cheerful, tirelessly energetic, and exercising a magnetic influence over the men whom he commands. We have sometimes observed a tendency to depreciate bookish soldiers. Marshal Foch, as we all know, is a scientific military writer of the first rank. But in spite of that fact he has lost nothing of a fierceness in attack which might seem to belong rather to the mere gladiator type of soldier. The fact is that the unity of command with which the war so fortunately concluded depended on the existence of a French Commander able to undertake that high office. It is no depreciation of that grate soldier Marshal Joffre to say that while he was Commander-in-Chief it would have been premature to attempt that unity of command. What we can join in saying with fervour is what Sir Douglas Haig said at the Mansion House, that it was indeed fortunate that when the hour arrived the man was there—such a man as Marshal Foch.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, there is little need to add words to the tribute paid in language of stirring eloquence to those whom we are honouring to-day. The two speakers to whom we have listened have very largely covered the ground. This is one of the occasions on which we can count on there being no discordant note. But I venture to ask you to let me supplement quite briefly one or two things which have been already so admirably said. Both the noble Earl and the noble Marquess have referred, as was indeed fitting, to former occasions upon which votes of thanks have been proposed and carried with unanimous voice by Parliament to those who have fought and conquered in great wars. But there is in the comparison a good deal that is worth pursuing. There is a very marked difference which sets apart the facts of to-day from the facts of those former times, and it seems to me

  483
  it bears significantly upon the reality and the value of the vote which is given by us in the name of a united country.
  When on former occasions votes were passed and carried those who had staved at home and had had little personally to do with the war or its events, I think we may say without exception, were thanking those who had gone forth and fought for their protection and for the safety of the country. On this occasion—not merely because of the enormously augmented size of the armies and of the Navy and to the consequent penetration into every home of associations and personal links with the men on service—but for other reasons as well we have all of us had a knowledge of what has been happening day by day; we have been immersed in the whole facts of the war, and even perhaps engaged in definite work in connection with it to a degree which gives quite a different character to the vote which we, with that full knowledge, are passing to the men to whom we owe just everything, for their leadership, their bravery, and all that is meant by the victory which they have won.
  It is curious to test such a comparison between those former occasions and the present. You can test it very markedly with regard to our literature. A hundred years ago in the first decade of the nineteenth century England was in the throes of the Napoleonic Wars. If any of your Lordships will take the pains to look over a list of the popular books, read and known by everybody, that were published at that time you would be startled to find how one after another sees the light, obtains a wide circulation, and lives on with practically no reference to what was happening at that time. Between 1808 and 1815 there were numerous books—Sir Walter Scott, Jane Austen again and again, Charles Lamb, George Crabbe, Sydney Smith and a great many more—which received at once a wide circulation and immense popularity, some of which were introduced by prefaces of a. good deal of deliberation; and hardly any of them made reference to the fact that a great war was being waged throughout the world, and that even soldiers were fighting across the seas. We do not forget, of course, that there were vivid and forcible war pamphlets, and there were marked exceptions to what I have said—the sonnets of Wordsworth and a great many more war sonnets and other bits of literature; but speaking
  484
  generally, if any of your Lordships doubt the fact, I would ask you to take any handbook of literature, and see what the result is, and test the literature to-day in a similar way. Ask any expert in the handling and publication of the books of to-day, and he will tell you that in the first eighteen months or two years of the war practically nothing was published, or at least found sale, except books about the war, or the countries in which the war was being waged. Practically nothing else. Then came the next stage when the shops were filled with books bearing indirectly upon the war—essays about the war and democracy—which had an exceptional circulation for books of the serious and solid sort that many of these were. Then there have been other books bearing less directly but pretty closely upon the war and its facts, and notably there has been the extraordinary product of poetry which the war has brought to light.
  Every one of your Lordships knows how certain men—some of whom have laid down their lives and some of whom are still with us—have learnt in the discipline of the field something which bore fruit in the work of their pens as poets. Now for the first time we are, so the experts tell us, beginning to go back to comparatively normal conditions in the literary world. How does that bear upon our thanks to-day? It seems to me to hear very closely. It means that the people of England—in whose names we are thanking the Navy and the Army to-day for the leadership they gave, the courage they showed, and the victory they have, under God, achieved for our country and our Empire—are offering thanks as men and women who know of what they are speaking, who have watched it bit by bit, who have traced it along its course, and who have seen what the issues involved were and how those issues have been dealt with as the war has run on. They have read and talked and worked in connection with very little else but this during these years of strenuous war. In short, although the war of to-day in the large sense of the word is a far more complex and elaborate thing then the wars of former times, the subject has been far better understood than ever was the case ire days gone by, at any rate with regard to civilians. I think that has beep first, because of the constant intercourse between our people at home and the men, mainly the wounded, who have returned. That daily intercourse for which in other ways we are so thankful—

  485
  of the womanhood of England with the wounded in our hospitals, has had the result that they have become acquainted at first hand and with extraordinary rapidity with the actual facts of what was happening, and the scenes and incidents of war have become familiar in a way that was impossible before. Every one who has experienced it has realised the extraordinary rapidity with which that has taken place.
  It has fallen to me on many occasions to speak to men lying comfortably in our London hospitals who were wounded on the previous afternoon, and, on one occasion, the same morning. What that means in the tribute it bids us pay to the organisation which rendered such a thing possible, goes beyond all words. But it has had the other effect of keeping people abreast of what was happening and made them familiar with a thoroughness of knowledge and intensity of erring which would have been impossible in any other way. That rapidity is an entirely novel thing. I do not know whether many of your Lordships can carry your memories back to reading De Quineey's essay on the English Mail Coach, where he describes in detail how during the Napoleonic Wars the laurelled coaches went through the country bringing to the people news of events that happened a few weeks before. If we contrast that with what has been happening in this war, how people were kept abreast day by day with what was taking place, and for that reason how much more interesting and important is the vote of thanks which people are able to give to-day to those people because of their intimate acquaintance with the work they have been doing. We know now what it is for which we are thanking them—the leadership of our soldiers and sailors in strife more gigantic in its scale, and more terrific in character than the world has ever known.
  Reference has been made to the contrast between the scale of a war to-day and the scale of bygone wars. I doubt whether, until we look into it a little, we take in the extent of that contrast. I am one of those—there are several others in the House I am sure—whose boyhood was full of stories about and even had dim recollections of the Crimean War, and we believed that it had been a time of widespread and amazing carnage. It was in a sense. The losses were great in proportion
  486
  to the number of men engaged. But do your Lordships know how many men from the British Isles actually died in battle in the whole of the Crimean War?—2,755. Of those who were wounded 1,847 died afterwards; making a total loss of 4,600 Men. We know that the losses from illness Were terrible; no less than 17,500 men, or something of that kind, died from that cause. But if we contrast those figures with what we are talking of to-day—the death of 700,000 subjects of the King, of whom 550,000 came from the United Kingdom—we see what the difference is between that death-roll and one of 2.755. Those facts are worth while calling attention to as a reminder of the magnitude of the issues which have been involved and of the things we have been allowed to see. We have been watching a war more terrible in its character and more far-reaching in some of its results than anything the world has ever seen.
  If there is one man in this country who never exaggerates, whose words are spoken with a wealth of knowledge well weighed in their temperateness and sobriety, it is Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig. In a written document on the, subject Sir Douglas Haig says—
  "Never has death taken so many forms at once so violent and so insidious as in these years; never has it been so ever present or its arms so fax-reaching; never has the mere act of living been so exacting and so burdensome. Yet neither the constant presence of death nor the prevailing discomfort of living was sufficient to break the spirit of the men many of them young, most of them but inadequately prepared by previous training for the tremendous tasks they were, called Tilton to perform."
  That is why from our hearts we are thanking the officers and men alike for the immense task they accomplished in rolling back forces whose triumph would have meant disaster for the world and the certainty of more and, perhaps, immediate wars to come. Once more I will quote the words of Sir Douglas Haig. He says—
  "Nothing other than a creed such as theirs could have maintained them throughout the long, wearing agony of trench warfare, could have sustained them in the desperate struggles of 1916 and 1917, and after the supreme triumph of March and April of last year have carried them forward in triumph to the ultimate victory which is theirs to-day. I lay my reverent tribute to their great faith and unbounded patience their astounding cheerfulness and courage unsurpassed."
  I think it is well that we should have that testimony of one who will shortly take his place in this House.

  487
  It has been pointed out again and again by our foremost thinkers and speakers that it has been our lot in this generation to witness the most stupendous episode in the history of the human race. There have been great cataclysmic strokes in the world's story before—the invasion of the Barbarians of Europe, the French Revolution and what it meant, startled the world at that time, and the stories live in history as great incidents of the world's life. These, however, pale into comparative insignificance before this, in the truest sense of the words, great drama—the acting before the world of the whole story, its inception, its progress, its ending, bringing to an end what has been described as a moral anachronism which it was endeavoured to force upon the men and women of our time. It has been our lot to witness and to record it. I think it is well that the records should be complete, for I imagine that a few generations hence people will find it hard to credit certain incidents which have been happening in these tremendous years.
  It is not a small thing or a small gain that it should have happened in the evolution of human science and knowledge that photography should have come in some degree to maturity in time to record in a manner which could never be wholly false, at any rate, events which years hence would not always be believed. And if passing from photography to human art and handicraft we look, for example, at such a collection of pictures as can be found here and there on the walls of the Royal Academy of this year, when we know that these pictures are exhibited not by people who know nothing about it but that thousands and thousands of those who witnessed the sights with their own eyes have criticised what is there shown, whether it be the horrors of the conflict or the devastation involved—we are glad to know that these things will go down to history and that the world may have on record what were the facts which the men and women of to-day had to face and dealt with in the actions for which we are giving thanks to them to-day. I am sanguine enough to believe that no future generation will ever see again what ours has seen. If they do see anything like these horrors, I suppose it is indisputable that, with the progress of science, they will be ten times greater than any we have known, if there should be a. recurrence of conditions which render them possible at all. Heaven
  488
  forbid that we should relax any effort that is needed, or do anything that would leave us unprepared for what might occur. But may we not believe that the probability, though certainly not negligible, is comparatively small?
  If the great victory for which we are thanking God and thanking our heroes to-day be indeed the ending of the world's great struggles, then deep should be our gratitude to those whose genius, prowess, and, courage have thus ended it. We thank the great Admirals and Generals who have fought and toiled and led our Forces to the victory that has been given to us all. They have been constantly reminding us that it is the morale of the troops rather than physical prowess that tells in the end. I was glad to hear the noble Marquess in his speech refer to one whose memory must be in the thoughts of many of us to-day—Lord Kitchener—because to him I feel we owe in no small degree the strength of purpose as regards the morale of our troops which was due in part at least to the pressure that he brought to bear, both in India and in England, upon all that belonged to the higher and the deeper side of the life of our troops, to keep that pure and clean and strong. His action has been followed by the great Generals who came after him, and to them we are returning thanks to-day. We are grateful to the combatants and grateful to the non-combatants who bore their place in these great years of war. I suppose the degree of medical skill that has been shown in the war is something that has no parallel in the stories of wars that happened before. We desire to thank the men whose self-sacrifice I think is sometimes not adequately remembered—the medical men giving up positions at home of real importance and influence and devoting themselves during long years in the most self-sacrificing way to the service of their fellow men.
  The noble Marquess has also spoken of the chaplains. He has referred to the testimony of practically every General that we did not do wrong when we encouraged our chaplains and staff to offer themselves for the fullest possible service, which they were only too anxious to undertake in going forward in the deadliest parts of the front line and in embuing the forces with a spirit of fellowship. Our thanks are due to them for perhaps the unforeseen results of some of their great

  489
  actions. I believe it, not to be in vain that so many of our men have passed through a period of the discipline which the Army gives. These nervous, excitable times that follow the war may seem to be a strange outcome of that disciplinary training. Speaking generally, however, I think we should be thankful for the lessons of discipline which the men have grown accustomed to and in many case; have learnt to value.
  Above all, we are thanking our Admirals, Generals, and men for the conclusion of a great conflict which has been one of deep and fundamental principle. What it would have meant for Europe, for Asia, perhaps most of all for the child races of the world if Germany had won, one literally trembles to imagine. It is because the conflict had from the first for its basis and essence assertion of great principles that the issue uplifts our resolves to-day. Under such leadership and example from the Field our, people have acted worthily, and will, I believe, go on acting worthily in the days that lie ahead. A few years ago, in days of what looked liked assured peace, we wondered, many whether if the crisis should come it would indeed be as we have seen it to be. The crisis came and brought the answer to any craven fear. There was a gathering some ten or twelve years ago to recognise in grateful memory the heroes of the Crimea and the Mutiny. Among the words which that occasion called forth were these—
  "One service more we dare to ask—
  Pray for us, heroes, pray,
  That when fate lays on us our task
  We may not shame the day."
  It is because, when our turn came and the task was laid upon them, our heroes did not shame the day, that we are thanking them with our whole hearts here and now.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House, has so perfectly expressed what we all feel about the services of the Navy that I have nothing to add to what he said. I would only desire to associate myself with every word that he so eloquently uttered, and with the thoughts of gratitude and admiration which lay below them. I should like, however, on this occasion to remind Parliament and the nation of the debt of gratitude which they owe to three great seamen whose names could not have been included within the ambit
  490
  of this Vote of Thanks. I allude to Admiral-of-the-Fleet Sir Frederick Richards, Admiral-of-the-Fleet Lord Walter Kerr, and Admiral-of-the-Fleet Lord Fisher. These three then held the office of First Sea Lord consecutively over a period of more than fifteen years, and during those years the foundations of a modern Fleet were laid. It is no exaggeration to say that without the devoted work of these three officers, based as it was on profound professional skill, and without their long foresight and forethought, the Navy never could have achieved this stupendous sea triumph. I would not that England should forget them to-day.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I shall proceed to put these Motions separately. The Question is, "That His Majesty's most gracious Message be considered, and that a humble Address of Thanks and of Concurrence he presented to His Majesty therefor."
  On Question, Motion carried nemine contradicente.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Question is, ''That a Vote of Thanks be passed to the imperial Forces and to Marshal Foch."
  EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: May I respectfully suggest that we signify the exceptional character of this occasion by carrying the Vote standing?
  Their Lordships accordingly rose, and, standing, agreed to the Motion nemine contradicente.

MARTIAL LAW IN INDIA.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL rose to call attention to the sentences under Martial Law in India with special reference to the case of Harkissen Lal.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, serious events have been taking place in India to which it is well that public opinion should be directed, particularly as they have been, I think, somewhat inadequately reported in the Press of this country. I refer to the various trials by Courts-martial which have been taking place in that country. There have been charges made against the accused of a serious character, and severe sentences have been passed upon them, including in many cases, I

491
think I am right in saying, the death penalty. I should like to-day to make my remarks rather of an exploratory nature for the purpose of ascertaining what the facts are and what has happened, as I think not very much is known about them as yet, and it may be necessary to recur to the matter later in the session when we have more information before us. I would like to ask if I can be told to-day how many persons have been sentenced to death by courts-martial, in how many eases that sentence has been carried out, and whether in all cases the accused have had an opportunity of appeal to the Privy Council before the execution of sentence.
In putting this Question I ought to apologise personally to the noble Lord who I understand is to reply that I did not communicate with him more in detail beforehand, but that was solely due to my absence from London and not to any desire to embarrass him in any way in dealing with the matter. I have very little information except with regard to one case, the case of Harkissen Lal, and with regard to that I should like to put to the noble Lord the information which has been given to me and to ask him how far it agrees with his version of what has happened. We want to consider in this matter, when we have all the facts before us, whether the action that has been taken amounts to a necessary, although severe, repression of sedition and treason, or whether it amounts to a mere exhibition of autocratic power which has not been justified by the circumstances.
In this particular case I think I ant right in saving the sentence has been one of transportation for life and the offence, so I am given to understand, was that of advising people in Lahore to close their shops. If that be tree it would naturally occur to all of us that there was some disproportion between the offence and the sentence. This gentleman is a barrister-at-law of the Middle Temple. I do not say that that, in itself, is sufficient to raise a presumption. Had he been a member of Gray's Inn it might have been otherwise. He resided at Lahore and is, I am told, about fifty years of age, carrying on the business of a banker. The agitators in India, I am informed, prepared a day of humiliation, as a protest against the Rowlatt Acts, for observance by the native population, and originally appointed March 30. Although some manifestations
492
took place on that day, the date was generally postponed to April 6, when a day of humiliation was observed at Lahore at Harkissen Lal's instigation. He issued a notice in the local papers recommending among other things the closing of shops. I do not know what the other things were. I do not know whether anything worse or more violent than the closing of shops was recommended, but there is no suggestion that it was. It appears that it is solely as a result of his action on this day, his responsibility for the holding of the day of humiliation at Lahore and, in particular, for the closing of the shops, that he now stands charged with sedition.
The legal circumstances connected with this case appear to me to want some explanation. According to my information it was not until April 13 that Martial Law was declared in the Punjab, this offence, if this was the offence, having been committed, your Lordships will remember, on April 6. The effect of the declaration of Martial Law was to bring into operation Bengal Regulation No. 10 of 1804. Some very old Regulation of a penal nature is apparently revived by the declaration of Martial Law. The effect of the declaration is to suspend the functions of the ordinary Criminal Courts of Judicature, and the Governor-General is empowered to direct the immediate trial by courts-martial of persons owing allegiance to the British Government. Then, on the day following that declaration, the Governor-General in Legislative Council promulgated Ordinance No. 1 of 1919, giving power to the Local Government to appoint Commissions to try persons charged with offences under Bengal Regulation No. 10, and to exercise all the powers of General Court Martial under the Indian Army Act. The Ordinance made provision for the trial of all persons charged with offences referred to in the Bengal Regulation, dated after April 13, while the Ordinance itself is made to come into force between May 15 and 16. On April 11 Harkissen Lal was arrested, and he was deported to a place which I pronounce with some fear, Isakhel, on the North West Frontier of the Punjab, outside the Martial Law area, where he was given his liberty. On April 21 a further Ordinance was promulgated empowering the Commission under Ordinance No. 1 to try any persons charged with any offence. After that Ordinance had been issued Harkissen Lal was arrested on May 8 where he was, outside the area of

493
Martial Law, and brought back to Lahore to stand his trial lot an offence against Regulation No. 10. He had great difficulty in getting a pleader to act for him. The Military authorities prevented any pleader he wanted from outside coming into the Martial Law area.
At the time these facts were communicated to me there were grave doubts as to when he would be tried, or for what he would be tried. Telegrams were sent which no doubt the noble Lord received at the India Office, and by the way a complaint is made that a telegram sent to Messrs. Barrow, Rogers & Nevill, who would have acted for him in this country, was intercepted or stopped by the Censorship. I should be very glad to know if telegrams were sent and were stopped; they certainly were not received. These gentlemen wrote to the Secretary of State, and I think I am right in saying that they interviewed the noble Lord who is to reply. They were told about the telegram to the Secretary of State. More information has been obtained from a copy of the Leader of May 26, which published in exlenso these cables. Harkissen Lal was apparently to be tried at this date, and has been tried since. He was charged with a long set of offences which I will read to your Lordships in a moment—treason and sedition, and matters of that kind. He was charged before the Martial Law Commission for conspiracy, waging war, sedition and membership of an unlawful assembly. "Membership of an unlawful assembly" I know nothing about, but I ask whether the charge of conspiracy and waging war does really refer only to the action in recommending a day of humiliation, or whether it refers to something further. Perhaps the noble Lord will inform your Lordships on the point.
Your Lordships will also notice that be has apparently been tried under an Ordinance which was made retrospective, for doing something was was not an offence, or if an offence, was not, triable by Court-Martial at the time the offence was committed, and could not have been tried by Court Martial except by virtue of the retrospective Ordinance made afterwards. I should be glad if the noble Lord will deal generally with the offences alleged against the various leaders of the revolt, as they are regarded, and if at the same time some official statement could be made, because apparently news is not very fully published
494
in this country on these matters. I should like to ask, in this connection, whether Press cables on these matters are censored, In setting out in any official statement the offences of these gentlemen I think it should be stated for public information not merely that the charge is sedition, conspiracy, or waging war, but that the specific acts which it is alleged they have committed should also be stated. To wage war sounds a very serious charge, but if it is merely recommending shop keepers to close their shops it sounds a very different thing. It would be well if the specific acts were given in any statement published by the India Office. It is desirable that some official statement should be issued, because there were many trials and severe sentences, and. I am convinced the public would like to be satisfied that injustice has not been done, that people have had a fair trial, that the sentences have not been disproportionate to the offence, and that the offences have been real offences of which the Government were bound to take notice.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies I should like to draw attention to one aspect of the matter to which fan noble Earl has not referred. If he had realised the situation in the Punjab I think, perhaps, he might have been less ready to assume that injustice had been done. I am sure that is not in the least his fault, but it is the fault of the reticence which we have observed in regard to matters affecting India—a reticence which, I believe, will lead to some extremely unpleasant surprises on the part of the public.
The rising in the Punjab was unlike anything which has happened since the Mutiny. It is the first time since those dark days that the cry "Kill the English" was raised. It is also the first time that mobs have been led by English-speaking Indians, dressed in European dress. I am told from a private source that an English woman belonging to the British Zenana, Mission was caught by the mob and received six great wounds on her head. She was nearly killed. A kindly Indian said, "She is only an English Mission Miss, and she does no harm," but the, mob shouted, "She is English, kill her." That was the kind of spirit which animated the mobs in Delhi, Amritsar, Lahore, and other places. The unfortunate woman just escaped with her life, and she owes

