Lords Sitting of 13 August 1919

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

PENSIONS FUNDS (CARDIFF) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, the details of this Bill are a little complicated, but there are no controversial points; no petitions against the. Bill were, or were likely to be presented; and is passage through the House of Commons was merely a formal matter. Briefly, the circumstances are these. Sections 32 and 33 of the Towns Police Clauses Act, 1847, give power to the local authority to purchase or provide for fire engines, etc., and make provision for the payment of the firemen. Under Section 2, subsection (1), of the Police Act, 1893, the council of a borough may by resolution delegate the above powers to the Watch Committee, who are thereupon empowered to employ police constables wholly or partially as firemen. Under Section 8, subsection (2), of the same Act it is provided that where any local Act or Order contains provisions as to a fire brigade, the Secretary of State may frame and submit to Parliament a Provisional Order repealing or modifying such provisions so as to bring them into harmony with the provisions of the 1893 Act, and he may by such Order unite any existing fire brigade pension fund with the police pension fund, and may make any other adjustments which may appear to him to be necessary in order to give effect to the 1893 Act. Part 13 of the Cardiff Corporation Act, 1894, contains provisions for the establishment of a permanent fire brigade pension fund. The necessary resolution having been passed by the Council of the
834
City of Cardiff in the terms of Section 2 of the Police Act, 1893, a Provisional Order has been made by the Secretary of State, under Section 8 of that Act, uniting the fire brigade pension fund with the police pension fund and making certain necessary and consequential adjustments. This Provisional Order is set out in the schedule to the Bill. This Bill was brought from another place some time ago, but for various reasons has been delayed. Although it is, perhaps, not a matter of great public importance, it is a matter of considerable importance to the City of Cardiff; and in moving the Second Reading I express the hope that your Lordships will see your way to pass the Bill through its remaining stages at an early date.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Jersey.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed.

CLOSING OF DUBLIN HOSPITALS.
LORD SHANDON: My Lords, I rise to ask whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been directed to the in:—pending closing of Lice Houses of Industry Hospitals in Dublin; if it is intended to take any action relating thereto; and to move for Papers. I desire, if possible, to draw from the Government some sympathetic view and practical assistance in connection with the serious difficulty that has arisen with regard to the management of four hospitals which are essentially State hospitals, and at the present time are supposed to be supported by a grant from Imperial resources.
It is not very easy for your Lordships to understand the exact position without being informed of the constitution of there four hospitals. This is really a serious matter which ought to be dealt with, and hope to suggest one practical way of dealing with it. In the eighteenth century theme were established, by the Irish Governments of the time, a series of hospitals to provide surgical and medical aid for the poorer classes in Dublin and in Ireland generally, and these hospitals for a time fulfilled the functions now fulfilled by Poor Law Relief Hospitals. Under the Act of Union this was one of the liabilities taken over by the Imperial Government, and a short time after the operation of the Act of Union it

835
was found that difficulties, both from a practical and monetary point of view, arose with regard to these hospitals. Two Inquiries were held. One was an Inquiry by the House of Commons in the year 1854, and the second was as Inquiry held by a Commission, which was generally referred to as the South Commission, in 1856. The South Commission reported that these hospitals were doing such good work that they should be maintained in their then state of efficiency.
The Report of the South Commission was followed by an Act of Parliament called the Hospitals Regulation Act, 1856, and this Act constituted the hospitals in their present form. They consist of a group and are called the Richmond, a surgical hospital; the Whitworth, a medical hospital; the Hardwicke, a purely fever hospital; and the Auxiliary block, for surgical and certain emergency services. These four hospitals are constituted under the Statute with a government of a very peculiar character. The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—of course, it is the Irish Office, but nominally it is in the name of the Lord Lieutenant—exercises complete control over the management of these hospitals. He appoints—not as governors, because it was so decided by the case which arose in Ireland, but as merely a committee of inspection and assistance (an advisory committee we call it now)—a number of governors. These governors cannot appoint officers without the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant. They cannot dismiss officers without the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant; and the hospitals are bound by the Superannuation Act of 1859, a position which. I do not think has arisen in connection with any other hospital with which I am acquainted, certainly not in Ireland.
The building themselves are not private property, but are vested in the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, and nothing can be done in that way to mortgage or charge these buildings, except with the approval of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland. I mention this to show your Lordships how completely these are semi-State institutions; but more than that, resulting from the recommendations of the South Commission, a sum of £7,600 originally and now £7,500 per annum is provided as being sufficient to keep up these hospitals. From 1856 down to the beginning of the war this grant was found sufficient—a rather tight
836
fit perhaps but still sufficient—to keep them going. I should explain that they are so situated in the poorest part of Dublin, and so regarded as fulfilling all the functions required for giving aid to the poor, that the ordinary Poor Law Hospital at the north side of the City of Dublin was closed, and prior to the war these hospitals dealt with the ordinary Poor Law relief cases. Of course we all know that it is utterly impossible to keep any institution going on the same rate of contribution that was possible before the war, and if I give your Lordships figures you will be able to appreciate the practical difficulty that has arisen. I am informed that while prior to the war £64 12 s. 11 d. per patient was sufficient to keep the hospitals going, in 1919 the sum required per patient was £119 1s. 10 d. That, I think, will be the experience of all those who have had to deal with ordinary hospitals which are supported by voluntary contributions.
The position in Dublin is this. There are a number of hospitals supported by voluntary contributions. Most of them at the present time are in debt. The difficulty of getting the public under present conditions to clear off debt or to keep the hospitals going in their old condition of efficiency is practically insuperable. These particular hospitals have no private subscriptions. The Statute under which they were constituted did contemplate private subscriptions and donations, and there is a provision in the Act by which a certain number of governors may be appointed by those who have given donations, but in consequence of the fact that private donations are not forthcoming to what was always regarded as a State institution, this power has never been used, and at the present time the governing body is one nominated by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The hope of getting money in present circumstances from private sources is, I am afraid, an impossibility, and that is the condition of things which has arisen. These hospitals, the four of them put together, are practically the largest institution of the kind in Ireland. They have practically the largest nursing and training establishment, which is a most important public matter, and they also have got possibly one of the largest if not the largest clinic in Ireland. The closing of them accordingly will not only affect the indigent poor but seriously affect medical I science and practice in Ireland. It will

