Lords Sitting of 18 August 1919

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

CLYDE VALLEY ELECTRICAL POWER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
CLYDE NAVIGATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
SCOTTISH WIDOWS' FUND AND LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY'S ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
VICTORIA INFIRMARY OF GLASGOW ACT, 1888 (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

PRIVATE BILL STANDING ORDERS.
THE ACTING-CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF KINTORE): My Lords, it has been the practice of your Lordships' House at this time of the session to make such alterations in the Standing Orders as may be found to be necessary by public legislation. Those I have put on the Paper are mainly of a verbal character, in order to bring the Standing Orders into line with existing legislation, and though perhaps rather formidable in number they are in fact quite simple.
The Amendments proposed are under three heads. Those under Head I are for the purpose of removing front the Standing Orders the references to Scotland so far as they are rendered unnecessary by Standing Order No. 188. Under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act all applications for Parliamentary powers in Scotland must originate in the form of Provisional Orders, and these have to comply with the General Orders under that Act, which cover the same ground as the Standing Orders and in fact follow their provisions. It is true that the two Chairmen may require any of these Draft Orders to be converted into a Bill, if for any of the reasons laid down by the Act they think the matter should be dealt with directly by Parliament. But in those cases the Act and Standing Order No. 188 provide that compliance with the General Orders renders compliance with Standing Orders unnecessary. The Amendments which I propose have been approved by the Secretary for Scotland, and I understand
1014
that Amendments for a similar purpose will be proposed to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.
Under Head II the Ministry of Health is substituted for the Local Government Board, in accordance with the recent Act. Under Head III are some miscellaneous Amendments. In Standing Order No. 4 the present local government areas are substituted for "parishes, townlands," etc. Standing Order No. 38 now applies only to Ireland, the matter being now provided for England and Scotland by public Acts of 1903 and 1909. Standing Orders No. 69 and 69D deal with the Money Bills of the London County Council. Order No. 69 provides that these Bills are to be Public Bills unless certain conditions are complied with; but under the Consolidation Act of 1912 all such Money Bills are now introduced as Private Bills, and the Standing Orders as proposed to be amended give effect to the existing Orders so far as they are not already law under the Act of 1912.
Standing Order No. 91, as it now stands, gives an interval of only fourteen days between First and Second Reading of Bills which require Wharncliffe meetings. The result is that in the case of the railway companies, whose general meetings are usually held in March, the Wharncliffe meetings must be held separately and before the General Meeting, and this involves the companies in the considerable expense of circularising their shareholders twice over. The extension of the period to twenty-eight days will enable the companies to hold their Wharncliffe meetings and the General Meeting on the same day and summoned by means of the same circulars. As to Standing Order No. 111, this Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment of Standing Order No. 38. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills be amended as follows:

I.

4.

Leave out "and sheriff clerks."

9.

Leave out "Edinburgh."

14.

Leave out "and sheriff clerks as the case may be."

22.

Leave out "and Scotland."

24.

Leave out from "Ireland" to "in or through."

26B.

Leave out paragraph (1).

27.

Leave out "or sheriff clerk."

29.

Leave out paragraphs (e) and (f).

I.

33.

In paragraph (3) leave out "Scotland or," "office of the Secretary for Scotland or the" and "as the case may be."

In paragraph (11) leave out "Scotland."

In paragraph (12) after "drainage" insert "or improvement" and leave out "or which relates to the improvement of land in England, Wales or Scotland," and leave out "the United Kingdom" and insert "England, Wales or Ireland."

57.

Leave out "or the Court of Exchequer in Scotland if the work is intended to be done in Scotland."

61.

Leave out from "Ireland" to "and that a copy," and leave out" Edinburgh."

62.

Leave out Edinburgh."

64.

66.

111.

Leave out "in Scotland or."

146.

Leave out "sheriff clerks" and "or sheriff clerk."

Appendix. Form (A). Leave out "or principal sheriff clerks, as the case may be "and [section 90 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845]."

II.

In Standing Orders 25c, 33, 36A and 134, leave out Local Government Board," and insert "Ministry of Health."

III.

4.

Leave out "parishes, townlands, and extra-parochial places" and insert boroughs, urban and rural districts and, in the case of rural districts, the parishes," and at the end of the order insert "The provisions of this order relating to boroughs shall apply in the case of London to metropolitan boroughs and the City of London."

38.

Leave out "local area as defined for the purposes of this Order" and insert "urban district in Ireland."

Leave out "Central Authority" where these words first occur and insert "Local Government Board for Ireland."

Leave out so much of the Order as defines "local area" and "Central Authority."

69 and 69A.

Leave out 69 and 69A.

69B.

Leave out from the beginning to "shall be subject" and insert "69. Every annual Money Bill of the London County Council promoted in accordance with the London County Council (Finance Consolidation) Act, 1912, or any Act amending the same, shall contain only powers or provisions relating to the borrowing, lending, and expenditure of money and."

Leave out "and the Local Government Board."

After 69B insert the following new Order:

"69A. Where any Act has conferred upon the London County Council any power

involving the expenditure of money for any purpose, or has extended such power, it shall not be competent for the Committee on any Annual Money Bill of the London County Council authorising the borrowing and expenditure of money for the same purpose, except in pursuance of an express instruction from this House, to reduce the total amount of money shown by the estimates recited in such Act to be required for the execution of the power."

III.

69D.

Leave out 69D.

91.

Leave out "fourteenth" and insert "twenty-eighth."

111.

Leave out "Central Authority" wherever it occurs and insert "Local Government Board for Ireland."

—(The Earl of Kintore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INTESTATE MOVEABLE SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to Order).

