Lords Sitting of 12 August 1919

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord BARNARD—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
Moved, That Lord Denman do take the Chair in all Committees of the House this day.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ARDROSSAN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
FRASERBURGH HARBOUR (RATES) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
PETERHEAD HARBOURS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

DUNDEE HARBOUR AND TAY FERRIES ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a and passed.

WAR PENSIONS (ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The bulk of it contains administrative amendments to the large volume of Acts already existing on the Statute Book relating to pensions to those who have served in the war. There are only two clauses, I think, which raise any novel question or question of principle—namely, Clauses 7 and 8, to which I will refer later. Clause 1 is purely administrative, and applies to the members of the mercantile marine certain advantages from which they have hitherto been excluded. Clause 2 relates to information from employers. Under the existing Statute the Ministry of Pensions is entitled to require information from employers about the prewar earnings of disabled men. This clause extends that power, enabling the Ministry to ascertain the pre-war earnings of
786
deceased persons, thus making it possible to deal in a much more satisfactory manner with claims put forward by widows.
Under the present Statute only three months' pension may be paid in advance. Clause 3 extends that period to six months, which will be of value to those who propose to emigrate, three months being too short for that amount of remittance. Clause 4 is a purely technical Amendment, and the same applies to Clauses 5 and 6. Clause 7 applies to soldiers the right which already exists under the Naval Act of 1865 in respect of seamen, giving a statutory right to a pension rather then treating the pension as an act of grace or of bounty. The Select Committee which has recently been inquiring into this subject laid special stress upon that point, and this clause is accordingly introduced. It makes no difference in the amount of pension or in the nature of its award, but merely gives it a statutory authority.
Clause 8 is likewise based upon a recommendation by the Select Committee, to the effect that an independent authority should be set up to whom certain appeals should be referred. It is proposed that the Lord Chancellor should be the authority to select these independent tribunals, and your Lordships will see that the Panel is to consist of a man of legal experience, who will be chairman, of a medical member, and, whether the case be of an officer or of a man, of an officer or a man as the third member of the Court. I need only add that these tribunals will not deal with any question raising the amount of pension, but will only deal with whether the person who makes the appeal is or is not entitled to a pension. The amount and claim will have to be dealt with by the Medical Appeal Boards now being constituted by the Ministry. The last Clause of the Bill is again purely technical. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COAL MINES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the recommendations for the reduction of the

787
hours of underground workers in collieries, which are contained in paragraph 1 of the Interim Report of Mr. Justice Sankey and three other members of the Coal Industry Commission, issued on March 20. I will read to the House the exact terms of the Commission's recommendation—
We recommend that the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, commonly called the Eight Hours Act, be amended by the substitution in the clauses limiting the hours of work underground of the word "seven" for the word "eight" as from July 16, 1919, and, subject to the economic position of the industry at the end of 1920, by the substitution of the word "six" for the word "eight" as from July 13, 1921. Certain adjustments must be made in the hours of the classes of underground workers specifically mentioned in the Act.
The Bill is limited to carrying out these recommendations. The Government are pledged to carry out the recommendations, and the principle of the measure was not questioned in the other House. Indeed, the first part of the recommendations, which proposes the immediate reduction of the hours below ground from eight to seven, was also accepted by the three representatives of the coal owners on the Commission in their Interim Report; and, so far as the second part of the recommendations is concerned, your Lordships will see that under the Bill a Resolution will have to be passed by both Houses of Parliament before the further reduction to six hours can take effect.
It might be convenient to your Lordships if I say a few words in explanation of some of the provisions of the Bill. In the first place, it will be noticed that the Bill is limited to mines in which coal is worked. The terms of reference of the Coal Industry Commission were limited to the coal industry, and no inquiry was made by the Commission nor was any evidence placed before them as regards any other class of mines or industry. The Government therefore considered that the Bill should deal only with the coal industry and should not include certain other classes of mines which are included in the principal Act of 1908. These classes of mines were shale, stratified ironstone, and fireclay mines.
Secondly, the recommendation in the Sankey Report left certain adjustments to be made by the Government in the hours
788
of some special classes of underground workers. For these special classes the Act of 1908 allowed nine and a half hours below ground as against the eight hours allowed for the ordinary underground workers. These classes are men with special duties of supervision, like the firemen or deputies, or men engaged on special work such as the fanmen or pumpmen. The Bill proposes to reduce the nine and a half hours for these special classes to eight. This is in accordance with the recommendation made by the expert adviser of the Government, the Chief Inspector of Mines, after hearing the views of all the parties interested. The Chief Inspector advises that a period of eight hours will be sufficient to enable the duties of these men to be carried out with due regard for the safety of the mine.
The only other matter which I need mention is the proviso at the end of Clause 1. In certain kinds of operations underground it is necessary to carry on the work continuously without interruption, by a succession of shifts. Examples of such work are sinking of pits, driving a cross-measure drift through broken ground, boring towards old workings which may contain water. It is necessary to have some provision which would enable this practice to be continued, and it is accordingly proposed in the proviso that the Secretary of State may in such cases allow the shifts to be below ground each for a period of eight hours out of twenty-four. It will be observed that the proviso is safeguarded in the first place by requiring that the consent of the Secretary of State should be obtained, and, secondly, by the provision that the' men affected or their representatives are to be consulted. The cases to which the proviso will apply will not be numerous, and the power is needed for the purpose of safety.
In asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill it may be convenient, and may remove possible misunderstanding, if I make it clear that the acceptance of this measure in no way carries with it an undertaking, implied or otherwise, to accept the second part of the Report of Mr. Justice Sankey's Commisssion. I do not wish to be misunderstood. What the Government may decide to do on this further Report I have no idea. I only want to make it clear that those of your Lordships who have decided views on the subject of nationalisation can safely accept

789
this Bill without prejudice to any future action.
This Bill is in fulfilment of a definite pledge given by the Government that they would give effect to a Report by the Commission on the question of hours and wages. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote the statement made in another place by the Leader of the House on March 20 before the second Report of Mr. Justice Sankey's Commission was issued. He said—
"I say now, on behalf of the Government, that we are prepared to adopt the Report in the spirit as well as in the letter, and to take all the necessary steps to carry out its recommendations without delay."
That refers, as I have pointed out already, to the Interim Report. I am not concerned with any of the subsequent proceedings of the Commission. I only suggest that, however much the forecast as to the limited reduction of output may prove too optimistic, it is eminently desirable that no excuse should be given to any one to say that the Government had played them false. At this time of all others the Government should scrupulously keep its pledge to the workers. For that reason I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Jersey.)
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, if I may be allowed to say a few words on the Motion which is now before us, I should begin by saying that the request which is made on behalf of the Government that we should read this Bill a second time is an instance, if I may say so with all respect, of the extraordinary manner in which legislation is conducted in this House at this period of the session. This Bill is a measure of almost incalculable importance. No one will deny it. And on whose authority and on whose recommendation is it that we are asked to read it a second time this afternoon? It is, due to the recommendations of Mr. Justice Sankey. The noble Earl has read them out to you, and I need not therefore repeat what he said.
I will, however, read one sentence from Mr. Justice Sankey which follows immediately after his recommendations. It runs—
"It is thought that these results may be obtained, as explained in our Report, without raising the price of coal to the consumers."
790
In his own words he supplies his own condemnation, and there, never was a greater or a stronger condemnation of the recommendation of any Committee appointed by the British Government during my fifty years of Parliamentary life than occurs in the Interim. Report of Mr. Justice Sankey. What is the answer to that recommendation and to the words which I have just quoted? That the Government have found it absolutely necessary to raise the price of coal to the consumer by not less than 6s. a ton. This is nothing but an outrageous scandal on the way public business is being conducted in this country, and especially with regard to the questions raised in the Coal Commission, the importance of which it is absolutely impossible to calculate.
I am only a very young member of this House, but I was a very old member of the House of Commons, and in the whole of my career I have never known anything to equal that which we are asked to do tonight. The noble Earl said that this was passed without controversy in the House of Commons. Yes; but the position is very different to-day. He said that the Government were pledged. So they might have been, and intolerably foolish it was on the part of the Government to commit themselves to a pledge of this kind before they knew and had really grasped what was going to be the consequence of accepting this Report. If it rested with me, and if I occupied a position of experience and standing enough in this House to do so, I should have moved the rejection of this Bill on Second Reading without the slightest: hesitation, but I am new to your Lordships' House. I recognise also that at this period of the session it would be taking a grave responsibility on my shoulders in which perhaps I should not be justified, especially when I look around and see the thin attendance in the House.
This great question affects every interest in the country. People talk of the coal industry. But what is the coal industry? It is the pivotal industry of every single industry in the whole of the country, and unless the coal industry flourishes it is impossible that any other industry can flourish. Our trade, the comfort of our citizens, and especially the comfort of our poorer classes, all vitally depend upon this industry; and yet, if I understand the coal position at all—and from the moment that I read Mr. Justice Sankey's first