837
also seriously affect the question of the training of nurses.
These, my Lords, are absolute bedrock facts, and at the present time the governors can do nothing. The hospitals are practically closed, and there is no chance of their being opened unless some practical solution is found. I do not know what view the Government may take of the matter and how far they consider that they have any obligations connected with them. It is not my habit to press things to an unreasonable conclusion. I think it may be fairly said that these hospitals are not practically speaking purely government institutions. It may also be said that they are not purely private institutions. Any additional income which they get comes from the patients who pay for services rendered, and accordinaly it is a case in which I can understand the Treasury saying, as they have said, "this £7,500 was fixed and we will give no more," but at the same time the words of the South Commission unquestionably proceeded, as I am informed, on the basis that these hospitals were to be kept going—not merely that they were to get a ''kind of charitable grant of £7,500 but that they were to be kept going in their then state of efficiency.
This is a state of affairs which, coupled with the fact that the control is in his Excellency's hands, places the onus upon Government of trying to help in a situation which is intolerable and which in the coming winter will lead to great misery, loss and suffering to the poor in Dublin. Perhaps a business Inquiry representing the Treasury, the medical profession, the governors, and perhaps some of the business glen of Dublin might come to some conclusion. The doctors say, as I am informed, that suddenly to shut down one of these hospitals is practically impossible. If you shut down the Fever Hospital there will be no sufficient accommodation for fever patients in Dublin, because the only other hospital is an institution kept up by voluntary contributions. If we shut down the emergency block serious cases will have to be sent all across the City in cars ambulances, with great suffering to the patients. The doctors say it is practically impossible. Surely it is a question which might be inquired into rapidly and carefully. Some solution might be found before the winter. I understand that for
838
all practical purposes the four hospitals are closed now, and that is something which ought not to be allowed.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I should like to support this Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shandon. I think that he has made out a very clear case by establishing that these are State hospitals, and that there is some responsibility attaching to the State with regard to them. There is another point that I should like to emphasise, and that is that the Lord Lieutenant has complete control and appoints the governors, who in turn appoint the officials without referring to the Lord Lieutenant. Surely the noble and learned Lord has made out a very strong case for these hospitals and has demonstrated that they might reasonably look to the State for some help. The poor of Dublin—and they are very poor many of them—will suffer immensely from this. There is another most important point which the noble and learned Lord made. If the fever hospital is shut, which is very likely to be the case, and if we get an outbreak of any infectious fever in Dublin, the one other place that they might be sent to might be crowded out, and where are the sufferers to go? The cost of patients before the war was £64, and now the cost is £119. Surely if the State has taken control of these hospitals there is some responsibility on the State to provide more money in order to allow them to carry on their work. There are many hospitals in Dublin, but to shut up four is a very serious thing indeed, and I hope that the Government will show that at all events they appreciate the situation. I am not myself in favour of a Commission or a Committee. For my own part, I should much rather see the grant increased, then perhaps with the help of the public and private subscriptions which might be given under these hard circumstances we should be able to manage to keep the four hospitals going. They are very much needed in Dublin.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, the noble and learned Lord below the gangway said that this was essentially a State hospital. It is quite true that this hospital was established under Statute in 1856, or rather that its direction was controlled by Statute passed in 1856, but it is not a State hospital in the sense that it

839
renders any special service to the State. It does not. It assumes no special responsibility, for instance, towards looking after Government servants—Post Office employees, Police, or whatever they may be—and it can only be said to be a State hospital in the sense that for the last half century it has relied upon State funds. This hospital differs in no degree from any other hospital in Ireland or in Britain, except that it has had this good fortune for many years of having a special grant. It is an old established hospital, and I believe it received grants under the old Irish Parliament, but since the year 1856 it has only received a sum of £7,600 from the Parliamentary votes. Its position, therefore, is unique. Apart from one or two smaller hospitals in Dublin I believe no other hospital in this country gets a grant from the State except in return for specific services rendered. Lord Shandon says that some practical solution is wanted. Lord Mayo explains more clearly what that practical solution is—namely, that the State should meet this deficit. I do not know whether my information is correct or whether Lord Shandon's is, but I have accounts before me, and it would certainly appear that the State subsidy of £7,600 is not the only source of income available to this charitable institution.
LORD SHANDON: It is the only one except the private patients.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It has other receipts.
LORD SHANDON: Other receipts from patients who are treated as private patients. I mentioned them.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon; I did not take that point from him. During the last two or three years the hospital has had a very considerable income from the War Office apart from the money voted by Parliament. Last year it was £7,000; the year before, £6,300; in addition to that it has had an income, as I gathered from the noble and learned Lord, from the fees of patients who can afford to pay.
LORD SHANDON: They are not very large, but there are some.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: They are upwards of £3,000 a year. I am afraid that I cannot hold out hopes to the noble and learned Lord that the Treasury will see its way to recommend Parliament to pay a larger sum than this annual grant. After all, it must be remembered that this hospital starts with very great advantages. It receives in fact the income from what would be an endowment of £150,000 or more, and the Treasury, I have to inform your Lordships, though prepared to continue the Parliamentary grant as it has done for the last half century, subject to the assent of Parliament, can undertake no further responsibility in respect of this hospital. If that item of £3,000 comes from fees of patients it shows that the Dublin public as a whole, apart from its contribution through Imperial taxes, is making no effort whatever to support this hospital. I think that everybody will share the regret of Lord Shandon that this institution is unable either through increasing its fees, through enlisting the good offices of subscribers, or perhaps through getting some help from the Corporation of the City of Dublin, to add to its income, and I would share his regret, and your Lordships would likewise do so, if the hospital were to close. But I do not think it is wise to press the Treasury to increase this grant. To do so might, of course, involve reconsideration of this and the analogous grants which exist in Dublin, and would clearly involve equivalent demands from a hundred and one other hospitals both here and in Ireland which are in necessitous circumstances. Under these conditions I think that steps must be taken to rehabilitate the financial position of this hospital apart from those which might come from Government Funds.
LORD SHANDON: I do not formally move my Motion for Papers. I merely put it down in order that I might explain the circumstances. I would point out taat it is not a question of these hospitals being closed in the future; they are closed in the present. I did not know that they were all closed at the time of putting clown the Motion on the Paper. In regard to private resources and fees from private patients, one cannot very well get them if there is no staff and no hospital, and the hospital is closed so far as ordinary hospital work is concerned. That being the case, it is scarcely a place which can derive much assistance from private patients, competing