495
her life to the gallant Sikhs who saved a good many of our helpless fellow-countrymen and countrywomen.
But for the strong action of Sir Michael O'Dwyer there might have been no Europeans left in the Punjab, and the situation might have become desperate. We ought to remember that fact in assuming at once that injustice has been done to some of the people concerned. We ought to remember that the sentences, if they were somewhat severe, may have been justified by the great gravity of the situation at the time. The noble Earl does not seem to know that this was part of a well organised revolt just as has happened in Egypt. As to the closing of the shops, to which the noble Earl referred, I do not know whether he is aware that in India this is always a signal for riot. When shops are ordered to be closed you know riot is at hand. Therefore, while I am sure that every member of your Lordships' House would be most anxious that no injustice should be done, I ask you to remember that the situation was very critical, and if it had not been grasped by a strong hand a large number of our countrymen and countrywomen would have been killed.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD SINHA): My Lords, I regret that owing to the absence of the noble Earl (Lord Russell) from town he was not able to communicate with me and tell me what were the precise points upon which he desired information, with the result that some of the points put to me to-day I cannot answer, because I have no information with regard to them; but so far as I can, I shall endeavour to give what I consider to be a connected narrative of the events which resulted in these convictions, including that of Mr. Harkissen Lal, and other gentlemen mentioned. Before I go into that I should like to say that, in common with all the sentences passed by the Courts-Martial, or Special Commissions of Courts-Martial, Mr. Harkissen Lal's case has been reviewed by the Local Government, and we received a cable yesterday saying that the sentence, which seemed so severe to the noble Earl, of transportation for life and forefeiture of property, has been remitted entirely with regard to forfeiture, and with regard to transportation commuted to two years rigorous imprisonment.
496
Before I pass on I should like also to mention that the offence with which he was charged, amongst others, was, under Section 121A of the India Penal Code, of waging war against His Majesty, and that the only punishment provided by the law is sentence of death, or transportation for life, accompanied in either case with forfeiture of property, and that no other sentence can be awarded if the accused is found guilty of the offence with which he is charged. As I have said before, all these sentences by Courts-Martial and Special Commission are being reviewed from the very beginning by the Local Government, and in this particular case our information received yesterday is that the sentence has been commuted to two years rigorous imprisonment, and the forfeiture has in this case, as in all other cases, been remitted. I should like also to make an observation with reference to what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Sydenham, about the closing of shops being a signal for revolt. I do not know that, nor is there any information in the possession of the India Office or of the Secretary of State for India, which would enable me to say that that is a correct statement.
Now, my Lords, I can best supply the information which the noble Earl desires by giving as short a narrative as I can, in a connected form, of the events which have resulted in these and other convictions. If I omit to give any information which the noble Earl desires, I shall be glad to give it to him on his communicating with me. The Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act (commonly called the Rowlatt Act) was passed by the Legislative Council of India on March 18, 1919, in spite of the opposition of the non-official members thereof, and it was preceded as well as followed by a widespread agitation in all parts of India, including the Punjab. A determined agitation, as well as resort to passive resistance, was threatened before the measure was actually passed, and became more active afterwards. It followed a double line of action—namely, direct criticism of the Act by means of public speeches and actions, and the initiation of the movement of passive resistance by a vow of satya graha (observance of truth). This latter movement in particular, to which an influential leader of Indian public opinion, Mr. Gandhi, gave his support and countenance, was ushered in by demonstrations of the

497
observance of a day fasting and the closing of shops and places of business.
On March 30, the day originally fixed as the day of fasting, many shops were closed in Delhi in sympathy with the movement, but the efforts of the crowd to impose abstention upon the Railway refreshment contractor at the Delhi Railway Station, caused the first collision with the police. The disturbances of that day wore quelled in fact with the help of the military, and so far as can be ascertained some five or six persons amongst the rioters were killed, and fifteen or sixteen others wounded. Thereafter the promoters of the satya graha arranged that the 6th of April should be observed throughout India as a day of humiliation, the design being to cause the complete cessation of work as a sign of a protest against the obnoxious measure. On April 6 many places of business and shops were closed in various parts of India, including the Punjab. On April 9 Mr. Gandhi, who was on his way to Delhi, was turned hack to his own Province—namely, Bombay—as it was considered undesirable for him to visit the Provinces of Delhi and the Punjab, which were in a state of excitement.
On April 10 slight disturbances took place at Lahore, at which the police were called in, and a few casualties occurred. Thereafter disturbances more of less serious followed in various parts of India—for example, Bombay, Calcutta, and Ahmedabad, etc.—but the outbrak in the Punjab was inure determined and prolonged, and it may be useful to state in chronological order the events which occurred in the Punjab from April 10 onwards, and which may be directly attributed to the movements above described. Of course, with regard to disturbances of this kind no single cause can be said to be the actual cause, and there must be many more direct and indirect causes and predisposing causes. On April 10 there was serious rioting at Amritsar (Punjab) after the removal by executive order of two prominent organisers of the agitation against the Rowlatt Act—namely Dr. Kitchlew (Mohammedan) and Mr. Satys Pal (Hindoo). The Town Hall and the National and the Chartered Banks were burnt down. Five Europeans were killed, and there were about thirty deaths among the rioters. On the 12th at Kasur the Post Office and the Munsiff's Court were burnt, the Treasury
498
was attacked, and two British warrant officers were murdered, and three other officers severely wounded. By this time the Government of India had good reason to believe that the Punjab disturbances were not sporadic riots but amounted to organised risings with definite anti-Government and still mom definite anti-British bias, and although co-ordination between different places was indifferent, simultaneous cutting of railway and telegraph lines at widely different places and deliberate destruction of Government property, and attacks upon and burning of public buildings, pointed to some common purpose. Several Europeans had been brutally murdered, and the lives of Europeans in isolated stations were in great peril.
In these circumstances the Government of India, at the instance of the Local Government (Punjab), sanctioned on April 13 last the application of the State Offences Regulation X of 1804 to the Districts of Lahore and Amritsar; or, in other words, declared Martial Law in the said districts, subject to the following modifications. First, the maintenance of ordinary Courts for ordinary offences. Notwithstanding the declaration of Martial Law in those areas the ordinary Courts were still sitting and dealing with ordinary offences. Secondly, the appointment of Special Commissions composed of men of ripe experience and judicial knowledge instead of the Courts-Martial which would otherwise have tried offences under Martial Law. These Special Commissions were composed in each instance of two Judges of experience and one Indian magistrate, so that technically a special Commission was more or less of the character of a special tribunal of great experience.
EARL USSEEL: Do I understand that the effect of Regulation No. 1 (1919) was to substitute the special Commissions for an ordinary Court-Martial?
LORD SINHA: That is so. To resume the narrative of events in the Punjab. On April 14 the trouble spread to Gujranwala, where a large mob attacked the station and burnt the overbridge, destroying subsequently the church, Dak bungalow, and other Government property. It stopped and looted a passenger train and cut the wires on every side. From the 15th to the 18th riots of a similar nature took place at Wazerabad, Sangla Hill, Lyallpur, and Chukurkhana, and in Gujrat

499
on the 19th when the railway station was sacked, records burnt, and telegraphs destroyed all along the line. Martial Law was extended to Gujranwala District on the 16th, to Gujrat on the 20th, and to Lyallpore on April 23. The proclamation of Martial Law had a beneficial effect, and the outbreak and outrages ceased soon afterwards.
I have shown already that martial law was proclaimed in only five districts—Lahore, Amritsar, Gujranwala, Gujrat, and Lyallpore. It was abrogated in Gujrat District and most rural areas on May 28. On June 9 it was discontinued everywhere except the railways and Lahore and on June 11 it was discontinued at Lahore.
The information which the noble Earl wanted with regard to the Regulation of 1804 is this. It was an ancient law revived for a particular purpose. The impression which the noble Earl had with regard to it is hardly correct. The Regulation of 1804 merely empowers the Governor-General in Council to declare Martial Law when there is open rebellion or insurrection. That power exists by virtue of that Regulation, and was revived by legislation of the ordinary kind in 1872. That regulation therefore Means nothing more than this, that when there is insurrection or rebellion in any part of India it is competent to the Governor-General to declare Martial Law over these areas, and to continue it so long as the insurrection or rebellion exists.
I will deal next with the tribunals which administered the law during the time that Martial Law was in operation. They were of the following kind. First there was the special Commission, to which I referred just now, composed of two experienced Judges and one Indian magistrate which dealt with offences under Regulation 10 of 1804—that is to say, offences committed by people Who had been taken, so to speak, flagranti deliclo Later on, by another Regulation which the noble Earl mentioned, all other offences of a serious nature which the Local Government directed them to try or committed to them for the purpose of trying, were dealt with by them. That is the highest kind of tribunal that, existed during this time. Then there were Courts-martial which summarily disposed of offences against Martial Law—for example, Orders issued by the General Officer commanding,
500
Curfew Orders ordering people not to go out at night after a certain time, Orders controlling the price of commodities such as foodstuffs, Orders to open shops, and so on. These were minor offences—breaches of rules and regulations made by the military authorities—and were punished by Regulations made by them which also defined the penalties. The offences were summarily tried and are in any case not punishable with higher punishments than two years imprisonment. There were also in operation the ordinary Criminal Courts which dealt with ordinary offences as well as offences arising out of these disturbances. Just as Martial Law has been altogether abrogated in the whole of the area since June, so all Martial Law tribunals have now been dissolved, and there is only one tribunal under the Defence of India Act still sitting and it has one or two more cases to try.
I will now give your Lordships the number of persons convicted by these different tribunals, the nature of the sentences, and what has been done by way of commutation. The most serious cases were all tried by the special Commissions. They tried 852 persons altogether, and 582 of them were convicted and 270 were acquitted. Offences against Martial Law Orders disposed of summarily, so far as figures are available up to now, were altogether about 1,500 cases. These were disposed of either by the summary Courts-Martial or by the ordinary Courts. I have already mentioned in connection with the sentences inflicted that it must be borne in mind that the special Commissions only tried cases of the most serious nature in which people were charged either with waging war, or with sedition, or with something of that kind, and under the law most of the offences were punishable, without alternative, either with death or with transportation for life. But sentences have from the beginning been subject to revision by the Local Government and the Government of India. Reductions and commutations have been decided on by the Local Government, and in nearly 500 cases large reductions have been granted. Apart from the above, all sentences by forfeiture are, without exception, being remitted by the Local Government.
EARL RUSSELL: I do not know if the noble Lord gave the sentences actually imposed in the first instance. I do not think I caught them.
LORD SINHA: I have mentioned the number of persons convicted. With regard to the sentences, I have not yet given the details.
EARL RUSSELL: Having got the number convicted, I wanted to know what the original sentences were in those cases.
LORD SINHA: The original sentences were, in 108 cases the death sentence. Of these, 18 have been executed, not having appealed; 28 out of the 108 have been reduced to transportation for life, 23 to imprisonment for 10 years, 13 to imprisonment for 7 years, 21 to shorter terms of imprisonment, and there are 5 cases now to be dealt with by the Privy Council. The rest of the cases are also pending, inasmuch as the same point that had arisen in the case now under appeal also arises in them. But out of the 108 sentences awarded, only 18 were executed. And, as the Government of India informed us, the principle upon which the commutations have been granted is this—whenever there has been no factor of actual murder they have commuted the capital sentences either to imprisonment or transportation. As regards convictions by the inferior Summary Courts, there are about 1,500 of them. They are being separately reviewed case by case by the local Governments, which will doubtless grant reductions on a generous scale as they have done in the other cases.
With regard to the specific case of Mr. Harkissen Lal and those who were tried with him, I have already said that the offence with regard to which they were charged and of which they have been found guilty by the Special Commission, composed as I have already stated, was an offence under Section 121A—namely, of waging war, or conspiracy to wage war. The only sentence possible for the Court to award was that which it did award, namely transportation for life and forfeiture. That has been commuted. These cases are all now under appeal to the Privy Council, and therefore I consider that it would not be right and proper for me to deal with the facts of the case, or to deal with the question how far the facts of the case justified the verdict of the Court which tried them. Nor have I got the judgments with me even to place the findings in extenso before your Lordships. But from the short telegraphic summary that we have received in the India Office I can
502
only say that it is stated that the findings of the Commissions are that the mob was incited to violence by their inflammatory speeches and that in effect they were the chief local organisers of the risings—not that they had been convicted as the noble Earl's information seemed suggest, of waging war because they advised people to close shops. However that may be, their sentences have been reviewed and revised by the local Government, and reduced, as I have already said, in Mr. Harkissen Lal's case to two years' rigorous imprisonment, and to other terms of imprisonment for the others who were co-accused with him and convicted with him.
Having regard to what has fallen from the noble Earl, as well as from Lord Sydenham, I should like to repeat what the Secretary of State said with the concurrence of the Viceroy in another place on May 22 last—namely, that you cannot have disturbances of this kind and of this magnitude without an Inquiry into the causes and into the measures taken to cope with these disturbances. In circumstances of this kind time immediate and paramount duty (I think your Lordships will agree with me) of the Government of India was to protect life and to restore order; and at the same time it must use, as it was bound to use, the exceptional powers at its disposal only so far as was necessary for the immediate purpose; actions necessarily prompt, probably hasty, have to be reviewed and revised when order has once more been restored with a view to ensuring the confidence of the well-disposed that the action had been adequate and not merciless, sufficient but not excessive. The time has now arrived for this stage, and the Secretary of State and the Viceroy have been in constant communication by cable and I have every hope that a definite announcement with regard to the promised Inquiry will be duly made, and within a short time.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Earl has not answered one point. Is there any censorship of free communication by Press cables between India and this country at the present time?
LORD SINHA: I am afraid I am not able to answer that to-day.
LORD AMPTHILL: I am loth to intrude with a trivial criticism while a subject so grave as this is is being discussed, but there is one thing I should like to ask the noble

503
Lord, who sought to inflict a severe snub on Lord Sydenham by flatly contradicting his statement that the closing of shops was the signal for revolt. He went further and said there was no information in the India Office which would confirm that opinion. How on earth did the noble Lord the Under-Secretary know that my noble friend was going to make that particular statement, and how in the brief period, less than two minutes, which elapsed between his remarks and the Under-Secretary's reply was it possible for hint to make a search in the archives of the India Office which would justify so sweeping a statement as that? Unless the noble Lord has got the gift of second sight I cannot imagine anything that could have justified a statement of that kind. There are many things in India which are well known to those who have been there for which. I daresay, it would not be possible to find documentary evidence in the India Office, and the fact that my noble friend has not seen anything in the India Office to confirm his view is no proof that such a thing does not exist in India.
LORD SINHA: I must have made myself very much misunderstood if the noble Lord thought that I was administering a snub to Lord Sydenham when I made that statement. All I meant to say was this that, so far as I was concerned, I had no knowledge than it was a fact that the closing of shops was a signal of revolt. I have never heard it, I have never read it, I have not seen it stated either by any persons or in any book. I will also say this, that in connection with these disturbances and all the reports made front the Government of India to the India Office with which I have endeavoured to make myself familiar, I have not come across any statement to that effect by any person of authority or otherwise. And therefore, if I may humbly venture to say so, it did not require any foresight on toy part to know, or any second sight on my part to be able to answer, the statement which was made by the noble Lord when he said that was his impression—because I take it it is nothing more than that, for the noble Lord did not himself say that to his knowledge the closing of shops was a signal for revolt. It must be something which he has heard or read, and all I intended to say was that my knowledge and my information did not support that, and, so far as the reports in connection with these disturb
504
ances are concerned, all of which I have read, there is nothing to support the idea that the closing of shops was a signal for revolt. On the contrary, the reports show that the closing of shops was nothing more than a protest against the passing of obnoxious legislation.
LORD SYDENHAM: May I correct the noble Lord on one point. I did not say the closing of shops was a signal for "revolt"; I said for "riot," which is a very different matter. In the Punjab it was revolt, but in Bombay we know perfectly well if there is going to be a riot by the fact that the shops are being closed.
LORD SINHA: I mis-heard the noble Lord, and that is why I said that that was not my information.

IMPORTATION OF GOODS.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to ask His Majesty's Government under what authority the Executive had placed an embargo on the importation of goods and commodities other than arms, ammunition, and gunpowder. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I see the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade in his place, and I assume that he is there in order to answer this Question because I sent him information as to the nature of my complaint. So as to understand what the complaint really is, I must shortly tell your Lordships the conditions under which these so-called embargoes have been imposed.
I have before me an official document called the "Supplement to the Board of Trade Journal and Commercial Gazette," issued on July 31, 1919. Since that date there May have been some alteration in the number of articles involved, but there is no change as regards the question of principle. This "Supplement" has a consolidated list of import restrictions revised to date, and they are, put under two headings. Part I is "Articles which may be imported without license from the Department of Import Restrictions." I am not concerned with this list of articles except to point out that in my view neither the Board of Trade nor any other authority has power to make embargoes which depend on whether licences have been granted or not. Then there is Part II, "List of Articles which may not be imported without

505
licence from the Department of Import Restrictions," and under that latter head there are somewhere about 300 articles scheduled. It is not a matter which applies to a few articles but to a large number of ordinary articles of commerce.
To show your Lordships the nature of the schedule, I will mention a few of the commodities included in it. We find butter and buttons together, chemicals and clocks, embroidery and feathers, gin and hosiery, matches and metal boot protectors, saccharine and scissors, tomatoes and umbrella frames; and lastly, although they come before a different Department, paper and sugar. I do not wish to dwell on these articles more than to say that I have given them as illustrations to show the very wide range of goods or commodities included within the restriction that they cannot be imported into this country without the grant of a licence. One of the columns in this Schedule gives the extent to which licences will be issued, and we find that they fire issued as regards 20 per cent. of the imports in 1913, or 50 per cent. of the imports in some other year. So that in all those cases there is it restriction on the amount to be imported, which necessitates a discrimination as regards the grant of licences to traders by whom the import is authorised. As regards a very large number of these articles there is this note at the bottom of the schedule—
"Where no ration is stated" [where no percentage is granted] "the goods will be licensed only exceptionally as and when required."
One knows what that must mean so far as the consumer is concerned. If no licences are to be granted except as and when required the consumer probably may wait until the Greek Kalends, or beyond, until he gets any goods at all.
I am going to point out presently that in my view, under the authority on which the Board of Trade claim to be acting, I think they have no right to prohibit under the embargo system at all; but within that the very large question arises, whether, even if they have the right of general prohibition, they have the right in any sense to discriminate between particular traders, to grant licences to some and to refuse them to others. Certainly that is a policy inconsistent both with constitutional practice and with the statutory provisions as they exist at the present time. Let us see what this means. I do not wish to dwell upon this part of the case as I see the noble
506
Lord (Lord Emmott), who was at one time chairman of the Import Restrictions Committee, in his place, and he will be able to place the facts before the House.
LORD EMMOTT: It was only an advisory committee.
LORD PARMOOR: Still, the noble Lord was cognisant of what I might call the business conditions as regards these matters. This is a question, of course, which one would not seek to raise during war time, but it is a different matter now when the war is over and we have at any rate the attempted restoration of peace conditions. In the first place, this system of licensed embargoes in particular cases is the substitution of an artificial standard for the business standard of the requirements of customers. I myself ant very much opposed to the whole modern bureaucratic tendency of official interference, but I think you have it in its worst form when you have a tribunal, or official body, attempting in regard to as many as 300 commodities to decide what is or is not required for consumption in this country.
In the second place, it gives a power of discriminating between traders in the granting of licences. That is a power which no Executive in my opinion ought to possess. It is a dangerous power. It is a power which involves giving concessions of very large pecuniary value to particular traders, and, to use plain language—which I think we ought to use at a time like this—it is certainly capable of corrupt abuse. I am not suggesting that I have any knowledge of any particular case; I am merely dealing with conditions as they affect ordinary business lines and ordinary business arrangements. It is not right, in my judgment, that the Executive Government by its own operation should be able to discriminate in the giving of licences to some traders and refusing them to others; because owing to the importance and the value of such licences that power is undoubtedly capable of corrupt abuse. The same official interference adversely affects the free flow of trade and places unnecessary restrictions in the way of commerce. It does that particularly in the case of forward contracts, which are a very important part of the business operations of this country.
I should like to ask the noble Lord a question, as I am not sure that I gave him