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 2, page 1, line 12, after ("shall") insert ("wherever possible").
Clause 2, page 1, line 14, leave out from ("forces") to the end of the clause and insert ("so as to secure that the distribution by the Admiralty, the Secretary of State, or the Air Council, of property or funds of such deceased, whether partly before the passing of this Act or not, shall be in conformity with the law of intestate succession in Scotland as amended by this Act").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, these Amendments are drafting. In many cases the Admiralty, the War Office, or the Air Council have partially distributed the funds due to deceased members, and in some of those cases that partial distribution makes it impossible to dispose of the balance so as to make the distribution of the whole conform to the law as now amended. The intention of these Amendments is to except the last-mentioned cases from the operation of the part of Clause 2 to which I called attention on Second Reading, and also to make more clear in the Bill than it was as originally what the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Air Council are to do in regard to the funds in their hands.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROFITEERING BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Milner.)
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I should like to ask whether the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill could not give us some assurance that the Government will do what we regard as the Government's part in order to keep down prices. That is, first of all, to open, the ports more largely for the admission of articles which have been restricted; secondly, themselves to sell more largely the supplies of all descriptions that they have in hand; and, thirdly, give their attention to the currency. To this end we urge that they will not grant donatives and doles which involve the further issue of Treasury notes, and that it will be regarded, whatever be the demand, that it is absolutely necessary to prevent a farther inflation of the currency. On these points I have great hopes that the noble Viscount will give us some assurance, because the Government has far more power to control the great inflation of prices by these means than by any individual action such as it is proposed to take under this Bill.
LORD WITTENHAM: My Lords, before the noble Viscount replies may I venture to suggest, in regard to what my noble friend said about opening the ports, that there are imports and imports. He is talking the old pre-war language to a certain extent. Then we were a rich nation, and imports were one of the means of paying off our debts. We are no longer a rich nation, but a poor nation. You must, of course, encourage food imports, except in so far as you can do without them by a wise agricultural policy in this country. You cannot do what you used to do. We all know the state of the American exchange. I need not go into details about that, as it is so well known to your Lordships. It really does not do to put us off—because that is what it amounts to—with the great platitude, "Open the ports." You must do that wisely, and with great discrimination. You ought to import nothing that you can do without, not because we do not all want to live in the land of plenty, but because those days are gone by for us. We have to produce everything, whether it is corn or cattle or articles of merchandise, as far as we
1018
possibly can in this country, and the surest way of breaking this country is to let imports come in anyhow.
In regard to the question of the currency, I may say that I know a little about this terrible note issue. I remember in the House of Commons long ago calling attention to it, and pointing out that it was a most serious matter, because there is nothing behind the note except the printing press. The Bank of England note on the other hand—it is common knowledge, and I must almost apologise for saying it—has gold and securities behind it, and is in a different category altogether. The £1 note has only the Government printing press behind it; in fact, it is an I O U, and nothing more. On October 30 last year the note issue was £175,000,000; on December 18 last year it was £292,000,000, and on March 18 last it was £314,000,000, and I think I am right in saying that on the 10th of this month it was £340,000,000. Here I associate myself, if I may be allowed to do so, completely with what the noble Viscount has just said. We must keep our eyes on this note issue; otherwise we shall never get to the end of the vicious circle.
The note issue began, as we all know, at the beginning of the war. It was necessary for two reasons—there may be lots of other reasons, but there were two in particular. An immense quantity of labour was let loose that had not been employed before. Women came into business in thousands, and there was constantly that great raising of the wages of what are called the working classes. We are all working classes to-day. I think we have all been working classes for a long time, although the country does not seem to appreciate or understand that. The working classes had a great rise in wages, and for those two reasons the note issue became necessary, because the man who had a thousand operatives suddenly found them increased to 2,000, and, having to pay them weekly, the currency was not enough for that kind of process. That to my mind, was the origin and the necessity of the note issue. Then it got out of hand. It is like everything else. A wild animal is all right as long as you can keep him in hand. Once let the note issue get out of hand—and it has got out of hand—and you get this terrible inflation. Profiteering is one of the offsprings of this currency inflation, although there have been plenty

1019
of other circumstances. Until you can reduce the note issue you will never get rid of this vicious circle; you will never get the nation back to sound finance.
One more remark, with many apologies, and I shall have finished. It is dangerous in so many ways. The working man goes about with a lot of these "Bradburys" in his pocket, and he thinks he is a rich man; and not only that, he thinks the country is rich. And if you say to him, "Retrench, reform" when his wife is going to buy a fur coat at Selfridge's, he says "Why, I have got these in my pocket." You say, "The country cannot afford," and he says "Why not?" You cannot give him a lesson on finance and political economy; he will not believe you if you do. And I think the noble Viscount put his finger on one of the cardinal points of this matter when he said that until you are able hugely to reduce the £1 and 10 s. note currency you will never bring the people back to sanity; you will never get out of the vicious circle; and, instead of getting further up the slippery slope, as I described it three or four weeks ago, you will get further down, and you will not get back until we are in the bankruptcy court.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT MILNER): My Lords, I have listened with a great deal of agreement to the noble Lord, but I rise at the present moment to say that I feel placed in a difficult position and that it is a somewhat inconvenient course which is being followed. Just two minutes before the Committee stage opened, I received a note from the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Midleton) saying that he hoped I would make some statement on behalf of the Government with regard to the questions of opening the ports, of selling surplus goods rapidly, and of inflated currency. Now, these are all very important matters, but the very fact that they are so important makes it difficult to call upon a Minister suddenly to make a pronouncement upon them on this occasion. I may remind your Lordships that a full and considered statement of the Government policy is being made to-day by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons. I do not think, in these circumstances, it is right to hold a pistol at the head of a particular Minister in this House, and to ask him at once to deliver himself on some of the most important questions of trade policy with reference to the Committee stage of the
1020
present Bill. I really am not prepared to do it. But, as far as can be reasonably asked of me, I should like out of courtesy to the noble Viscount to answer him. With regard to the question of opening the ports, by which I suppose he means removal of all restrictions upon imports—
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: The removal of all restrictions which did not exist before the war.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Yes. I may say that the policy of the Government is one of steadily increasing removal of restrictions, but this is a very complicated and difficult matter, and if the noble Viscount wishes the Government simply to sweep away all restrictions existing before the war I can only say that I do not believe the Government is prepared to go that length, and I would not remain in it for one day if so sweeping a measure as that were to be adopted totally regardless of its effect upon the industries and manufactures of this country. It astonishes me beyond words that we should be pressed to do so by the noble Viscount, if he is in any sense representative of the opinion of the Party of which he is so distinguished a member. At the same time we fully realise the importance of removing restrictions wherever it can be done, and I think the noble Viscount, when he reads the statement which is being made to-day by the Prime Minister, will be satisfied to know that the policy of the removal of restrictions is being pursued steadily, and that there will be a very great diminution of the existing restrictions within a short space of time.
As regards the rapid sale of surplus stocks, I believe the stocks are being sold as rapidly as, in the interests of the National Exchequer, is at all desirable. Of course, we might throw all our stocks on the market and lose a couple of hundred millions. I wonder if the noble Lords who are always reproaching the Government for its lack of economy would be prepared to defend such a procedure. I think, if we were to adopt that course, we should be justly liable to criticism on the ground of the gravest form of extravagance, which is the wasting of valuable national assets.
Lastly, with regard to the inflated currency. I may say that I agree to a very great extent with the remarks which have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Wittenham. Any further increase of the