841
I suppose with ordinary private hospitals. That is the position of affairs, and I regret very much that the Government do not see their way at least to endeavour by some process of inquiry or getting people to meet together to put these hospitals in the position they previously occupied.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE rose to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to the proceedings of the Royal Commission on Agriculture; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, may I first of all remind you what the terms of reference are to this Royal Commission on Agriculture which is now sitting. The reference is—
To inquire into the economic prospects of the agricultural industry of Great Britain, with special reference to the adjustment of a balance between the prices of agricultural commodities, the costs of production, the remuneration of labour, and hours of employment."
Your Lordships will notice that that is a very carefully-drawn and restricted reference. Then let me remind you of how this Commission is composed. Roughly speaking, there are seven or eight representatives of labour, seven or eight farmers, and two or three economists or accountants; but there is not one single representative of the agricultural landowners. Of that omission I make no complaint, if and so long as the work of this Commission is strictly confined to the questions intended to be covered by the reference—that is, whether, under the immediate prospect of future prices, the farmers will be able to pay the wages as settled by the Agricultural Wages Board. But if the Commission should proceed to deal with matters outside that narrow reference, then, of course, the question is raised at once whether the composition of the Commission is such as to make it a fit body to deal with such subjects.
At the first meeting of the Commission, I am given to understand, a certain question of interpretation of the reference arose, with which I am not concerned to-day. But the Commission adjourned in order that the matter might be referred to the Government, and that they might inform
842
the Commission what their position in the matter was. A letter was written to the Commission by Sir Arthur Boscawen, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, which was read to the members of the Commission at their first meeting after July 27, the date of Sir Arthur Boscawen's letter. That letter is addressed to Sir William Peat, and commences as follows—
"Dear Sir William Peat,
"With reference to our conversation this morning respecting the terms of reference to the Royal Commission, I have consulted the Prime Minister, and am authorised by him to write as follows."
The first paragraph of the letter deals with the question referred specially back to the Government by the Commission, with which I have nothing whatever to do now—it is a question with reference to the meaning of the words "hours of employment." But I want to draw your Lordships' special attention to the second paragraph of the letter—
"The Government purposely limited the reference in the first instance so as to exclude wider questions, by which I understand is meant such questions as security of tenure and the nationalisation of the land, because they wish to have an early report on the economic question, and for this reason they placed on the Commission no direct representative of landowners, but an equal number of representatives of agriculturists and labour. It would be manifestly unfair that those questions, which profoundly affect the interests of landowners, should be considered in the absence of any representation of them. The Government realise that evidence on these subjects cannot be excluded altogether in so far, at least, as it may bear on the economic position of the industry. But they are of opinion that if there is to be a full examination and considered ion of these questions it should be undertaken by a separate Royal Commission specially constituted for the purpose.
"(Signed) ARTHUR G. BOSCAWEN."
I want in the first place to draw your Lordships' attention to the reference to nationalisation. It is very satisfactory that His Majesty's Government state there quite definitely that the present Royal Commission is not qualified to deal with such a subject. But I think it is rather disquieting that any reference should be made at all to the possible future appointment of a Royal Commission to deal with that subject, and I do think that this is implied by the concluding words—
"But they are of opinion that if there is to be a full examination and consideration of these questions it should be undertaken by a separate Royal Commission."
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I suppose that refers to security of tenure, and not merely nationalisation.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: To both. Nationalisation is a very big subject, and I do not intend even to touch upon it to-day, except to say that those who are in favour of it and those who are against it hold their views with great strength, and I think it would be a deplorable thing if that question was raised now in any shape or form. It could only add still further to the general want of confidence and the public feeling of insecurity that lies at the root of our financial and economic difficulties. And what I hope the Government will be able to say is that there is no intention whatever on their part of opening that question in any form.
Then I come to the question of security of tenure, which, as my noble friend opposite truly states, is also referred to in those concluding words. That case is a very different one. So far as I am able to speak for agricultural landowners—and I think I may, as President of the Central Landowners Association, claim to speak for many of them—they are quite willing to meet the occupiers and discuss this subject, though your Lordships must not think that that implies on my part an open mind on the question of dual ownership. I have no such open mind. I believe dual ownership to be a wholly bad system in any country, and I cannot imagine how anybody could suppose it could be for the interests of the State to introduce it here. This does not alter the fact that there is a very general feeling of insecurity at the present moment among many farmers, due almost exclusively to the large sales of estates, to their purchase by syndicates, and to that unhappy practice that grew up of giving notice wholesale to tenants before the sale took place.
The point I want to make on this question of security of tenure is this, that any body appointed to consider that question (to which there are two very distinct sides, as my noble friend opposite knows well) should be composed of competent persons wholly disinterested from the question at issue, before whom the interested parties should appear as witnesses. I want to make a protest now and here against this practice which is growing up of appointing a Royal Commission to decide some very
844
difficult question by putting on six members who hold one set of extreme views and six other members who hold another set of extreme views, and appointing one or two people to decide between them. It is a preposterous way of arriving at a settlement, and I should have thought that the proceedings at the Coal Commission led sufficiently exposed its danger and its mischief. Therefore I would strongly beg His Majesty's Government that if they appoint such a body—I personally am wholly prepared for its appointment—to consider this question, it should be composed of people who are neither occupiers nor owners nor with any interest in the occupation or ownership of land. The only rôle which the owners and the occupiers should fill in the Commission is that of witnesses.
I desire to refer again to Sir Arthur Boscawen's letter, and especially to these words—
"It would be manifestly unfair that these questions" [that is, nationalisation and security of tenure] "which profoundly affect the interests of landowners, should be considered in the absence of any representation of them."
That is exactly the same thing as saying what was said—I think every one must agree with Sir Arthur Boscawen and the Government—that the present Royal Commission is not a fit body to deal with the question of security of tenure. When I remind you again that it is composed of seven or eight representatives of labour, seven or eight farmers, and two or three economists and accountants, and that there is not one landowner on it, it must be clear that it is a wholly unfit body to deal with the question of security of tenure.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: This body?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes, this body. And I want to emphasise the feint that it would not be made fit by the appointment of seven or eight landowners to balance the seven or eight representatives of labour and the seven or eight occupiers. In my judgment it would still remain a wholly unfit body. I have already described to your Lordships the kind of body which I think would be fit to deal with this question, but I hope that no such unhappy idea will occur to His Majesty's Government as to try and make this body fit merely by adding a representation of the landowners.

845
Although this body is clearly unfit to deal with the question, I want to draw your Lordships' attention to a Resolution passed by the Commission at its meeting on July 30. I am reading from the Official Report of the proceedings of the Commission as published in the newspapers of July 31. At the very end of the Report you will find these words—
"The Commission agrees to consider the subject of security of tenure in relation to the costs of production and to the general economic prospects of the farming industry."
I can imagine anyone saying that in dealing with the costs of production it would not be possible to omit altogether all consideration of security of tenure, though personally I do not think it comes much into the question. Nor do I myself believe that you can consider this question in bits; you have to consider it as a whole, because otherwise it would not be in any degree satisfactorily dealt with. But the Royal Commission goes much further than that when it passes a Resolution to the effect that it agrees to consider the subject of security of tenure in relation to the costs of production and to the general economic prospects of the farming industry.
Now, if that is not the whole question of security of tenure I do not know what is; and I enter my most emphatic protest against a Commission so formed—which has been characterised by His Majesty's Government, by implication, as unfit to deal with this question—attempting to deal with it. Let me draw your attention to the extraordinary contrast between its action on this subject and on the question of hours of labour. In the same Report, exactly before the words I have just quoted, comes the report of the following Resolution—
"The addition of the words and hours of employment' is not to be taken to mean that the Royal Commission is expected to consider hours of employment, except in relation to the costs of production; and that the Commission will not consider what the hours of employment should be or make any recommendation thereon."
Here is a Royal Commission on which labour is very fully represented; its duty is to consider the present economic position of the farmer: labour protests that the hours of employment should not form any part of the business of that Commission, and the Commission passes a Resolution to the effect that, whereas the hours of employment may be considered and referred to in relation to the costs of production,
846
yet the Commission is to make no recommendations thereon.
The next Resolution deals with security of tenure, and there it says that it is to be considered in its whole bearing on the economic condition of the industry; but the Commission never says a word about making no recommendations thereon, although not one landowner is on the Commission. A Commission on which the labourers are fully represented is allowed to consider the hours of labour as they affect the costs of production, but passes a Resolution to the effect that it shall make no recommendations thereon. The same Commission, at the same meeting, passed another Resolution—although not one landowner is on the Commission—that it is going to deal with the whole question of security of tenure as it affects the economic problems of agriculture, and says nothing whatever about making recommendations thereon. I draw your Lordships' attention to that singular contrast, and I make my emphatic protest against it.
That is not all; because at the previous meeting this Royal Commission passed a Resolution—I am told only by the casting vote of the chairman—to the effect that the proceedings should be conducted in secret. On general grounds that decision in my judgment was wholly wrong. What is the case at issue? The farmers are accused by a section of the public of making undue profits; of being, in fact, profiteers. That statement, I believe, is' wholly unjust and unfounded. The farmers en the other hand say that, if prices fall to anything like what they were before the war and if the costs of production remain what they now are, they will not be able to conduct their industry at a profit. I believe that statement to be absolutely accurate. But the public is suspicious, and the consumer wants prices to come down. The right course for the farmers to take is to put the whole of their cards on the table. They have nothing whatever to fear from the just judgment of the public, because their case is so good that they can put the whole of their cards on the table. Therefore I regard it as a great misfortune that this Resolution of secrecy should have passed.
Then I ask you to consider how that Resolution affects the other Resolutions to which I have drawn your attention. They are going to consider the subject of