507
information about this, because it was brought to my notice after I had an opportunity of telling him that I was going to bring up this matter. A large amount of business in this country is done by bills of lading—that is to say, the goods are not really for importation into this country but they go through our docks or Customs House, as the case may be, on their road to their ultimate destination. I am told that the discriminating licence principle is used even as regards goods which are being carried on a through bill of lading. That is a special form of interference with our business which might be of a very serious kind.
Take another illustration of what I mean as regards this official interference. It gives obvious opportunities for profiteering as regards particular individuals, because it gives them a favoured position, and a favoured position is really of the essence of profiteering. If you have everything in the open and everything free, profiteering becomes essentially difficult. Your Lordships will recollect that although there is opportunity for profiteering on the one hand, there is no benefit to the State on the other. We are not dealing with any question of duties. There is not a farthing, so far as the State is concerned, which comes from this system of discriminate licensing embargoes. Interference with the import of commodities in a certain sense tends to keep up prices, and what strikes me as a matter of vital importance is that the Government do not seem to appreciate that one of the most fertile causes of industrial unrest and industrial disquiet at the present time is dissatisfaction with high prices. If you want to put an end to these industrial disturbances the first element to be considered, and the most important factor, is that anything in the nature of artificial prices or prices unduly high should not exist longer than is absolutely necessary.
Then as regards production, Mr. Hoover and, I think, every member who spoke on the Supreme Economic Council, has pointed out that the only real cure for war devastation is the maximum of industrial production. If you really want to get reconstruction of industrial conditions you ought to encourage production to the utmost; but you certainly do not do that by this discrinimating system of licensing, which in many cases may prevent the very import which would pay for exports from this country. I have seen
508
two explanations given—I think they were given in another place—in justification of this system, on which I would like to say a word, apart from the more technical ground. It is said that it is necessary to protect key industries. It is impossible to justify an excuse of that kind when you see the wide nature of the commodities to which this discriminating licence principle is applied. I read out some of them to your Lordships, including tomatoes. Can any one say that a tomato is a key industry or that a particular licence system is necessary because an industry of that kind can be so described? The only second justification I saw—it was stated also in another place—was that it was necessary to keep up American exchange; but the great majority of goods to which a discriminating licence would apply could not possibly affect the American exchange in any way, because a large majority of the goods to which this principle is made applicable are not imported from America or have no relation to American trade.
There is one other fact I want to call attention to before I deal with the more technical point. I will deal with it very shortly having reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, said. In this case, as in many others, there has been introduced a principle of advisory councils. I regard advisory councils with great diffidence. Their effect is to weaken the responsibility of Ministers who ought to hear the brunt of responsibility on one side, and you introduce an element on the other side which, although at first sight it may appear to be an advantage, yet when you come to analyse the conditions I think clearly tells in an opposite direction. I merely make upon this point a complaint which has been made to me by large traders. They say, "If we ask for a licence as regards a particular commodity we are referred to the advisory council. Now the advisory council represents our rivals in trade. They are chosen because they have a knowledge of the trade in reference to which we are wanting a particular licence." Two questions are asked—first of all, "What price are you prepared to pay?" and, secondly, "What is time market in which you are going to purchase your commodity?" Those are exactly the two matters which a trader does not care to disclose to his commercial rivals. You therefore not only have a body which improperly, as I think, takes away the responsibility from the Minister,

509
but, in addition, you have a body often of rival traders, the very last persons to whom a particular trader would care to apply in connection with his own business for a licence as regards these commodities.
Having stated the nature of the conditions, I now ask the noble Lord what his authority is for a system of this kind. In the first place, I can say without any hesitation that the common law would give no countenance whatsoevor to a system of selective licences under a system of discrimination; on the contrary, every principle of the common law is that every one is to be treated equally and placed in the same position as regards matters of import or matters of export. Secondly, I am not aware—the noble Lord will tell me if I am wrong—of any justification under any of the Emergency Statutes or under the powers of D.O.R.A. I have made such inquiries as I could, but the answer has always been in the negative. I may say perhaps in addition to that one who was a Minister in the early days and who had considerable knowledge of the Emergency Statutes, speaking the other day in London gave it as his view and as the result of his research that none of the Emergency Statutes or none of the powers of D.O.R.A. could be called to the assistance of the Board of Trade in order to justify these discriminating embargoes.
On constitutional ground there is a well-grounded objection to all such discrimination; but I need not refer in any detail to the constitutional grounds, because there are two Statutes, one of which, I believe, is relied on by the noble Lord representing the Board of Trade, which in terms say that any such action as is now being taken as regards these discriminating embargo licences is in itself illegal. The first of these—and it is a measure of very great importance in our commercial law—is what is known as the "Monopoly" Statute, passed in the reign of James think the actual year was 1623. During the preceeding half century before that Act was passed there had been constant friction as regards the granting of licences to particular traders, giving them, as it would, menopoly conditions. As a matter of fact, the chairman of a committee to deal with these restrictions which was appointed was the great lawyer, Sir Edward Coke. In the result the Statute was passed. This Statute in terms, I will ask your Lordships
510
to notice, pronounces licences as contrary to the law of the realm (I am quoting from the Statute)—and to be regarded as utterly void and of no effect unless authorised by Act of Parliament. Whether there is any such authority I will come to in a moment. The only exceptions are the well-known provisions as regards inventions—that is, patent grants of fourteen years—and the law of copyright. Subject to these two exceptions, as this Statute of Monopoly stands, there is a declaration of the illegality of anything in the nature of discriminating licences. This point arises. In old days our forefathers fought the Tudor and Stuart Kings in order to have commercial freedom, apart front commercial interference, as regards this question. It appears from the bureaucratic tendencies of this age as though we were about to enter that fight over again, because in every Act, or almost every Act, of the present time there is something of bureaucratic interference, and at the same time the Act is so worded that bureaucratic interference cannot be called into question before the ordinary Courts of Law.
The next Act—and I believe this is the Act in force at the present time, and the only Act on which the Board of Trade relies—is the Customs Act of 1876. That Act is a Consolidation Act which comprises nearly thirty sections and has to be construed as a Consolidation Act. And let me say this. I have the Act here, as I thought it was well to have the reference. I will read this. So far as Section 39 is concerned it states this—
It shall be lawful to import into the United Kingdom any goods which are not by Statute at the time of the importation thereof prohibited."
That is the general principle, and then we come to the prohibitions. The prohibitions are, first of all, counterfeit coin, obscene prints, and matters of that kind. Next, we come to Section 43 which says—
"The importation of arms, ammunition, gunpowder, or any other goods may be prohibited by Proclamation or Order in Council."
There are two factors which appear to me to be perfectly clear on Section 43. First of all, it is totally out of accord with what is said in Section 43 that you should have discriminating licences at all. The prohibition of an article because it is, in itself, an article which ought not to be imported, is an entirely different factor, and is determined by different considerations, from

511
cases where you have this principle of discriminating licences.
The first point I make is that, so far as discriminating licences are concerned, the whole Act of 1876 is opposed to them and re-states the constitutional principle that they shall not be allowed. Then, as regards the words "or any other goods," it is clear, I think, to any one's mind that goods will be prohibited on the ground that they are in themselves undesirable things to be imported into this country. I am not going into any technical question of ejusdem generis or any legal point, but that is the widest interpretation possible. In my opinion certainly it could not cover the present case. That is why I ask the Government to state what their authority is for what has been done. After looking into all these matters, unless I have overlooked anything, it appears that there is no authority at all. It seems to me that what is done is, in itself, contrary, not only to the Common Law and constitutional practice but to the terms of the two sections to which I have called attention. I hope the noble Lord, when he comes to answer this Question, will be able to say that there is no point which has been overlooked which would give an authority which certainly cannot be derived from the only Acts to which, so far as I know, reference has ever been made.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, I had no idea when I came here this afternoon that this question was going to be discussed in your Lordships' House but, as it has been brought forward and as I take a very deep interest in the matter, I feel compelled to ask your Lordships to be good enough to allow me to say a few words upon it. I shall not, of course, attempt to deal with the technical legal aspect, because that has been admirably dealt with by the noble and learned Lord opposite. I will content myself with saving that, so far as my humble judgment is worth anything—and I am afraid it is worth very little on legal matters—I entirely agree with what he has said. I cannot conceive how the words "or any other goods," following the words "arms, ammunition, gunpowder," can be reasonably contrued into the prohibition of such dangerous articles as flat irons, sewing machines, and metal fittings for corsets and suspenders.
When I had to do with this matter, as Chairman of an Advisory Committee
512
which never had the materials for dealing with the question until the month of March, there was a case, as there is to-day, for safeguarding, in some form or other, "key" industries. That is common ground. There was also, I think, a case, and there may be still a case, as regards a few industries for allowing industries which have been diverted from peace purposes to war purposes a reasonable allowance of time to get back to race production, and that was the line on which. if I had had to administer the matter I am very glad I had not, for it was an extraordinarily difficult question—I should have dealt with it.
I only want to make a few remarks this afternoon on the practical aspect (if this Question. I leave on one side for the moment the injury to trade which results from the hunt for a licence. I leave all the ridiculous affairs that occur from time to time. One of them I heard of recently, in which I believe a clerk in my old Department, owing to some misunderstanding with the Board of Agriculture, wrote to ask an applicant who wanted a licence to export a colt whether the colt was a steer. That ridiculous sort of thing does go on in the hunt for these licences. Protection by tariff may be a good thing or a bad thing—I am not going to discuss that question at all—but protection by prohibition subject to licence is the very worst form of protection that can possibly be invented for times of peace.
In the first place, prohibition subject to licence means that no man can make forward contracts to import prohibited goods into this country, because he does not know whether he will get a licence for them or not, and uncertainty is absolutely deadening to commerce. In the second place, such a system must be bureaucratically administered. Our trade has grown up under an individualistic system, in which each man has developed his own trade in his own way. What man can be found, what bureaucrat, however wise, can be found, who can estimate the precise quantity of prohibited goods which ought to be allowed into the country and can see the question in strict correlation with the prices and profits that are being earned in the trades at home producing the same things. I say no man is wise enough to do anything of that kind, and I need not remind your Lordships that neither Russia, nor America, nor Spain, which I quote

513
as the three countries having perhaps the highest prohibitive tariffs before the war, resorted to a system of prohibition of this kind. It is avowedly temporary, and it is a vicious system. Under a system of tariffs—I am not speaking in favour of a system of tariffs, as I am a Free Trader—all traders are treated alike; every importer has the same chance of importing. But under this system a licence is worth money; ex hypothesi the goods are in short supply, and the man who gets permission to import has obtained a permission which is worth money, and which he can sell, and I daresay sometimes does sell.
A licence of that kind, which is worth money, is a temptation to corruption. I agree with Lord Parmoor that it is no use mincing words about that. I do not suggest that there is any danger in the course of the next few years of anything like corruption coming into the Civil Service, but I can tell your Lordships what has happened in regard to export licences. There was more than one case in which men advertised in such a way as to suggest that they had special facilities for obtaining an export licence, and over and over again we had to bring them to book. There was one scoundrel engaged in a big firm who had advertised in this way. We naturally wrote to the firm and the man was discharged. We sent for him and made him alter the form of his advertisement. But it obviously is most undesirable that it should be open to anybody to advertise in such a way as to suggest that he has any special influence with a Government Department and can get favours which are worth money; yet that is the inevitable result of a system of licensing, whether for imports or exports.
Then, again, it is absolutely impossible to administer fairly a system of licensing. You cannot administer it fairly as between countries or as between individuals. Take the case of countries. Very soon after the Armistice it was found that rationing had been fixed for some prohibited commodities on the basis of a certain war year. The commodities in question were of interest to Canada, but Canada having been absorbed in manufacture for war purposes was not able to export them in that particular standard year, and therefore the 50 per cent., or whatever it was of the particular year, was unfair to Canada; and Canada naturally complained. The matter was put right. It came before the Cabinet and the Dominions were excluded
514
from these restrictions. Were inclined to be indiscreet in regard to the question I could state how unfavourably impressed I was in the negotiations in regard to that matter by the bureaucratic attitude of certain people.
I take another case. Matches are subject to prohibition, and a certain proportion is licensed. Again a war year was taken. During that war year all our importation of matches came from Scandinavia, but before the war Belgium supplied matches to a very considerable extent. What was done was this. We fixed this war year as the basis of our supply from neutral countries when our own mal-treated ally, Belgium, ought to have had first consideration. Of course, the matter was put light, but what a pity it is that any exasperation should have been caused to Belgium in regard to a matter of that kind? It is all part of the system, and its unfairness must go on as long as you have a system of licences.
As to individuals I need not press the point; it is obvious and apparent. A man goes one day and gets a licence; his rival goes the next and, as the ration is filled, he is refused. A man who wants to import goods is referred to his trade rivals, and told he must go cap in hand, pay any price they like, because the ration is complete. That may be the natural way of doing business by a bureaucracy but it is absolutely odious to any self-respecting British traders. In addition it means high prices, and in many cases quite unnatural profits. As Lord Parmoor has said, and as it is admitted, high prices and profiteering are perhaps the main causes of industrial unrest at the present time.
Take an article in which the Government itself is interested—motor cars. We are not content with the 30 per cent. duty. Motor cars are prohibited from import; the Government has a great many to sell. I know trades which are being held up because they cannot buy motor lorries for trade at reasonable prices, and people forget the harm that is being done to those trades which do not come into existence because of high prices. All they can see is the advantage of high prices to the particular trades which are benefitted. How can the Government convince the country that it is in earnest about the question of lower prices as long as things of this kind go on?

515
Finally, there is the question of the tendency of trades to ask for protection under this very vicious system. When I was concerned with the matter I was much interested by one petition from a certain branch of salt workers, who tried to make out a case for the prohibition of salt of a certain kind from Spain. This salt was sun dried, and these people pointed out that the sun of Spain, being much stronger than the sun of England, it was desirable they should have protection from the effects of the sun in Spain. It reminded me of the imaginary petition of the candle-makers for excluding the sun, with which Bastiat made such great fun. If that kind of argument were allowable, what about cotton, copper, rubber, and a great many other things from tropical climates on which we are absolutely dependent for the existence of our industries. In order to stop this craving for protection it is necessary, as soon as possible, that this system of import restrictions should be put an end to. On the broad grounds that this system is unfair; that it is, as I have plainly stated, a temptation to corruption, leads to inflated prices, makes profiteering legitimate, and leads to unjustified hopes and ridiculous claims, I beg that it may be ended as soon as possible.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, the two noble Lords who have just addressed the House have raised a most interesting discussion and gone over a great deal of ground. I would prefer, however, to come back to the Question on the Paper, from which I venture to suggest we have travelled a considerable distance. The noble Lord has asked a Question with regard to the embargoes, but his speech was devoted almost entirely to the question of discrimination.
LORD PARMOOR: The discriminating embargoes.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: He objected to the discrimination, but what he dwelt upon principally was the fact that by these embargoes the Government were able to use their powers of discrimination. I always feel myself very largely in agreement with Lord Emmott, but I could not quite understand one point he made when he was speaking of tariffs—that every would-be importer under the tariff system has the same chance of importing. I am not
516
quite aware that that is the general principle of the tariff system, so far as I understood it. But with regard to the question as a whole, if I may come back to it, the Question on the Paper is "under what authority the Executive had placed an embargo on the importation of goods and commodities other than arms, ammunition and gunpowder." The restrictions on the importation of goods into this country, irrrespective of their origin, are imposed by Royal Proclamation. I need hardly remind your Lordships that since the war they have been in full progress, and that until the raising of the blockade the importation of goods of any kind was prohibited from enemy countries. I have before me the conditions under which trade is now permitted with those countries.
These restrictions are not imposed by the Board of Trade Regulations, or by Order in Council, but the Board of Trade is the Department responsible for preparing the Draft Proclamation for submission to the King The Act under which the Proclamations are issued is the Customs Consolidated Act of 1876, which my noble friend quoted, and Section 43 of which reads as follows:—
"The importation of arms, ammunition, gunpowder, or any other goods may be prohibited by Proclamation or Order in Council."
It has been suggested that the words "any other goods" should be interpreted somewhat narrowly to mean goods of the same kind as "arms, ammunition and gunpowder." I admit that to the man in the street the question does not seem very easy, but with regard to the legal aspect of the question I will not give any opinion of my own. In view of the doubts expressed as to the legality of some of the import prohibitions having regard to the suggested interpretation of the section the Government consulted the Law Officers of the Crown, who advised that the expression "any other goods" ought not to be treated as referring merely to goods ejusdem generis with arms, ammunition or gun-powder, but ought to be construed without qualification or limitation, and as extending to all goods of whatever character. Therefore your Lordships will see that His Majesty's Government is advised that these restrictions on the importation of goods as at present imposed are quite within the limits of the law as laid down.
LORD EMMOTT: Might I ask whether it is the fact that, as has been publicly stated, certain traders who have ignored the Proclamations and imported goods have not been prosecuted by the Government.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: I have no knowledge of any such case, but if the noble Lord will bring any such case forward I shall be very glad to see that it is thoroughly investigated.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I have no desire to detain the House, because the whole case was so fully and clearly stated by the noble and learned Lord below the gangway, and also by the noble Lord opposite, but I confess it does seem to me that the case having been so stated by those two noble Lords, and on lines somewhat broader than the mere terms of the question, that they are entitled to expect from His Majesty's Government some reply on the policy of the question rather beyond the quite clear and explicit reply which the noble Lord opposite has made in response to the actual terms of the question.
Both noble Lords argued with great force that the indefinite continuance of this policy is disadvantageous, for the reasons which they gave and which I will not attempt to repeat. They showed that these prohibitions do definitely act in restraint of trade; and altogether apart from what I may call the moral objections which Lord Emmott mentioned—namely, the practical certainty that a system of licences is almost bound to become a system of preferences—both noble Lords showed that the hampering process due largely to the uncertainty attaching to the licensing system is having a definitely damaging effect upon trade expansion at the moment when that expansion is of such vast importance to the country. I confess I do think that those two noble Lords, both speaking with great knowledge and experience, are entitled to rather more than the general reply which the noble Lord opposite gave them.
On the particular point of the uses made of the Customs Consolidated Act of 1876, and the interpretation which the noble Lord says was given to its terms by the Law Officers, it is somewhat surprising to a layman and I do not know whether
518
the interpretation would be accepted by all lawyers of eminence. If that interpretation is correct, a great deal of the discussion which took place from 1903 onwards on the subject of tariffs, and the controversies which took place as to the introduction of a tariff by means of a Parliamentary Statute, appear to be altogether unnecessary, because it is open to His Majesty's Government, apparently, to impose any restriction upon any goods of any kind proprio motu and without asking the leave of Parliament. I remember in the course of that controversy, probably about the year 1904, calling attention to a singular provision in one of the earlier Customs Consolidation Acts—I forget the precise year, but I think possibly it was 1865 or 1866—which appeared explicitly to give the right of prohibition in respect of any goods carried in foreign bottoms of any kind; that is to say, to the surprise of everybody it was found that we were still living under the Navigation Laws. I remember that at the time the late Duke of Devonshire, who replied for the Government, expressed on behalf of himself and his colleagues of the then Administration complete ignorance of the existence of that power—a power which if it does exist has, I think, never been used—but this power under the Act of 1876 is very far-reaching and even more amazing, and altogether apart from the question whether the particular application of the power is wise or unwise, I sincerely hope that the matter will be cleared up one way or the other, and cleared up, as one would hope, in the only way in which it can be finally cleared up—namely, by the decision of the highest possible Court on the interpretation of the words of that Statute. In the meantime there will be a great many people who, like the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord opposite, regard the whole position as profoundly unsatisfactory.
LORD FARRER: My Lords, I should not have ventured to intervene were it not that this very morning, in the City, I had an illustration of the extreme inconvenience of these restrictions. Buying large quantities of stores for South American railroads which are British owned the storekeeper informed me that the effect of this constant uncertainty whether a licence can or cannot be granted is that orders will be placed, and must be placed, in other countries for absolutely necessary articles. It appears to me, therefore, that

519
it is of the utmost importance, not only theoretically but practically—there is plenty of room now in our shipping to take our stores there—to our foreign trade that these restrictions should be removed as soon as possible. This appears to me to be even more important than the legal question.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, it seems to me that what the country wants to know is, how soon and how rapidly are the Government going to remove these restrictions? I attend meetings where many of the working classes express their opinions, and during the last three months I have not attended one of these meetings where this question has not been raised. Some of the speakers declare that the reasons the restrictions are not taken off is that the Government themselves are making a profit out of them.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: What article is it alleged that that refers to?
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: I say that the speakers at these labour meetings absolutely accuse the Government of using these restrictions to make a profit out of the goods held back. I do not say there is any ground for that allegation. I have tried to argue against the accusation, but so long as the working classes have that idea the Government difficulties will tend to multiply, and the chances of industrial peace will remain far off.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, the noble Marquess said just now that in his view the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate have some ground for grievance against the noble Lord who spoke for the Government because he had not touched upon the general policy complained of in the speeches which they had made. I think that the terms of the Question on the Paper have entirely escaped the attention of the noble Marquess, for with his Parliamentary experience he would not have made that complaint if he had read the words in the Question to which the attention of my noble friend was directed. The Question is a narrow legal one—namely, under what authority do the Executive place an embargo on the importation of goods and commodities other than arms, ammunition and gunpowder. The noble Marquess knows perfectly well how these
520
questions are dealt with, and that a representative of every Department cannot possibly be in both Houses. Information is properly sought for from the Department in relation, and only in relation, to the Question asked. Even my noble friend does not carry in his head the whole of our legal science and the whole of our trading economy, and he was invited to-night, and was only invited, to open the particular drawer which contained either his legal knowledge or the legal knowledge of those upon whom he had to draw for an answer to this Question.
I do not propose to follow those speakers who have dealt with the legal question, nor do I propose to discuss the opinions which have apparently been given by the law officers. I adopt that course for this reason. It may well be that in a different capacity I may have to give a judicial decision upon them, and it would be at that moment that I shall probably reach a conclusion as to whether I am in agreement or not with the view of the law officers. It is sufficient to say at this stage that the matter is a debatable one, but your Lordships would be very slow to withhold the respect that is due to the opinion of the law officers. Even law officers of the greatest experience are not always right, and it is for the Court to consider and decide whether they are right or not in proper process. In regard to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, I confess that I do not precisely appreciate what is in his mind. He said it has been publicly stated—I really do not know by whom—that traders who have disobeyed this regulation have not been prosecuted. I do not know whether the noble Lord meant to imply that there were cases in which there has been deliberate defiance of these regulations, and in which prosecutions have not followed because the authorities were not sure of their ground. If the noble Lord did not mean that, I cannot quite see what led him to ask the question.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Perhaps, by leave of the House, I may be allowed to point out to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that he is possibly laying too great stress on his experience of the House of Commons when he accuses me of having treated the noble Lord opposite somewhat unfairly in having expected a more detailed reply from him. If the noble and learned Lord had sat in this House as long as some of us, he would