1021
uncovered note issue would be regarded by the Government with the greatest possible concern, and, as a matter of fact, steps have been and are being taken to reduce that issue. We are perfectly alive to the danger of it. At the same time, may I be allowed to say this? Any great disturbance, either upwards or downwards, in general prices is a misfortune. I believe that anything like a violent and sudden reduction of prices by artificial means, such as by a very sudden and rapid contraction of the currency, would be an even greater evil than a sudden rise. By all means let us stop any further increase of this currency; let us try gradually and sanely to reduce it. But do not let us, in a panic about prices, take steps which might lead to a very great disaster. Anything like a complete or rapid change in the general level of prices would lead to consequences which personally I am afraid to contemplate.
I have, perhaps, said more than I ought to have said and even this much under protest, and simply because I feel bound, out of consideration for the noble Viscount, not absolutely to pass by the points which he has raised, although I think they were raised a little suddenly. It was hardly fair to call upon me to deliver myself on some of the most difficult economic questions at a moment's notice.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I only want to explain to your Lordships that when I corrected the noble Viscount with regard to what my aspirations were, I did not, of course, intend in any way to infringe upon any considered policy of Preference which has been announced by the Government. I was thinking only of the state of imports generally before 1914.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
THE EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Powers of the Board of Trade to investigate complaints and take proceedings.
1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act., the Board of Trade shall have power in respect of any article to which this Act applies—

(a) to investigate prices, costs, and profit at all stages, and for that purpose by order to require any person to appear before them, and to furnish such information and produce such documents as they may require; and on any such investigation they may by order fix maximum prices; and

1022

(b) to receive and investigate complaints that a profit is being or has been since the passing of this Act made or sought on the sale of the article (whether wholesale or retail) which is, in view of all the circumstances, unreasonable, and on any such complaint they may by order, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, either dismiss the complaint or—

(i)declare the price which would yield a reasonable profit; and

(ii) require the seller to repay to the complainant any amount paid by the complainant in excess of such price.

(2) If, as a result of any investigation undertaken on their own initiative or on complaint made to them, it appeals to the Board of Trade that the circumstances so require, the Board shall take proceedings against the seller before a court of summary jurisdiction, and if in such proceedings it is found that the price charged or sought about which the complaint was made or the price discovered at the investigation to have been charged or sought was such as to yield a profit which is, in view of all the circumstances, unreasonable, the seller shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such imprisonment and fine. Provided that a rate of profit which does not exceed the fair average rate earned by persons in the same way of business as the seller upon the sale of similar articles under pre-war conditions, shall not be deemed unreasonable.
(3) If any person fails to comply with or infringes an order of the Board of Trade under this section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month, or to both such imprisonment and fine, and in the case of an order requiring the repayment of any amount that amount shall be recoverable summarily as a civil debt.
(4) If any person at or for the purpose of any such investigation or in any such complaint furnishes any information or snakes any representation which is recklessly or to his knowledge false in any material particular, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such imprisonment and fine.
(5) Where a person convicted under this section is a company and every managing director and every officer concerned in the management of the company shall be guilty of the like offence, unless he proves that the act which constituted the-offence took place without his knowledge or with out his consent.
(6) In any proceedings under this section to which the Board is a party costs may be awarded to or against the Board.
(7) This Act applies to any article or class of articles to which it is applied by order of the Board of Trade, being an article or class of articles declared by the order to be one or one of a kind in common use by the public, or being material, machinery, or accessories used in the production thereof, but this Act does not apply to any articles which are sold by public auction or competitive

1023
tender or which are from time to time declared to be controlled articles, and different provisions of this Act may be applied to different articles.
(8) The Board of Trade shall have power to require any person appearing before them under this Act to give evidence on oath, and shall have power to authorise any person to administer an oath for the purpose.
(9) In this Act the expressions "sale" and "seller" include respectively any offer for sale and any person offering to sell.
(10) Nothing in this Act shall apply to the sale of any article for export from the United Kingdom.
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT moved to omit from subsection (2) the words "Provided that a rate of profit which does not exceed the fair average rate earned by persons in the same way of business as the seller upon the sale of similar articles under pre-war conditions, shall not be deemed unreasonable.''
The noble Lord said: I have put down this Amendment not so much because I feel any violent hostility to the words whose excision I have moved as that I really want to ask for an explanation from the Government about the whole of this subsection. I want to know what its meaning is, and whether they can tell us how it will work. The words of the earlier parts of the subsection are that proceedings may be taken and a, penalty may be inflicted when the profit made is, in view of all the circumstances, unreasonable. It is obvious that, when the decision is going to be left to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, our benches in different parts of the country might materially differ as to the view they would take as to what an unreasonable profit is. Some benches may take a very narrow view, and anything over 5 per cent. might be considered an unreasonable profit. Other benches might be manned largely by men who themselves had profitted a good deal through the war and who would take a liberal view. There is, therefore, a great danger that we shall have different decisions from different benches. We know what happened with regard to the Tribunals during the war. With regard to local benches there will be a great danger of inconsistent decisions being given on somewhat similar facts.
But apart from that, how is any one to tell what a reasonable profit is? My experience in business has been manufacturing, and I have at times had great surprises when the results of the half-year have been shown by incontestable figures. In many trades the manufacturer does not know whether he is making a
1024
profit or a loss at any particular moment. Conditions and prices often vary so much that he is unable to tell. During the war there is no doubt that a great many manufacturers have made enormous profits through the prices of goods, which have been held in stock for a considerable time, going up. Is that an abnormal profit, or is it not? Is it a profit which is reasonable or unreasonable? Is it reasonable that a man who has had goods in stock for two or three years which have doubled in price during that time should charge the full market price? There is no indication in the Bill on that point. Somewhat similar considerations apply in the case of merchants and shop-keepers who make a profit sometimes on one class of goods while they may be making no profit at all, or even losing, on another class.
The first questions I want to ask are these. Is the profit that is considered reasonable to be based on the actual prices at the time of the raw material and the cost of manufacture at the moment; and is the same thing to apply to a merchant or a shopkeeper who has bought the goods long ago and who has held them in stock for some time? Is it the present-day price or the actual profit the man is making that is to be the first consideration? Is it the individual who is not to make a profit, or is it the commodity in question that is not to make a profit? I do not know whether I have made my point clear but I am certain that it is fundamental in regard to this matter. I am formally moving the excision of these words for the purpose of asking these questions.
In regard to the proviso, I want to know this. Is the average rate earned by persons in the same way of business meant to be calculated on the capital of the trader, or is it meant to be calculated on the commodity in which he deals? If it is to be on the capital, is it to be on his actual capital (which may be a very small matter in his books) or is it to be on what the capital would be in the case of a newcomer to the trade who had to take premises and to furnish them at present-day prices? On the other hand, is it to be calculated on the goods? Supposing a man before the war was selling a certain class of goods at 10 s. an item, the price to-day, if it had gone up proportionately to other goods, would be (let us say) 20 s. or 25 s. Supposing 1s. were considered a reasonable