847
security of tenure in relation to the general economic prospects of the farming industry. A Commission not containing one single representative of the landowners, pronounced by the Government as unfit to deal with this subject, is nevertheless going to deal with it behind closed doors. Is it possible, my Lords, to make a defence of such a proceeding? Many of the gentlemen composing this Commission are my personal friends, and I am perfectly certain it would never occur to them what a mistaken and unfair course they were taking. I sincerely trust it may not be too late for them to reconsider their decision and to open their doors, to put the whole of their cards on the table before all their fellow-countrymen, and to realise that, constituted as they are they cannot possibly fairly deal with this question of security of tenure except on exactly the same lines as those proposed for dealing with the question of the hours of labour. In conclusion, may I say that the Papers I ask for are this letter of Sir Arthur Boscawen and the Official Report of the proceedings of the Commission. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I wish to emphasise what has fallen from Lord Selborne. I entirely agree with him. It is the last point I want to rub in. It is monstrous that this Commission is to be held behind closed doors. I have it straight from a great friend of mine who is on this Commission. He says it is dangerous to hold it in public, because small farmers will be afraid to come in and disclose what they would like to disclose. My answer was. "You are going to publish it, are you not?" "Yes" he said, "afterwards." I replied, "Then if you are going to publish it afterwards, you may as well have it in public at once." I cannot imagine that any farmer would be afraid to come. The coalowners and the miners faced the music, and surely the small and big, farmers can face the music of a public Commission. If they are afraid of it, they must stop away. I hope the will be told that they must hold the inquiry in public. I know what the other side of the argument is. It is said that you will only get garbled reports in the newspapers. You will not, of course, get a verbatim report every day, and very often thing, are not accurately reported. That, however, is the lesser evil. I hope they will be told they must have it in public, particularly as my noble friend says that on this point they were equally
848
divided. I know that it was the chairman's casting vote which decided it.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, Lord Selborne has asked for two documents, one of which is in the possession of the Government and which, of course, the Government gives at once—namely, the letter from which he quoted. I do not know if that has been published. If it has not been published—I do not know what the most convenient procedure is, but it shall be made available to Parliament. The other was, I think, an official document.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I mean these things which have been published in the papers
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: So far as the second paragraph is concerned, Lord Selborne read it verbatim. I have not compared the first paragraph, but I imagine it is also probably there. If it is not there, your Lordships shall have it. I mean the letter of July 27.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: That is not it.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That is the one Lord Selborne quoted from.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: That is not published at all.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It shall be published. It is a letter to Sir William Peat from Sir Arthur Boscawen of July 27. I will consult with the Clerks at the Table as to the proper means of circulating that document. Half of it has already been read by Lord Selborne. The other Paper refers to the secrecy of proceedings. I will refer to that in a moment. Before doing so I should like to discuss the earlier part of Lord Selborne's speech about the reference to this body. Lord Selborne asks that an assurance should be given that there should be no inquiry into nationalisation or security of tenure, though he said that he himself was prepared to welcome inquiry into the latter.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: No: only an assurance about nationalisation. If the question of security of tenure is held before a body constituted very differently from this one, I ask for no assurance upon that.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I understand Lord Selborne does not mind an inquiry into that so long as the body is properly equipped.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: The present one is not.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: And therefore it is not to be allowed to discuss it. It is quite clear in the letter from Sir Arthur Boscawen, which will be made public. All I wish to point out to your Lordships is that I do not suppose the Government can say that it will refrain from inquiring into any subject under the sun. All Sir Arthur Boscawen says is that This particular body cannot discuss it; that the reference does not justify their doing so, and that in any case their personnel was designed and selected with a view to their discussing other matters and not to discussing that one. I imagine that if, after a statement of that character, these gentlemen care to discuss nationalisation, and everybody knows that they are not equipped for that purpose, their recommendations will receive the same meed of attention which we should pay to recommendations on any other subject made by any other unqualified body. If these questions are to be discussed, it is clear that somebody else has got to discuss them, and the Commission has been told accordingly.
There is no occasion for me to traverse or to criticise what Lord Selborne said about the ideal body to look into these matters—security of tenure, for instance, or, if you like, occupation of land, or ownership. I would only point out that he laid down a very stringent test—namely, that those who discuss these matters shall not have any interest in the occupation or ownership of land. That may be an ideal solution, but I do not think it is practical business. I certainly should regret very much if another Royal Commission, over which Lord Selborne is presiding, consisted of people who were unacquainted with the problems with which his Commission has to deal. Lord Selborne went a great deal further. He said that one of the qualifications for an inquiry of this character is that people should know nothing about it. I applaud his sentiment, but I do not think it would work.
Now let me come to the most important part of Lord Selborne's Question—that is, the procedure of this Royal Commission. It is, I think, much the most important
850
part of his Question, and is certainly the most difficult for me to deal with, because the Government have no standing or status to control the procedure of a Royal Commission. Lord Selborne emphatically protests against the two Resolutions which these gentlemen passed on July 30 last. The first was that which he quoted to us dealing with hours.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I protested against the contrast between the two.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I will do full justice to that point. The first of these two Resolutions dealt with hours, on which the Commission has agreed apparently to make no recommendations. The second Resolution was that the Commission agreed to deal with security of tenure in so far as it is concerned with the cost of production.—
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Read on.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD—and the general economic prospects of the farming industry; with no restriction in that respect about making recommendations. That may be regrettable, or it may not be regrettable, but it is not the province of the Government to instruct this Com mission what Resolution it is to pass or not to pass. Equally, on the question of secrecy Lord Selborne thinks that the natural—indeed, the right—course for the farmers on the Commission would have been to court publicity to the utmost, and thus to show the public that allegations which have been made against them are not only unfair to-day, but, should prices fall, would be grotesque and ridiculous. I dare say Lord Selborne is right. I do not know what animated these gentlemen in coming to this decision. They may have indicated, as Lord Kimberley pointed out, that they consider that some people would prefer that their evidence should appear in print ultimately, rather than, before a large public perhaps, orally; or they may have cons tiered that, in order to reach a businesslike conclusion, the Royal Commissioners should conduct their affairs in private and not in public; or they may have considered that if the public is to gather a jut impression of their general opinions, the public had, better have it from the Report presented as a whole, rather than from bits which one newspaper may pick out and exaggerate, or

851
another newspaper may deal with perhaps in a partial or very abbreviated form. I do not know what their motives were. All I can tell your Lordships is that the Government have no control whatever over the procedure of a Royal Commission. Lord Selborne is the Chairman of a Royal Commission; I am the Chairman of a Royal Commission. Neither he and his colleagues nor I and my colleagues are dictated to by the Government as to our procedure.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am Chairman of a Select Committee.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I beg pardon. I thought it was a Royal Coin-mission. I think your Lordships must agree with that. Those who have been Chairmen of Royal Commissions must know it, and if these gentlemen have committed an error of judgment, I daresay that the considerations which I have no doubt have been pressed upon them—I do not mean in this House, but by persons outside who are interested in the welfare of the agricultural world—may have an effect, and they may revise their opinion. The only other point is about the Papers. I have promised to lay the letter of Sir Arthur Boscawen of July 27. For the reasons I have stated, I cannot promise to lay the other documents. They are the Official Reports of the Royal Commission on Agriculture.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Published by them in the newspapers; not the verbatim Report.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That can be laid. I was not familiar with the point Lord Selborne wants Sir Arthur's letter, which he is going to have. He also wants the Official Report of the Royal Commission on Agriculture.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Which they send, after every meeting, to the Press.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Your Lordships are, of course, at liberty to have that, but in what form? Not as a Parliamentary Paper?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I thought so.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to talk it over with Lord Selborne afterwards. These Reports come out two or three times a week, and I do not think it will be convenient to have them printed at odd intervals as Parliamentary Papers.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: We will talk about that.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If it is not a document of the Royal Commission which is confidential, you can have it. So far as the technical point is concerned there is no difference of opinion between us. I agree to the Motion, subject to my being able to adjust this point with Lord Selborne.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I have very little to add to what has bean said by the noble Earl on this bench, and very little to comment upon in what has been said by the noble Earl opposite. There is, however, a point of substance—as to whether particular proceedings of a Royal Commission fall within the terms of reference framed for them by the Government. To that extent, I think, the action of a Royal Commission does cast a certain responsibility upon His Majesty's Government. I suppose it is possible that a Royal Commission, neglecting its terms of reference, might proceed to discuss completely irrelevant and different subjects. This Royal Commission, for instance, might inquire into the position of affairs in Turkey. But it seems to be hardly conceivable that any sane body of persons would so act. I think the real question is, assuming that this particular matter of fixity or security of tenure is not a proper subject in fact for a body so composed to discuss, whether its discussion is or is not permitted by the terms of reference. If it does fall within the terms of reference and at the same time is not a proper subject for discussion, then the responsibility for what happens must rest upon the shoulders of His Majesty's Government who drew up the terms of reference.
I confess that on the general point of the composition of this Royal Commission I am in close agreement with the noble Earl (Lord Selborne) behind me. He did not, I think, lay it down as a proposition that complete ignorance of a subject should be a necessary qualification for sitting upon