521
know that it is a very frequent practice indeed for a debate of far greater dimensions than the present one to arise out of a simple Question placed on the Paper in such terms as those which my noble friend has used. The noble and learned Lord also may consider that the new practice of placing a star opposite some Questions is entirely due to the prevalence of this particular practice in the past. The presence of the star is intended to indicate that the Question will simply be asked by a noble Lord without a speech, but there is nothing to prevent all the other noble Lords in the House at the time, if they so desire, from carrying on the debate. I can assure the noble and Wined Lord that far oftener than not where a Question of this kind covering a particular subject is on the Paper it leads to a general discussion, and in the past has very often led to a full and complete reply from some Member of the Government.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I venture to enter a caveat against one thing that has fallen from the noble Marquess to the effect that the introduction of our new starring system makes it quite unnecessary for noble Lords to give notice of the subjects they raise. In unstarred questions, that, I do not think, ought to be the ease. I think the Department is justified in requiring some notice.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I have seldom received it in the past.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I know it has been the practice of your Lordships under our procedure and rules to cast your net very wide, but I would point out that, although noble Lords are entitled to make speeches as remote as they please from the actual words of the Notice, they must not blame the Minister who is answering on behalf of the Department if he cannot deal off-hand authoritatively with a number of most complicated questions of which he has not had notice. We have had a debate on the whole general principle of advisory committees, we have had a short review of bureaucracy since the time of Queen Elizabeth, we have had to deal with the whole policy of transhipment from ports oversea to other countries, currency and exchange have come up in three or four particulars, to say nothing of the question of trading with the enemy. Your Lordships
522
are entitled to ask all these questions, and fifty more, but I hope my noble friend will not be blamed if, without notice, he does not, desire to reply.
LORD EMMOTT: I thought the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack challenged me on a point that he was referring to, and on which I felt bound to meet the challenge. What was in my mind was that I had heard it stated that certain traders had ignored these proclamations in a way which allowed the Government to prosecute them, and that the Government, feeling that their legal ground was very shaky, refused to do so. On the other hand, of course, it is obvious that goods must enter through the ports and through the hands of Customs officials, and unfortunately in this matter the Government have a chance of holding these goods, and it may rest with the trader to take proceedings against the Government.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Lord will give me a single case in which, after inquiry, he can say that he has formed the view that there ought to have been a prosecution and that there has not been a prosecution for some inexplicable reason, in order that I may ascertain whether that reason, which the noble Lord seems to think exists, in fact exists, I will see that inquiries are made. One word more in regard to what the noble Marquess said. It is quite true, as he reminded your Lordships, that I have been here a very short time. It is also true that I have been a close student of your Lordships' debates for, I suppose, twenty-five years, and I was very well aware of the practice to which the noble Marquess directed attention. The only comment I made was, not that your Lordships should not avail yourselves of your right to enlarge the debate as much as you think useful, but that you must not make complaint if a noble Lord does not come here prepared to deal with the specific points.
May I add one word upon the general question, because it is one of which I saw something when I was a Law Officer of the Crown, as I was for four years during the war. Everybody must agree that the system is a bad one. Every one must agree that it ought to be removed at the earliest possible moment. There is great ground for controversy whether in relation to a specific article that moment has arrived, but no one can defend the system,

523
I will not say as a permanent element in our commercial life, but even as one that greatly outlasts the war. But the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, said with perfect truth that there was a great deal to be said during the war on behalf of the system. I will go further and say it was indispensable during the war, both from the point of view of killing industries and from at least two other points of view which, if time served, I could elaborate.
But the noble Lord himself said that, even when peace has come, there is a sort of period when these plants and machinery which we have harnessed to warlike purposes and which will necessarily require time before they can be re-established in their old channels, must be given some degree of protection. And I rather gathered that the noble Lord took the view that, in relation to that, this system, if widely and prudently employed, might be defended. If it relieves any apprehension, let me say that nobody is under any delusions at all on the point that this is a system which cannot be defended in relation to the claims of commercial men to get back to their own businesses in their own way at the earliest possible moment. Your Lordships may rely upon it that efforts are being made, and will continue to be made to get rid of it as soon as possible.
LORD PARMOOR: I thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for what he has said as regards the hope of discontinuing what, I think, is a bad system, and I should like also to thank the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade for the answer he gave. I do not think I could have put the specific Question without showing the conditions which prevailed which made the Question necessary. I thought, when I saw him the other day, that he understood that that would be so; but whether that is so or not I make no complaint if the noble Lord felt unable to go into any of the wider points.

ANIMALS (ANÆSTHETICS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee (on recommitment), read.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, in moving that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, I understand that when a Bill has been before a Select Committee of your Lordships' House it is
524
customary to make a brief explanation as to what the Committee have done. They sat for five days and examined fourteen witnesses, who represented agricultural interests in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and qualified and registered veterinary surgeons, and unregistered veterinary surgeons; and I think they saw witnesses front almost every part of the kingdom who had any direct interest in this Bill. As the result of that evidence your Committee have produced the Bill which is now before the House, and in this Bill your Lordships will find that the Committee have now no longer made it compulsory that an anæsthetic should be used for the purposes of castration of an animal, whether horse or bovine, and also allow a caustic clam to be used. The only other great change in the Bill is that unregistered veterinary surgeons are now permitted to administer the anæsthetic, instead of its being confined solely to those who belong to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. There are other minor Amendments in the Schedules which, on the whole, have been tightened up, but those are of no great importance.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Offences.
1.—(1) If any person shall subject or cause or procure, or being the owner permit to be subjected, an animal to an operation contrary to the regulations contained in this section, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act
(2).—(a) A horse, a dog, a cat, or a bovine shall not be subjected to any operation specified in the First, Second, or Third Schedules of this Act, respectively, unless the animal during the whole of the operation is under the influence of some general anæsthetic of sufficient power to prevent the animal feeling pain.
(b) A horse, a dog, a cat, or a bovine shall not be subjected to any operation specified in the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Schedules to this Act, respectively, unless during the whole of the operation it is under the influence of some general anæsthetic or some local anæsthetic being, in either case, of sufficient power to prevent it feeling pain.
The EARL OF CLANWILLIAM The EARL OF CLANWILLIAM moved, in subsection (2) (a), to insert "provided that in respect to the dishorning of cattle this regulation shall not come into force

525
for a period of two years from the passing of this Act." The noble Earl said: In moving this Amendment I do not wish it to be supposed that I am at all hostile to the principle of the Bill. On the contrary, I have hearty sympathy with any attempt made to prevent suffering to animals, but I feel that unless some such Amendment as I propose is included in this Bill very considerable hardship will be inflicted on the cattle trade and incidentally upon the consumers of meat. The cattle trade is one of the staple industries of Ireland, and anything that operates adversely to that trade cannot help reflecting on the meat supply of England. Your Lordships know the meat supply is in no too rosy condition, and if the meat supply is affected the price will be affected, and that must be the cause of serious anxiety to His Majesty's Government.
If this limit of two years is accepted, it will give time to those connected with the cattle trade and the farmers to make arrangements to comply with the aims and provisions of the Bill. This provision, as its stands without any time limit, is causing considerable alarm among the farmers and cattle dealers in Ireland. And, although I am speaking to-day without any particular brief from Ireland, I know from my connection with certain agricultural bodies in Ireland that it is viewed with anxiety, and doubtless, had they known that I was going to move this Amendment they might have asked me to say something on their behalf.
The reasons why cattle are dis-horned are various, and I should like to refer to one or two. The first is that cattle when dis-horned do much better when tamed out to grass; they do not gore or worry each other. Another reason is that when they are shipped from Ireland to Scotland and England they are very crowded on the boat, and once the boat has started, although the cattle may at first have been standing side by side with their heads in the same direction, they soon move about and get all over the place, with the result that if there is any sea running and the ship pitches and rolls the goring and cruelty and pain thereby inflicted is considerable, as is also, incidentally, the loss of condition to which the animals must be subjected while recovering from their wounds.
The chief aim of this Bill is to prevent cruelty to animals, but I should think it is
526
open to argument whether the pain inflicted by (dis-horning is any greater—the operation does not last very long—than the pain inflicted by the cattle on each other when being shipped to Scotland or England, a voyage of over ten hours, when a heavy sea is running. Farmers and dealers in Scotland and England very much prefer cattle which have been dis-horned, and in many cases they refuse to buy those who have not been so treated. Those are briefly the reasons. I think, perhaps, the chief consideration to-day is the possible dislocation and hampering of the cattle trade which may ensue unless this Amendment is agreed to. If the trade is hampered in any way a rise in the price of meat must inevitably follow.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert ("Provided that in respect to the dishorning of cattle this regulation shall not come into force for a period of two years front the passing of this Act").—(The Earl of (Clanwilliam.)
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: As I was a member of the committee to which reference has just been made, I think I can say that the noble Lord who has just sat down has accurately and fully represented the views of the Scottish farmers upon this question.
NOBLE LORDS: Irish.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: He has also represented the views of the Scottish farmers as well as those of the Irish, but not quite so accurately the views expressed by English farmers. The difference that struck me in the evidence upon this point was rather remarkable. I do not know the why or the wherefore, but apparently the Scottish animals—which are fed in what I think they call "courts"—behave much worse to each other than do the cattle in England. As a matter of fact, it is the commonest practice in all arable counties in England for the beasts to be turned into what are called yards, where they perform a double duty. One duty is to tread down the straw and make manure, and the other is to eat at the same time the oilcake—when it is available—to make manure for the crops. The Scottish animals behave so badly that the farmers have apparently taken the greatest umrbage at the idea that dis-horning should not be made compulsory. That is one side of the question. The other side is that there is no doubt

527
that dis-horning inflicts great cruelty upon the animals. Some of the evidence we had with regard to cattle coming from Ireland was deplorable in the extreme.
This is a Bill to endeavour to cope with pain and suffering in animals, and to reduce cruelty as much as possible. I am sure that my colleagues on the Committee will bear me out when I say that if you want to dis-horn animals with the least possible cruelty the way to do it is to treat them when they are young calves. A method described by many farmers, and by one or more witnesses before the Committee, was this: When the horns begin to what is called "bud," they should be treated with some preparation of potash which kills the horns. If that be true—I believe it is absolutely true, and it is a treatment well-known to farmers—it seems to me that by its adoption we can accomplish the double purpose of diminishing the cruelty brought about by dis-horning and at the same time ensure a bountiful supply of cattle. There is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the noble Earl—who was the first to raise this question and to cause the appointment of this Committee—to one of the Schedules, where dis-horning is to be made obligatory before the calves have reached the age of three months. My own opinion is that it would be far better to make the age earlier and put it at, say, six weeks.
EARL STANHOPE: I trust that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment. All the evidence before our committee was strongly against its being accepted. I myself at one time was rather in favour of the Amendment for a reason which was not given by the noble Lord—that is to say, I was afraid that if this Act came into operation at once with regard to dishorning it might be disregarded and, therefore, become ineffective. I have, however, changed my view, and I think that it should come into operation at once. May I give your Lordships three very short extracts from the evidence? One gentleman—who is very well known to many of your Lordships as a veterinary surgeon—talking about seeing the cattle being driven along a road in Ireland (where he had been only the week before he gave his evidence) says this—
"The man himself who was driving the cattle along said it was brutal the way it had been done. Their horns were raw, bleeding, and putred, and
528
pus was coming from them. They were being put on the ship at Belfast."
Another gentleman, a big farmer in Scotland, said—
"The horns remain tender at the end for about six weeks and not more."
A well-known veterinary surgeon from Ireland says—
"The after-effects, and not only the actual operation at the time, are painful. The animals evince intense pain especially when the saw is used; they roar and struggle; and there is a considerable amount of hæmorrhage"
Then he was asked whether there was suppuration afterwards as well as hæmorrhage, and his reply was, "Yes; frequently afterwards the wound becomes septic." It is not only that it is a painful operation to cut the horn, but there is a considerable amount of pain afterwards. There are nerves which run more than half way up the horn of the cattle, and when you cut through the horn of course you cut through the nerves. One of those who were in favour of this operation being allowed without an anæsthetic said it was exactly the same as having one's nail torn out. That does not sound a very pleasant thing to do. I therefore trust your Lordships will insist that the dis-horning of cattle—which by the way is illegal in England—should not be allowed to be done in Ireland and Scotland except under an anæsthetic.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I hope you will not allow this Amendment to pass. I have seen cattle in Ireland in a most disgraceful state in consequence of this dis-horning. You cannot imagine anything so cruel. They stand together with their heads down, bleeding and suffering dreadful pain. I hope that such things will not be allowed to go on for another two years. As Lord Chaplain said, it is quite easy to do it. I do it myself to my own calves. If you use caustic potash or caustic and put it on these buds, as they are called—the growing horns—the whole matter is done away with. They do not grow horns and they are hornless cattle, and thus the difficulty is overcome. As to allowing this to go on for two years more, I am very strongly against it and I am sure there are many other people who will agree with me.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: If this Amendment is not adopted, then I fear the cattle trade may be somewhat dislocated, in which case you will certainly

529
force up the price of meat. There is nobody here who would put up the price of meat, but possibly there may be in another place, and the evidence may not be impartial in opposition withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Powers of Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
3.—(1) The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may, by order made subject to the provisions of this section, add any other operation to the operations specified in any schedule to this Act, and any operation so added shall be deemed to be an operation specified in that schedule, and the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may also by order made as aforesaid, extend any provision of this Act to any domestic animal to which it does not at the time apply, with such modifications or additions as may appear to that Board to be necessary. The Board may, by order made subject to the provisions of this section, declare any substance to be a suitable general anæsthetic or a suitable local anæsthetic for the purposes of this Act, and any substance so declared shall be deemed to be a general anæsthetie or local anæsthetic, as the case may be, of sufficient power to prevent the animal feeling pain if properly applied.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection (1), after "operation specified in that schedule," to insert "and may transfer an operation from one schedule to another." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is that the Board of Agriculture shall have the power to transfer an operation from, say, Schedule 1 to Schedule 4. Take, for instance, the operation of laparotomy. We had a certain amount of evidence that laparotomy is better done under a local anæsthetic than under a general anæsthetic. That may eventually become the general view of the veterinary profession, in which case it may be necessary to transfer that operation from Schedule 1 to Schedule 4. Under the Bill as it stands that is impossible, and it would be necessary to pass a new Act of Parliament. It is an Amendment with which the rest of the Committee on which I served did not entirely agree, but the representative from the Board of Agriculture was in favour of it.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 2, line 8, after ("Schedule") insert ("and may transfer an operation from one Schedule to another").—(Earl Stanhope.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I understand that the Board of Agriculture takes no objection to the noble Earl's suggestion.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I am afraid I do not agree with my noble friend, and I think I can give some reasons with regard to the Bill itself which will show that it will upset the whole work of the Committee on the Bill if this were carried. The noble Earl opposite, who said that the Board of Agriculture had agreed, will observe that sub-section (2) (a) of Clause 1 reads as follows—
"A horse, a dog, a cat, or a bovine shall not be subjected to any operation specified in the First, Second, or Third Schedules of this Act, respectively, unless the animal during the whole of the operation is under the influence of some general anæsthetic of sufficient power to prevent the animal feeling pain."
That means, of course, chloroform, or something that would make the animal insensible, and involves the casting of the animal.
I must ask you now to turn for a moment to the Fourth Schedule which deals with horses. Docking of the tail of a horse is one of the operations referred to there. I do not quite know how far this would affect the word "respectively." This has been done since the Committee met, the last time, and I was not aware of it. I apprehend, however, and I have been advised this afternoon by a very competent draftsman, that the word "respectively" refers to the different schedules. I will give the heading of all the schedules. The first refers to horses, the second to dogs and cats, the third to bovines, the fourth to horses, the fifth to dogs and cats, and the sixth to bovines. If I take the Fourth Schedule, and take one of the operations referred to—namely, docking of the tail—that would necessitate casting the horse on every occasion. He would always have to be subjected to a general anæsthetic, which is chloroform. I think this would cause enormous inconvenience. Unless I misread the effect of the Amendment, you would certainly have all the Hackney Associations in the kingdom up in arms. You would have the people who hunt in wet countries, where it is undesirable to have horses with long tails because of the mud and dirt and the filth and discomfort to themselves owing to carrying a ton weight some days, complaining, and generally speaking

531
I think it would be a mistake if this Amendment was accepted. I am also somewhat apprehensive that it would upset the working of the whole of the Bill as it is at present framed. It would entirely do away with the effect of the word "repectively" which is used in the two clauses, and I think we should get into great trouble there in connection with the Bill.
EARL STANHOPE: As the Bill stands now, a general anæsthetic is not necessary. What the noble Viscount is suggesting to your Lordships is that the Board of Agriculture will take it into their heads suddenly to forbid docking except under a general anæsthetic. I do not know that I am very often accused of having too great respect for Government Departments, but I think that to accuse the Board of Agriculture, or any other Government Department, of taking a line of that kind is really rather absurd. No Government Department would do a thing of that kind. The uproar in the country, to start with, would prevent their doing it. Beyond that, it is contrary to all common sense, and I do not think for one moment the Board of Agriculture would consider doing such a thing. I really do not see why the noble Viscount is so keen about the docking of horses' tails. I cannot believe that he can do it himself, because I am told it is against the law of the land.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I do not wish to say anything against the Board of Agriculture, except that I confess, in regard to all matters connected with horses, I have the very smallest opinion of their judgment and knowledge. I will give you a very good reason for that. When the present National Stud was offered to the Government for their acceptance as a gift to the nation, the then Board of Agriculture took two whole months before they could make up their minds and decide as to whether the offer ought to be accepted or not. It was only accepted by a Cabinet Committee at eight o'clock on the night before the sale was published at Newmarket. Nearly all the stud would have gone either to the Argentine or the United States of America and would have been an immense loss to this country. That was done under the Board of Agriculture. I will not say anything more upon that point. The first clause insists on a general anæsthetic for any operation, and I do not know that,
532
under pressure, the Board of Agriculture would not very likely give, way to this and put "docking" into the first Schedule instead of the one which it is in now. At all events, I do not approve of giving the wide powers suggested this afternoon.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3:
BOVINES.
1. Ovariotomy.
2. Operations for actinomycosis.
3. Laparotomy.
4. Amputation of penis, mamma, uterus.
5. Dishorning cattle over three months old.
LORD SYDENHAM: With regard to Schedule 3, might I ask one question of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill? Is it a fact that a pig or a lamb is a bovine, or is it a fact that both are not included in the beneficent provisions of the Bill?
EARL STANHOPE: I understand that neither pigs nor sheep come under the operation of the Bill at all.
Schedules 3 and 4 agreed to.
Schedule 5:
DOGS AND CATS.
1. Enucleation of the eyeball.
2. Operation for umbilical hernia.
3. Urethrotomy.
4. Docking of the tail.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE moved, after "tail" to insert "and clipping or rounding of ears." The noble Lord said: I put forward this Amendment because I think it is a necessary corollary of the provision in the Bill which requires a local anæsthetic to be administered in the case of docking the tail of a dog. If it is right, as we think it is, that a local anæsthetic should be administered when docking the tail of a dog, then your Lordships will agree with me that it is quite as desirable or necessary, if you are going to clip or round a dog's ears, that a local anæsthetic should be used. It is even more necessary, because what I particularly refer to is the rounding of a foxhound's ears, of which I have had some experience, though not so