1025
profit on his 10 s. before the way, is he to have 2s. profit on the 20 s.—or what is a reasonable profit? Then, does this proviso mean that you must assess the man either according to his capital, or according to the goods he sells, whichever may be most favourable to him? I do not know what it means but I think we ought to know.
My next question is a legal one, and I myself am really unable to form any opinion worth anything about it. Is there any protection at all to the trader in this proviso? I need not say that I am no more anxious than any of your Lordships to shelter the profiteer—quite otherwise, in fact. Do the words "not be deemed unreasonable" mean that this should be a guide to the minimum profit that he is to be allowed; and if they are meant to give that as a minimum standard, then I ask whether they are likely to be so used when they come to be construed by the Law Courts? Is it not the case that this proviso will be considered rather as a standard, or maximum, by which to work, than a minimum below which they must not go? I should be very glad to have a considered opinion on that from His Majesty's Government, and, indeed, if I might dare to ask for it, from any noble and learned Lord present who is not connected with the Government, as I think flu matter is of considerable importance.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 12, leave out from ("fine") to end of subsection (2).—(Lord Emmott.)
VISCOUNT MILNER: I am sorry to see that no other noble Lord appears to be anxious to come forward and answer the very formidable set of questions which has just been addressed to the House by the noble Lord. I am rather reminded of the old saying that the simplest child can ask more questions in five minutes than the wisest man can answer in a life-time. I certainly am not prepared to decide now what view the numerous committees or the numerous Courts which may have to deal with the matter will take of the word reasonable" in all conceivable circumstances. I take it that the noble Lord's object is to protect the honest trader.
LORD EMMOTT: That is so.
VISCOUNT MILNER: That is an object with which we all sympathise. The words
1026
that he proposes to omit were words which were not originally in the Bill, but were inserted by the House of Commons with the particular object of protecting the trader. For this simple reason I think it would be undesirable for us to strike them out. Especially undesirable must it be on the part of those who are anxious that this clause should not be interpreted in such a way as to act at all harshly towards some. These words are not the Government's own device; they are words inserted in the House of Commons in order to protect the trader, and I submit to your Lordships that we should not be wise in striking them out.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: Whether or not the House would be wise in striking the words out, I think it will hardly be satisfied with the explanation given by the noble Viscount of his own Bill. These words were added to it and the Government adopted them and made them part of its own drafting. My noble friend is not the simple child he tries to make out; he is a very skilled debater, and these are very pertinent questions.
It seems to me extraordinary that the Government has not considered that this clause will involve all the difficulties of a levy on capital. I take it that these penalties are to be enforced not only against the small shopkeeper, but, as it was said in another place, also against the large producer. Let me take for example the business associated with a member of this House—time great soap monopoly which is carried on by various companies supposed to be under the control of Lord Lever-hulme. Does it mean that in the case of soap sold by the grocer in the small towns there will be an inquiry into whether the rate of profit earned by the companies with which the noble Lord is associated is a reasonable one or not? If so, does it involve the whole question of the capitalisation of the various public companies of the country? It would be almost impossible to say without a close and careful investigation as to how far the capital even represents the present value of a particular concern.
We all know the differences between public companies. In the case of some the stock has been largely watered; in the case of others it represents nothing but the present-day value of the equipment and premises. I cannot conceive myself what