791
Interim Report I have done my best to make myself master of it, and that is why I am taking this course on this occasion—the issues are so vast that how any Government could ever have pledged itself to so wild and foolish a policy as this before they knew what it really meant I am quite unable to understand.
I have endeavoured, I hope with all due moderation, to say what I have thought it my duty to say to-night, and I do not know that I should do any good by prolonging my statement further, but this I do wish to say in addition, that it is only since I came into the House five minutes ago that I have had any opportunity of seeing this Bill. I do not know when it was circulated. I have never received it, and I obtained it the moment that I got into the House, and had read the Orders of the Day showing that the Bill would come on for Second Reading. I have read it since I took my seat upon this Bench. What the Bill points to is this. It points to nothing but a continuance to every imaginable industry in the country of the most disastrous policy that I have ever heard of in the whole of my political career, and that is why, if I had been an older and more experienced Member of your Lordships' House, with a better knowledge of the conduct of your proceedings at a period of the session like this, I should without a moment's hesitation have moved the rejection of the Bill.
EARL BRASSEY: My Lords, I should not like the Bill to be read a second time without joining in the protest which the noble Viscount has made. As the noble Earl who introduced the Bill said, it is to carry out a pledge given by the Government several months ago. Since that pledge was given the anticipations of the output of coal have not been realised. Instead of the output being maintained there has been a great falling off. In view of the present circumstances of the coal industry of this country, in view of the effect that the concessions already made have had on the output of coal, and in view of the certain effects of this measure if it becomes law, I believe the Government are absolutely unjustified in introducing this Bill.
It is quite idle in a small House like this to divide against the Bill. If a Division were taken I should certainly without any hesitation vote against it in the interests of the country. It seems to me that the
792
Government are far too prone to consider the interests of a particular class of workers and to sacrifice the interests of the country as a whole. I should add that many connected with the coal industry know that my sympathies for a great many years and all my efforts have been directed towards raising the conditions in that industry. Therefore what I have said is not said from the employer's point of view.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I will add a word because I have had some responsibility in these matters since the findings of the Sankey Commission were published. I am unwilling that the important and weighty speech made by my noble friend Lord Chaplin should pass without a word at least that would make it plain that it has been listened to with respect, as anything he says in this House will always be listened to.
It is no good in this controversy using indiscriminately the language of censure. It is no good, in the dangers in which this country was placed, at the time that a grave decision was peremptorily called for, criticising those who reached the decision, one branch of which is conveyed in this Bill, as if they were deliberating in the spirit or with the opportunities or the leisure of men who could decide which of two possible decisions on their merits was the one that ought to be adopted. At the moment when this Commission sat the situation was more charged with peril than certainly at any moment that I can recall in domestic affairs. In many ways the situation is to-day very much improved. In many ways it is a situation which renders a decision upon merits alone an easier one than at the time these discussions took place.
The noble Viscount has spoken of the Report of Mr. Justice Sankey's Commission as a whole. That Report has very recently engaged the attention of the Cabinet and has been made the subject of long discussions, and Parliament will shortly be informed of the view which has been formed of that Report as a whole. I would only say this, that neither the noble Viscount nor the noble Earl indicated any intention of opposing this stage in the Parliamentary progress of this Bill. I should have deeply regretted if they or any other noble Lords had taken that

793
course, because the problem is one of immense difficulty, and I do not think that your Lordships, if you had had the responsibility resting upon yon three months ago, would have taken a different decision.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has thought it right—and I am not surprised at it—to make some sort of apology for the position in which the Government stands in respect of this question. I do not think the Government can look back upon their relations with labour with any satisfaction. I quite agree that when they came to those decisions, to which the noble and learned Lord has referred, the country was in a position of great peril. But see what that observation really means. It is a perfectly true observation. It means that the circumstances were such that, though the country was in the gravest peril in respect to its foreign enemies, it could not rely upon the patriotic co-operation of a certain body of the working classes of this country. That is the plain English of it. Notwithstanding the peril abroad a certain body of the working classes of the country—I hope your Lordships will note the limiting phrase that I use, for it is not by any means all or the majority, or anything like the majority—a certain body held the country as it were to ransom, saying, ''You are in great danger, and we insist upon having our terms." That is the plain English of what happened. I do not mean that the noble and learned Lord in his polished phrases actually used that language, but that is what it came to.
That is a very grave statement, and I am afraid it is true, and it makes many of us convinced that the real line of policy in regard to that section of the working classes, and indeed in regard to the whole of the working classes, has not hitherto been well advised. You could not have produced a state of things like that if the policy of the country towards the working class had been well advised. We are driven therefore to consider why it was that this limited section of the workers behaved in the way they did. Of course, there can be no doubt of certain reasons. I do not mean to say that it was all the fault of the governing class, of successive Governments, but it was largely the fault of successive Governments because they have never dared to tell the truth to the
794
working class on these matters of labour policy. And it is because recently in all the labour troubles which took place during the war the Government had not the courage to stand up and say what they really thought in these maters. And after having made some sort of show of resistance time after time they gave way and made concessions when they had sworn they would make no concessions at all.
Those are partly the reasons, and then there is a reason yet wider and deeper, for which we are all of us responsible—for I do not want; to take the attitude of a man who is finding fault with others for blameworthy acts for which we all must bear our share of responsibility. We have never in this country been prepared to take the workers sufficiently into our confidence. We have not admitted them to their full rights of citizenship in respect to industry. Those are some of the reasons. I earnestly hope that we have learnt our lesson, and that in the future we shall be braver to stand up to what we really believe when the workers are wrong; and, on the other hand, that we shall be prepared to accept their co-operation, not only in politics but also in industry, and place them on a more equal footing with the other classes who are engaged in those pursuits.
As to this Bill, I certainly should not counsel your Lordships to reject it; it is part of the policy of the Government to deal with the difficulty of the mines. A heavy responsibility undoubtedly rests upon the Government, and if disaster happens they must bear the responsibility, and that will be exacted from them by the electors of the country. But it would be a very ill-advised step to interfere in a vital manner with that policy while it is in progress. We must simply accept that policy, for what it is worth, as it stands, and, when the time comes, hold responsible those who may be responsible for any disaster which ensues. For these reasons I myself shall not be prepared to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, the noble Marquess has stopped at what I thought was going to be the most interesting point of his speech—namely, a solution of these terrible labour difficulties. He told us in the first place that he thinks much trouble might have been avoided by greater publicity and propaganda; by spreading

795
the true economic facts of the situation more widecast. That may be so. Many of you, I know, will not deny that tremendous efforts were made through our organised Propaganda Departments to make these things more widely known; but your Lordships, amongst others, disliked these "needless Departments." They came to an end at the termination of the war, and now propaganda has to proceed through the agency of Parliament or through public speeches, and so on.
I imagine that we all know—at least, all those who, like myself, are closely connected with these industrial matters know—how difficult it is to persuade certain classes of the community to devote their minds to economic problems. Public speeches, propaganda, and so on, might have done much, but they are really nothing compared with the complexity and the magnitude of the problem. The other solution or part of the solution, applied in particular to this industry, was the claim that labour should be made into better citizens and drawn more into the confidence of those who employed it. All I can say on that point is—speaking with a very full and complete knowledge of the coal trade—that there is no industry whatever in the British Isles in which those who are employed have closer, more official, more properly established, and more regular congress with those who employ them than in the coal trade. There is not one pit in Lancashire (I will not speak for other districts) which has not got its joint committee of employers and employed. We have done as much as we can in the coal trade. We have done far more, one hundredfold more, than a dozen other trades who tell us what we ought to do and who have no idea what we have done. Yet in spite of what has been done these difficulties exist. I do not say that they are insuperable, but I am sure that no cut and dried, ready-made method or remedy—laid down by Parliament, if you like, or by a Government which has not spent its time year in and year out in handling these problems—will find any ready solution.
I hope on some future occasion to hear the second chapter of Lord Salisbury's speech, and I, for one, will listen to it with profound attention. I want to add a word in respect of what Lord Chaplin said. He quoted Paragraph VI of Mr. Justice Sankey's Report—
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Of the Interim Report.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes, the Report with which this Bill deals. I was not on this committee, and I do not know what I should have done if I had been on it; for all I know, I dare say I should not have signed this Report. But at least let us do justice to this committee; and if you will read Paragraph VI you will see that the expectation therein raised was contingent upon further paragraphs mentioned in the Report being fulfilled. The words are, "These results"—that is, from the shortening of hours—
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: And the payment of wages.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes; but that is Paragraph V. "These results may be obtained, as explained in our Report, without raising the price." It goes on to explain the qualifications in the subsequent chapters of the Report. The first is that "substantial economies in working shall be effected." The second is that "those employed shall reach a higher standard of comfort, with the result that they may be expected to work better." The third, ancillary to that, is that "housing accommodation will be improved." Another condition is, "The miners' leaders have pledged themselves to do their best to prevent voluntary absenteeism in the mines." Yet another condition is that "economies may be effected in production, in transit, and in distribution." How far those or any of those are going to be accomplished it is not for me to say, but in fairness to Mr. Justice Sankey and the three or four other people who signed this Report I think it is at least well that these qualifications should be placed upon record.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ANIMALS (ANÆSTHETICS) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT BILL. FORMERLY
MINISTRY OF WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 2:
Powers and duties.
2.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Minister in the exercise and performance of any powers and duties transferred to, or conferred or imposed upon him, by or in pursuance of this Act, to take steps to carry out the purposes aforesaid, and there shall, as from such date or dates as His Majesty in Council may by Order determine, be transferred to the Minister all powers and duties of any Government Department in relation to—