853
a body to inquire into it, but what he did lay down as a canon, with which I cordially agree, was that the practice of composing Royal Commissions of Inquiry of a certain number of frenzied partisans of totally different views, with a Judge or some such person as an impartial Chairman to act as a possible cement, is, in itself, an unwise one. We have known a great many cases of that in the past. I think almost all the Royal Commissions which inquired into the liquor question have been so framed. There have been a certain number of frantic advocates of temperance and a certain number of brewers and distillers, with one or two people who might be presumed to be impartial. We do not get from such a Commission a Report which satisfies the public, and it is not by any means impossible in such a difficult subject as this—one of proper security for the occupiers of land—to frame a body, not necessarily altogether unconnected either with the ownership or occupation of land, yet who would not be regarded as strong partisans by the one side or the other.
It is clear that this Commission, as constituted, is completely unfitted to consider this particular question. About that, I think, there can be no dispute. That being so, if it takes on itself to consider it, one may assume that the conclusions will not receive very close attention from the public generally. But if it is the desire of His Majesty's Government to make inquiry into this particular subject—which, I quite agree, is and always has been one of considerable importance, and now, in the special conditions, is of peculiar importance—I venture to think it would be wise of them to anticipate a desire for an Inquiry of this kind by appointing an entirely different body to make it.
As regards the question of nationalisation I say nothing. I do not regard that as a current question as applicable to the land of the country as a whole, and therefore I conceive that the Government will not desire to have an Inquiry into it. But if the Government think it should be regarded as a question for Inquiry, I hope they will undertake it in the form suggested by the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, will pardon my saying so, but I do sometimes regret the air of detachment with which he deals with this kind of question.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: What kind of question?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The kind of question I have asked to-day. No doubt he has to consult his colleagues, but I much regret that the Government can give us no assurance at all that it is not their intention to appoint any body to consider the question of nationalisation. It would have been easy for them to say that it was not in their minds; and I hope their supporters will note that, having been publicly invited to give this assurance, they have not given it. I cannot conceive a more unnecessary or deplorable disturbance of public confidence than that this question should be ventilated at an early date. Why does the noble Earl give us no opinion of his own in respect to the secret proceedings of the Royal Commission? If he had turned to the discussions in the House of Commons and read what the Prime Minister said on this subject, he would have felt more at liberty to express a personal opinion. I do not believe for a moment that he, or any member of the Government, approves of this policy of secrecy. And why not say so? That is what I mean when I say that I regret the air of detachment which the noble Earl sometimes assumes on these occasions.
On this question of secrecy let me add one word more. I have stated my arguments, which, I think, have commended themselves to the House in regard to the inexpediency of this policy, and how utterly futile it is. Every morning a report of the proceedings of the Commission appears in the Daily Herald, written entirely from one point of view and with one object in view. Everything that the farmers want to bring out is excluded, and everything that can be represented as being in favour of the other side is given great prominence. This will continue to the end, and, although the noble Earl felt himself unable to say anything in public regarding this subject, I hope the Government will do what they can in private to tell the Chairman of the Commission what they think of the wisdom of this decision.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, I wish to say a word in support of everything that has fallen from the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. I get any number of communications, all expressing the utmost dissatisfaction at the secrecy with which

855
this Inquiry is being conducted. The noble Earl (Lord Crawford), I understand, says it rests entirely with the Royal Commission. I have served on any number of Royal Commissions in the course of a long career, and I have always understood—I believe I am right—that the Sovereign has the power to give any Instruction he pleases when the Royal Commission is appointed. As he gives these instructions through his Ministers, the Government have, of course, the power to do it if they choose. The noble Earl can very easily ascertain what the facts are, although I believe I speak with perfect accuracy, from the highest and most informed authorities on the subject. What we ask is that this secrecy should be removed, and that whatever reports are permitted to appear in public they should not be confined to a single paper like the Daily Herald, but that true and accurate reports of what has occurred should be sent out from day to day as part of the duty of the Commission. I hope that this will be done, and that in future the Government will get rid of what is undoubtedly an abuse. It is most mischievous that there should be reports such as have been described appearing every day in one particular paper, and no other reports appearing elsewhere.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, after listening to the reply of the noble Earl I cannot help thinking that we could not possibly have had a more unsatisfactory answer to the Question. The situation appears to me to be this. This Royal Commission was set up largely on the demand of the farmers when the extra 6s. 6d. was added to the wage of agricultural labourers. The farmers said they could not pay it; the labourers said they must have it. The Central Wages Board said that this 6s. 6d. must be paid, and the Government said "We will set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the facts, and see whether you can afford to pay this 6s. 6d." That was the origin and beginning of the Royal Commission. What occurs? After listening to the debate (I am afraid I was not well acquainted with what has happened in private) apparently the Commission have passed two Resolutions—one, that they intend to discuss and go into the question of security of tenure, which has little indeed to do with the ability of farmers to pay 6s. 6d. more to their labourers; and, second, that they did not intend to discuss the question of hours of
856
labour, which I should have thought had everything to do with the question.
As a practical farmer myself, I should say that the Report of this Commission, which has passed these two Resolutions, will absolutely have to be taken as of no value at all. The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, says it is quite true this Royal Commission was appointed to inquire whether the farmers can pay this extra wage to the labourers and that the Commission passed Resolutions saying that they intended to consider a question which has nothing to do with the subject, and leave out that which has everything to do with it. The noble Earl says that the Government have no power at all and that the Royal Commission must go on. It is a most unsatisfactory position for the taxpayer and a little distressing in these days of want of money that the Government should waste the taxpayer's money in appointing a Commission which, apparently, is not going to inquire into the very thing they were set up to inquire into.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: May I ask permission to say one word? The point mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, has already been dealt with; but Viscount Chaplin asks that accurate reports should be sent out daily. That is being done, officially.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE MINISTRY OF LABOUR.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO rose to ask His Majesty's Government when the temporary officials of the Ministry of Labour will receive their war bonus. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have given the noble Lord who is going to answer private notice that I am here referring to the higher temporary officials of the Department. The lower grades of temporary officials, as well as the permanent officials, no matter of what grade, have received a war bonus, but none of the temporary staff, that is to say those who are paid From £350 to £550 a year, have received this bonus. They are a class above clerks. These temporary officials were taken into the Department of the Ministry of Labour at the rate of pay which they received from their old Depart merits, and not at a lower rate of pay than that which a Civil Servant of equal standing receives. The administrative staff have

857
greater responsibility, and surely they are entitled to this war bonus. On May 27 the permanent civil staff received the war bonus, no matter what their rate of pay, and subsequently the war bonus was paid to the lower ranks of the temporary staff. That was paid on July 21 of this year. None of the temporary officials of over £170 received any bonus whatsoever. I believe that there has been a Committee sitting on this subject. That Committee has sat I think for four months, and surely in that period they might have arrived at some solution of this question.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I am sure that those interested will be very much obliged to my noble friend for the way in which he has espoused their cause. I am not quite certain how long the Committee has been sitting, but the noble Earl is quite correct in saying that a Committee is considering this question. A committee on which the Treasury and Ministry of Labour are represented is now sitting to consider this matter, and it is hoped that the war bonus will be paid very shortly to those officials of the Ministry of Labour who are adjudged to fulfil the conditions on which the Treasury have sanctioned the award of a war bonus. I understand that this applies to those officials whom my noble friend has particularly mentioned. From inquiries I have made I can assure my noble friend that no undue time is being lost. The Committee sat twice last week, and are sitting continuously.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I take it that means that they will get the war bonus.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: What I said was that it is hoped the war bonus will be paid very shortly to those officials who are adjudged to fulfil the conditions on which the Treasury have sanctioned the award of a war bonus.