533
much as the noble Viscount on the front bench.
If you want shorten the tail of a fox terrier which, in my humble opinion, is unnecessary and undesirable, for several reasons—it can be done at a very early age, but the practice of rounding a hound's ears is not carried out until the puppy is nine months or a year old. At that age it is more painful than if it is carried out in extreme youth. I am not now going into a discussion on the merits of rounding a hound's ears, except to say that, having rounded the ears of the Warwickshire hounds for a good many years, I gave it up about five years ago because I thought it was unnecessarily cruel. I know there are two opinions about that. It is said that if you round the hound's ears you save them, in some countries, from tearing themselves in the brambles. I believe the noble Viscount. Lord Chaplin, holds that view.
All I can say is that in our country, where the brambles are perhaps not so thick as they are in the country to which he may refer, we have not had that experience and I have come to the conclusion, for what it is worth, that the practice is unnecessary. But that is really by the way. This Amendment, which I hope your Lordships will accept, will not prevent anybody from rounding a hound's ears or clipping the ears of a dog, if it is thought necessary to do so, though I think it is barbarous. It will only compel the use of a local anæsthetic for the purpose, so that the main object of the Bill—that of saving pain to dumb animals—will be carried out. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Fifth Schedule, page 5, line 15, after ("tail") insert ("and clipping or rounding of ears").—(Lord Willoughby de Broke.)
VISCOUNT VALENTIA: I hope the noble Lord will not persevere in the Amendment, which I look upon as entirely unnecessary. When the Bill was before the Committee on which I had the honour to serve, this subject was never brought up nor was any witness asked any question upon it. Your Lordships will observe that the Amendment refers to two operations—one, clipping; the other, rounding of ears. I take "clipping" to refer to a very old-fashioned practice of clipping a terrier's ears. For many years that has been illegal and it is illegal at this moment, so I do
534
not think it matters very much about that. It seems to be quite unnecessary. As to the rounding of foxhounds' ears I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that it is quite unnecessary that that should be done under an anæsthetic. I yield to nobody in my horror of unnecessary cruelty, but this operation is performed in a moment.
The noble Lord says that his object is to prevent an animal suffering pain. The animals suffers, if he does suffer pain at all in the operation, only momentarily. No doubt it suffers afterwards when going about with sore ears, but that is not obviated by any anæsthetic. The operation is not like the old operation of clipping a terrier's ears, which was done with a pair of scissors and was no doubt painful. Rounding of ears is done with a rounding iron, which is half-circular and is put round the end of the ear to cut off part of it and make the ear actually round. That is done with a sharp instrument placed on the hound's ear and pressure is put upon the instrument by a blow with a wooden hammer, and the piece of the ear which is not required, disappears altogether. The dog goes away with his ears very sore, no doubt, but the pain of the operation is momentary. Anybody who knows anything about it will allow that. The object of the Amendment is supposed to be to save pain, but the dog must suffer pain after the operation is performed. The pain will last for a day or two and it will be very disagreeable indeed, but the operation itself is so quickly done that I think it is almost painless. If such an Amendment is carried I think logically you should have fresh legislation to prevent babies being vaccinated without anæsthetics or ladies having their ears pierced without anæstheties.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I venture to ask one question of the noble Lord for purposes of information. I have no desire to enter into the controversy about rounding a hound's ears, although I was interested to hear the view put forward by Lord Willoughby de Broke, who has so much experience. My impression was that the ears of hounds were always rounded. The question I wanted to ask was this, whether in the case of these particular operations there exists any local anæsthetic which can be profitably applied. Cocaine has been mentioned, but it is useless to apply cocaine on muscular tissue, and I

535
greatly question whether for operations of this kind there exists a local anæsthetic of any kind which may be regarded as really preventive of pain.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: The noble Marquess asks whether there is any local anæsthetic which can be effectively applied when rounding a hound's ears. I imagine there is, because the information obtained from the veterinary experts who were called was that there was an anæsthetic, I have forgotten the name, which could be successfully applied to docking horses' tails, and I do not see why the same anæsthetic could not be applied when rounding a hound's ears. The chief pain when cutting an animal is when the outer skin is penetrated. That was the whole drift of the evidence, and we also know it is the case from our own personal experience. The noble Marquess also asks whether the ears of fox-hounds are all rounded now. All I can say is that there is an increasing number of Masters of Fox Hounds who are not rounding the ears of their packs.
VISCOUNT VALENTIA: Nearly all.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: I could name several celebrated packs of hounds—the Duke of Rutland's, the War-wicks and others—but I have no objection to making full inquiries on the matter. The noble Viscount, Lord Valentia, said that we obtained no expert witnesses with regard to this. Of course not. I was the chairman of this Committee and I know more about these things than anybody else, with the exception of the noble Viscount beside me and Viscount Valentia, both of whom have packs of hounds and have rounded their ears as my father and grandfather did. But that does not necessarily prove they are in the right. All I am asking is that when this operation is performed we shall conform to the general principle of the Bill by causing a local anæsthetic to be used.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in Schedule 5, after "Docking of the tail,' to insert "of animals over six months old." The noble Earl said: I move this Amendment because the evidence which was given by expert witnesses was that it would be less painful to perform this operation on
536
animals under six months than on animals over six months old. Animals under six months feel pain less than an animal which is more than six months old.
Amendment moved—
Fifth Schedule, page 5, line 15, after ("tail") insert ("of animals over six months old").—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
Amendments made by the Select Committee agreed to.

EXPRESS TRAIN SERVICES.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether the express passenger train leaving St. Pancras at 8.50 a.m. arrives at Carlisle at 4.18 p.m., exactly one minute after the Caledonian express leaves Carlisle for Stirling, Perth, and Aberdeen; whether this failure of connection is due to directions from the Railway Executive Committee; and whether the Board of Trade will do anything to make this valuable connection available to travellers from the important populous districts served by the Midland Railway.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, replies from the Caledonian and Midland Railway Companies on the points raised have been received to-day, and I shall be glad to show copies of them to my noble friend. It will be seen that both companies say that they cannot, in existing circumstances, alter the timing of their respective trains so as to allow passengers by the 8.50 a.m. train from St. Pancras to make a connection with the Caledonian train leaving Carlisle for Stirling, Perth and Aberdeen at 4.17 p.m.
As regards the second paragraph of the question, it will be seen from the railway companies' replies that the withdrawal of this pre-war facility was due to conditions brought about by the war, and while these conditions made it necessary for the Railway Executive Committee to give general instructions for the curtailment of train services throughout the country and to settle the principles governing the allocation of through traffic, the details of timetables are arranged by the railway com

537
panies themselves. Unfortunately difficulties of the nature of those indicated in the letters still exist, and both the Board of Trade and the Railway Executive Committee must necessarily leave questions of the restoration or extension of facilities largely to the decision of the individual railway companies. I trust that the noble Lord, who I understand is a railway director, will assist in the removal of these difficulties.

HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I should like to take the opportunity of joining in the welcome which has been accorded to this Bill in your Lordships' House, and to associate myself with everything the Lord Chancellor said as to the necessity of facing the housing conditions in Scotland. I am in hearty agreement with the Report of the Royal Commission on Housing in Scotland as to the necessity for immediate and drastic reform, but while welcoming the arrival of the Bill I must at the same time deplore certain of its provisions.
It will probably be admitted by your Lordships that on three lines this Bill is open to attack. Firstly, it imposes practically the whole of the re-housing in Scotland as a duty upon the local authorities; in the second place rural housing is not faced by the Bill, and certain sections of rural housing, such as crofter rural housing, is even by the Government admitted not to be dealt with by the Bill. The third point of criticism is on the question of occupying ownership, and especially the question of the possibility of co-partnership. I would like just to say a word or two on these three points. Firstly, on the question of local authority control. I do not think it can be too often insisted upon that the first and most important thing in the matter of housing in Scotland is the actual building of houses. To confine the whole action to the action of local authorities is to handicap yourselves in arriving at the state of things which we all desire. I do not know whether your Lordships are aware
538
that only 3 per cent. of the houses in Scotland have been built by public authorities in the last thirty years. The total number of houses built has been over a million, and the total number built by local authorities is under 3,500, of which 2,100 have been built in Glasgow, and only some 1,400 in the rest of Scotland. Therefore to impose upon an authority so inexperienced as the local authority the duty of building 250,000 houses, which is the number required in Scotland, seems to be giving to bodies without the necessary experience work which is quite outside their powers.
I say that you practically thrust the whole burden of building houses upon local authorities by this Bill. I say this because anybody who has followed the history of building in Scotland at all closely, is well aware of the steep gradations which exist in the figures as to the number of houses built in one year and another. I do not know whether your Lordships are aware that there was practically a drop of 34 per cent. in the numbers of the building trade in Scotland between 1901 and 1911. In the City of Glasgow before the war there were built houses at the rate of 5,300 a year. In 1910 the number had gone down as low as 280, and in 1911 to 200. Without going too far into the political side of the question, a great many of your Lordships believe that this absolute failure in house building in the period 1910–11 was in large degree due to a measure which we know well in this House. It is therefore a fair argument that housing is apt to be affected by legislation, and experience shows that it is directly affected by the action of local authorities who compete on what is considered to be unfair terms with the private builder.
I do not wish to pursue this matter too far, but I do wish to insist upon the point that if you wish to get houses built in the numbers which are required in Scotland, the Government are acting on a wrong policy in adopting a policy which will make the local authorities the only house builders. We have just had a sporting argument on the subject of fox hounds. I say it would be exactly similar if Lord Willoughby de Broke were, before riding at one of the stiffest fences in Warwickshire, to tie up three of his horse's legs. The Government is by its action and its failure to recognise private as well

539
as corporate action handicapping itself enormously in facing this problem, which is one of the most difficult and important questions which have to be faced.
Then as regards rural housing. Your Lordships have admitted that this Bill does not touch the crofter housing question at all. I submit that it barely touches the agricultural servant's question either. I would like just for a moment to recall to your Lordships what has happened over this question of rural housing both in the country and in another place. Members of the House of Commons showed the very greatest dissatisfaction with the Bill in its connection with rural housing. Conferences of various bodies were called, and practically at the demand of the Grand Committee the Secretary for Scotland attended a meeting in Edinburgh at which the whole of the county councils, the three Government Departments concerned, farmers, and representatives of all the country pursuits, were represented, and at which a practically unanimous resolution was passed, declaring that rural housing was not faced by the Bill and could not be faced unless the question of grants were considered.
It is very clear why rural housing cannot be faced by local authorities. If one takes the question of rural authority housing to the last analysis, one must agree that housing by the local authority is housing for the employer who neither houses his employees himself nor pays them sufficient wages to allow them to house themselves. It is different when dealing with the towns. The labour there is not necessarily that of a single individual. Labour can move from one employer to another, and it is not seen that housing by the local authority is really a subvention to low wages or failure to meet housing obligations. This is not the case in the country. In the country each individual works—I am talking of rural housing—for a special employer. In the town, and also admittedly in some villages, you have that community of interest which arises through the advantage resulting from the whole level of housing being raised. Individuals can then pass from one better house to the next. In the country the question of the tied employee makes this impossible. Therefore, unsatisfactory as this Housing Bill is to English agriculture, it is still more unsatisfactory in Scotland, for there we
540
have practically universally the tied house system in agriculture.
The result is that a village which can be helped by the local authority only supplies a very minute portion of the houses required by those who work on the land. From the practical point of view, if one regards the question of whether these rural local authorities are going to improve the housing conditions, one is faced with this fact. In all directions it will obviously be necessary that there must be some driving power before you can get the necessary consideration and vote on the subject. In county councils where you have a division both of interests and of politics it is very difficult to see what can be done. Outside the agricultural labourer, who only takes a very small part in county council work, it is difficult to see exactly which class is going to give the necessary vote to get rural housing through. It will be very difficult for the landowner to vote houses for himself at the public expense, or to vote for houses for other proprietors who have not housed their farm servants properly. The farmer, on the other hand, will not see his way clear to vote for the landlord having houses at the State's expense. Again, it is difficult to see how the crofters, who represent so large a number of small holders, are going to be enthusiastic about voting houses which they are to pay for but of which, under the Bill, they are not going to have the least advantage. It is therefore difficult to see where the necessary driving power is to come from to get the rural housing question adequately faced. The unfortunate position in which any member of a county council would be who bad to put in motion either by direct or indirect action the machinery by which he himself would get some advantage out of the local grant can easily be realised.
My third line of criticism is in regard to the slight attention which has been given to the possibilities which underlie occupying ownership by co-partnership tenants. Your Lordships are no doubt aware that in England a Co-partnership Tenants' Society exists which in 1909 had only some £36,000 invested in land, and which by 1914 had an interest in land and houses that amounted to £1,500,000. I submit that if this question of housing had been faced on broad and comprehensive lines an opportunity would have been afforded for the men who have returned from abroad once more to

541
resume their occupations as workmen. Moreover, the Government had a great opportunity of doing something for those who wished to acquire houses and become occupying owners.
I have given your Lordships an example of the extent to which co-partnership tenancy has been worked in England, and I will now turn to Scotland. In Scotland we had even before the war several successful instances of co-partnership ownership. I need not point out what the advantages are to the country during a time such as we are likely to go through of having a number of returned soldiers on the land with the stability that is given by having a definite stake in the country. Had that been done it would have been a measure which, I am sure, would have had the greatest support from every class of the community. The high wages which are paid at present would have made the acquirement of a house much more possible than was the case in the past. I will give your Lordships an example from Scotland. In the town of Falkirk men acquired their own houses with wages which in those days only averaged something like 25 s. a week. Notwithstanding the rise in the price of building it would have been possible, had the Government faced this question in a broad and liberal way, to have very much increased occupying ownership. From the experience that I have gained by addressing meetings in Scotland on the subject I am quite satisfied that the demand for occupying ownership has increased and is increasing, and if it had been faced adequately by the Government we should have had considerable results in that direction.
In conclusion, I would like to say that every well wisher of Scottish rural housing must regret this Bill as it stands to-day. I do not believe that you are going to make real progress in rural housing, and, from the remarks that one hears from time to time not only from Members of Parliament but also from the Government officials who have been travelling about the country, one feels that they have no more confidence than we have ourselves in the development of rural housing. I was informed to-day by one who is most likely to know that not 50 per cent. of the rural county councils in England had sent in schemes, and we have seen Ministers going about the country trying to "ginger up" the local authorities to do the work.
I admit it is essential that action should
542
be taken, but I think it is not so much that the local authority is on its trial but that this Bill is on its trial, and that it has been shown that the Government is not likely to face the rural housing problem. At the present time the lips of members of the Government are full of phrases such as "back to the land," but if this Bill is not a success in the rural areas (as I think we are bound to admit it is not likely to be) you are actually subsiding the towns at the expense of the country. You are voting these large sums of money, which are not going to be spent in the country because the method of spending that money is not suitable, and you are going to subsidise the building of more houses in the towns and increase the rate at which the people will flock from the country into the better houses in the towns.
Our position in this House is such that we are unable to offer any constructive Amendments which are of the least value. You have seen the treatment which our Amendments in the English Bill have received in another place. I am certainly not going to take the trouble to put down Amendments which I believe would help the working of the Act, because Parliamentary arrangements are such that they would be ruled out without consideration in another place. But I would ask your Lordships seriously to consider that as this Bill, drafted as it is, entirely fails to face the rural conditions, you should seriously consider the question of making more use of public utility societies than the Bill does. I would suggest that the Regulations of those societies should not form part of the Bill, but should be settled by the various executives, and that the Government should insist that these Regulations should be such as to allow those people who wish to build in the country to take advantage of the meagre opportunities which they have. Otherwise rural housing will not improve; it will get worse.
I am not going again to enlarge upon crofter housing which I discussed the other night, but I trust we shall receive something more definite from His Majesty's Government about crofter housing policy than we received front the noble Lord opposite. We have had experience in the past in the Highlands of these vague promises of reform in crofter conditions. But the existing crofter is not of the slightest interest to the politician—it is only the possible crofter who could be put into an

543
impossible deer forest where there is imaginary land on which he can settle, but on which, as a matter of fact, he does not want to settle, who is of the slightest interest to the politician. We had exactly the same proposition in the 1911 Bill, and, although £200,000 per annum was voted, I have proved absolutely right in the statement I made then that none of this money would be of any benefit to the existing crofter. And, in regard to this £2,500,000 which are going to be used under the Land Settlement Bill, unless the strictest instructions are given to the Government that the crofter housing question is to be faced on adequate lines that money will not be employed to put the houses of crofters on Government land into the same condition as prevails on the average privately owned estate in Scotland. I hope, therefore, the Government will consider, in view of the unfortunate position of the rural housing, those questions of the Regulations for public utility societies, and also the question of the crofters who are actually to-day on the soil.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, I should like entirely to endorse everything that the noble Lord has said. He has represented the case well to your Lordships. Housing in Scotland is admittedly bad, and, although probably not by any means the whole of the shortage comes from the so-called "People's Budget" of 1909 that is the main reason why the housing in Scotland at present is so very bad. It has certainly turned out a Budget for which the people were made to suffer in lack of houses, and now the country has got to pay huge sums—probably three times what it would have cost to build these houses by private enterprise. I know, for instance, a certain case on my own estate in a large town where it was proposed by a society to have a small garden city. They were going to have a hundred acres for cottages, negotiations were well forward, the 1909 Act came in, and nothing more was heard of it. And there have been similar cases in many places.
My noble friend has pointed out the great danger to the rural districts. As your Lordships who have lived in or visited Scotland know, on farms in Scotland practically the whole of the farm servants' houses are situated in close proximity to the farm buildings, whereas in England the labourers live in the villages. That
544
is one reason why in this Bill it is almost impossible for the local authorities, even if they are willing to do so, to provide accommodation for farm servants. Numerous people throughout Scotland have considered how under this Bill assistance could be given to improve the conditions of the housing of the farm servants, and no one yet has come anywhere near a solution, and His Majesty's Government have not been able to give any light on that very serious question.
We have not only got the difficulty that money is going to be provided for the local authority, and practically the local authority only, for purposes of this kind, but, in addition, they have a prior call on all material. I know on my estate, where probably the housing is quite as good as on most others, we found it possible during the war to undertake a great deal of work with labour and materials, but in that case, where we did not expect or want any grant, there has been enormous difficulty in carrying it out because we were unable to obtain material, on which the local authorities had a prior claim. Under this Bill they have the sole claim.
It is no good in future years coming to the landowners of Scotland, as the Government probably will do, and saying "We want to put the people back on the land, and you have done nothing for them." At the present time it is impossible for landlords to do what they wish in providing the necessary accommodation, but when it comes to providing houses for any of these discharged and disabled soldiers it is even worse. I myself have had cases, as I daresay your Lordships have, of disabled soldiers who wanted a small amount of land for poultry or something of that kind. In Scotland there is some difficulty about the land which is chiefly under lease, but the real difficulty is housing. It is a perfect mockery to talk of "back to the land," and to tell these discharged and disabled soldiers that they are going to be well provided for, if at the same time conditions are made not only not to improve housing in rural areas but actually to make the matter more difficult than it has been in the past. There is a serious shortage of houses in Scotland.
Although I am afraid it is not possible under this Bill for your Lordships to make such alterations as will make the measure effective, I hope His Majesty's Government will look seriously into this question;

545
because if they do not I am sure that before long there will be not only great disappointment throughout the country but the people will feel that they have been deceived, and then there will be trouble. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has put down several Amendments to bring the Bill somewhat into line with the English Bill. I am glad he has done so. There are certain other Amendments which, perhaps, might be desirable, but I think, speaking generally, if the Government will accept Amendments to bring the Bill into line with the English Housing Bill there will not be much difficulty in the Committee stage. I trust that the Government will bear in mind what my noble friend Lord Lovat has said. I am sure that His Majesty's Government and your Lordships would like if possible to put the thing on a sound footing so that we may in reality have an opportunity of keeping the land in cultivation, employing as many people as possible on the land, and supplying small holdings to men who are either wholly or partially disabled
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Your Lordships will hardly think it convenient that I should attempt anything in the nature of a full reply to the elaborate speech made by Lord Lovat. I was glad to note that the noble Duke if not extravagant in his praise for the Bill at any rate was less pessimistic about it than was Lord Lovat.
LORD LOVAT: I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but I should like to say that I welcome the Bill. I think it will solve a great many of our troubles in Scotland, although I believe it is open to the three objections to which I called attention.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I rejoice to hear what the noble Lord says. If noble Lords when they found it necessary to involve us in their censure gave us at the same time such compensating refreshment, it would greatly relieve the tasks of Ministers. I am glad to hear what the noble Lord says, though I confess I did not gather that impression from his speech. The noble Duke adopts the same view. His conclusion is that if this Bill is brought into line with the English Bill as it left this House it is a measure which, if it does not make the full contribution he hoped for, at any rate makes a considerable contribution to this problem.
546
It must not be supposed that the Government in adopting this Bill did not give the deepest consideration to its tenour and to the alternative methods by which their object might have been attained. I am sure that my noble friend did not intend—when he referred to the mockery of saying "Back to the land"—that a serious effort has not been made. No one can say that the Government has not laboured ever since the Armistice in the preparation of these schemes, and the best expert help available has been consulted throughout. The Scottish Office contains many people who are highly experienced in these matters, and the Government have resorted also to the advice of many others on all these points. I can see what the noble Lord would have preferred. In the interests of what he called the "tied house system" he would have preferred the method to have been adopted of granting subventions on a large scale to Individuals instead of proceeding through the agency of the local authority. All I can say is that this matter was carefully considered but it was deliberately rejected. It would certainly not have recommended itself to the House of Commons; it was the clear view of the Government that the House of Commons would not have sanctioned such a course. The Cabinet itself, I say plainly, took an express decision upon this particular point, and, apart from the view taken of it in the House of Commons, they were opposed to it because they formed the deliberate opinion, after taking the best possible advice, that it was preferable to proceed through the local authority. The noble Lord, I may say in passing, was not content with mentioning his pessimism in regard to Scotland but he brought it across the border. In regard to what he said as to the number of schemes presented by local authorities in England, may I say that a far larger number have made their schemes than might have been expected. It must not be forgotten that a great deal of complicated work has had to be done.
I may, perhaps, deal with another observation made by the noble Lord. He said that he hoped there would be regulations under the public utility society provisions which would secure to him what he wanted. I also hope that there will be definitions under that branch of the Bill which will give him what he wants. In addition, I may inform him that this was one of the objects of the Government in

547
introducing that part of the Bill. I think that it is not only probable but certain that there will be regulations under this part of the Bill which will give great satisfaction to the noble Lord. May I also point out to him that Clause 19 says this with regard to loans—
"Where the owner of a house or building applies to the local authority of the district in which the house or building is situated for assistance for the purpose of carrying out works for the reconstruction, enlargement, or improvement of the house or building, and the authority are of opinion that after the works are carried out the house or building would be in all respects fit for habitation as a house or houses for the working classes, and that the circumstances of the district in regard to housing accommodation are such as to make it desirable that the works should be carried out, the authority may lend to the owner the whole or any part of such sum as may be necessary to defray the cost of the works and any costs, charges, or expenses incidental thereto.…"
The noble Earl will see that in subsection (4) of Clause 19 "owner" is defined as including "joint owner, fiar, feuar, and lessee under a lease recorded under the Registration of Leases (Scotland) Act, 1857." That gives considerable power. I think we must proceed to the Committee stage. Everybody knows that only by a detailed examination of the clauses in Committee shall we be in a position to consider how far some of these gloomy predictions of the noble Earl are well-founded. The noble Lord asked that the Government should make some further statement than was made by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, the other night. The noble Lord must not suppose that answers are given here without some care being taken about them. It was not possible to say more. I thought the noble Earl said a great deal. It is impossible, of course, for the Government to issue bulletins, at intervals of about three days, with reference to their views. The noble Lord must really take it that what was then said expressed the intention of the Government. I consider the noble Lord underrated the very genuine desire which was displayed in the speech of tie noble Earl to do something for a section of the population which the noble Lord has referred to. He returns to the charge and demands, after I think about three or four days, that a new statement should be made, which I think it is not possible to do.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[Lord DENMAN in the Chair.]
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I beg to move that the House do now resume. We propose to take the Amendments to this Bill on Friday.
House resumed.