1027
would be considered to be reasonable—that is to say, whether the rate of profits is to be taken as the dividend declared on the capital of the company, or if it is to be taken as the rate of profit earned by a great concern after re-valuation by the officers of Inland Revenue. All these things will come up. We are not now discussing abstract resolutions; we are discussing powers which are to be put into the hands, first of all, of the Board of Trade, and then of the network of these miscalled tribunals which are to be set up throughout the country. I do not think it is fair, with these Courts or committees, that the matter should be left at that.
VISCOUNT MILNER: We are dealing now with a clause which brings in Courts of Summary Jurisdiction. There is nothing about committees or tribunals in this clause.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: But the Board of Trade is empowered by the clause to take proceedings in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Yes, before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, but not before the committee.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: No, but the initial step of ordering the prosecution is in the hands of the Board of Trade, of of the committees appointed by the Board of Trade. I do not know that Courts of Petty Sessions, or even the stipendiary magistrates, would be fair judges of these matters. What experience have they had to guide them' in these very difficult matters of trade and finance? If this was merely, as was said in the other House, a placard to put on the wall—if it was merely a bogey Bill as it was called elsewhere, I would not so much mind. I am not, however, so certain that it is only a bogey Bill—that is to say, it is going to frighten all the greedy traders without being put into operation, and not in many cases to bear very hardly on both great and small concerns.
The difficulty is that companies which have been most conservative in their finance are liable to be most heavily penalised. The company which increases its capital without any regard whatever to sound finance of course declares the lowest rate of dividend. I do not mean to say that that would impose upon the officers of Inland Revenue. But here you are dealing with committees and tribunals and even
1028
Courts which are quite unskilled in these matters. They can only take the face value, so to speak, of the statements which are made; they cannot go behind, in many cases, the declarations made by the committee. A clause of this sort, framed without thought, or at all events without investigation, is a very strong step; and there is not the least doubt that here, as in so many other cases, there has been established an atmosphere of prejudice which prevents one from trying to amend a Bill because of its title and because to do anything to make it workable or rational is supposed to show that one is in sympathy with profiteering. Otherwise I do not believe it would have passed through either House of Parliament in its present form.
I quite recognise the difficulties of the noble Viscount. He individually is not responsible for the whole of the Bill; but he is in charge of it here. Serious questions have been put, and they deserve a serious answer, and not to be treated—shall I say?—with flippancy. I do not know that that is quite the word to use, but with so light a touch as that possessed by the noble Viscount in dealing with this Bill.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I was not present at the last sitting of the House. The noble Lord who has moved this Amendment, and the noble Lord behind me have mentioned a great deal about Courts of Summary Jurisdiction. It is all very well if you have stipendiary magistrates, becauses they are always there. Benches of magistrates in the country, however, are not always the same. The consequence is you will have most extraordinary divergences of opinion. It really seems almost a farce. Practically this procedure is the same as we hear about with regard to food. The Food Controller of the district gets leave to bring a prosecution, and every single prosecution that has come before me has been the most nonsensical and the most trivial you ever came across in your life. They leave out many others which were very good cases, and in which they might have got a judgment. As a matter of course, it is too late in the session to do anything; but I draw attention to the fact that you will not have on the benches of magistrates in the country the same men sitting always to bear these prosecutions, and you will get very curious convictions or judgments, just as the case may be.
LORD EMMOTT: I asked the questions in all seriousness. I think they were germane and proper questions to ask. With the utmost respect I say that they were questions which ought to have been answered. The noble Viscount recommended this Bill to us on Friday by saying that he had no particular affection for it, and he is now recommending it to us by rot offering any defence of the proviso the omission of which I formally moved, and by not attempting to explain how the subsection will work. I have no intention of pushing this Amendment to a Division. I moved it rather for the purpose of asking for an explanation. But I cannot say less than that I think the House has been treated with very scant courtesy. In a somewhat long Parliamentary experience I have never heard a point of this importance treated so cavalierly.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Do you withdraw, Lord Emmott?
LORD EMMOTT: Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT MILNER: The next three Amendments in my name are all drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 25, after ("complaint") insert ("knowingly") or ("recklessly")
Page 2, line 26, leave out from ("is") to ("false") in line 27
Page 2, line 36, after the first ("Board") insert ("of Trade").—(Viscount Milner.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Information to be treated as confidential.
5. The proceedings before the Board of Trade or any committee or tribunal under this Act shall, unless in special cases the Board of Trade otherwise direct, be held in public, where such proceedings are founded on a complaint. Save as aforesaid information and documents required to be given or produced to the Board of Trade or to a committee or tribunal under this Act shall be treated as confidential, except in cases where the person giving or producing the same otherwise agrees, and in eases where legal proceedings are taken, for the purpose of such proceedings:
Provided that nothing herein shall be taken as preventing the Board or any committee or tribunal from publishing their findings and decisions.
VISCOUNT MILNER VISCOUNT MILNER had on the Paper an Amendment to insert the following new subsection at the end of the clause—
(2) A fair and accurate report in any newspaper of any proceedings held in public under this Act shall, if published contemporaneously with such proceedings, be privileged.
The noble Viscount said: With the permission of the House, I wish to move this Amendment in a different form from that in which it appears on the Paper. This is to meet the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. I think that he will follow what I now propose, and that the words will entirely meet his case. The new subsection which I desire to insert here, instead of the words standing in my name, is as follows—
"(2) Any investigation under this Act shall, for the purposes of the law relating to libel and slander, be deemed to be proceedings before a Court exercising judicial authority."
I think that meets the case.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 7, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Milner.)
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: I am obliged to the noble Viscount for the manner in which he has now put these words into the Bill, because they completely cover the matter. I was going to point out that the wording of the Amendment on the Paper would not cover reports issued by the Board of Trade, or one of its Committees, of proceedings held in private, as they have a right to hold them. Now the case is completely covered, and I am much obliged.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Amendments reported.
Clause 1:
VISCOUNT MILNER: I wish to propose two Amendments in this clause—to leave out the words "which are sold by public auction or competitive tender or" in subsection (7), and at the end of subsection (10) to insert the words "or to the sale of any articles by public auction or competitive tender." These are mere draftin Amendments.
Amendments moved——
Clause 1, page 3, line 2, to leave ("articles") to ("which") in line 3.
Clause 1, page 3, Line 13, at end insert ("or to the sale of any articles by public auction or competitive tender").—(Viscount Milner.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 2:
VISCOUNT MILNER: There is another Amendment of the same character Clause 2.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 4, line 5, after ("committees") insert ("other than a decision to take proceedings before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction").—(Viscount Milner.)
LORD EMMOTT: May we ask for an explanation of this? I do not understand it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The matter is quite plain. As the Clause stands at present, it is provided that there is a right of appeal by the seller to the Appeal Tribunal against any order or decision of local committees. This Amendment excludes from that general range of appeal matters as to which a decision to take proceedings before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction under the earlier clause has been reached. In other words it is proposed that, where a local committee decides to take proceedings before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, this should not be one of the points to go by way of appeal to the Appeal Tribunal. I think the noble Lord will see that it is a reasonable provision.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill read 3a and passed, and returned to the Commons.