(a) railways;

(b) light railways;

(c) tramways;

(d) canals, waterways, and inland navigations;

(e) roads, bridges and ferries, and vehicles and traffic thereon;

(f) harbours, docks and piers;

including any powers and duties of any Government Department in relation to any railway, light railway, tramway, canal, inland navigation, harbour, dock, pier, or other undertaking concerned with any of the matters aforesaid, and any powers of any Government Department with respect to the appointment of members or the procedure of any commissioners, conservancy board or other body having jurisdiction with respect to any such matters as aforesaid, and any powers of any Government department with respect to the snaking, confirming; issuing, granting, or giving (as the case may be) of by-laws, regulations, orders, licences, approvals, or consents relating to any of the: matters hereinbefore mentioned:
Provided that—

(i) His Majesty in Council may by Order except from swill transfer any particular powers or duties, or provide for the exercise or performance of any power or duty so excepted by the Minister concurrently or in consultation with or at the instance of the Government, Department concerned, or by the Government Department concerned concurrently or in consultation with the Minister, or provide for the retransfer to any such Department of any powers and duties transferred to the Minister by this section; and

(ii) Nothing in this section shall transfer to the Minister any powers or duties of the Admiralty exerciseable in or in relation to ports declared under the Dockyard Ports Regulation Act, 1865, to be dockyard ports, but His Majesty in Council may by Order transfer to the Admiralty, instead of to the Minister, any of the powers of the Board of Trade with respect to dockyard ports, or with respect to the appointment of members of any commissioners, conservancy board, or other body having jurisdiction in the whole or any part of a dockyard port; and

(iii) Nothing in this section shall transfer to the Minister the powers of the Board of Trade with respect to the appoint
798
ment of members or the procedure of the Railway and Canal Commission, but His Majesty in Council may, by order, transfer those powers to a Secretary of State instead of to the Minister.

(2) 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 any transfer of powers or duties by or under this section, including provisions for the transfer of any property, rights and liabilities held, enjoyed, or incurred by any Government Department in connection with any powers or duties transferred, and may make such adaptations in the enactments relating to such powers or duties as may be necessary to snake exerciseable by the Minister and his officers or by the Admiralty and their officers, as the case may be, the powers and duties so transferred: Provided always that noticing herein contained shall enable the powers so transferred to be increased.
(3) In connection with the transfer of powers and duties to the Minister, Admiralty, or Secretary of State, by or under this Act, the provisions set out in the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect.
(4) There shall be attached to the Ministry a separate department charged with dealing in the ordinary course of departmental business with road construction, improvement, maintenance, and development.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert the following new proviso—
"(iv) Nothing in this section shall transfer to the Minister any powers or duties of the Board of Trade with respect to the making, confirming, issuing, granting or giving of by-laws, regulations, orders, licences, approvals or consents relating to any harbour, clock or pier undertaking to which section four of this Act applies or with respect to the approval of any rates, fares, tolls, dues or other charges levied or proposed to be levied by the owners of any such undertaking."
The noble Duke said: I have put down this Amendment because I have been given to understand that a very strong feeling exists on the part of the clock and harbour authorities that this Amendment would be a valuable safeguard to protect them from any possible competition on the part of the Ministry. I should like to say at once that I do not intend to press the Amendment if the noble Earl informs me that, after due consideration, he cannot accept it. I realise that it may be said that the Government have done their utmost to meet the wishes of the clock and harbour authorities, and that those authorities have pronounced themselves fully satisfied with the concessions made by the Government. I admit all that; but at the same time I submit that this proposed new subsection will not hamper the

799
Ministry in any way. If the Amendment is not accepted I think a very dangerous form of competition will be set up.
The principle conceded in this Bill is that the same authority which takes possession of certain services also makes bylaws and regulations for the conduct of those services. Whether that is or is not a good principle is a matter which I will not weary your Lordships by discussing. I should call it a wrong principle. The Government does not take possession of the harbours: it merely has a limited control over them. It seems altogether unfair and improper that the Government should be able to order the carrying out of certain definite acts and to interfere in the regulations that may be issued for the conduct of the business of the docks. In those circumstances I hope the noble Earl will see his way to accept this Amendment. These apprehensions, whether they are justified or not, are not altogether unnatural. They exist, and I venture to hope that he will do his utmost for us.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 40, at end insert the said new proviso.—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
LORD RITCHIE: Before the noble Earl replies, I would like to say a few words. This Amendment was moved in the interests of the docks and harbours of the country in the early stages of the Bill, but it was withdrawn because we understood it was part of the bargain that was come to between the Prime Minister and members of Parliament in another place that docks and harbours would be withdrawn from the control of the Minister. It was on that understanding that Clause 2 was to stand. I hope that the noble Earl will allow me to appeal to him to give his careful consideration to the proposed Amendment now.
I would like the House to understand exactly what it is that Clause 2 does. Clause 2 transfers all the powers and duties now exercised by the Board of Trade in relation to statutory dock undertakings to the new Minister. Those powers and duties include among other things the control of the issue of capital. If we, the Port of London Authority, for instance, wish to build a new dock or to make any large extensions in our undertaking necessitating the issue of new capital we have first of all to get the approval of the Board of Trade. In future, if the Bill stands, we shall have to
800
go to the Minister of Transport, who will be able to put a stop to our schemes of improvement by withholding his consent to the issue of capital. Then, again, if we wish to improve the channel of the river—to deepen it in order that larger ships might come up—that again would necessitate the expenditure of a large sum of money and the issue of capital, and the Minister there also might withhold his consent to our issuing that capital.
Then he will have control of all our by-laws. He will also have the duty—and this point is, perhaps, more important than the other—of hearing and deciding upon appeals under the Port of London Act. Traders have a power of appeal to the Board of Trade in regard to certain matters, and that appeal would be transferred from the Board of Trade to the new Minister. What the transference of these powers really means is that to some extent, at any rate, the control which has been removed from the new Minister will be in his hands in an indirect manner, and it will be in the hands of a Minister who is about to become our competitor.
The noble Earl, in the course of his speech on the Second Reading, I think it was, told the House that the docks and harbours of the country might be divided half and half as between railway-owned docks and non-railway-owned docks. I do not quite know how he comes to that conclusion, but if you take the standard of value as your measure, the House may perhaps be surprised to hear that the railway-owned docks and harbours handle only 22 per cent. of the total trade that passes through the docks and harbours of the country, as against 78 per cent. handled by the statutory authorities; and that the Port of London Authority alone handles no less than 30 per cent., or a greater value than that dealt with by the railway-owned docks. It is now proposed that all these powers should pass into the hands of a Minister who is to be our competitor, and he is to act in a judicial capacity in relation to the statutory dock undertakings with whom he is competing. I earnestly appeal to the noble Earl to meet us if he possibly can.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I am very much obliged to the noble Duke for the tone of the remarks in which be introduced this Amendment. I regret that I am unable to accept it, but I can assure him that I

801
have, in consultation with those by whom I am advised, given very careful consideration to it. I hope I may be able to some extent to remove the mistrust and suspicion which is at the bottom of the Amendment. The argument, if I understand it aright, is that the Minister of Transport will in future have possession and control of the railway-owned docks and harbours of the country and ought not therefore to be empowered, as he is under the Bill, to approve rates and charges, or by-laws and regulations proposed by the independent lock and harbour authorities.
My first answer to the noble Duke is that both the Amendment itself and the speeches which have been made in favour of it suggest that the powers of the Board of Trade in these matters go very much further than they in fact do. I agree that in the case of the Port of London the Board of Trade has more complete powers than it has with regard to the other independent docks and harbours in the country. Let me take first of all the question of rates, which is one of the matters raised by the Amendment. Generally speaking, the maxima of dock rates are fixed by the particular Acts which constitute the various docks and harbour authorities, and in this session of Parliament these authorities are, most of them, seeking to obtain powers to increase their maximum rates. In some cases the Board of Trade is authorised, tinder the special Act constituting the authority, to approve charges for some incidental services such as warehouses and weighing machines, but, except for those cases in which the Board of Trade approval is required, the alterations in dock charges to which the Board of Trade sanction is necessary are extremely few. Such approval of the Board of Trade has only been sought and given at six or seven places in the last fourteen years. The most important case was that of the master porters rates and tonnage dues on goods at Liverpool. In fact, in the case of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, that is Mae only rate to which the Board of Trade approval is necessary.
Very much the same thing applies in the case of by-laws. The noble Duke in his speech, I think, suggested that the Board of Trade makes these by-laws. That is not the case. Under the general Piers and Harbours Clauses Act, by-laws, which are in all eases made by the owners of the
802
undertakings themselves, have to be approved by a Judge of the High Court or by Quarter Sessions, but not by the Board of Trade. In some cases, however, it is true that the special Acts of the dock authorities do provide that by-laws shall be approved by the Board of Trade. I merely mention this at the outset to show that the particular fear that is behind the Amendment is confined to far fewer instances than the Amendment itself, or the speeches, would lead one to suppose.
Now I come to the cases in which it is quite true the Board of Trade has a discretion. The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, was that in these cases the Minister would be a competitor with independent dock and harbour authorities, by reason of the fact that under the Bill he will control the railway-owned docks. But I would point out to the noble Lord that the Board of Trade itself has been in that position precisely for the last five years, and I do not think that any suggestion has ever been made that the Board of Trade could not be trusted to carry out its powers with regard to the independent (lock companies because it was in possession, as it has been during the last five years, of the railways.
I would further point out to your Lordships that the whole of the stall of the Board of Trade, who have hitherto administered matters with regard to railways, will be transferred to the Minister of Transport and, therefore, it will be precisely the same personnel who will be administering railway matters and, incidentally, railway-owned docks. The same personnel will be dealing with them under the. Ministry as previously dealt with them under the Board of Trade. Not only that, but the authorities of the Board of Trade who previously dealt with such questions as approval of by-laws or rates from docks and harbour authorities which -came before the Board of Trade, will also be transferred, even if this Amendment were accepted, because their duties will be required in connection with other parts of the Bill. Therefore, the Board of Trade will be deprived of the personnel which in the past dealt with these matters, and precisely the same individuals will in future be dealing both with railway and dock matters under the Ministry as pre-