RESTORATION OF PRE-WAR PRACTICES (No.3) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
[The sitting was suspended at ten minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine.]

LAND SETTLEMENT (FACILITIES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
VISCOUNT PEEL: The amendment which I propose on this Clause is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Clause 9, page 5, line 29, leave out ("an") and insert ("a perpetual")—(Viscount peel.)
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Duties of county councils with respect to sale or lease of land.
11.—(1) Land acquired by a county council under the principal Act, shall be sold or let by the council at the best price or sum that can reasonably be obtained, and where sold or let for small holdings be sold or let, except where the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for any special reason otherwise direct, subject to a reservation of all minerals vested in the council.
(2) Where land is sold for small holdings or an option to purchase a small holding is given at any time before the first day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, the sale or option shall only be made or given subject to the approval of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
(3) A council may give to the tenant of a small holding an option to purchase the holding on such terms as may be agreed and be consistent with the provision of this section, and on any such sale any increase of the value of the land due to improvements executed by and at the expense of the tenant shall not be taken into account in estimating the best price obtainable for the land.
(4) A council, when selling or letting a small holding at any time before the expiration of two years after the passing of this Act, shall give preference to suitable men who have served at any time in the forces of the Crown and to suitable women who are certified by the Board to have been engaged in whole-time employment oil agricultural work for a period of not less than six months during the present war.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY (on behalf of LORD BLEDISLOE)THE EARL OF MALMESBURY (on behalf of LORD BLEDISLOE) moved to leave out subsection (3) and to insert the following new subsection:
"(3).—(a) Subject to the approval of the Baird of Agriculture and Fisheries, a tenant of a small holding shall have the option at any time during his tenancy of purchasing his holding from the Council, and, if the tenant so desires, the purchase money shall be paid by means of a purchase annuity which shall be fixed by the Treasury, and the annuity shall be calculated at the lowest rate winch will, in the opinion of the Treasury, secure the Treasury against loss.
(b)The purchase annuity shall be paid until the whole of the advance is ascertained, in a manner prescribed by the Treasury, to have been paid, and the terms of purchase shall also include such other terms as are not inconsistent with this section.
"(c)On any purchase under this section, any increase of the value of the land due to improvements executed by and at the expense of the tenant shall not be taken into account in fixing the purchase money payable by the purchaser."
The noble Earl said: I rise to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, who is unfortunately unable to be in his place in the House to-day. The point is really this, that the tenant of a small holding shall have the option to purchase the holding, and be able to do so by a terminable annuity on the security of the land. The history of the Amendment is this. A proposal of the Agricultural group in the House of Commons was discussed in the Standing Committee, and eventually came before the House of Commons on Report stage. During all those stages of the Bill an undertaking was given that this Amendment should be favourably considered, and on the Report stage Sir Arthur Boseawen, Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, said he would carefully consider it with the President of the Board in order to see whether it could be inserted in another place. I think it is a much more
550
desirable way of enabling soldiers and sailors to settle on the land than that proposed by the Bill.
It is extremely difficult to legislate by reference, and this Bill refers to the principal Act of 1908. Under the Act of 1908, I believe I am right, the tenant can exercise his option of purchase provided he deposits one-fifth of the purchase value. Under this Bill the county council may, or may not, grant him the right to purchase, but at the present moment it is entirely with the county council to say whether or not he may purchase his holding. What I desire to do—I notice the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill has an Amendment down on time Paper—is that in case the Board of Agriculture approve of the application, and the Treasury makes favourable arrangements, the tenant may purchase his holding and do so by means of a terminable annuity.
May I call attention to a passage in the Preface which the President of the Board of Agriculture penned to a book on "Occupying Ownership of Land." He wrote—
"Where the State lends to a public body or an individual the risk is the same. If it is reasonably safe to lend to a public body it is reasonably safe to lend to the individual. The risk is slight. If the first two yearly instalments are paid the risk is infinitesimal, and the land remains as security throughout the, continuance of the loan. Whether an owner or tenant will produce most from the land is a question which depends more than anything else on the character of the individual, but given two men of similar disposition experience proves that the strongest incentive to increase of output is that of ownership."
That is the opinion of Lord Ernle, and I submit it is a strong argument in favour of the Amendment. It is not one which comes solely from the brain of my noble friend or myself. This Amendment has behind it the whole weight of the Rural League. Those who know the work of the Rural League and its close connection with those who are desirous of becoming small owners, will know that it represents a very representative body of opinion in this country. It was only very recently that I had an interview with Sir John Green, the very able Secretary of the Rural League, and referring to the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Viscount opposite—the Government Amendment—he said that he did not consider that it really , the case, as there was no effectual option.
I do not want to detain your Lordships, but I hope that the Government will give

551
this very careful consideration. I confess I regret the fact that the advantage of this Bill should not have been limited to those who served their country overseas. I understood that the noble Viscount the other day referred to the fact that munition workers were included in the advantage; to be obtained from the Bill. I can only say that I rather regret that, because the greater the number of individuals who require holdings the more difficult will it be to come to terms, and I understood that most of the munition workers were skilled hands in other trades. If this is not so, then many of them should have served as soldiers, and therefore would be far better employed in other things than agriculture. I hope I have been able, on behalf of Lord Bledisloe, to make the case fairly clear for this Amendment, because it is difficult always to amend a Bill which deals with this subject by reference; but I trust I have been able to make the matter sufficiently clear. Under the old Act of 1908, I believe I am right in saying that if a tenant deposits one-fifth of the purchase money he is entitled to acquire the ownership of the holding.
VISCOUNT PEEL: No, that is not so.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I have in mind a case of which I will give the noble Viscount particulars, in which a small holder in the county of Cambridgeshire leased fifty acres from the County Council, and he is doing fairly well. He wanted to put down one-fifth of the purchase money and to purchase the small holding under the Act of 1908, but the council would not entertain the application. Under the Act the council may sell. There is no mandatory power, and it is feared that precisely the same thing would happen under this Bill unless the right is given. The point which I wish to make, and which those who represent the case to me wish to make, is that if, under those circumstances, the tenant is unable to purchase the holding, under this Bill and under existing conditions the ex-soldier would be unable to purchase his holding, and I hope the noble Viscount on behalf of the Government will be able to meet the Amendment
Amendment moved—
Page 7, lines 4 to 10, leave out subsection and insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think it will be clear to my noble friend that I cannot accept this Amendment. It gives an
552
absolute right to any of these small holders to purchase his small holding. His Majesty's Government of course do not object to, but in fact they favour, the purchase of holdings, but there must be some discretion left to the county councils as landlords. They could not allow any particular holding to be picked out and purchased without reference to the rest of the property, and very many of these estates could be purchased without having regard to the rest of the property. Moreover I think that my noble friend also will see that it would militate very much against the whole, purpose of the Bill, because if any small holder, the moment that he became a tenant, had this absolute right of purchase—and purchase also on very easy terms—it is quite clear that the county council would have to exercise a much severer judgment over the man if he were their tenant than if he were to purchase, because their whole security would rest on the character of the man and his capacity for keeping the farm in good cultivation, and they would think twice. before they put a man in if the moment they put him in he had the absolute right of purchase. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not press his Amendment. I know that this is to be subject to the approval of the Board of Agriculture, but the Board of Agriculture is not nearly in such a good position as the county council for judging whether the man himself is the sort of man who can be a purchaser, and it would be a bad thing to so interfere with the discretion of the county councils in this matter as that they should be over-ridden by the Board of Agriculture. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will be content to leave the discretion in the hands of the county council.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am sorry that I did not hear the opening remarks of my noble friend, but I presume we are on the Amendment in the name of Lord Bledisloe and which my noble friend Lord Malmesbury has moved. I regard this as an Amendment of the greatest possible importance. It is an Amendment for the first time definitely to embody in an Act of Parliament the right of a small holder, on fair terms, to acqure the freehold of the land which he starts, perhaps as a tenant. This has been a subject of considerable contention between the two main parties in the State for a good many years past. When Lord Lincolnshire (then Lord Car-

553
rington) was President of the Board of Agriculture he, believed almost. exclusively in the small holder remaining a tenant of the county council, and he did nothing to facilitate the small holder becoming an owner. The Act as it exists at present, although it includes a certain provision designed to enable the small holder to become owner, has been practically useless, because the terms of the Act, according to my recollection, require the small holder to put down such a sum of money in purchase of the land as is usually quite out of his power.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have put down an Amendment to assist. that.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am aware of the Amendment, but I venture to think that it does not go far enough. Speaking to the Amendment which my noble friend has moved, I first of all want to make the general point that it is immensely in the interests of the nation that as many men its possible who are small holders should become owners of the land they cultivate. You have only to point to the example of foreign countries, particularly France, to see what an immense element of stability that right introduces into the social system of the nation. Therefore on general grounds I cannot too strongly express my adhesion to the policy of giving the small holder on easy terms, through an annuity, the right to become the owner of the land that he tills. I am astonished that His Majesty's Government should put any difficulties in the way of the fulfilment of this policy. When you consider that two-thirds of the land of Ireland has been transferred to the Irish tenants by an exactly analagous process it does seem a strange thing that such a national Government as that which we at present possess should feet any difficulty in giving corresponding facilities to that comparatively small class of the population who are small holders under the county councils.
When you pass from the general considerations to the case of the sailors and soldiers who have served I contend that the case is stronger still. Here are men who, as we are told by the Board of Agriculture, are claiming in large numbers to become small holders. If they go to Canada or Australia or New Zealand what is offered to them? Not what the Government Bill offers them—practically a permanent tenancy with the opportunity of
554
becoming a freeholder under rather onerous conditions, but the certain opportunity within a short time of becoming a freeholder. It will not bear examination that the only part of the Empire in which these men who have fought for the Empire, and whose brothers have died for the Empire, are not to have an easy opportunity of becoming freeholders should be their own native land. 'That is my see, aid point.
Now I come to the objection which my noble friend raised—the difficulties of administration by the county council. I say as a past President of the Board of Agriculture that these difficulties are imaginary. I say it not only as a past President of the Board of Agriculture but as one who on his own county council has taken an interest in this matter, and knows how it. Stands. You have only got to go to the Report of the Agricultural Policy Sub-Committee. of the Committee on Reconstruction, of which I had the honour to be Chairman, to see the whole of this question dealt with and worked out, in detail, and there is not a single one of the arguments that my noble friend put forward in the closing part of his speech that is not answered in advance by that Report.
Not only that, but in the Report you will find an actual example of how this thing can be done, and has been done. The County Council of Bedfordshire, acting under the law which governs its proceedings, established on part of the estate of the Duke of Bedford a colony of small holders, tenants according to the Small Holdings Act. On the adjoining farm the Duke of Bedford of his own action established a colony of small holders under precisely similar conditions, but with the power for those small holders to acquire the freehold whenever they liked. There was no obligation on the whole of them to buy; all this question of the difficulties of administration has been proved by the experience of the Bedford estate to be absolutely imaginary. And side by side at the present time you will find one estate on one farm, owned by the County Council of Bedfordshire, in which nobody has any chance whatever of becoming the owner of the land he tills, and on the next farm you will find the colony established by the Duke of Bedford where at the present moment every single man is either a freeholder or on the way to becoming a freeholder.
In these circumetances I hope that my noble friend will insist on this Amendment.

555
In the House of Commons it met with very great sympathy. The Government did not take up as resolute an attitude of opposition as I understand from the closing remarks of my noble friend he has taken up on this occasion; and, as I believe a very great principle is involved in this Amendment I sincerely hope that your Lordships will support it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: There are two observations that I think I ought to make in reply to what my noble friend has said. He was contrasting the property of the Duke of Bedford and the small holdings of the Bedfordshire County Council. I have very great respect for the County Council of Bedfordshire, and surely my noble friend very much over-stated the case when he said that on that neighbouring estate not one of these small holders had the least chance of acquiring his freehold. On the contrary; it is absolutely within the competence of the county council to sell these small holdings to their tenants.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Only on the conditions of the Act.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will deal with that in a minute. But what my noble friend Lord Malmesbury is asking is to put it out of the power of the county council for any reason to refuse to sell those small holdings. My noble friend laid very great stress on the fact that under the Act before they purchase their holding they had to deposit one-fifth of the purchase money. If I may, I will refer to an Amendment that I have later on the Paper under which the county councils are allowed to modify or to suspend altogether the operation of the one-fifth deposit. You could not very well have the purchase of a small holding made more easy than to say that the county council has the power not to require at all the deposit of this one-fifth or of any part of the 20 per cent to be deposited before the purchase. The whole could be repaid over the annuity, and the annuity is extended from fifty to sixty years. Therefore it is not just to say that the Government have not made any effort to make it more easy for the small holder, whoever he may he, to acquire his holding.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I agree that my noble friend's proposal is an improvement on the present law, but in my humble judgment it does not go far enough. I have been a member of a county council
556
ever since county councils existed, and, like my noble friend, I have a great respect and admiration for the way they do their work. But I am much more concerned in this matter for the men on the land than I am for the county council, and I think it is not too much to ask for the men who have fought for their country that they should have the right, irrespective of the wish of the county council, to own their land if they desire. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will go to a Division.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: In reply to the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, may I say that I entirely agree with what has fallen from my noble friend Lord Selborne with regard to the importance of increasing the number of freeholders? I remember well that in the year 1911 I introduced into this House a small Land Purchase Bill in which a small sum was involved compared with the sums now spent by His Majesty's Government. That Bill was not favourably received by the Administration then in office because the Tenant Bill (as we called it) of 1908 had recently been introduced.
With regard to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Peel to the effect that the county councils would have to be very much more severe in their test, surely that is exactly what we want. We do not want to put undesirable men on the land; we want to apply the severest tests of a knowledge of agriculture before we put them there. There is another point that was raised by my noble friend Lord Selborne which I think is a strong argument in favour of the Amendment—namely, the case of Ireland. Why have all these advantages been given to the Irish, who as a unit of the United Kingdom have not taken on their full responsibilities as to military service, when they are denied to those here who have served their country well in these years of stress? Finally, like my noble friend Lord Selborne I have been a member of a county council for a great many years. I am on the Small Holdings Committee of that county council, and I can assure your Lordships that the number of applications we receive from men who are thoroughly qualified to become small holders is very large. Might I say, in conclusion, that with regard to the Rural League, which framed this Amendment in the first instance I believe, there are now over 1,000 applications alone for small holdings by ex-soldiers now waiting, which cannot possibly be satisfied.
On Question, whether the subsection proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?—
The voting being equal, the Amendment (according to ancient, rule) was not made.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, after subsection (3), to insert as a new subsection:
"(4) A council may by order in relation to sales or options for sale of small holdings provided by the council which are made or given while the order is in force, modify or suspend the operation of subsection (3) of section eleven of the principal Act (which requires the payment on completion of the purchase of a small holding of not lees than one-fifth of the purchase money) and extend the term within which the purchase money is required by subsection (5) of that section to be repaid, but so that the term shall not exceed sixty years. Provided that any order Wade under this subsection before the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and twenty-six, shall require the approval of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Treasury."
The noble Viscount, said: This is the Amendment to which I have already referred, and I understand your Lordships are prepared to accept it at once. It is to enable a county council to do away with, suspend or modify that, particular provision under which, if the small holder wishes to purchase his land, he must pay one-fifth of the purchase money as a deposit. This, of course, makes it far easier for him to purchase the land. Moreover, the period of fifty years is extended to sixty years, thereby making the repayment instalments smaller. During the first seven years, in which the particular financial arrangement that I explained on the Second Reading still holds, this arrangement must be subject to the Board of Agriculture.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 18.

CONTENTS.

Bradford, E.

Peel, V.

Ranksborough, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Shandon, L.

Jersey, E.

Chalmers, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Lytton, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Onslow, E.

Emmott, L.

Wittenham, L.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Wyfold, L.

Sandhurst, V.(L. Chamberlain.)

Ludlow, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Wicklow, E.

Denman, L.

Forester, L.

Brassey, E.

Hood, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Malmesbury, E. [Teller.]

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Selborne, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Stanhope, E. [Teller.]

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

St. Leavan, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Southwark, L.

Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 10, after subsection (3), insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Amendment of section, 41 of principal Act.
16.—(1) An order under the principal Act may, notwithstanding anything in section forty-one thereof, authorise the compulsory acquisition—

(a) of any land which at the date of the order forms part of any park or of any home farm attach-id to and usually occupied with a mansion house, if the land is not required for the amenity or convenience of the mansion house; or

(b)of a holding of fifty acres or less in extent or any part of such a holding.

(2) Where it is proposed to acquire any land forming part of a park or any such home farm, or, except where required for purposes of allotments, a holding of fifty acres or less in extent or of an annual value not exceeding fifty pounds for the purposes of income tax, or any part of such a holding, the order authorising the acquisition of the land shall not be valid unless confirmed or made by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in subsection (1), at the end of paragraph (b), to insert "except when such holding is the sole means of livelihood of the person who occupies it." The noble Earl said: The Amendment which I have on the

559
Paper is in respect of the clause which runs as follows—
"An Order under the principal Act may, notwithstanding anything in Section 41 thereof, authorise the compulsory acquisition—
"(b) Of a holding of fifty acres or less in extent or any part of such a holding."
The principal Act does not allow a small holding of fifty acres or less to be taken for the creation of another small holding.
Again, I must venture to appeal to my experience at the Board of Agriculture. I know the reason for the provision proposed to be inserted in this Bill, and it is this—that it has happened, not once or twice but fairly frequently, that a county council has found a small holding eminently adapted for a small holding, but held separately from a farm, very likely a big farm, by a farmer, who not only farms the big farm but also the small holding. That seems to be a case particularly suitable for the exercise of the compulsory powers of the Act, so that this small holding, which is not necessarily for the living of the farmer, should be taken and used as a small holding.
I do not for one moment oppose the powers proposed to be given under the clause so far, but the clause seems to me to go much too far. It would enable a county council to turn out a bona fide small holder in order to put in another small holder. It would enable a county council to turn out a man, to compulsorily acquire the small holding of a man, who was a small holder in the strictest sense of the word, and place another man on the small holding. I do not think that is at all in accordance with public policy or equity.
We all want to increase the number of small holders, but you are not increasing the number if you turn out one man and put another in his place. You are merely substituting a man who has probably less experience as a small holder for one who has more experience. It may be said that the case is never likely to arise; that a county council would never be so foolish.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I knew my noble friend would say that, but here I speak from personal experience of the Board of Agriculture, and I know of cases where county councils have wished to take land occupied by a bona fide small holder
560
in order to put in some other small holder, but were precluded from doing so by the terms of the principal Act. The Amendment I propose would leave it entirely in the power of the county council to take these small holdings for the purpose of small holdings unless occupied by a person who had no other means of livelihood. I maintain that it is a perfectly reasonable Amendment. From my own experience I say it is necessary, and I hope the Government will not oppose it.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 30, after ("holding") insert ("except when such holding is the sole means of livelihood of the person who occupies it").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My noble friend speaks, of course, with wide experience on this matter, and I feel sure that one of the results of his experience must be to prove to him that it really is not very wise in these administrative questions to have hard and fast lines. For instance, as he rightly says, the old rule was that these small holdings could not be touched by county councils when they had once been created. And what was the result of having this rigid rule? The result was that all these little arrangements were made by which the whole object of the creation of these small holdings was defeated and were improperly protected by this division of farms into more than one portion. There are many other cases of the same kind where really improper protection, and unexpected protection, was given to these small holdings. There were also cases of accommodation land near towns where it was quite right they should be taken for small holdings and givers up to a different form of cultivation.
The noble Earl, undeterred by this rigid rule which he says has not worked well in the past, wishes to provide, I quite admit, against these particular cases which have already arisen, but there are all kinds of other cases which may, and possibly will, arise which make it unwise to accept his Amendment as it stands. There are many cases where land has been sold and the small holder has often been anxious, for his own protection and in order that he may not be turned out, that his small holding should be acquired by the county council. If this rule holds, and if there was any difficulty about the price with the owner, the small holder would not be