THE AERODROME NEAR DORCHESTER.
LORD ISLINGTON LORD ISLINGTON asked His Majesty's Government to state to what service it is intended to put the aerodrome near Dorchester; what amount of public money has been expended on it up to date; what amount is now being expended monthly; whether the Government intend to complete the aerodrome, and if not, whether steps will immediately be taken to stop the expenditure.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question I have upon the Paper deals with
1032
one of a series of those operations that have out from been undertaken and are now being administered by the Government. The facts about them are gradually coming to light and more and more becoming the subject of public attention. I would like to supplement the Question I have on the Paper by a few observations. During the past week wide publication has been given in the Press to the establishment and development of the aerodrome near Dorchester. In a letter to The Times last Thursday Lord Midleton gave a brief narrative of the operations connected with this aerodrome, and since the publication of his letter further information has been afforded by the subject having been dealt with in a wide manner by the Press—the conditions under which this aerodrome was conceived, and the method of operations since that inception. Altogether they justify my asking, before Parliament rises, for an explanation from His Majesty's Government in regard to the whole scheme.
In putting this Question I am, of course, aware, as your Lordships must be also, that the original decision of the Admiralty to erect this aerodrome was come to as far back as December, 1917—at a period when the war demand for the extension of air stations of this character was urgent, and probably imperative in the public interest, to enable the Air Force to cope with the increasing work which was demanded of it, and which, as subsequent events have more than proved, justified its expansion by the unqualified manner it contributed to victory. As regards the site, I fully realise that the Government may be able to show that strategic reasons of importance necessitated an aerodrome in that part of England, but it is incumbent on the Government to explain, and the public are anxious to know, why this particular site was taken in the face of protests of owners and occupiers and the Board of Agriculture. I lay stress on the protest of the Board of Agriculture, because it goes to confirm the impression that valuable agricultural land was being absorbed for this purpose, at a time when every acre of land was required for food supply. I hope the noble Lord who will answer for the Department will be able to explain, if only to allay the dissatisfaction aroused in the neighbourhood in which the aerodrome has been established.
Just one word as to the Question on the Paper, which is, "to ask the Government

1033
to state to what service it is intended to put the aerodrome"—in other words, to ask the Government what considered policy they have arrived at in regard to this aerodrome, which influenced them in November, 1918, to continue, as apparently they have, towards its completion.
It is stated that prior to November, 1918, little expenditure had been incurred, and it is reasonable to assume that whatever expenditure had been incurred prior to that date would be justified as a war necessity; but it is in regard to the expenditure since that date (which is since the signing of the Armistice and after hostilities had ceased) about which the public would like to know particulars. It is stated that since November, 1918, the work of the aerodrome and all the accessories to accommodate upwards of 200 men, with roads, water supply, and storehouses—in fact, the whole scheme of a considerable air station—had been actively proceeded with towards completion. It is not unreasonable to ask that the public should be informed what project was in the mind of the Government in continuing this work after its immediate necessity, apparently, had ceased. They would also be anxious to know for what purpose this money had been spent during the last eighteen mouths, and what prospect the Government may hold out that a remunerative return will be realised for the money expended; especially the money spent since last November.
I am sure the noble Lord will forgive me (because it is in no sense a reflection upon him, personally) when I say that the more these kind of operations are brought to light the greater becomes the suspicion and dissatisfaction of the public. They naturally feel a growing sense of apprehension that these undertakings (and others of which we have cognisance in this House and in another place) are being carried on involving immense sums of public money without that careful consideration and foresight for the ultimate issue and purpose to which they are to be put which the country has a right to expect from those in whose hands public money is placed. I hope that my noble friend will be able to reply in a far more convincing manner than some of his colleagues have succeeded in doing in recent replies on similar questions.
It must be admitted that it becomes very important to clear up matters like this before Parliament rises. For the
1034
next six or eight weeks there will be no opportunity afforded for any information on subjects of this character, and the public are beginning to realise, with a growing sense of apprehension, that present expenditure is pouring forth on a scale far in excess of the national resources. The public are becoming convinced that large groups of daily expenditure in a variety of directions, if dealt with energetically and with precision, would in some cases be immediately extinguished, and in many others materially reduced. No wonder the public are losing confidence in the Government's determination, if not capacity, to deal all round with this vast expenditure and grapple with it in a strong and effective manner.
This apprehension is by no means abated by the fact that within the last few months Parliament has supplemented the Government, by a series of Acts of Parliament, with new Departments, I venture to say more bureaucratic and more autocratic than any of the Departments that have existed in our Parliamentary system. It is the fact, I think, that bureaucracies unchecked by Parliament invariably fail in their efforts, and we have not only had sad experience of that fact in what we have seen in this country, but we can also point to the baneful results of bureaucracies in other parts of the Empire. In all these circumstances I think it is only natural that there is profound disquietude, which I venture to say will inevitably find its expression in an outburst of popular indignation and revolt, unless in the course of the next few months the Government take the matter seriously in hand and carry out a really drastic scheme of economy in all their Departments. I have taken this opportunity somewhat to diverge from the actual Question on the Paper, but all I have said is fully germane to that Question, which is one with which the public is becoming more and more concerned every day.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF LYTTON): My Lords, my noble friend need offer no apology for raising this subject to-day. On the contrary, I feel very much obliged to him for giving me an opportunity of making a statement on the question of this Air Station at Dorchester. It was, I think, the noble Viscount opposite, Lord Midleton, who first discovered in this question the elements of a new scandal, and who revealed in the