803
viously dealt with them under the Board of Trade.
I think I an entitled to say that that staff administered these powers to every one's satisfaction during the period in which the Board of Trade was in precisely the same position as the Minister will be in under the Bill, and had possesion of these railway-owned docks. No suggestion of partiality or unfairness was ever raised. It is true that an agreement was arrived at between the Minister and those interested in harbours and docks under which Clause 4 was inserted in the Bill, but no request was made by them at that time that this particular point should be met. I think I may attribute this Amendment to the last flickering of that flame of suspicion and mistrust which has manifested itself throughout the discussions on this Bill, but, alter the facts which I have laid before your Lordships, I do moat sincerely hope that the suspicion which gave rise to this Amendment will be dispelled and that no mistrust will be felt as to the impartiality of the authority that will deal with these matters in future.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If anything would dispel the feeling of suspicion with which undoubtedly this Bill has been received, it is the very conciliatory attitude and courtesy of my noble friend in charge of the Bill. Unquestionably, as has been already said, he has done a great deal towards mitigating the feeling with which this Bill was regarded, but I am afraid that the feeling of apprehension is too deeply founded even for the skill of my noble friend entirely to eliminate. I think a good deal really turns upon this. My noble friend perfectly sincerely regards the Bill as one the operation of which will be of two years duration. If that were so, no doubt, almost everything he said in answer to my noble friend, the noble Duke, would be sound. He said "Here you have the Board of Trade which has managed docks which compete with the free docks, and has had control of the free docks to a certain extent during the last five years, but it has not misused its power; why should you think that the new Ministry of Transport will misuse its power in the two or three years ahead of us?"
That is a very reasonable contention of course, but most of us are convinced that-this Bill will not last for two years only,
804
but, in perhaps a modified form, will be a permanent measure; and if you have a permanent Act in which you have the same Ministry running a particular class of docks for profit and controlling their competitors to some extent, I think most of us will agree that human nature being what it is—even Ministerial human nature—it is not likely that the free docks will always receive perfect impartiality of treatment. Those are the reasons for which, I understand, my noble friend, the Duke of Northumberland, and Lord Ritchie have advocated this Amendment. They have done so in moderate language and they have indicated that they do not intend to press it. Therefore, I will not detain your Lordships, but I thought it right to say this much in order to show that, so far as I am concerned and others who think with me, we do think that the apprehensions of my noble friend are well founded and that the sequel will prove that to be the case.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3:
Power to control temporarily railways, etc.
3.—(1) With a view to affording time for the consideration and formulation of the policy to be pursued as to the future position of undertakings to which this section applies, the following provisions shall, unless Parliament otherwise determines, have effect for a period of two years after the passing of this Act, or where as respects any particular provision a longer period is expressly provided, for such longer period:—

(a) Where at the passing of this Act possession has been taken of any railroad undertaking or part thereof in pursuance of section sixteen of the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871, or otherwise, possession thereof shall be retained without any renewal of the warrant granted by the Secretary of State in pursuance of that section, upon the same terms as to compensation as those heretofore in force, and the Minister may exercise over all such undertakings all such powers as have hitherto been exercised by the Board of Trade under the said Act or with the consent of the owners of the undertakings or otherwise, and such other powers as may be conferred by this section or agreed to by the railway companies concerned:

(b) The Minister may, after giving not less than three months' notice in writing, take possession, in the name or on behalf of His Majesty, of the whole

805
or any part of any other statutory railway undertaking or of any light railway or tramway undertaking (other than a tramway or a light railway used as a tramway belonging to a local authority), or of any canal or inland navigation, undertaking, and subject as hereinafter mentioned of any harbour, dock or pier undertaking, or of any plant belonging to any such undertaking as aforesaid or used thereon (exclusive of privately owned railway wagons), and of any barges, tugs, and other craft owned or held by the undertaking of which possession has been taken.

(c) The directors and other persons concerned with the management, and officers and servants of any undertaking Of the whole or part of which, or of the plant whereof, possession is retained or taken shall obey the directions of the Minister as to the user thereof, and any directions of the Minister in relation to the undertaking or part or plant thereof of which possession is retained or taken—

(i) as to the rates, fares, tolls, dues, and charges to be charged subject, however, to the provisions hereinafter contained respecting references to the advisory committee established fur advising as to directions on the matters aforesaid;

(ii) as to the salaries, wages, and remuneration and conditions of employment of persons employed on or in connection with the undertaking;

(iii) as to the working or discontinuance of the working of the undertaking or any part thereof including directions as to keeping open or closing of any stations;

(iv) for securing that the permanent way, rolling stock, plant, appliances, or equipment., whether fixed or movable, are satisfactory in type and design;

(v) as to the carrying out of alterations, improvement s, and additions which the Minister considers necessary for the public safety or for the more efficient and economic working of the undertaking;

(vi) for securing co-operation between undertakings and for securing the common user of facilities, rolling stock and equipment whether fixed or moveable;

(vii) for affording running powers over their system, or any part thereof, to the owners of any other undertaking;

(viii) for securing that manufacturing and repairing facilities and auxiliary and ancillary services shall be used, and the purchase and distribution of stores shall be conducted, in such manner as may be most conducive to economy and efficiency:

806

(d)For enabling any directions given by the Minister under the last foregoing paragraph as to alterations, and improvements and additions to be carried into effect, the Minister may, by order, authorise the owners of any undertaking to ac pin: any land (including easements) and to construct any works, and the order may incorporate the Lands Clauses Acts, subject to such modifications as may be specified in the order, being modifications of those Acts made or authorised to be made by the Development and Road fin Improvement. Funds Act, 1909, or any other enactment, and may incorporate or apply any of the provisions of any enactment relating to the construction, maintenance, or working of railways, light railways, tramways, canals, harbours, docks, and piers, and any such order shall have effect as if enacted in this Act: Provided that nothing herein contained shall be deemed to empower the Minister to authorise the acquisition, otherwise than by agreement, of any land belonging to the owners of another undertaking to which this section applies, or of a local authority, or of a harbour dock or pier undertaking, but the Minister may authorise the acquisition of an easement or right of using such land for the purposes of any works Ale construction of which he may authorise under this section;

(e)In the case of any undertaking of which possession is, retained or taken by the Minister as aforesaid any rates, fares, tolls, dues and other charges directed by the Minister shall be deemed to be reasonable, and may, notwithstanding any agreement or statutory provisions limiting the amount of such charges or increases therein, be charged in respect of any undertaking daring the period for which the Minister retains possession of such undertaking and for a further period of eighteen months after the expiration of the said period, or until fresh provision shall be made by Parliament with regard to the amount of any such rates, fares, tolls, dues, and other charges, whichever shall first happen.

(f)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the rights of a consignor or consignee of goods or minerals, any trader or class of traders, or any port or harbour authority or dock company to complain to the Railway and Canal Commission under the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts in respect of undue preference or undue disadvantage or allowances or rebates in relation to the provision of station accommodation or terminal services shall not be deemed to be affected, and it shall be no answer to any such complaint that the railway company in respect of which the complaint is made was acting under the directions of the Minister.