561
able to avail himself of, nor would the county council be able to give him, that protection which he might have if more administrative freedom were allowed to the Board of Agriculture.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: He could surrender his holding.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is what he does not want to do.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then why does the noble Viscount say he wants protection?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am afraid I have not stated it quite clearly. There are cases where an owner has on his property small holders. I have got a good many myself; and supposing I want to sell my property, how then does the man know that the purchaser may not wish to throw a lot of these small farms into a large one and turn out the small holders? It might perfectly well happen. Then this small holder appeals to the county council, and he says "Will you buy my small holding, because in that way I shall get protection." If this rule stands the county council would not be able to do it and give that protection he might fairly have.
Then my noble friend says "Oh, but how hard it would be, and how useless it would be from the point of view of public policy, if you are going to turn out one small holder to put in another." That is an extreme case. I certainly can answer for two county councils that I know, and say that it is incredible that they should perform so foolish an action. My noble friend opposite, no doubt, has wider experience than I have, and he says there are cases where that might happen, but they must surely be very rare cases, and public opinion would operate against them. How can we legislate for such extreme and foolish action on the part of county councils? Must we not assume that they will generally act with good sense? Again it would not be always the case that the county councils would want land to put somebody else in. There might be some portion of it which might more conveniently go in with another holding.
As regards the specific Amendment of my noble friend, I think it is a little difficult to interpret it, because he says that the small holding shall not in this way be
562
protected except when such the Sole of livelihood of the person who occupies it. I am not really sure what that means. A small holder with a holding of forty acres might have a small income from the Funds. Are we then to look into the matter in every such case and see whether the man has some other possible means of livelihood. I suggest that not only would it be unwise to shackle the county councils in this way, but that in practice the matter would be extremely difficult to administer, because you would have unlimited inquiries as to whether in fact a particular small holder bad or had not some other means of livelihood. I therefore strongly urge your Lordships to leave the matter as it is in the Bill, and to have some confidence in the common sense of these county councils, and not to put in this administrative regulation which has been shown in the past to have bad results, which may easily cause unexpected. difficulties in the future, which would be entirely removed or would not exist if we leave the Bill as it is.
LORD ST. LEVAN: I do not think my noble friend opposite has touched the point raised by Lord Selborne. His point is that if a man is dependent entirely upon his small holding of under fifty acres, and you take away part of that, you practically ruin him. Does the noble Lord opposite mean to say that people can invest in holdings under fort acres and make a living?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have a great number of tenants with under forty acres who are doing well.
LORD ST. LEVAN: Yes, of a certain class no doubt. You can exist on thirty to forty acres of good dairy land, and you can exist on that amount of market gardening land, but the ordinary farmer cannot exist on a farm of under fifty acres. Do you say that that can be reduced without injury to the holder? Is the noble Lord going to reduce the amount of land that a man will held to ten acres or five acres? Does he say that if a man has ten acres the authority can take a portion of that land away from him? If so what will be the means of the man's livelihood then? I cannot conceive what means of livelihood will be left to him. Has the noble Lord any instances of county councils objecting to this limit of fifty acres? No such objection has come before me, and I have

563
had something to do with the subject. I would further point out that a great. many of these small holder during the course of the war have been called upon to cultivate their holdings in a manner which they did not intend to do, entirely for the good of the country, and that they have met the requirements of the country in an exemplary way. If the reward of these people, having done is to be that they are to be turned out of their holdings, or that their holdings are to be materially reduced, what sort of encouragement is that to them to act in the same way in future? I cannot conceive why the Government wants to make this alteration in the existing law when so far as I know there has not hitherto been any objection.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I hope that the noble Lord will not press his objection to this Amendment. In the majority of counties in England—I should say nine out of ten—you cannot cultivate a farm of under fifty acres with the slightest chance of agricultural success. The noble Lord in order to appease the land hunger, which has not arisen in a very acute form up to this moment, is going to undertake the most uneconomic action which has ever been undertaken in this House with regard to land.
I only wish the noble Lord—though I could hardly wish it for any individual—had had to deal with Irish land for a great number of years. He would then know what the penalty is of taking away land from a man who can hardly make a living from it, and giving it to another man who has had no experience of making a living on it. That is precisely what he is going to do. The Government says: "Here is a landlord at one end with a farm which we can encroach upon. We will encroach upon it, giving him only the resource of an appeal to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. And here is a man at the other end who has the lowest number of acres which can possibly be cultivated with economic success. We will give the county council power to take from him that land, even if it happen to be his sole means of livelihood." The thing is absolutely laughable.
It is not only unpractical but absolutely opposed to all economic laws, and if my noble friend does not succeed in carrying it on a Division in the Committee I hope we shall renew the attack on Report. There is not a landlord sitting on that side of the House, whatever vote he may have to give,
564
who does not know that he would never think of planting anybody on his land with less than fifty acres if he could possibly avoid it because he knows that if he has no other means of livelihood he has no possible chance of making a livelihood out of a less amount. And may I add that if my noble friend would hot insist in fighting on his bad points as well as his good points, in a Bill which is bristling with bad points, I think it would be of advantage to the Committee.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I really think my noble friend should not assume that this Bill is so full of bad points when he has completely failed to meet the arguments of my noble friend Lord Peel He has not attempted to meet the arguments of my noble friend. Lord Peel said that in his own experience, quite apart from what he learned from the Board of Agriculture this difficulty had arisen in the past. I am only acquainted with two county councils, but, if I may say so, they are men of substance and of common sense. The Lancashire County Council, in particular, I am acquainted with. They are not going to turn a man from a fifty-acre holding in order to put in another man who has a fifty-acre holding. If this power is exercised by them it will be probably to effect a combination—one small holding perhaps in the centre of a field they may buy or one small holding with two or three other small holdings. By acquiring that small holding they might get more men on to the land. That is the kind of thing that will arise. I have no experience of south country holdings, but I will engage to say that, a substantial county council such as the Lancashire County Council, is not going to commit the follies that Lord Midleton attributes to them.
Let me now refer to the Amendment itself. Lord Selborne's Amendment excepts the cases where the holding is the sole means of livelihood of the person who holds it. That is drawn in very drastic terms. What is the result of it going to be? Lord Selborne proposes to exclude from this subsection (b) any man who owns a cottage besides a small holding, any man who has got £100, or even £10 in War Stock, any man who does occasional carting or casual labour—which is what we want our small holders to do. He excludes any man who works elsewhere, a fisherman, for instance or—as there are on my estate in scores—colliers who have got small hold

565
ings. Above all, he excludes every soldier who is receiving a pension from the State.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: What an extraordinary argument for my noble friend to use! He tells you that in regard to the county council I am quite wrong; there is not the slightest chance of any county council using this power which is given, and then he turns round and says this Amendment is drawn so drastically that it excludes men who have other small means of livelihood. A more absurdly inconsistent argument I never heard across the floor of this House.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No, I was replying to Lord Mildeton, who said we were absurd—that the noble Earl's Amendment went so far as to exclude everybody who had got a sixpence outside the small bolding.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: You ought to be very glad of that, according to your own Amendment. You ought to welcome it as the most reasonable feature of the Amendment. I say quite definitely that there are county councils of England and Wales who will misuse this power if they get the chance. That is my personal opinion based on experience. And the whole reason for this change in the law is the fact that holdings have been held in plurality. I admit that as a general reason. I say that when holdings are held in plurality let the county councils take the small holding. When the small holding is the sole livelihood of a man I say let him be undisturbed in his holding.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I want to say only a word in reply to the general arguments
used by my noble friend Lord St. Levan. With dramatic gesture he said. "What! These Mill have been told during the War not to use the land in the way they prefer; they may have ploughed up this and they have ploughed up that; they have been directed as to their method of agriculture; and now you are going to turn them out." Are we going to listen to a general attack of that kind on the county councils? Many of your Lordships are chairmen of county councils, and many others of you sit on those bodies, yet we are to assume that they will act with injustice towards men who have fought for their country during the war. This is an attack on the whole Bill. If you are going to assume that the county councils will conduct their business in the absurd fashion suggested by my noble friend, you had better throw out the whole Bill Because it depends on good administration by the county councils. We must attribute to those bodies some degree of common sense, and not suppose that they are going to occupy their time in hunting off the land men who have been discharging their duty to the State honestly.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I do not see that my noble friend is justified in making that observation. You have no right to hold out to a county council an indication of the course they can pursue as being the considered opinion of Parliament when everyone knows it is a thoroughly uneconomic doctrine.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be inserted shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 28.

CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Selborne, E.

Clinton, L.

Stanhope, E. [Teller.]

Erksine, L.

Salisbury, M.

Waldegrave, E.

Forester, L.

Wicklow, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Brassey, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Churchill, V.

St. Levan, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Hood, V.

Sandys, L.

Onslow, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Willoughby de Broke, L. [Teller.]

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Annesley, L.

Ludlow, L.

Chalmers, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Bradford, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Rotherham, L.

Jersey, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Shandon, L.

Lytton, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Emmott, L.

Southwark, L.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Faringdon, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Cave, V.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Wittenham, L.

Peel, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Wyfold, L.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 25 agreed to.
Clause 26:
Recoupment of losses incurred in exercise of powers under principal Act.
26.—(1) At the end of the financial year ending on the thirty-first day of March in the year nineteen hundred and twenty and of each of the six succeeding years the Board shall pay to a council of a county the loss (if any) which may be shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to have been reasonably or necessarily incurred by the council during the financial year in the exercise of their powers under the principal Act otherwise than in relation to small holdings of lees than one acre.
(2) The Board shall, on the passing of this Act, pay to a council of a county the loss (if any) which may be shown to the satisfaction of the Board to have been reasonably or necessarily incurred by the council in the exercise of their powers under the principal Act during the period from the first day of January nineteen hundred and eight to the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and nineteen.
LORD WITTENHAM LORD WITTENHAM moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: On the Second Reading of this Bill I made a few remarks on this subsection. I now raise the point once again in order to get a fuller explanation if I can from the noble Viscount who has charge of the Bill. The answer he gave me on the Second Reading was that the past losses would really be quite inconsiderable—probably £10,000 or £20,000 at the most. I raised the point not so much on the question of amount, although that came in; but I did not quite understand why it was that the old Act of 1908 did not contain within its own four corners a complete system of finance which enabled it to deal with the losses incurred.
I remember sitting for many days upstairs in the House of Commons in 1908. The then Mr. Harcourt was in charge of the Bill, and I know the question of finance was most thoroughly gone into, and the Bill was supposed to have been made watertight in that respect. Evidently it was not so in fact, because now your Lordships are asked to sweep out any losses that may have been incurred under the principal Act between 1909 and March 31 of this present year. I ventured to say on the Second Reading that I thought the country had quite sufficient liabilities to meet in
568
the future under the terms of this Bill without being called upon 'to sweep up old losses incurred under the principal Act. The noble Viscount said, in his explanation, that it was part of a bargain made with the county councils, who, in return for this and as part of their duty, would be content to act in this way as agents for the Board of Agriculture for the ensuing seven years. Perhaps when the noble Viscount deals a little more closely with the losses, if he is able, he will also be good enough to tell your Lordships what is meant by a bargain with the county councils. I should have thought that if it were a right thing to do under the Bill, it would be done without making some bargain behind the scenes. When I say "behind the scenes" I do not mean improperly, of course. Probably, there is some further explanation. If there is I would ask the noble Viscount to give it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am very glad to do what I can in order to explain to my noble friend. I do not know that I can add very much to what. I said on a previous occasion. I do not know whether I should have used the word "bargain" or whether that word suggests to my noble friend something of an unpleasant nature. It merely means, of course, an arrangement with the county councils so that they shall act for the ensuing seven years as the agents for the Board of Agriculture and the Government in the creation of these small holdings. As my noble friend knows, they are financed by the Government in so doing. The whole of their properties, both newly created small holdings and old ones under the previous Act, are to be treated for this purpose as one estate.
They will act therefore as agents for the Board of Agriculture for their estates in the county for seven years and at the end of that time, as I think I have explained, the whole of this property, subject to the valuation arrangements made under the Bill, will be handed back. Perhaps "handed back" is not the correct phrase, because no actual transfer takes place. The county councils will be fully responsible for them for the future and for the financial operations. My noble friend asks, Why should these back losses be made good? That is part of the arrangement with the county councils. They take this very onerous duty upon themselves, and it is thought not an unfair arrangement that the small amount of loss should be met.

569
My noble friend knows that half the loss had to be met before.
I am not sure that I did not overstate the amount of possible loss to be met in that way, when I spoke on the last occasion. I said it would certainly not be more than £20,000. I am advised that it will be somewhere about £10,000, so that the figure is getting smaller and beautifully less. Perhaps my noble friend may think, in these circumstances, that it is not really an unfair arrangement to be made, and that the assumption by the State of these particular liabilities is one which my noble friend may fairly accept as part of the general arrangement with the county councils.
LORD WITTENHAM: I beg to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28:
Provisions as to commons and open spaces.
28.—(1) Any land which is, or forms part of, a metropolitan common within the meaning of the Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866, or which is subject to regulation under an order or scheme made in pursuance of the Enclosure Acts, 1845 to 1509, or under any local Act or otherwise, or which is or forms part if any town or village green, or of any area dedicated or appropriated as a public park, garden, or pleasure ground, or for use for the purposes of public recreation, shall not be appropriated under this Act by a council for small holdings or allotments, and shall not be acquired by a council or by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries under the principal Act except under the authority of an order for compulsory purchase made under the principal Act, which so far as it relates to such land shall be provisional only, and shall not have effect unless it is confirmed by Parliament.
LORD DENMAN (on behalf of LORD EVERSLEY)LORD DENMAN (on behalf of LORD EVERSLEY): moved, in subsection (1), after "under any local Act or otherwise," to insert "or which is a common suburban within the meaning of the Commons Act, 1876." The noble Lord said: Although I ant afraid I am not conversant with the question of common lands as are Lord Eversley and many members of your Lordships House, I desire to say one or two words on behalf of this Amendment. I understand that the position is this. Early this year Lord Ernle, who was then President of the Board of Agriculture, received
570
a deputation from the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society, the National Trust and Nature Preserve Society asking him to afford protection to common lands tinder this Bill. I understand that some members of this Society fear that the adequate protection which Lord Ernle outlined should be given was not provide in this clause. There are one or two drawbacks assuming the Bill passes as it stands. Where common lands are taken under this Bill small occupiers and cottagers will receive no compensation at all for fuel and pasture' and other benefits, which at present they enjoy. Again, a though land can be taken by a county council for the purpose of experiments is agriculture there is nothing to prevent them selling the land later on if they choose to do so. In the Forestry Act there is a clause providing that where common lands are taken the, scheme shall be confirmed by Parliament, unless there is due protection of the public interest. If this protection is given in the Forestry Act a similar protection should also be provided in this measure. I quite understand that it may be desirable that in the case of common land in some parts of the country parts of which may not be very useful that it should be taken for the purposes of this Bill, but I would like to ask the noble Viscount whether it would not be fair that suburban common lands should receive more protection titan is given in this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 26, after ("otherwise")insert ("or which is a common subarban within the meaning of the Commons Act, 1376'').—(Lord Denman.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The clause as it appears in the Bill represents, I understand, a general agreement after long discussions with the different Commons Societies. It is quite true that Lord Eversley does not quite agree with the rest of the Commons Preservation Society on this particular point, and the effect of the Amendment is to give the same protection to "commons suburbia" as is given to commons set out in Clause 28—that is, that such lands shall only be taken under a Provisional Order which must be confirmed by Parliament.
I would point oat that there is real protection given to these commons suburbia, because under subsection (2) an inquiry will have to be held. Absolute

571
publicity is therefore given. What are these commons suburbia? Under the Commons Act of 1876 it means commons within six miles of a town of 5,000 inhabitants. The reasons why these commons are required are for recreational purposes, and to enable the commoners to exercise their rights, but I understand there are some of these commons which have become obsolete, and that possibly some of the land might be drained and made useful I submit this should satisfy the noble Lord. It satisfies the main body of the Commons Preservation Society, and as nothing can be done without a full inquiry I hope the noble Lord will be content.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hold no brief for this particular Amendment, and though I have had a long and valued acquaintance with Lord Eversley, who does not belong to my way of thinking on most matters, I must say I was a little influenced, and not a little bit touched, by a long letter from him this morning, addressed to myself and urging me in the most urgent terms to do all I could for this Amendment. I feel that after his very long and honourable connection with this particular subject, his protection of the rights of commoners and the rights of the poor in commons, it would not be fair to treat with any kind of disregard an appeal coming from such a quarter.
I am sure your Lordships will agree with me in this. I do not desire to press the Government now but I observe that the noble Viscount did not reply to the noble Lord behind me in respect of the preservation of commoners' rights. That appears to me to be a material point. I quite followed the clear and courteous explanation of the noble Viscount, that there would be all sorts of publicity under Clause 2, but what powers are there in the Bill to secure the rights of the commoners in fuel and such things, if they can be shown to be damaged by enclosures? My mind goes back to a long series of debates and speeches delivered mostly by gentlemen and noble Lords of Liberal politics, against the Enclosure Acts of the last century, and how the poor were done out of their rights by what was thought at that time to be very good policy but which was very hard upon the poor in many cases. I know this is a trivial matter compared with those great enclosures of the last century, but still the same principle applies.
572
I am entirely in the hands of the noble Viscount as to the actual facts, but I do not think it would be right that the poor should be deprived of their grazing and fuel and common rights even for such a purpose as this, where there is other land available for the purposes of the Bill. I would suggest to the noble Viscount that if he cannot answer me straight off he would do well to make inquiry whether the Bill does provide for compensation in the event I have indicated, and that if it does not he should produce words before the next stage of the Bill.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I rise to support what has been said by the noble Marquess. I can possibly claim in one sense, as a Verderer of the New Forest, to represent a larger body of commoners than any other member of the House, and we regard it there as vital to the interest of these commoners that their common rights should not be disturbed. Therefore I second the appeal of the noble Marquess that before the Report stage of the Bill the noble Viscount should take into consideration some means of protecting the fuel and other rights appertaining to the commoners.
VISCOUNT PEEL: In reference to what Lord Montagu of Beaulieu has said, I think the commons to which he refers would be protected under Clause 28, subsection (1). With reference to what the noble Marquess said, I am advised there is under the Lands Clauses Act compensation paid for the extinction of common rights. If, however, further reassurance is wanted I shall be very glad to give it.
THE EARL OF SELBOHNE: the noble Viscount knows that the real point of the argument is that the compensation is not compensation.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes, that is so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in subsection (2), after "appropriation" to insert "and in confirming an order for compulsory acquisition." the noble Viscount said: This is inserted at the request of the Commons Preservation Society, and merely states what is the practice—namely, that the Board, when confirming orders, shall deal with the matter on the same lines as other applications for the enclosure of such lands.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 38, after ("appropriation") insert ("and in confirming an order for compulsory acquisition").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 22, leave out ("1917") and insert ("1907").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule.
VISCOUNT PEEL: the second of the Amendments that I move on this Schedule is for the purpose of enabling landowners whose land is taken for allotments to be able to give shorter notice in order to get the land back if they want it to build upon.
Amendments moved—
Page 20, line 40, column 2, leave out ("boroughs") and insert ("a borough").
Page 21, line 19, at end insert:

Section 46

In subsection (1) after the word ("do") there shall be inserted the words ("or such shorter notice as may be required by the order for the compulsory hiring of the land").—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule:
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 14, column 3, after ("boroughs") insert ("and 'other than a borough' ").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.
WELLS PARTICULAR BAPTIST AND CONGREGATIONAL CHAPELS CHARITIES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, this is the first of seven Bills promoted under the Charitable Trusts Act of 1853 which I shall ask your Lordships to assist
574
me to pass. Your Lordships are familiar with the procedure and in the case of each of these Bills the necessary procedure has been complied with. Notices have been posted as required, and no objection whatever has been raised.
The schemes have appeared in the reports of the Charity Commissioners and I propose to move each Bill formally. If your Lordships should wish for any explanation I will do my best to give it.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Sandhurst)
On Question, Bill read 2a

NATIONAL TRUST CHARITY BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
BROOKE ROBINSON MUSEUM CHARITY BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
CONGREGATIONAL CHAPELS CHARITIES BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
EATINGTON WESLEYAN METHODIST CHAPEL PROPERTY BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
PLUMTRE HOSPITAL CHARITY BI LL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
HEADCORN BAPTIST CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
CITY OF LONDON POLICE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.