THE COAL COMMISSION.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN VISCOUNT CHAPLIN rose to ask His Majesty's Government why the evidence upon which the Interim Reports of the Coal Commission were based has not already been published in accordance with the promise to that effect given by His Majesty's Government; and to move a Resolution.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have so worded my Question because this matter has been raised before. It was first
858
raised on May 13, 1919, at one of the executive meetings of the Unionist organisation. Again it was raised on June 24, 1919, and there a Resolution was carried that in the opinion of the Committee the nationalisation of the coal industry would be fatal to the commercial position of this kingdom, and that a copy of this Resolution be at once forwarded to Mr. Bonar Law and other Unionist Members of the present Government. That was done, and a reply was given in the clearest and most specific terms that this evidence should be published, and published at a very early date; yet nothing has been heard of it ever since. I have been told, in consequence of inquiries which I have made, that this was not done because there were a number of maps included in the Reports yet to be sent out, that they were not yet concluded; but so far as the Inquiry was concerned, with regard to which the promise was given, those maps would have been of comparative unimportance. What was wanted to be known was exactly the position at the meetings of the Commission, and that we might have the full evidence before us. That was a demand made generally by the public, whether rightly or wrongly is not for me to say—because it was widely believed that some of the evidence had not been published; and very much in the same way as the evidence referred to by the noble Earl just now, the Daily Herald gave one side of the question and left out the other altogether. That has been the feeling widely spread about some of the evidence given before the Interim Reports were made by Mr. Justice Sankey and others. I think it is very desirable that they should be most effectively contradicted, and after so long a delay I do not think it is unreasonable to ask that instructions might be issued that the evidence which was given before the publication of the Interim Reports should be laid upon the Table, so that everybody may have an opportunity of knowing exactly what was said and what was done. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, I am not surprised that this Question has been put, and I am glad of the opportunity of replying to it. I think there is a little misunderstanding in the mind of the noble Viscount with regard to the maps which he mentioned. The delay in publishing the evidence is due to difficulties experienced in connection with the printing of the

859
numerous charts and plans contained in the appendices, and I can assure him that they are necessary for the proper understanding of the evidence and that without them the evidence would itself be liable to be misunderstood. The size of the Blue Book is very considerable. The evidence alone extends over 1,219 pages, and the appendices to 239 pages. In addition there is an extensive index which cannot be completed until the pagination of the rest is known. The pagination is now known, and the index will be completed very speedily, probably in the course of a day or so. In addition, there are very numerous plans and charts which have only recently been received, but all these are now in print, and the final revision is proceeding as speedily as possible. It is estimated that the Blue Book will be ready about the end of this month.
With regard to another point raised by the noble Viscount, I would remind him that the Act constituting the Commission provided for the proceedings to be public, and that being so it was not possible to prevent newspaper reports. It is manifest that the Government cannot influence the nature of those reports, and are not responsible for them in any way. No part of the evidence has been officially published. The noble Lord will, I am sure, appreciate that it is not easy for the many difficult and diverse questions which might be put concerning the present condition of the industry to be answered without careful consideration of all the facts involved. I must therefore trespass on your courtesy to the extent of expressing a hope that notice will be given of such questions, which I will do my best to answer. I trust that this reply will be satisfactory to my noble friend.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I am quite sure that the noble Lord has done all he can to answer the questions which I put, and I am very grateful to him for the courtesy he has shown to me; on the other hand, I cannot help regretting that this evidence, which I should have thought might have been published long before this, is not now to be published until after Parliament is adjourned, and when no further questions can be raised upon the matter. That, I quite understand, is not the fault of the noble Lord, and does not detract from anything that I have said with reference to the courtesy which I have received from him.

FORESTRY BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to Order).
FORESTRY BILL. [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  [NOTE.—The References, are to Bill (132).]
  Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out ("seven") and insert ("eight")
  Clause 1, page 1, line 8, at end insert ("and of whom not less than two shall have special knowledge and experience of plantation and forestry in Scotland, and one at least a person having scientific attainments and a technical knowledge of forestry")
  Clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out ("paid")
  Clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out from ("years") to end of subsection (3).
  Clause 1, page 1, line 23, at end insert the following new subsection:
  "(6) One of the unpaid Commissioners shall bea member of the Commons House of Parliament."
  Clause 3, page 3, line 18, at the beginning insert ("subject to any directions which may be given by the Treasury")
  Clause 3, page 4, line 11, leave out ("and")
  Clause 3, page 3, line 11, after ("preparation") insert ("publication and distribution")
  Clause 3, page 3, line 42, at end insert:
  ("Provided also that before acquiring any land under this Act and before selling or otherwise disposing of any land so acquired, but not required by them for the purposes of this Act, the Commissioners shall consult the appropriate agricultural department, and in the case of land proposed to be sold or disposed of, shall give that department an opportunity of acquiring the same. The appropriate agricultural department shall be in England and Wales the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, in Scotland the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and in Ireland the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland")
  Clause 3, page 5, line 1, at the beginning insert:
  (" (4) An advance shall not after the commencement of this Act be made under subsection (1) of section one of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, for the purposes of forestry, unless before that date the Development Commissioners have made and the Treasury have approved a recommendation for the advance").
  Clause 6, page 6, fine 20, leave out ("as far as practicable")
  Clause 6, page 6, line 21, at end insert:
  ("A representative, in the case of the English Committee and the Welsh Committee, respectively, of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, in the case of the Scottish Committee, of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and in the case of the Irish Committee, of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland").
  Clause 6, page 6, line 27, leave out ("any").
  Clause 7, page 7, line 28, at end insert:
  ("(4) Where the Commissioners are of opinion that insufficient facilities exist for the haulage of timber from any wood or forest to a road, railway,