THE EARL OF LYTTON THE EARL OF LYTTON moved, at the end of subsection (1) (c), to insert "Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising the Minister to compel the owners of any such undertaking either to incur capital expenditure or to draw upon their reserve funds for new works or capital improvements to an extent which would seriously interfere with their finances, it being the intention that the financing of the undertakings from a capital point of view shall remain as far as possible with the owners," The noble Earl said: This Amendment was inadvertently omitted during the Committee stage, although it was on the Paper. I do not think I need say much about it. It was to meet an undertaking which I gave to the Earl of Bessborough when he pointed out that possibly the finances of the railway companies might be injuriously affected. These words, I understand, have been approved, and I beg now to move them.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 5, line 12, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The next Amendment on line 17 is merely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 5, line 17, leave out ("including") and insert ("or").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BRASSEY EARL BRASSEY moved, in subsection 1 (e), to leave out "notwithstanding" and insert" subject and without prejudice to." The noble Earl said: I have been asked to move this Amendment on behalf of the Mansion House Committee of Traders. They feel that the Bill sweeps away a great deal of the protection which they at present enjoy under various Acts of Parliament, and the remedies which they now have if they are not being properly treated by the railway companies. They feel that the powers of the Minister should be subject to what Parliament has laid down as proper restrictions for many years.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 6, line 1, leave out ("notwithstanding") and insert ("subject and without prejudice to").—(Earl Brassey.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I do not know whether the noble Earl realises what would
808
be the effect of the Amendment. If it were accepted it would make it impossible for any rates beyond the existing statutory maxima to be increased under this Bill. I do not propose to enter once more into a discussion as to the necessity for the raising of rates; it is a matter on which every one is agreed. If the Amendment were passed we might as well strike out the subsection altogether. The whole point is to enable the Minister to raise the maximum rates on the railways notwithstanding the statutory provisions limiting the amount of such charges. To omit these words would deprive the Minister of that power.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9:
Power to establish transport services.
9.—(1) It shall be lawful for the Minister to establish and either by himself or through any other person to work transport services by land or water, and to acquire either by agreement or compulsorily such land or easements to construct such works, and to do all such other things as may be necessary for the purpose:
Provided that—

(i) no new transport service shall be established by the Minister until an estimate of the capital expenditure required to complete it accompanied by details of the scheme for the establishment of the service has been approved by the Treasury;

(ii) if in the case of any such service such estimate as aforesaid exceeds half a million pounds, or if the establishment of any such service involves the acquisition of land or easements compulsorily, or the breaking up of any roads, the Minister shall not exercise his powers of establishing the service unless authorised to do so by Order in Council a draft whereof has been approved by a resolution passed by both houses of Parliament, and the Order may incorporate the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, subject to such modifications as may be specified in the Order, being modifications of those Acts made or authorised to be made by the Development and Road Improvements Funds Act, 1909, or any other enactment, and the Order may also incorporate or apply any enactments relating to the construction and maintenance of the works in question;

(iii) where it appears to the Minister that the establishment of any such service could properly be undertaken by the owners of any existing undertaking, the Minister shall not himself establish the service without first giving to such owners an opportunity of establishing the service, and where such an opportunity is given to the owner of an

809
undertaking of which possession has been retained or taken under section three of this Act and those owners prefer that the establishment of the service should be undertaken by themselves rather than by the Minister, they may require the Minister to give them directions under that section to that, effect, but shall not be deemed to have thereby concurred in those directions; and

(iv) the Minister shall not after two years from the passing of this Act, unless Parliament otherwise determines, commence the construction of any new works, or, provide equipment for any transport service not established before that date.

(2) The Minister or other person working a service established under this section may subject to reference to the Advisory Committee on Rates hereinafter established charge such rates, fares, tolls, and charges in connection therewith as may be prescribed by the Minister, and the expenses of working such services shall be paid out of the revenues derived therefrom, and the Minister shall keep or cause to be kept such accounts of the receipts from and expenditure on the services and in such form, and those accounts shall be audited in such manner as the Treasury may prescribe.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I ask permission of your Lordships to call attention to a printer's error in Clause 9. I know it is not in order to bring up on Third Reading an Amendment which is not on the Paper, but as this is really a printer's error—an Amendment has been inserted in the wrong place—I ask your leave to call attention to it in order to have it put right. In the Committee stage I moved an Amendment to meet a point made by Fart Grey. I objected to the wording of his Amendment and the place in which he proposed to insert it because it would go further chant he intended. I moved in Clause 9, subsection 2, after the word "Minister" ["prescribed by the Minister"] to insert the words "subject to reference to the Advisory Committee on rates hereinafter established," but they have been inserted at the point at which Earl Grey proposed to insert his Amendment—namely, after the word "may" in the same subsection. I ask leave to give an Instruction that the Bill may be printed with the words inserted after the word "Minister."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It does not change the sense at all?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Yes, it changes the meaning, because the words inserted there would give to the Advisory Com-
810
mittee, as I pointed out on Earl Grey's Amendment, the right to consider all day to day changes in rates anti not merely the maximum and minimum limits. That is a matter which is done by a rates clerk, and there are as many as 30,000 alterations in a, month. These are things which are a matter of day to day administration which it would be impossible to refer to the Committee. If the words were left as now in the Bill it would mean that the Minister in regard to any new services he may start would go to the Advisory Committee and after consultation with them fix not only the maximum but the minimum rates, but also these further concessions.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Will the noble Earl read the clause exactly as it-should stand?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: It would run—" The Minister or other person working a service established under this section may charge such rates, fares, tolls, and charges in connection therewith as may be prescribed by the Minister, subject to reference to the Advisory Committee on Rates hereinafter established." and so on.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand that the effect of this change will merely be to bring it into absolute accord with the provisions as to rates and charges applying to any undertaking.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: That is so, and the words as they stand do not do so.
Amendment moved—
Clause 9, subsection (2), That the words ("subject to reference to the Advisory Committee on Rates hereinafter established") be transposed as indicated.—(The Karl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19:
Provisions as to the Railway and Canal Commission.
19. The provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, as amended by any subsequent enactment, relating to the procedure for the determination of questions by the Commission under that Act, including the provisions relating to appeals, shall apply to the determination of questions referred to the Commission under this Act, as if they were herein re-enacted and in terms made applicable to tins Act:
Provided that—

(a) the Commission may, in any case in which they think it expedient to do so, call in the aid of one or more assessors, specially qualified, and hear the case wholly or partially with the assistance of such assessors;

(b) the Commission may hold a local inquiry for the purposes of this section by any one of their members, or by any officer of the Commission or other person whom they may direct to hold the same, and the said provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic, Act, 1888, except the provisions relating to appeals, shall, so far as applicable, apply to such inquiries, and any officer or person directed to hold an inquiry shall have power to administer oaths and shall report the result of the inquiry to the Commission;

(c) the discretion of the Commission with respect to costs shall not be limited in the manner provided by section two of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894.

EARL BRASSEY EARL BRASSEY moved to leave out subsection (c). The noble Earl said: I formally move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 19, page 21, lines 39 to 42, leave out subsection (c).—(Earl Brassey.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The effect of this Amendment would be to leave out the discretion of the Railway and Canal Commissioners with respect to costs. A similar Amendment was moved by Lord Montagu of Beaulieu in Committee and I have nothing to add to what I said then. At the present moment the discretion of the Railway and Canal Commissioners in awarding costs is limited to cases which, in their opinion, are frivolous. That provision was inserted for the protection of small traders. Under this Bill the kind of questions which will be referred to the Railway and Canal Commissioners has been largely extended. There will be great and important questions between the Government and large Railway Companies, which in no way interest or involve small traders, and for that reason we have proposed to give to the Commissioners the same option in regard to awarding costs as is enjoyed by any legal tribunal and not to restrict them to cases which they regard as frivolous. I think it is a right and proper discretion to give them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23:
Advisory committees.
23.—(1) For the purpose of giving advice and assistance to the Minister in connection with the exercise and performance of his powers and duties, the Minister shall set up a panel of experts, and of impartial persons of wide commercial and trading experience appointed from nominees, after consultation with the various undertakings and interests concerned, of the various classes of undertakings affected by this Act, and of labour, trading interests, local authorities, and such other interests as he may deem desirable.
(2) Before exercising any of the powers under subsection (1) (b) of section three of this Act, to the exercise of which the owners of the undertaking concerned object, or establishing new transport services by land or water, the Minister shall refer the matter to a committee selected by him from the said panel.
(3) The advisory panel or any committee to whom any matter is referred under this section shall, before reporting or advising, if they see fit, give public notice and permit any person affected or likely to be affected to place their views before them either orally or in writing.
(4) Any member of the advisory panel, or any committee thereof, or of any other committee established under this Act, for giving advice and assistance to the Minister, shall be considered to be acting entirely in a confidential capacity.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Lord said: I am in a little difficulty about this Amendment, as I do not know what exactly will be the attitude of the noble Earl. I rather gathered last night that he was going to look into the matter in order to see whether some words may be put in to limit the effect of this subsection. I can quite understand that there are some points in which it is absolutely necessary to preserve strict confidence, but it is quite clear that some of the Committees which are to be appointed under this Clause to deal with local affairs, will be unable to discharge their duties and let their transactions remain absolutely confidential. The people who appoint them should have a means of knowing what advice they have given, and so far as I am concerned I would be quite satisfied if the Amendment of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, were accepted.* In that case I would not move mine, but in order to save my own position I am obliged, technically, to move the Amendment. If I withdrarw it now and the noble
* The Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the Marquess of SALISBURY was as follows: Clause 23, page 25, line 4, at end insert ("in respect of any matter coming to his knowledge in the exercise of his duties under this Act which it would be contrary to the interests of any private individual or trader to make public").