1035
columns of The Times the largest details of the extravagance of this profligate Government. I know that the noble Viscount was actuated by the highest possible motives in the public interest, and I am certain that he was at some pains to ensure the accuracy of his information. Therefore I am sure he will be as glad to hear, as I am to tell him, that with regard to some of the facts he is not quite correctly informed, and that with regard to other facts they are not quite so discreditable to the Government as he at first not unnaturally supposed.
What are the allegations in this case which justify a reference to this matter under the title of a scandal? They are, I think, these: First, that we insisted upon taking possession of 400 acres of valuable agricultural land, in spite, as my noble friend has just pointed out, of the protests of the Board of Agriculture and of the Food Production Department. Secondly, that "up to November, 1918—I quote from the noble Viscount's letter in The Times—" little expenditure had taken place, and the Department could have covered their losses without any serious waste of money, which they were urged to do by all concerned." Thirdly, that instead of doing this we continued building a shed for storage purposes, and spent hundreds of thousands of pounds, to the general demoralization of the neighbourhood. Fourthly, that the contractor had wasted money by bringing building sand from the Midlands, although excellent sand was available locally; and, lastly—and this also from the noble Viscount—the whole site is now derelict and the Government are preserving a stony silence when asked about their intentions.
I am glad that I may at last break such silence as hitherto has existed on the subject. I really do not know what is meant by that, because the only person who has asked for information on the subject has been the owner of the property, with whom I have had an interview myself and from whom it has not been attempted to conceal anything. With regard to the actual acquisition of the property, the site was first selected in September, 1917, for a Coastal Non-rigid Airship Station for defence of the South Coast. It is quite true that protests were made at once by the Board of Agriculture against the acquisition of this valuable agricultural land, and the result was that the negotiations were delayed
1036
from September, 1917, until February, 1918, and during that time the whole of the district, including alternative sites suggested to us, was inspected between Southampton and Sidmouth and within fifteen miles from the coast.
The result of the search was that no suitable alternative site fulfilling requirements could be found. Lastly, the President of the Board of Agriculture had an interview with my predecessor, the Second Civil Lord, at the Admiralty, and after a visit by his advisers in conjunction with the advisers of the Admiralty to the site in quest on, the opposition of the Board of Agriculture was withdrawn, and the site was finally requisitioned on February 12, 1918. One of the main conditions for the withdrawal of the opposition of the Board of Agriculture was a fact which does not come out in the newspaper correspondence. I rather think the noble Viscount was under the impression when he wrote to The Times that the whole of the 400 acres was disturbed, but as a matter of fact only seventy out of the 370 requisitioned were ever disturbed at all. The tenant remained in occupation of the farm and of the farm buildings, none of which have been taken, and the landlord has, of course, received rent for the whole farm during the whole period of occupation.
The tenant's claim for compensation, which has recently been agreed, only amounts, up to Michaelmas 1918, to £268 10 s., which includes the rent for that portion of the farm which we have occupied and which he has paid to the owner, showing the result, therefore, that although the land was of high agricultural value very little damage has in fact accrued to it. The estimated cost of the whole scheme was £200,000, of which the shed—which was to cost £80,000—and £120,000 of the total were in the form of a fixed-price contract. The allegation about sand is simply a mistake. A very small quantity of ballast was brought not from the Midlands but from the neighbourhood of Portland, being required for special reinforced concrete work, and was found cheaper titan to wash the local sand; also a very small quantity of granite sand was brought from a distance for special roofing plates. With that exception the whole of the building sand was taken front the locality, where, as the noble Viscount pointed out, very excellent sand is available. So much for the extravagance of the original outlay.

1037
At the time of the Armistice, so far from only a small expenditure having been made, 50 per cent. of the whole had been completed, and nearly £100,000 out of the total of £200,000 had already been spent. The work on subsidiary plant—gas plant, and gas holders, and so forth—was immediately reduced, but work on the shed itself was continued, it being then the intention of the Staff to retain the shed for the housing of airships. It was not till May of this year that the Staff finally decided to abandon this station for air purposes. Then the question arose as to what should be done with it. Pending a decision as to its ultimate use, it was decided in the first instance to complete the roof of the shed, which was at that time incomplete, and use it temporarily for the storage of mines. At that time a very large number of mines were stored in commercial ports, and we were then being hardly pressed, as now we are, to release this accommodation for its ordinary commercial purposes; consequently, the permanent place for the storage of mines not being complete, a comparison of cost showed that there would be a considerable saving by building this shed and using it temporarily for the storage of these mines rather than building a new store. This course was therefore adopted, and the mines are now being transferred there. My noble friend asks what has been spent to date, and what is the expense monthly. The answer is that approximately £182,000 has been spent to date. It is expected that the work required for the temporary storage purpose to which I have referred will be complete within a month or six weeks, at a further cost of about £3,000.
In conclusion, let me say a word about the future. At the time that this land was requisitioned the owner, Lord Ilchester, was opposed to selling it, but in an interview that I had with him this summer he expressed his willingness to sell the property if the Government decided to purchase it, and I am inclined to think that this will be the best course. The estate will be retained for the present for the purpose which I have described. Eventually, if the Air Ministry do not require it for a flying station, the shed will be taken down and removed, in which case the total loss on the transaction will be confined to the cost of the labour of erecting, taking down, and removing and re-erecting it elsewhere. The material, of course, will all be utilised.
1038
If the whole farm is purchased it could be utilised for small holdings, or as an experimental farm. The buildings which have been erected on it would then be a valuable asset, for, as my noble friend knows, to find at this moment valuable agricultural land with available buildings already upon it is far from easy in this country, and if such a farm is required it is probable that this property will meet that purpose.
The ultimate use of the station is still under consideration between various Government Departments, but there is no reason to believe that the greater part of the expenditure incurred will not ultimately be turned to good account. That is the whole story of this transition. I hope that I have succeeded in removing some of the misapprehensions with regard to the carelessness of the original transaction, and also the ground for the charges of undue extravagance which were then made. I hope also that I have succeeded in assuring my noble friend that when the ultimate decision with regard to the disposal of the property is taken, practically the whole of the money which has been spent upon it will be realised. If there is any other point with which I have not dealt I shall be glad if the noble Viscount opposite will remind me of it, so that I may not be accused at any rate of preserving a stony silence.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I do not know whether I may, before I answer the remarks of the noble Earl, utter what I feel sure will be the congratulations of all your Lordships upon the honour which was conferred upon him this morning—
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: An honour which I cannot help saving he amply deserves for the many forlorn hopes that he has led on that bench, and for the gallant defences that he has made on many difficult occasions.
Before I go to the rest of the case, I should like to justify one or two of the statements in which the noble Earl, in his reply, stated that I was incorrect. I think that if he could have gone down yesterday to the actual site he would have given a rather different account of it from that which he has supplied to-day on official information. For instance, he thinks that the number of acres taken has been stated