  861
  or waterway, they may make an order that the owner and occupier of any land shall afford the necessary facilities, subject to payment by the person in whose favour the order is made of reasonable rent or wayleave and of compensation for any damage caused by such haulage, and the owner of such land shall thereupon afford such facilities; and the amount of rent or wayleave and compensation shall, in default of agreement, be assessed by a single arbitrator appointed by the President of the Surveyors' Institution. Provided that the Commissioners shall not make any order under this subsection until the person proposed to be required to give such facilities as aforesaid has had an opportunity of being heard and any person aggrieved by an order made under this subsection may appeal therefrom to the Development Commissioners in such manner and upon such conditions, if any, as may be prescribed by them, and the Development Commissioners may thereupon revoke or vary any such order").
  Clause 8, line 34, at end insert:
  ("(a) during the ten years immediately succeeding the first day of April, nineteen hundred and nineteen, the sum of three million five hundred thousand pounds in such annual amounts as Parliament may from time to time determine; and (b)").
  In the Schedule, page 10, line 11, after ("Acts") insert ("except such of those provisions as relate to the sale of superfluous land'')
  In the Schedule, page 10, line 14, leave out from ("accordingly") to the end of line 40.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, may I say generally that this Bill has come back substantially in the position in which your Lordships amended it. A number of Amendments—eight or ten—have been made which I have gone through very carefully. I shall recommend the House to accept them all with two exceptions, where I shall ask your Lordships to amend the Commons Amendment. The first Amendment in Clause 1, page 1, line 6, enlarges the number of Commissioners from seven to eight. There is a subsequent Amendment that one of those Commissioner's shall be a Member of the Commons House of Parliament. The number in the House of Commons accordingly is enlarged.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The second Amendment in Clause 1, line 8, contains a redundancy which I think should be removed. It reads that "not less than two shall have special knowledge and experience of plantation and forestry in Scotland." I think that there may have been some misapprehension about
  862
  those words. I do not know who can be said to have experience of plantation in Scotland who has not experience of forestry in Scotland; and as these words might cause misunderstanding later on, I think that we should do well to limit ourselves to special knowledge and experience of forestry in Scotland. I think that seems to cover the point, and I therefore move in the second line of the Commons Amendment that the words "plantation and" be omitted.
  Amendment moved to the Commons Amendment—
  Clause 1, line 8, after ("experience of") leave out ("plantation and").—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  On Question, Amendment to the Commons Amendment agreed to.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons Amendment as amended.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The Amendment on line 15 to leave out "paid," and in the same line to leave out "from years" to the end of subsection (3), is purely a verbal matter. It is merely taking out redundant words.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The Amendment in line 23, to insert a new subsection in Clause 1, follows the precedent laid down by unpaid Charity Commissioners and Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and it is suggested that one of the unpaid Commissioners should be a member of the Commons House of Parliament. I am prepared to recommend your Lordships to agree to that.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The Amendment in Clause 3, line 18, to insert at the beginning "subject to any directions which may be given to the Treasury," is one which I think should be agreed to, and I so move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: There are two Commons Amendments on line 11 of Clause 3, first to leave out "and," and second, after "preparation," to insert "publication and distribution." My impression is that your Lordships suggested this in Committee stage, and I refused it. I see that the House of Commons have put it in, and I must therefore bow to that decision.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The next Amendment in Clause 3 is to insert, at the end of line 42, a new paragraph providing for consultation with the Board of Agriculture, whether of Scotland, England, or Ireland, where there is a question of dealing with the land. I think that is a useful safeguard, and I move that the House do agree with the Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The Amendment on page 5, line 1, to insert a new paragraph (4) at the beginning, is the Amendment as it left your Lordships' House. As it was a money Amendment it was struck out in the House of Commons, and re-inserted, and appears here as an Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: In regard to the Commons Amendment in Clause 6, line 20, to leave out "as far as practicable," the original proposal was that the Consultative Committee should, as far as practicable, consist of certain persons. The words "as far as practicable" are now omitted. It makes the formation of these
  864
  Committees perhaps a little more rigid, but I think no objection can be taken to it, and I ask your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The Commons Amendment to insert a new paragraph after line 21 (Clause 6) ensures that the rights of the different Departments of Agriculture shall be represented. It seems to me a very good Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The next Amendment (line 27), to leave out "any," is consequential.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The Commons Amendment on Clause 7, page 7, line 28, to insert a new paragraph (4), is a very useful one. It entitles the Commissioner to grant wayleaves where such are required without all the long and tedious formalities of having to go before the Development Commissioner. I ask your Lordships to accept it with this alteration, that in line 7 of the subsection (4), after "owner," we should insert the words "or occupier." As it stands it is only the owner who is to give facilities for wayleaves, whereas clearly the occupier should be included.
  Amendment moved to the Commons Amendment—
  Clause 7, page 7, in subsection (4) of the Commons Amendment, after ("owner") insert ("or occupier").—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  On Question, Amendment to the Commons Amendment agreed to.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons Amendment as amended.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The proviso inserted by the Commons in the same subsection is think, a safeguard which will meet the point that Lord Dynevor raised in the Committee stage, and I beg to move that we agree with it.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said proviso.—(The (Earl of Crawford.)
  On Question, Motion, agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: In Clause 8 there is an Amendment which your Lordships accepted at Lord Haldane's instance, but the actual phraseology is modified. The words, for instance, that "the Treasury shall present the Estimates" are excluded, because the Treasury has to present all Estimates. There is no sub-stance in it; it is purely a question of forty, and I beg to move that this House doth agree.
  Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  In the Schedule:
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: With regard to the two commons Amendments in the Schedule, these provisions, I am informed, are no longer necessary, as the new Acquisition of Land Bill covers the point. The words in line 11 and in line 14 are, therefore, superfluous.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Bill returned to the Commons.

WAR PENSIONS (ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order).
[THE EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Appeals to Pensions Appeal Tribunals.
8.—(1) Where the claim of an officer or man under any Royal Warrant or Order in Council administered by the Minister of Pensions is rejected on the ground that the disability on which the claim is based,
866

(a)is not attributable to or aggravated by service during the present war, or

(b) is due to the serious negligence or misconduct of the claimant;

or where such disability, although admitted to be aggravated by, is certified not to be attributable to such service; or where the claim of the widow or the motherless child of an officer or man under any such Royal Warrant or Order in Council is rejected on the ground

(i)that the death of the officer or man was not due to, or that the disease from which he died was nut attributable to or aggravated by, stall service, nor, in the case of a man, contracted or commenced while he was on active service, or

(ii) that the death of the officer or man was due to his serious negligence or misconduct,

an appeal shall lie to a Pensions Appeal Tribunal established under this section, whose decision shall be final.
(2) Pensions Appeal Tribunals shall be established for such parts of the United Kingdom as may be determined, in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act. The provisions of that Schedule shall have effect in relation to the constitution, jurisdiction and procedure of Pensions Appeal Tribunals.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD THE EARL OF CRAWFORD moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "provided that no appeal shall lie in the case of any claim already heard and rejected by a Ministry Appeal Tribunal." The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will remember that new Pensions Tribunals are going to be established. There are existing Tribunals, and it is clearly desirable that claim already heard and rejected by the existing Tribunal should not be referred to a fresh one. They are not intended to be Appeal Tribunals front those already existing, and this Amendment prevents a man from having his case dealt with by the new Tribunal after it has already been settled by a competent Tribunal in existence.
Amendment moved—
Clause 8, page 3, line 39, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD THE EARL OF CRAWFORD moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection—
"() Ministry Appeal Tribunal shall mean, as the case may be, an Officers Appeal Board Or a Pensions Appeal Tribunal set up by the Minister of Pensions before the first day of November nineteen hundred and nineteen."
The noble Earl said: These words are consequential on the Amendment just made.
Amendment proved—
Clause 8, page 4, line 2, after subsection (2), insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD THE EARL OF CRAWFORD moved after the last Amendment, to insert the following new subsection—
"() This section shall come into operation on the first day of November nineteen hundred and nineteen."
The noble Earl said: I am informed that this is the earliest date at which the organisation and the necessary appointments can be made.
Amendment moved—
Clause 8 page 4, lines 2, after the last Amendment, insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule:
8. Subject as aforesaid the Lord Chancellor may make regulations with respect to the procedure of pensions appeal tribunals, and may by such regulations provide for the transfer to such tribunals of claims pending before a Ministry appeal tribunal at the date of the commencement of this Act, the summoning of expert and other witnesses, the representation of the claimants and the Ministry at the hearing of any appeal, the arrangements for the sittings of the tribunals (including the sitting of more than one tribunal in the same area), the particular eases which any tribunal shall hear, and such other matters as may be required for the due and speedy determination of appeals.
9. "Lord Chancellor "shall mean, in the application of this schedule to Scotland, the Lord President of the Court of Session, and in its application to Ireland, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland.
10. "Ministry Appeal Tribunal "shall mean, as the case may be, an Officers' Appeal Board, or a Pensions Appeal Tribunal, set up by the Minister of Pensions before the commencement of this Act.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD THE EARL OF CRAWFORD moved, in Clause 8 of the Schedule, to leave out "at the date of the commencement of this Act," and insert" at the first day of November nineteen hundred and nineteen." The noble Earl said: This Amendment and the next are consequential on the date Amendment just inserted.
Amendment moved—
In the Schedule, page 5, leave out lines 34 to 35.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD THE EARL OF CRAWFORD moved to leave out clause 10 of the Schedule.
Amendment moved—
In the Schedule, page 6, leave out lines 6 to 8.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Amendments reported: Bill read 3a and passed and returned to the Commons.