813
Marquess moves, I have lost my chance of moving it, and so technically to put it in order I move to omit this subsection, without repeating the arguments which I used last night, in order to see whether the noble Earl has anything to say on the subject at large.
Amendment moved—
Clause 23, page 25, lines 1 to 4, to leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: It is quite true that there was an understanding that we should give consideration to the points raised in Committee, and see whether some words of a limiting kind could be introduced. I have given the matter such consideration as was possible in the very short time at my disposal, but, for the reasons which I shall explain in a moment, I am unable to suggest any form of words which would meet the objections raised in Committee without at the same time taking away the purpose for which the words were inserted. I see my noble friend, the noble Marquess opposite, has also been thinking the matter over, and has put down on the Paper words which in his opinion would meet the point. Now the noble Marquess has, I think, quite fully and properly met the point which I used when defending this particular subsection in the Bill. I pointed out to your Lordships that in the interests of many private traders who would come before the Committee it was necessary that they should have some guarantee that the information which they laid before the Committee should be treated as confidential, and not used against them. The noble Marquess therefore puts in an Amendment to restrict the confidential character of the Committee to such matters.
I ventured to say yesterday—what I referred to in Committee—that there may not only be cases where the interests of private traders might be prejudiced by the disclosure of facts which they had laid before the Committee, but cases where the interests of the State would be prejudiced and the interests of individuals would be unduly favoured if other facts were revealed. The instance I quoted was this: Supposing the Roads Committee had under consideration an alteration in the rates on a particular class of goods, say coal or any other. While that matter is under consideration there are a number of contractors who are arranging for the delivery of coal at a particular place. If one of
814
those contractors obtained information, either that there was to be no change in the rates or that a certain change had been recommended, with that information at his disposal he might go and make a contract, perhaps for twelve months ahead, to deliver coal at a particular place at a particular price, whereas all his competitors might be still waiting back and unable to make a contract until they knew what the result in the matter of the rates was going to be.
Therefore there are cases where secrecy is necessary not merely in the interests of the private trader but also in the interests of the State, to prevent a private individual from benefiting by disclosures made to him by a breach of confidence on the part of any member of the Committee. Therefore I cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Marquess, because it would still leave that particular breach of confidence possible. It is my inability to cover those two cases which has compelled me to admit that I see no other way except to allow the subsection to remain in time Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sorry that the noble Earl takes this line about this Amendment. I had hoped, having listened with all the attention I could to all the discussions, that I had at last been able to meet the views of the Government. The last argument of the noble Earl I think, as he will see, anyhow as he states it, will not hold water. He says that an evil might be produced, if there was an intention to raise the rates or lower them—I am not sure which—
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Either.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:—by a breach of confidence, whereby the trader got to know it before others, but the noble Earl will not prevent breaches of confidence by this clause. It is, in fact, exactly the thing which the clause will produce. There will be partial disclosure and that is precisely what is such a mischief. I am not bringing a charge against the gentlemen who will be members of this committee of sinister design or corrupt motives. Nothing of the kind. It is not every body who can hold his tongue, and in fact it is a rather rare quality, and the noble Earl will find that all sorts of information will creep out, and it is the partial disclosure which does so much mischief. The noble Earl seems to forget—he has so many things to think of—what was said

815
yesterday. The whole of the argument both of himself and of the noble Earl who sits besides him was directed to the protection of the private trader.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I admitted that, but I said I had another argument which I used in Committee, and which was not covered by the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have not refreshed my memory on that head, but let me remind your Lordships what the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, said—
"Here, for good or for bad, we have put a statement in an Act of Parliament, that where matters dealing with the private affairs of persons or corporations are considered under these statutory powers the discussions are to be taken as confidential. It would be unfortunate if Parliament deliberately cut out these words"—mark these words!—" which are inserted solely as a safeguard to the trading community."
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If I said that, I clearly made a mistake. I have always avowed that this safeguard was bilateral, one for the trading community and the other for the Ministry.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We all make these mistakes, but unfortunately if we make them they are very legitimately quoted hereafter.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: And corrected also.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes certainly. But after all it was not the noble Earl who was in charge of the Bill, but my noble friend Lord Lytton, and I almost took down the words which he used, and I have tried to reproduce them in my Amendment. If the Government will not consent to accept my noble friend's Amendment I do hope that they will consent to the one which I have put on the Paper. We are most anxious to prevent any hole and corner business. We want if possible to avoid partial disclosures by indiscretion, which might do all sorts of harm, and we want if possible to keep that hold upon administration which the absence of secrecy always produces.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Like the noble Marquess, I certainly supposed that yesterday His Majesty's Government attached great importance to the point to which I no doubt had not given full atten-
816
tion—namely, that the disclosure of certain facts might adversely affect the interests of individuals, and I am quite prepared to admit, as I have said, that it did not occur to me with full force that it may be necessary to place some safeguard of the kind in the Bill. I do, however, very strongly object to the retention in the Bill of a general injunction to members of these Committees to behave like men of honour. No penalty is mentioned in the Bill for a breach of confidence of this kind, and it is, as I ventured to point out before, and as I firmly believe, entirely without precedent to place in a Statute a command or even advice to people who sit in private that when they come out of the room they must not talk about what has occurred during the meeting of the Committee to which they belong. It surely is an improper innovation for an Act of Parliament. I hope, therefore, that His Majesty's Government will consider whether it really is not an active error to attempt to deal with a matter of this kind in this way, and that they will agree to accept the Amendment of the noble Marquess, which does cover the point that might not otherwise be met. I confess that I was impressed by what the noble Earl said yesterday that, this provision having once been inserted in the Bill in the interests of traders and others, it might be a shock to them to see that it had disappeared. This being so, the obvious plan is to accept the Amendment of the noble Marquess.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: After what has been said, I shall not ask the House to divide on my Amendment, but I would point out that, according to the strict interpretation of the words of the sub-clause—" acting entirely in a confidential capacity"—a man so placed may not even discuss with a single person questions about to be raised. If that is the correct interpretation it would be, if there were a conference beforehand to discuss a matter with the representatives of the different interests, a perfectly impossible position. You are laying upon the person an obligation which, if he is to do his duty, he cannot carry out.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: May I point out how it would work. Assuming that there is a question of making a great new road from London, the London County Council would have to be consulted, and also the Middlesex County Council,

817
and possibly other county councils, and this committee—which is to safeguard the interests protected and to report to the Minister—would not be able, according to the strict terms of this subsection, to have even a meeting with the representatives of the county councils. I am sure that cannot be intended, and I think it is unreasonable. What I think will happen in practice is this. The subsection will be entirely ignored in regard to road matters and questions of that sort. Where you have a representative committee sitting it will become an absolute dead letter. Whether the noble Marquess's Amendment be carried or not, as far as the roads are concerned I am sure that it will become a dead letter. Under these circumstances is it wise of the Government to insist on their attitude? If the noble Marquess goes to a Division I shall certainly support him.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Clause 23, page 25, line 4, at end insert ("in respect of any matter coming to his knowledge in the exercise of his duties under this Act which it would be contrary to the interests of any private individual or trader to make public").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The noble. Marquess said that I had failed altogether in the remarks which I made just now to establish any case for refusing this Amendment, but it seems to me that the speech which he made exactly confirmed the argument that I used. He said that the words of the clause as they stood were not required to prevent the kind of case to which I referred—namely, where a breach of confidence might, lead to the forestalling of the decision of the committee on the part of a particular contractor. He said. "That is exactly what will happen." If the noble Marquess really thinks that that kind of breach of confidence is what will happen under the Act, then the importance of retaining these words is emphasised, because—though it is quite true, as has been pointed out, that there is no penalty in the Act—after all a breach of confidence is a question of honour, and people will really have to satisfy their own conscience whether in fact they have failed to carry out the intentions of the Committee. If it is stated that members of the Committee are to be regarded as being in a confidential capacity, then obviously they
818
are bound in honour to act throughout in a confidential sense, but if you expressly say that their confidential duties are only in so far as the interests of any individual or trader is concerned then just the case which I mentioned—and which I do not think the noble Marquess defended—would be permitted. If his words were inserted that would obviously be a breach of honour which would lead to the advantage of a particular trader and to the detriment of the State—detriment of the State at any rate during the period in which the State control the railway companies—because it would mean that upon a particular line the effects of the rate would be minimised, and that one particular contractor would benefit by a breach of confidence at the expense of another. It seems to me that it would be no argument at all on behalf of this Amendment to say, "Precisely what would happen if this Amendment is rejected is almost certain to happen if this Amendment is inserted." But if this Amendment is not put in, and the confidential nature of the duties is not defined, then if a man acts contrary to what is stated in the Act, it will be obviously a breach of honour which he may settle with his own conscience and with those who will be affected by his breach of confidence.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I have no wish to detain the House longer, but I cannot accept the view of the noble Earl that standards of honour or breaches of confidence can be defined or in any way sanctioned by words in an Act of Parliament. Supposing a man does what, the noble Earl fears he may do—that is to say, something which is to the profit of a private trader (a friend of his) but to the detriment of the State. If it is discovered that he has so acted, the obvious course is to remove him from the committee, and to avoid his society in the future as far as possible. These cases conceivably might arise in hundreds every day in connection with the committees of county councils and other public bodies. No oath of secrecy is taken by the members of those bodies, but it is quite conceivable, if they were to go out of the committee room where they met and to communicate to somebody what had passed in anticipation of the action of the public body, that person might turn it to profit. These things cannot be guarded against by public injunction. Therefore 'the point of the noble Marquess's Amendment is somewhat different,