1039
excessively, and he mentioned seventy acres as having been actually taken by the Government.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: No; disturbed.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My information is that 147 acres are actually in the Government's possession, and that eighty-one acres have been rendered hopeless for all other purposes. The Government empowered the farmer to lay clown two spaces of sixty acres and sixty-two acres which are bearing no crop at this moment of any value, and there is also the question of the severance of some part of the farm which has been rendered inaccessible. That brings the total acreage to a very much higher figure than that given by the noble Earl, who would find that approximately at this moment the number of acres is not far short of that which I mentioned.
There is further the question of how much work has been done. The official statement is that since the Armistice 65 per cent. of the work has been done. Here again, if the noble Earl could have seen the place he would know that that figure is wrong. It is quite true that there has been a certain amount of expenditure in steel girders and other necessary preparations, but nearly the whole of them were on the ground but not erected, and they could have been used elsewhere. Again, on the men's accommodation of 300 houses not half the work had been done. There was not a single roof on the houses, or at most not more than one or two roofs upon them, and the work generally was in its earliest stages. With regard to the great amount of work done between November and May, the railway siding, the new drainage works, and the whole of the station have been completed since the Armistice. On the question of the sand also there is a conflict of testimony which is very extraordinary. I have in my hand a letter from a gentleman who investigated the matter on the spot the day before yesterday, and he assures me that the mass of sand there came, not as I said from the Midlands, but from a place equally distant—namely, Bideford, North Devon. Yet the noble Earl has been instructed that what sand there is there came from the neighbourhood of Portland. Here again we have a distinct conflict of testimony, into which I am sure he would be willing to look.
The official apology that the aerodrome is very useful at present for storing mines
1040
will not, I am informed, bear examination. Not only are there no mines there, but I have ascertained that on Friday night there were 500 sheep in the aerodrome. There really is a flaw in the noble Earl's argument The Admiralty (or whatever Department was then in charge) did lose months in making up their minds what was to be done. It is part of our complaint against all these Departments that when the Armistice came, instead of stopping and endeavouring to make the best of what had been done during that six months, the main and what yon may call the irretrievable expenditure was undertaken. And the best proof that neither Department knows now what to do with this splendid series of buildings is that the unfortunate man from whom the land has been taken has even yet not bad his compensation assessed, and has not received a farthing. I am absolutely certain that, had the matter remained with one Department and that they thought they had got full control they would have settled that long ago.
I am sure the noble Earl is correct that those who have got hold of this land and who have spent this £150,000 upon it (I understood that it was £200,000) desired to save the public as much loss as possible. But I really believe that these buildings are in a place where they are not required and cannot be required, and the sooner that all these girders instead of being used for completing the roof are pulled down and used for other Government work the better it will be. As it is, I am afraid that it will be found that we have got more than 200 acres—something like 300 acres—to deal with which are not required. In the presence of the noble Viscount who made such an eloquent defence of Slough I hardly like to say that this is a parallel case. But I do feel that this and other cases which have been mentioned in the newspapers since the letter which I wrote appeared show that in one Department after another the armistice was not taken to be, as it ought to have been, the moment for stopping altogether these expensive preparations, and that one of the things which is leaving the country in such great difficulties as regards money at this present moment is that in all Departments there was no reasonable feeling that at the moment of closing the war it was absolutely necessary to come down as quickly as possible to something like a peace standard. I thank the noble Earl very much for the explanation he has given.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: With regard to divergencies of fact, I can assure the noble Viscount that I will look into that. I have given him the facts as they were supplied to me. It is true that according to his remarks there are divergencies which require explanation. I will look into this and communicate with him further. With regard to the date of the armistice, the noble Viscount assumed, as indeed it is generally assumed in the Press, that November 11, 1918, was the end of the war. I would ask your Lordships to remember that that was not the case; that was the cessation of hostilities, and the fact that we are now securely at peace is really only due to the fact that during the months immediately following the Armistice we were prepared, as indeed we had to be, to resume hostilities, if that were necessary, at Any moment. Therefore it is not really fair to argue that from November 11, 1918, all warlike preparations, whether with regard to the Army or the Navy ought immediately to have ceased.

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill no lengthy explanation is necessary. A number of contracts had been entered into before the war, and in the early days of the war, in order to prevent unemployment, encouragement was given to other persons to make fresh contracts. Those contracts cannot now be carried out on an economic basis and it is proposed by this Bill, which has been prepared by a number of business men, acting in concert with a number of Judges of the High Court, to deal with the resultant situation by arming the Courts with a degree of discretion comparable with that which has been exercised during the war. I will ask your Lordships to carry this Bill through its stages to-night. I have no reason to apprehend that your Lordships will find any difficulty in taking this course.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), House in Com-
1042
mittee: Bill reported without amendment; Bill read 3a and passed.

BRITISH MERCANTILE MARINE UNIFORM BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendment considered (according to Order).

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[NOTE.—The Reference is to Bill (73).]
Page 1, line 26, leave out from ("course") to the end of subsection (1) and insert ("or for the purposes of a stage play or representation, or a music-hall or circus performance if the uniform is not worn in such a manner or under such circumstances as to bring it into contempt").
LORD SOMERLEYTON: I beg to move that this Amendment be agreed to. It is a very simple one, and does not alter the sense in any way.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. (Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL LAND SALES (RESTRICTION OF NOTICES TO QUIT) BILL.
Commons Reason for disagreeing with one of the Lords Amendments considered (according to Order).

LORDS AMENDMENT.
[The reference is to Bill (193).]
Clause 4, page 2, line 5, after ("to") insert ("Scotland or")
The Commons disagree with this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the operation of the Bill now being limited to the case of yearly tenancies, the exclusion of Scotland from its operation is no longer necessary or desirable.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I move that your Lordships do not insist upon your Amendment. When this Bill left your Lordships' House Scotland was excluded, and certain noble Lords—including the Duke of Buccleuch and Lord Balfour of Burleigh—left this House, I think, under the impression that that was to be so. I understand that their objection mainly was that tenancies of longer than one year were included in the Bill. I accepted an Amendment that nothing but yearly tenancies should be affected by the Bill, and this, I

1043
understood, disposed of their Lordships' objection. I have not been able to communicate with them to-day, but in these circumstances I do not think they will have any objection to Scotland being included.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE BILLS, ETC.
[From Minutes of August 15.]

SCOTTISH WIDOWS' FUND AND LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY'S ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
VICTORIA INFIRMARY OF GLASGOW ACT, 1888 (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a;
1044
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, and to be read 3a on Monday next.

SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
FRASERBURGH HARBOUR (RATES) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
PETERHEAD HARBOURS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before five o'clock until tomorrow, mid-day.