COAL MINES BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: As there are no Amendments, and as this Bill is obviously considerably overdue, I ask your Lordships to give it a Third Reading.
Moved (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Jersey.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

AGRICULTURAL LAND SALES (RESTRICTION OF NOTICES TO QUIT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Restriction of notices to quit.
1. On the making, after the passing of this Act, of any contract for sale of a holding, or any part of a holding, any then current and unexpired notice to determine the tenancy of the holding given to the tenant, either before or after the passing of this Act, shall be null and void, unless the tenant shall, after the passing of this Act and prior to such contract of sale, by writing, agree that such notice shall be valid.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, after "holding" where that word secondly occurs, to insert "held by a tenant from year to year." The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to exclude from the Bill all tenancies, leases, or otherwise for longer than a year. Originally the Bill was intended only to apply to such tenancies, for very obvious reasons.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after the second ("holding") insert ("held by a tenant from year to year").—(Viscount Peel.)
EARL STANHOPE: Is not the noble Viscount, as reported in last night's OFFICIAL REPORT, wrong in saying that Scotland is included in the Bill? As printed, the Bill excludes Scotland.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Scotland is at present excluded from the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

THE AFGHAN ATTACK ON INDIA
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India when full information in regard to the military operations on the North-West Frontier of India, to the armistice, and to the negotiations with the Afghans, will be made available for the information of Parliament and the public.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD SINHA): My Lords, the Papers on the subject are now under preparation and will be published as soon as possible. It had been hoped to publish them earlier, but in all the circumstances it was thought best to await the result of the Conference, the proceedings of which have now been concluded. The papers will therefore be published at the earliest possible date.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his answer, and I am very glad to hear that there is a prospect of obtaining this information at an early period. The reticence of the India Office or of the Government of India—I do not know which—with regard to these matters has been unnecessary and deplorable. One effect has been that our gallant troops
870
on the frontier have felt for some time that they are being neglected and forgotten by the Government and by the public at home—
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Would Lord Sydenham allow me to say that this is a starred Question? The noble Lord is making what is in effect an attack, or a censure, upon my noble friend beside me (Lord Sinha), who has no right of reply.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I think I ant allowed to say something on a starred Question. I do not intend making an attack on the Government, but I am going to emphasise strongly the necessity for publishing the Report. I should like to read to your Lordships an extract front a letter which I received this morning from an officer in India—
"If you want to do the men in India a good turn get someone to raise the question of the Afghan War in the Lords—the Commons are much too busy to worry about us. The whole of this show' is rather worse than 'Mespot' in 1915–16. It is unbelievable that we are supposed to have been preparing for a war with Russia and Afghanistan plus the tribes for forty solid years. Practically nothing has been done. There are good water supplies at various places, but either use has not been made of them or any scheme to use thorn has been so scrimped for money that the distribution has been totally inadequate. The inevitable result has been cholera, which spread suddenly in the most alarming way—sixty to ninety eases a day in Ali Musjid, half that in Lundi Kotal, sixty in three days at Jamrud, same at Kotah, and all from the same cause. I look on every man who died as murdered by the Government of India. The troops have stood the climate wonderfully well tip to date, but are showing signs of crocking up' now. The weather has been vile—115 to 119 degrees every day, and bad nights on top of it. No fans; soda and ice short; and in fact everything typically Indian. Get someone to demand an Inquiry into the whole thing. It is the only hope of the Army in India. I will give evidence with pleasure, and can put anyone on to the right people to do likewise. I came back from 'Mespot' at the end of November. I was off on ninety days to Kashmir when this war started and was given a job on the Khyber line, from Peshawar onwards. It is the most heart-breaking job I ever tackled—no personnel, no cars to get about in, too little M.T., insufficient everything; and all because a lot of men sit up in Simla and will eat any amount of mud from the finance for the sake of being allowed to keep their places. Do what you can for us."
I do not even know this officer's name but the letter has been sent to me by a friend who knows, and apparently he thinks this is written by a responsible person who knows about what he is writing. I sincerely hope that, if letters of this sort

871
are being written home, His Majesty's Government will publish the full facts as soon as possible; otherwise we shall be led on to thinking that things are as had as Mesopotamia, whether they are as bad or not.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I can only say that my noble friend Lord Sinha has already told your Lordships that these Papers are going to be published. Here is a letter from a correspondent, whose name Lord Stanhope does not know, who accuses the India Government of murdering soldiers. I suppose that letter was sent to the India Office the day it was received. If not, that would have been the right course to pursue if the noble Earl attaches so much importance to it as to read it to your Lordships without notice.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and to be printed.
WELSH CHURCH (TEMPORALITIES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I suggest that the Second Reading of the Ch arch (Temporalities) Bill should be taken to-morrow; also that, if we receive in time the Commons Amendments on the Transport Bill, they should be taken as second Order. I am not sure that we shall get the report of the Commons Amendments in time to deal with them to-morrow, but I hope we shall; and I trust that there will be nothing in them to involve very long consideration on your Lordships' part. I further suggest that we should take the Committee stage of the Welsh Church (Temporalities) Bill on Friday. I am in some difficulty as to what time to ask your Lordships to meet on Friday. A considerable number of Peers have asked for 12 o'clock noon; others have asked for the normal time of 3 o'clock. My own inclination is mid-day. If that conforms with the general view of your Lordships
872
present, I will take upon myself the responsibility of settling mid-day.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: This appears to be your Lordships' wish, so we will meet at 12 o'clock on Friday, and at 3 o'clock to-morrow.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not dissent, of course, from the arrangement which the noble Earl has made—
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: About Friday?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes. The noble Earl knows what an outrage it is on Parliamentary procedure that we should have to deal with Bills of the greatest importance and involving considerations which have agitated the country for Years, with hardly any one present on a Friday in the middle of August. The noble Earl, of course, does not mind any of my protests; I am aware of that; but I cannot be responsible for any consequences that may ensue. It does not in the least follow that we shall be able to agree with everything that the Government suggest.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I hope I never indicated that Lord Salisbury was expected by me to agree with everything the Government suggested.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No. It was only that I did not wish it to be thought that everything could be hustled through at the last moment without objection, simply because it meets the convenience of the Government and because of their mismanagement of the business of the country in bringing things on so late. I wanted that to be quite clear, lest it should be thought afterwards that there was some breach of faith.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of August 12.]
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to
CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on the 30th of July last discharged, and Bill committed for to-morrow.
BOLAND'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
DOVER GAS BILL [H.L.]
  PEMBROKE GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
POLICE BILL.

  BEDWELLTY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL. BILL
  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  MILFORD DOCKS BILL.
  STRETFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
  House adjourned at five o'clock until tomorrow, three o'clock.