MINISTRY OF WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT moved, after Clause 21, to insert the following new clause—
"22.—(I) the Minister and the Privy Council may respectively make rules in relation to the making of Orders and Orders in Council under this Act and to the publication of notices and advertisements, and the deposit of plans and

575
sections and books of reference to those plans, and the manner in which and the time within which representations or objections with reference to any Order or Order in Council are to be made, and to the holding of inquiries, and to any other matters arising in relation to their powers and duties under this Act.
"(2) Any rules made in pursuance of this section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made and shall have the same effect as if enacted in this Act."
The noble Lord said: This new clause is merely for the purpose of providing machinery which, without dogmatising on the question, appears to me to be necessary for the proper working of the Bill. By Clause 3 (1) (d) the Minister is empowered to authorise the owners of any undertaking to acquire land and easements compulsorily and to construct works, and by Clause 9 the Minister is authorised to establish works and transport services; but, by the second proviso, if compulsory acquisition of land is involved, the powers can only be exercised under an Order in Council, the draft of which is approved by both Houses. The powers granted in those two subsections are at present as a rule only obtained by special Act of Parliament, and in order to obtain such an Act promoters must comply with Standing Orders of a very stringent character, which require that adequate notice of proposals should be given publicly, and which, among other things, take care that interested parties have a full opportunity of laying their case before an impartial tribunal. The works contemplated in this Bill may be small or large, and there is no desire on my part, or on the part of anybody else who is supporting this proposal, to impede the construction of necessary works; but, whether the works be large or small, it seems only fair that adequate notice should be given of the works, and that any parties having legitimate objection should have a full opportunity of stating their case.
I repeat that this new clause is only meant to be necessary machinery Such items as the publication of notices and advertisements, the deposit of plans and sections and books of reference to those plans ought to be made public and under proper rules and regulations. Such rules are now, I understand, made in reference to Provisional Orders issued by the Local Government Board, or Provisional Orders by the Board of Trade dealing with tramways and electricity, and it therefore seems quite reasonable that similar provisions should apply in this Bill.
May I here mention the second of the two clauses, because they really run together? the first deals with rules in relation to the Orders generally, the second deals with Regulations in reference to notices, objections, inquiries and the hearing of objections in regard to specific orders. On the face of it the form of the second new clause is rather curious, but it is taken from the precedent of the Electricity Supply Bill, which is now before another place. That is the reason why it is in the form proposed.
Amendment moved—
After clause 21, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Emmott.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I have very carefully read the clauses which the noble Lord has put upon the Paper, and also listened with attention to the speech he has just delivered. I confess that I think he has made out a case which ought to be met. There are two points to which I think he desires to draw attention. First, that there is a lack of machinery in the Bill at the present moment for holding inquiries in connection with the acquisition of land, and that I think is an omission from the Bill which his Amendment will meet. Then I also feel that it is not altogether justifiable that land should be compulsorily acquired without some machinery for holding a public inquiry and enabling those affected to state their case. There are several points in the noble Lord's Amendments which I think go rather farther than he requires, or at any rate rather farther than I am prepared to concede to him. I hope, however, that if the noble Lord will withdraw his new clauses at this stage, between now and Report I may be able to come to an arrangement with him which will enable us to put an agreed clause upon the Paper for the Report stage. If as the result of communications with him we are unable to agree, he will still have the opportunity of putting down his clauses for the Report stage, and in that event I shall be able to state to your Lordships the points on which I have been unable to meet hint.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that the course the noble Earl proposes to adopt is a very proper one. The Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord is undoubtedly an elaborate

577
one—though not too elaborate—which requires consideration, and the noble Earl is certainly entitled to full time for consideration of its tenour. But I should like to place upon record that so far as I am concerned, and those of your Lordships who have acted with us in these debates, we consider it a matter of very great importance that the Government should accept the Amendments of the noble Lord. I believe that we are discussing only the first of the noble Lord's clauses?
LORD EMMOTT: I really spoke on the first two because they run together; but certainly not on the third.
TILE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes. As regards the first two the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has very frankly admitted that there is a lack of necessary machinery in the Bill.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: As regards those I shall have no difficulty in agreeing with the noble Lord.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does the noble Earl accept those clauses now?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I would rather consider them all together.
LORD EMMOTT: inthe circumstances I certainly respond to the noble Earl's request. I shall be glad to discuss the matter with him on the terms he mentioned.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT moved to insert the following new clause—
"—(1) If any objection to the making of any Order under section 3 (1) (do)f this Act or of any Order in Council under section 9 of this Act which have been stated in the prescribed manner and in the prescribed time shall allege that the proposals or some of the proposals are of such a character or magnitude or raise any such question of policy or principle that they ought to be dealt with by Bill in Parliament and not by Order or Order in Council, the Minister, or the Privy Council (as the case may be) shall forthwith inform the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons (in this Act referred to as 'the Chairmen ') of all objections wind; have been stated to such proposals.
"(2) the chairmen shall thereupon take the proposals and the objections thereto into con-
578
sideration and report thereon to the Minister or the Privy Council (as the case may be) and if it appears from the report of the chairmen that, either of the chairmen is of opinion that the proposals or some of the proposals ought to be dealt with by Bill in Parliament and not by Order or Order in Council such Order or Order in Council shall not be proceeded with so far as the same is objected to by either of the chairmen.
"(3) A copy of such report shall as soon as possible be laid before both Houses of Parliament
"(4) The chairmen Wall determine all matters of practice or procedure which will enable them to take any such proposals into consideration, and to report thereon to the Minister or the Privy Council as the case may be."
The noble Lord said: I have a new third clause which is a different matter, because it introduces a different principle. I will be as brief as possible, but I should like to explain my reasons for proposing it. This Bill has aroused great interest in the House and in the country. I think that everyone must admit that it gives powers which are unusual and unprecedented. The case made for it is that there is at the present time a real necessity for a controlling authority to deal with the various kinds of transport. It is urged that there should be a speeding up of the machinery for dealing with the different rates of which we heard yesterday, or at any rate a large number of those rates, and we know that an alteration of rates is really necessitated by the enormous increase of cost for which the Government is financially responsible. It is also stated that there is need for an acceleration of procedure in regard to the provision of new schemes necessary to economise traffic or to shorten the routes by which the traffic is sent. On the other hand, as I have said, the powers of this Bill are so wide and so unprecedented that they need very careful examination. A strong general case in theory can of course be made out for this Bill, but undoubtedly if the powers given by it as it stands to a Minister were abused by some megalomaniac in days to come there might be an enormous waste of public money under it.
In these circumstances there is a good deal of mistrust of this Bill in your Lordships' House and in the country at large amongst responsible people. I do not think that mistrust—I am very glad to make this statement—is really of the Minister-designate, but it is felt that whatever appears in the terms of the Bill as to its only affecting the next two years, with a possible increase to 18 months in certain

579
respects, this Bill or some modification of it will last a great deal longer than two years. Therefore we are faced with the danger that with a different Minister and a different Government acts of a very serious character might be taken under this Bill and that there would be no adequate check. That being the case this Amendment has been put down, not of course with any desire to hamper the Minister with regard to small matters, but under the feeling that the wide powers given under paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of clause 3 and by the Orders in Council under Clause 9, do seem to need some check of an impartial and judicial character.
It is to provide such a check that this clause which I now propose is put forward. It only operates in the case of schemes of magnitude. The clause is drawn on the lines of the well-known Scottish Private Bill procedure. It would enact that if the schemes proposed by the Minister were of such a character or magnitude, or raised any such question of policy or principle as ought to be dealt with by a Bill in Parliament, then the two Chairmen—the Lord Chairman of this House and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the other House—would sit together, and if either of them gave it as his opinion that the schemes were of such magnitude that they ought to go by Bill, then they would have to be dealt with by Bill.
This system, which is applied to Provisional Orders in the Scottish Private Bill procedure, I am of course familiar with. I had the honour of being chairman of Ways and Means for six years, and in regard to the working of the Scottish Bill procedure I never had the slightest difficulty in agreeing with either of the two Lord Chairmen with whom I had to deal—the late Lord Onslow or Earl Donoughmore—with regard to any matter that arose before us. We always approached questions judicially, and I have never heard with regard to decisions made at that time, or before that time by the present Speaker and Lord Onslow, or by Mr. Whitley, the Chairman of Ways and Means in the other House, and the Lord Chairman here, any serious complaint of any decision arrived at. The scheme has, I believe, worked well, and I think a similar scheme would work well in this case.
I can only anticipate one possible objection that might be made—that it would come within the power of any objector in
580
regard to any scheme to raise the plea that it was a scheme of such magnitude, or raised such questions of policy and principle, that the case would have to be heard by the two Chairmen. That is a possible objection, but, if I may say so with respect, it is rather a Parliamentary objection than a real one. More or less it is the case as regards all private Bill legislation, and I think the tribunal in this case—a tried and experienced tribunal—can be trusted to dispose of trivial objections and to deal with them in such a way that they are unlikely really to be made in years to come. In all probability there would be very few Bills for them to adjudicate upon in any one year. I do not want to detain your Lordships, and I have given the case for the new clause very briefly. I earnestly recommend the scheme both to the supporters and the critics of the Bill. It does not hamper the Minister in any greater matters and the powers given in the Bill are so wide and so unprecedented that a competent tribunal of this kind, acting judicially, would be a great safeguard, and a safeguard which, I think, would appeal to all fair-minded men. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 21, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Emmott.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I am very grateful to the noble. Lord for having stated his case now and also for the spirit of his remarks. It will certainly be a help to me to know the objects with which he moved the Amendment and I will certainly do my best to meet him when we come to consider the matter.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should like, in view of the importance of the consideration the noble Earl is going to give to the matter, to impress upon him and also to represent to your Lordships, the very great weight of authority with which the noble Lord speaks on all matters and particularly upon this one, because we have the experience of a Chairman of Ways and Means who has actually worked this procedure and knows how it operates. I do think that will not only have great weight with your Lordships but also in another place, because it is a report made by one of its former officers, a very distinguished occupant of the Chair, who is able to say to your Lordships and through Ministers, to another place, how well the

581
system works. I earnestly hope it may be considered a good reason why the Government should accept the Amendment, and accept it more or less in the form in which he proposes it. I do not think a mere inquiry, unless it was protected by the traditional machinery of a Private Bill Committee, in this special case would be satisfactory.
LORD EMMOTT: I presume the noble Earl wishes me to withdraw?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: If you please.
LORD EMMOTT: I will do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23:
THF EARL OF LYTTON: the next Amendment is consequential upon an Amendment made inanother place, and is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 29, leave out ("one of the Parliamentary Secretaries") and insert ("the Parliamentary Secretary").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24:
THE EARL OF LYTTON: the Amendments in the name of Lord Oranmore and Browne are drafting, and I move them on his behalf.
Amendments moved—
Page 24, line 15 leave out ("ways and communications") and insert ("transport").
Page 24, line 27, leave out ("ways and communications") and insert ("transport")
Page 24, line 29, leave out ("ways and communications") and insert ("transport")
Page 25, line 2, leave out ("ways and communications") and insert ("transport")
Page 25, line 3, leave out ("ways and communications") and insert ("transport").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25:
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I beg to move Amendments name of Lord Oranmore and Browne, which are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 25, lines 5 and 6, leave out ("ways and Communications") and insert ("transport")
Page 25, lines 6 and leave out ("ways and communications") and insert ("transport").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26:
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The next is a drafting amendment. I am proposing later on to move out subsection from end of Bill ors Page 26, where it is out of place, for purpose of inserting it here.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 18, at end insert:
(2) An Order in Council under this Act may be altered or revoked by a subsequent order.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27:
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Lord Oranmore and Browne has a drafting Amendment on this clause, this I beg to move it.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, lines 19 and 20, leave out ("ways and communications") and insert ("transport").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
TEE EARL OF LYTTON: I have a drafting Amendment also.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 21, after ("Act") insert ("unless context otherwise requires").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE moved, subsection (2), before "departments" to leave out "or other public." noble Lord said: I move this Amendment to give noble Earl an opportunity of telling us what is meaning of "other public departments." A discussion of question arose to whether words included such bodies as London County Council and Corporation of City of London noble Earl said they did not, but on being pressed to tell us what they really meant, said he did not know, but he would make inquiries and inform us later.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 22, leave out ("or other public").—(Lord Ritchie of Dundee.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The noble Lord is quite right. On being pressed by the Marquess of Crewe I was unable to give the meaning of these words, but I find on inquiry that they were inserted to cover the case of Departments in Ireland which could not be described as Government Departments. They are the Congested Districts Board and the Irish Board of Works. They do not refer to the Department to which Lord Devonport referred and of which the noble Lord speaks.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 29, after ("system") insert ("and the expression 'easement' includes any right in or over land").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The next is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, lines 6 and 7, leave out subsection (3).—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had an Amendment on the Paper, after subsection (3), to insert the following new subsection: "(4) For the purposes of the Regulation of Forces Act, 1871, and this Act, possession 'shall mean direction or control, but shall not include actual possession, nor shall any undertaking nor any part thereof, by virtue of such possession being retained or taken, be vested in the Minister." The noble Lord said: I have put down this Amendment in order to obtain a declaration from the Government as to the meaning of the word "possession." I understand the noble Earl is ready to meet me on this Amendment.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: On an Amendment of Lord Islington I undertook to look into this point to see whether words could not be inserted to make it quite clear that the word "possession" did not imply "ownership." I think this is the proper place to deal with the matter. Your Lordships will remember that there were
584
two points which I desired to safeguard. One was that there should be no distinction between "possession" under the Act of 1871 and "possession" under this Bill, and the other was, that no words were inserted in this Bill which would be taken as interpreting the Act of 1871.
I think the words which I will move will meet the point completely, and I hope be satisfactory to the noble Lord. I propose to insert, in the place of his Amendment, the following words—
"Possession of an undertaking, taken or retained under this Act, shall confer on the Minister such rights of control and direction as may be necessary for the exercise of his powers under this Act, but shall not confer upon him any rights of ownership."
I think those words will make the matter clear, and I beg to move them in that form.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 7, after subsection (3) insert the following new subsection:—
"Possession of an undertaking, taken or retained under this Act, shall confer on the Minister such rights of control and direction as may be necessary for the exercise of his powers under this Act, but shall not confer upon him any rights of ownership."—(The Earl of Lytton.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I am much obliged to the noble Earl. It meets my view to a large extent.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to insert the following new clauses—
28. The council of any county or county borough may with the approval of the Minister make byelaws and regulations prescribing the distance from the centre of any main road within which no new building shall be erected.
29. The council of any county may contract with the council of any urban or rural district within the area of such county council for the maintenance by such county council of any roads, the expenses of which are borne by such urban or rural district council, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed between them respectively.
30. With a view to carrying out the powers conferred by this Act and advising and assisting the Minister or any local authority in relation to the construction, improvement, and maintenance of roads, bridges and ferries, the establishment of railways, light railways and tramways, and the promotion and improvement of transport services, by land and water, His Majesty in Council may by Order authorise the Minister—

(a) to constitute local traffic boards;

(b) to define the membership of such boards and the areas over which they may respectively exercise jurisdiction;

585

(c) to delegate to such boards respectively any powers or duties of the Minister in relation to the above purposes.

31. His Majesty in Council may by Order make such incidental, consequential and supplemental provisions as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving full effect to the powers or duties of the Minister delegated to such boards tinder this section including provisions that the expenses of such boards shall be met by the Minister, and that such Boards may promote Bills in Parliament and may make application to any Government Department for Provisional Orders under any Act in relation thereto, and may make such adaptions in the enactments relating to such powers or duties as may be necessary for such purposes.
The noble Lord said: These Amendments are put down in order to facilitate good county and district council government. There are a great many difficulties now in county council and district council government which arise out of the fact that the interchange of areas in road administration is not easy. As regards Clause 28, this Amendment is desirable in the interest of making good roads or streets. Clause 29 simply says that a county council may contract with the council of any urban or rural district within its area for the maintenance by such county council of any roads, etc. There are many small district councils whose areas are so small and rateable value so small that it is almost impossible for them to retain the services or pay properly a really competent road surveyor, and I propose that such a district council should be allowed to contract with the county council for the upkeep of the roads in its area, which I think would tend to the making of good roads and the saving of expense and prevention of waste.
Then, Clause 30 enables local traffic boards to be constituted. I suggest this might meet a very urgent case; namely, the case of constituting a London Traffic Board. There might also be traffic boards for Liverpool and Manchester combined, and for other great areas. Then Clause 31 is simply an enabling clause. I suggest that these proposed new clauses are of a useful and constructive nature. They have been put down with a genuine desire to assist the working of the Bill, and especially with regard to Clause 30, now that a Parliamentary Committee has reported in favour of a Traffic Board for London. I think it might assist the solution of that problem.
Amendment moved.
After Clause 27, insert the said new clauses.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I quite appreciate the spirit in which these clauses have been put forward. I have, however some difficulty in dealing with them. The first two clauses are, I think, really relevant to this Bill, but they are Amendments to the Highways Act and to a certain extent even co the Building Act, and I feel that other Government Departments are involved in the matter; and I have not had any opportunity of conferring with the Ministry of Health or other Department concerned. To the first two proposed new clauses I have no objection from the point of view of this Bill, but I hesitate; to accept them because I have not consulted the other Departments concerned. I am pretty sure, also, that they would be ruled out of order in another place.
The proposed Clauses 30 and 31 are clearly relevant to the Bill, but there I have objections from the point of view of the Bill. The noble Lord proposes to insert Clauses which would constitute local traffic boards, to which he suggests that the Minister should delegate practically the whole of the powers which are given to him under this Bill. That is a suggestion which goes far beyond anything which I can accept; and when we come to Clause 31, the noble Lord suggests that these traffic boards may promote Bills in Parliament. I would point out to your Lordships that even rural district councils to-day have no power to promote Bills in Parliament, and these traffic boards would be bodies without even the authority of rural district councils. That, I think, is a very strong order—to ask that the whole powers of the Ministry should be delegated to these small bodies. For this reason, although I quite appreciate the reasons which have induced the noble Lord to put these clauses down, I am unable to accept them.
LORD SHANDON: With regard to this Amendment, I do not know whether the noble Lord who his moved it has quite appreciated the great difference between the law in England and in Ireland with respect to roads. This distinction between main roads and roads that are not main roads in England does not exist in Ireland. In Ireland we have roads that are kept up by presentment by the county council, and roads that are not. With regard to capital provision, there is a statutory restriction which exists, I think, in England in respect

587
to main roads but which exists in Ireland, as I understand, with respect to all roads kept up by presentment. That is, you cannot erect new buildings within 20 feet of the centre of the road. The result might be very serious if this Amendment were passed. Large numbers of the roads in Ireland kept up by presentment are exceedingly narrow and buildings have been erected at each side of these narrow roads. It has always been a question, What is a new building and what is an encroachment?" I suggest to the Government that in dealing with Leland they would be well advised to further consider the matter before accepting the Amendment.
VISCOUNT CHURCHILL: In the event of there being any question of this new clause being accepted I hope the Government will bear in mind the exemption which has always been extended to railway companies with regard to buildings.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I did not accept the Amendment, I merely pointed out that it concerned other interests. I could not accept it without further investigation.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: No doubt it will be convenient if I put it down again on Report. Possibly the Government may consider it. I would be obliged if the Government would also consider Clause 28, 29 and 30. After what the noble Earl has said I will not press these Amendments now but will put them down again on Report. Perhaps the noble Earl will consider them between now and Report and come to some final decision.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedules agreed to.
Title:
Amendment moved—
Page 1, leave out ("ways and communications") and insert ("transport").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

EDUCATION (COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF GRANTS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
RETIRED OFFICERS (CIVIL EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

CLOWES SETTLED ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Cannock Urban District Council.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
RESTORATION OF PRE-WAR PRACTICES BILL.
Petition for amendment of Bill of Mark H. Judge, Esquire: read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

POLICE BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Jersey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Penalty on persons causing disaffection, etc.
3. If any person causes, or attempts to cause, or does any act calculated to cause disaffection amongst the members of any police force, or induces, or attempts to induce, or does any act calculated to induce any member of a police force to withhold his services or to commit breaches of discipline, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and shall be liable on conviction on indictment

589
imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding two years, or on summary conviction, to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding three months, or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine, and in either case if a member of a police force shall forfeit all pension rights and be disqualified for being a member of any police force.
THE EARL OF JERSEY THE EARL OF JERSEY moved to add at the end of the Clause the following proviso: "Provided that where the person convicted of any such offence was a member of a police force and was not sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine the police authority may, if they think fit, pay to him the whole or any part of the rateable deductions which may have been made from his pay."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is proposed in accordance with a proviso made by the Home Secretary on the Report stage of the Bill in the House of Commons that he would consider how far it is possible to modify the penalty to be imposed on a member of a police force who is convicted of an offence under the section which is not of the gravest kind. A police authority deducts a sum not exceeding 2½ per cent. from the pay of every constable as a contribution towards the pension fund; and it is proposed that where a man is convicted under the section and is sentenced to a less punishment than imprisonment, the police authority may return to him these "rateable deductions," or part of them. This corresponds with Section 21 of the Police Act, 1890.
Amendment moved—
Insert the said new proviso.—(The Earl of Jersey.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended agreed to.
Clause 4:
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Abolition of limits on police rates.
7. So much of section twenty-three of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1829, as amended by any subsequent enactment, us limits the annual sum to be provided for the purposes of the Metropolitan Police, and so much of section one hundred and ninety-seven of the Municipal
590
Corporations Act, 1882, as limits the amount of the watch rate, and so much of any local Act as limits any rate which may be raised for the purposes of the police, shall cease to have effect.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: There is a drafting Amendment to this Clause.
Amendment moved—
Clause 7, page 3, line 19, leave out ("local Act") and insert ("other Act, whether public, general, or local").—(The Earl of Jersey.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 10 agreed to.
THE EARL OF JERSEY THE EARL OF JERSEY moved to insert the following new Clause—
11. An officer of the Metropolitan Police Force appointed by the Secretary of State to act as Deputy Assistant Commissioner shall, for the purpose of receiving declarations of men appointed to act as constables and counter-signing the drafts and orders for money drawn on the Bank of England by the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, have all such powers as are exercisable by an Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
The noble Earl said: Under the Metropolitan Police Act, 1829, Section 4, it is part of the duty of the Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner to swear in constables on appointment, and under Section 10 he has to countersign drafts or orders drawn by the Receiver on his account at the Bank of England for the payment of the salaries and other expenses of the Police Force. It has been found that these duties make undue demands on the time of the Assistant Commissioners, which is now fully occupied with more important work, and it is desirable that the Deputy Assistant Commissioner should be empowered to relieve them of this work.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 10, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Jersey.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past eleven o'clock until three o'clock to-morrow.