819
and, as I understand, it is put in simply for the satisfaction and consolation of traders and other individuals who think that some harm might be done to them if the words are explicity struck out. But for that I should gladly have supported the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour. To my mind the whole subsection approaches the bounds of nonsense, and would be far better away. I am quite willing to admit that there may be reasons for keeping in this part of it, but I think it is objectionable to maintain the rest of it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl in charge of the Bill has exhausted his right of speech but is most anxious to meet the views of your Lordships, if possible. The difficulty he feels is in limiting the Amendment to cases in which it would be contrary "to the interests of any private individual or trader" to make public such matters. It seems to me that my noble friend is clearly right in his opposition to an Amendment so expressed as being too partial. If the noble Marquess would move his Amendment in this form my noble friend's opposition would be withdrawn: "In respect of any matter coming to his knowledge in the exercise of his duties under this Act which it would be contrary to the interests of the State or of any private individual or trader to make public."—inserting the words "of the State." I imagine that that would not conflict with the principal purpose which he had in mind.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is an immense difficulty in Amendments on the Third Reading, because that is the last chance, so far as your Lordships are concerned. In the earlier stages we can always put things right on the Third Reading if a mistake is made, and it is for that reason that your Lordships make the very necessary rule that no Amendment can be moved on Third Reading except with notice. I do not mean to say that that would make a change of the kind that the noble and learned Lord proposes out of order, but in the spirit of that rule of the House it would be very unwise of me to accept that additional word on the spur of the moment. What I would venture to put to the Government is this. Allow me to put the words in and then in another place they can consider them if they like and alter them, and we should have a further opportunity.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27:
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I have a drafting Amendment on this clause.
Amendment moved—
Clause 27, page 26, line 33, leave out the second ("the").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30:
Short title and interpretation.
30.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919.
(2) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the expression "government department" includes any Government or other public department and any Minister of the Crown acting as the head of a Government Department, and for the purposes of this Act the Road Board and the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council of Ireland and the Commissioners of the Caledonian Canal and the Commissioners of the Conservancy of the River Mersey shall be deemed to be Government Departments, and the expression "tramway" includes a trackless trolley vehicle system and the expression "easement" includes any right in or over land, and the expression "undertaking" includes any services carried on as ancillary to the principal business of the undertaking, and the expression "transport services by water" shall not include any transport service by sea other than such as is, or could under their existing statutory powers, or any extension thereof which may hereafter be authorised by Parliament, be established by the owners of any undertaking of which the Minister is for the time being in possession under this Act, and where an undertaking is leased to or worked by a company or person other than the owners, the expression "the owners of an undertaking" shall include that company or person, except where such an interpretation is inconsistent with the terms of the lease or working agreement, and except for the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to payments to be made to or by the owners of an undertaking in respect of any reduction or enhancement of the value of the undertaking.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "or other public" ["any Government or other public department"]. The noble Duke said: The object of this Amendment is to define more clearly the meaning of "or other public department." The noble Earl on the Committee stage of the Bill made it quite clear that these words could only refer to the Irish Board of Works and the Congested Districts Board. In those circumstances I submit it is desirable to put in those two bodies. If the words "or other public department" are left in they are a very indefinite and vague term, and may lead to a certain amount of misunderstanding.
Amendment moved—
Clause 30, page 28, line 15, leave out ("or other public").—(The Duke, of Northumberland.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The words "or other public department," are taken from other Acts. So far as I am able to learn, they only apply to the particular departments named. Therefore I shall not oppose the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I move the consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 30, page 28, line 18, after ("Ireland") insert ("the Irish Board of Works and the Congested Districts Board of Ireland").—(The Duke of Northumber and.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I beg to move that the Bill do pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

LAND SETTLEMENT (FACILITIES) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order).
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.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to leave out from subsection (2) "or an option to purchase a small holding is given." The noble Viscount said: I have some Amendments on Clause 11 which are purely drafting, being necessitated by the Amendments made on a previous stage of the Bill. There is another Amendment to Clause 29 which is merely to bring it into conformity with the provisions of the Housing Act.
Amendment moved—
Clause 11, page 6, lines 38 and 39, leave out ("or an option to purchase a small holding is given'').—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next are consequential Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Clause 11, page 7, lines 1 and 2, leave out ("or option'')
Clause 11, page 7, line 2, leave out ("or given")
Clause 11, page 7, lines 21 and 22, leave out ("or options for")
Clause 11, page 7, line 23, leave out ("or given").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 29:
Amendment of Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1890.
29. The powers conferred upon a tenant for life by the Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1890, shall include the following further power:—
A power at any time, or times, to make a grant or grants of any part or parts of the settled land in fee simple or absolutely, or a lease or leases for any term of years without any consideration, or at a nominal price annuity or rent, or at less than the best price annuity or rent that can reasonably be obtained for the purpose of the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, 1908 to 1919, and any such grant as aforesaid shall be deemed to be a sale within the meaning of the said Settled Laud Acts: Provided that, except under an order of the court, no more than two acres altogether in any one parish shall be granted or leased under this power for the purpose of the said Small Holdings and Allotments Acts or under the similar power conferred by the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, for the purpose of the erection of dwellings, for the working classes or the provision of gardens to be held in connection therewith or for all of such purposes together without payment of the full-price annuity or rent for any land granted or leased in excess of such quantity.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in the proviso, to leave out "altogether" and to insert "in the case of land situate in an urban district or ten acres in the case of land situate in a rural district."
Amendment moved—
Clause 29, page 17, line 26, leave out ("altogether") and insert the said words.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I beg to move that this Bill do pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

AGRICULTURAL LAND SALES (RESTRICTION OF NOTICES TO QUIT) BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I gave notice of an Amendment to Clause 1 of this Bill last night, but subsequent to my doing so an alteration was made in the Bill which, so far as I understand it, will render my Amendment unnecessary. I understand that the Bill is now not to be made applicable to Scotland.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes, it is.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: A strong feeling exists in Scotland that Clause 1 is unsuitable to Scottish habits and customs, because there yearly tenancies do not exist, and many people are afraid that Clause 1 might have the effect of breaking Scottish leases. I do not know whether that is the case or not. The object of my Amendment was to make clear that this result would not take place. If I understand it rightly, as it is now printed no part of the Bill is to apply to Scotland.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: It seems almost impossible to discuss this Bill, because we have not before us the Amendments which your Lordships made on Report and we do not know what we are talking about. I understand that since the Committee stage more Amendments were made on Report.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Probably it would be convenient if we deferred the further consideration of the Bill until to-morrow.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: Am I correct in what I have said?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am sorry to say that the Bill is improperly printed. I moved
824
an Amendment that the Bill should apply to Scotland, but as the Bill is printed it says that it should not apply to Scotland. I do not wonder, therefore, that some little difficulty has arisen, and perhaps we had better postpone the Bill until to-morrow.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: The Bill does not contain the Amendments which, I think, the noble Viscount moved on Report.
VISCOUNT PEEL: No. Through some mistake in printing, my Amendments do not seem to be included. Perhaps we had better wait until to-morrow when the Bill is properly reprinted.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: As I understand the matter, an Amendment was inserted last night on the Report stage that the Bill should not apply to Scotland.
VISCOUNT PEEL: No; the other way.
Third Reading of the Bill adjourned until to-morrow.

LABOURERS (IRELAND) 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 Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[LORD DENMAN in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Extension of definition of agricultural labourer.
1.—(1) For the purposes of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1918, and this Act, the definition of the expression "agricultural labourer" in section ninety-three of the Irish Land Act, 1903, shall be extended so as to include—

(a) any person (other than a domestic or menial servant) working for hire in a rural district whose average wages exceed two shillings and sixpence a day;

(b) any person not working for hire, but working in a rural district at some trade or handicraft without employing any persons except members of his own family:

Provided that this section shall not apply to any person who is in occupation of more titan a quarter of an acre of land exclusive of any plot or garden let to him by the rural district council.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I do not propose to move to Clause 1 the Amendments on the Paper precisely as they stand. I have bad some communication with the members of the Government, and I understand that the position with regard to the Bill is that, although there are many points of view which might be regarded as objectionable, as these cottages were intended for the poorest class they think it undesirable to restrict the occupation of them in the case of any labourers even though they may be earning £3, or £4 a week, and they desire also to take in craftsmen who are not working for hire.
There is one important point in regard to this question of which account must be taken—namely, that in the past the lettings of these houses by the rural authorities has been in some cases of the most Scandalous description. Houses have been built which cost the ratepayers 5s. a week—they will cost them more in the future—and they have been let in some districts for 1s. a week, and let not to the poorest class, for whom we should all have sympathy, but in some cases to men who are notoriously earning not only 2s. 6d. a day but some of them as much as 10 s. a day. I can give your Lordships a case—which I am prepared to give to the Law Officers of the Crown if they wish it—in which four men, father and three sons, were for three years earning £200 a year apiece—namely, £800 a year, at a neighbouring munition works and yet were living in a cottage provided by the municipality which cost the local authorities 5s. a week and which was let for only 1s. a week.
Now, after conferring with the responsible members of the Government, an Amendment has been suggested to me which at all events would have the effect, while admitting the class the Government desire to benefit, of giving the Local Government Board control over these cases, and more especially would enable them to veto the introduction into these cottages of persons who were never intended by Parliament to occupy them. I do not think that anyone can object to this Amendment which will carry out the entire intention of the Bill, and I sincerely hope that your Lordships will allow it to be inserted.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 15, after ("that") insert:
"(1) The rents charged on any lettings to any such persons should not be less than shall be
826
specially prescribed by rules of the Local Government Board; and (II) Any questions that may arise as to whether a person is a person to whom this section applies stall be determined by the Local Government Board, whose determination shall be final and conclusive; and (III)").—(Viscount Midleton.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am ready to accept this Amendment. I think it is probably a good thing, with this extension of housing, to give the Local Government Board a locus standi in examining these matters. I would however point out that in England we have no inquiry into the wages of those who are going to come under the new Housing Act; and if, as Lord Midleton suggests, people with good wages come under this Bill the same thing will obtain in England mid people with handsome wages will come under our scheme.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

LABOUR DISPUTES.
EARL BRASSEY EARL BRASSEY rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the statements made in the Press as to the policy of Government intervention in labour disputes, they will define clearly what their policy is in the matter, and whether in view of the disastrous effects of Government intervention on the coal industry it is their intention for the future to leave the regulation of wages to organisations of employers and employed.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, a report appeared in the Press last week to the effect that the Government intended to abandon the policy of direct intervention in labour disputes, and the reason I have put this Question on the Paper is to ascertain to what extent that report is correct. It is obvious that in certain cases the Government must directly intervene in a labour dispute. Take, for example, a strike of dock labourers or transport workers which would have the effect of holding up the distribution of foodstuffs and placing people in a certain district in danger of starvation. Or, again, it is possible that the Government might have to intervene in the case of a railway strike. I remember very well a railway strike taking place some years ago in Italy in which the Government intervened; they succeeded in maintaining some sort of railway service until the strike collapsed.
I hope that the Government will be able to state definitely that it is not their intention to interfere in labour disputes except in cases of the kind indicated. Nothing, I am sure, would tend more to restore the confidence which is so essential to increased production than a declaration by the Government that the regulation of wages, at any rate, will be left to industrial councils of employers and employed as recommended by the Whitley Report. I think it is a matter of general satisfaction that the committee appointed by the Federation of British Industries, which represents businesses or firms with a capital of over £5,000,000,000, welcomes the fact that on these councils workers will sit on a footing of absolute equality with employers and will have an equal voice in determining the general conditions subject to which industry will be carried on. If that is the spirit by which employers are animated, there is no good ground for the interference of the Government, and the regulation of wages and conditions of labour may be safely left to the industrial council of employers and employed.
As I have more than once stated in this House, the interference of the Government has been absolutely fatal to our coal industry. The possibility that the conditions under which an industry is carried on may at any moment be changed by the Board of Trade, or the Minister of Labour, or some other Government Department, is paralysing British industries. Industrialists will not lay out capital on improvements; they cannot enter into contracts as long as such uncertainty prevails. Even a more important reason why I hope the Government will define their future policy is that it is perfectly certain, in my opinion, that their policy in the past in decreeing advances in wages and reductions in hours irrespective of the capacity of the industry to bear them, instead of removing discontent, has created unrest. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has, perhaps, a better source of information than I have, but I entirely disagree with what he said just now—namely, that the situation is better to-day than it was six months ago. In my opinion the situation is infinitely worse, and it is largely worse owing to the action of the Government. With regard especially to the coal industry, I think it is important that there should no longer be this control by the Coal Controller. The natural check on reasonable
828
demand does not operate, because the mines are kept going at the public expense. I sincerely hope that the Government will be able to give some sort of answer to the Question which I have placed on the Paper, and will, at any rate, be able to assure this House and the country that they do not intend to interfere any longer in the question of the regulation of wages between employers and employed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Earl is a very severe critic of the Government on these matters. Everything the Government did throughout the war and has done since is wrong, according to the noble Earl. I have sometimes regretted that the noble Earl had not the responsiblity of facing some of the problems with which the Government were confronted during the period of which he speaks. The noble Earl says he does not agree that the situation is better to-day than it was six months ago. I must make my meaning plain to him. I did not mean the general industrial situation to-day was better than it was six months ago; what I said was that the position to-day was more favourable for confronting, and if necessary resisting, unreasonable demands than was the case six or seven months ago.
The noble Earl will forgive me if I tell him with great frankness that he does not know that the Government of this country was faced with a crisis which made it impossible and would have made it criminal to regard only economic considerations in dealing with these matters. What happened is plain. No economic defence whatever can be made for the state of affairs which prevailed and for which three successive Governments nevertheless made themselves responsible. I will tell your Lordships in a sentence what the circumstances were. In one short moment it was realised that it was necessary to transmute the whole character of the industries of this country; that it was necessary to detach them from peaceful purposes and to harness them to the purposes of war. Immense revolutions were required in the process of giving effect to the necessary change. Never in the history of any country has an industrial revolution so immense been carried through in a time so short. When you withdraw all the normal and natural play of supply and demand—all those disciplinary considerations which are supplied by the knowledge in the mind of the workman that if he does not work he will

829
be dismissed and another man put in his place, and by the knowledge in the mind of the employer that if he does not treat his employees properly they will leave him and go elsewhere—when you withdraw all those controlling elements and substitute for them employment by the State worked out in circumstances of the greatest possible danger, does anybody imagine that in those circumstances you will find that the resulting and substituted arrangements can be carried out with the smoothness and efficiency which characterised our trading and manufacturing arrangements before the war? It is impossible. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, has great knowledge of these matters. He was a member of a Cabinet which played a great part in the shifts and devices to which we were driven in the attempt to obtain the best possible contribution to the necessities of the war.
If, however, it relieves in any way the anxieties of the noble Earl, I will tell him quite frankly that he has founded himself, as far as I can judge from the terms of his Question, upon a newspaper paragraph that appeared, I think, from some Lobby correspondent, which purported to indicate the intentions of the Government. The noble Earl might have drawn the same inference himself. The war is over and peace is signed. All those considerations which imperiously demanded the new arrangements—arrangements which would be indefensible except in reference to the crisis—should be abandoned, and they will be abandoned, at the earliest possible moment the circumstances render it possible. The noble Earl is also quite right in drawing the inference that whereas the policy of the Government when the war was raging was that the paramount consideration was to keep people working, that will no longer be the paramount, though an immensely important, consideration.
The noble Earl is perfectly right, again, in drawing the inference that the policy of the Government to-day is in the main to leave these disputes to be determined amongst these in whose centre they have arisen. That is and must be the best policy. Let the noble Earl, even on that point, have no misunderstanding. I do not suppose that he would lay down the doctrine that, even in peace time, there are no circumstances in which it would not be imperative for the Government to intervene. I am sure he would not. No one could give
830
expression to an opinion which would be so thoughtless. There are grave occasions on which any Government, whatever its complexion, must intervene. The noble Earl is perfectly right when he conjectures that the policy of the Government is, under normal circumstances, to let these disputes find their own salvation and to let negotiations be carried on between the working men, who know their interests, and the employers, who know theirs. The ordinary salutary rule is that the State only ought to intervene in those cases in which some fundamental national interest is involved.
The noble Earl will not think that I do not do justice to the spirit and zeal which always inspire his contributions to our debates on these subjects, but I confess that I do sometimes detect, or I think I detect, in his criticisms and the criticisms of others, some slight failure to realise the overwhelming responsibility under which those of us who have been Ministers for five years have had to reach decisions upon these and cognate questions. I am sure the noble Earl and your Lordships will not expect, at this period of the session and in a thin House, that one should embark on a long discussion of industrial policy, but I fear that we shall make demands on your Lordships' time in the autumn for these subjects. I do, however, gladly embrace the opportunity, afforded to me by the Question which has been asked by the noble Earl, to make quite plain, so far as my words can do it, the policy of the Government.
EARL BRASSEY: I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply to my Question. When he says he wishes that I had some responsibility in dealing with matters of this kind, may I say, in reply, that I am dealing with these questions all the time? Only the other day, in a dispute affecting many thousands of workers, I urged people with whom I was acting that they should resist further concessions at all costs. The point I wish to make, and which perhaps I did not sufficiently make—
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Would the noble Earl forgive me for pointing out that he has already exhausted his right to speak on this point?
EARL BRASSEY: I willingly submit to that suggestion, and desire only to thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of August 11.]
GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOURS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Hylton), and reported from the Committee.

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
EAST HAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
LEEDS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
SHOREHAM-BY-SEA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
WEST HARTLEPOOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
MIDDLESBROUGH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

WORKINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2a on Thursday next.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes past five o'clock until three o'clock tomorrow.