Lords Sitting of 15 December 1919

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I desire to ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House when it is proposed to take the Committee stage of the Government of India Bill?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, we desire to take the Committee stage of the Bill as soon as possible, because of its great importance. It is down for to-morrow evening. It is the third Order on the Paper. I do not as yet know at what hour your Lordships will reach its consideration, but I earnestly hope that we shall be able to proceed with it then.

THE DOWNING-STREET CONFERENCE.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: May I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether he is in a position to make a statement to us with regard to the Conference that has been going on for the last few days?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Yes, my Lords, I can make a brief statement on what has happened. At the meetings which took place at Downing-street of representatives of France, Italy, the United States, Japan, and Great Britain on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday of last week, important discussions took place on the conclusion of peace with Turkey and Hungary as to arrangements for future, sittings of the Peace Conference, and as to the ratification of the Treaties already concluded and the execution of their clauses. The economic and financial situation was examined in detail. In order to remedy the fall in the exchange prejudicial to the two nations, the British Government agreed to the issue of a French Loan in England, the date, the amount, and the conditions of which will be fixed by agreement between the two Governments. The Russian situation was also taken fully into consideration, and on this, as on all other questions, the Allies were in complete agreement. The decisions taken on this question were in complete accordance with the policy already announced to the House of Commons. It was decided to resume the Allied Conference at an early date which would be convenient for the attendance of the Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries of France, Italy, and Great Britain, and the representatives of the United States and Japan, in order to formulate the proposals for the Treaty with Turkey, and finally to dispose of the difficulties arising out of the sitnation in the Adriatic.

THE CASE OF MISS DOUGLAS-PENNANT.

  PERSONAL STATEMENT BY EARL STANHOPE.
  LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON rose to move that the Women's Royal Air Force (Inquiry on Miss Violet Douglas-Pennant) Report be considered. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I submit the Motion that stands in my name in order to give those of your Lordships who may wish to speak upon this matter an opportunity—I hope a convenient opportunity—of doing so. I trust that your Lordships will not think it presumptuous of me if I add that I believe the whole House watched with admiration the patience and dignity with which the noble and learned Lord sitting on the Cross Benches (Lord Wrenbury) conducted the business of the Committee dining the rather protracted sittings over which the Inquiry lasted.
  Moved, That the Women's Royal Air Force (Inquiry on Miss Violet Douglas-Pennant) Report be considered.—(Lord Hylton.)
  EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I desire to make a statement of an entirely personal nature. Your Lordships may remember that on the second occasion on which I brought the case of Miss Violet Douglas-Pennant's dismissal from the Women's Royal Air Force before your Lordships' House, on July 30 last, in speaking of alleged scandals in the Air Force I used these words—
  "I will give your Lordships only one instance, but it happens to be an instance of which I have seen almost the whole of the evidence and several of the witnesses."
  My Lords, at the time that I made that speech I had been having interviews with and receiving information from a number of persons as regards conditions in the Air Force generally. The impression left upon my mind as regards the particular instance to which I proceeded to refer was that I was justified in using those words. My Lords, I was not so justified, and I can only express my profound regret to the House for having made an incorrect statement.
  As regards my more general references to grave irregularities which I was informed had occurred at some of the camps, these were based on information which I considered trustworthy and definite, but I now desire, so far as I am concerned, un
  4
  reservedly to withdraw any imputations against individuals which may be contained in what I said. Your Lordships will do me the justice to remember that I have never at any time made charges of general immorality against the Women's Royal Air Force. There were many thousands of women in that Force, and such a charge would be as absurd as it would be cruel and untrue.
  There is, however, one statement which I made to your Lordships to which I ought particularly to allude. In speaking on July 30 I used words which contained a specific allegation of immorality between a certain colonel and a certain lady. I desire entirely to withdraw that statement and that allegation, and in doing so to apologise profoundly to your Lordships for having made it.
  There are others besides your Lordships to whom I desire to apologise. In making my remarks in your Lordships' House I mentioned no names either of individuals or places, but in the course of the Inquiry these names have necessarily been made public. I desire, therefore, in as public a manner as possible, to express my regret to Colonel Janson and to Miss Glubb, the two persons in question, for having made any allegations against them. I have already communicated with their respective solicitors apologising for my statement, and I have paid the whole of Miss Glubb's costs in connection with the Inquiry, and an agreed sum to Colonel Janson in respect of such extra costs and trouble as he may have incurred by reason of my statements.
  There is one other matter to which I desire to refer, and that is my letter to the Committee which appears as an Appendix to the Report. At the time that I wrote that letter I was profoundly disappointed that Mrs. Kitto and certain other witnesses who I believed might have given material evidence had not been called before the Committee, and I felt very strongly that it was my duty to inform the Committee that these witnesses were available, and that quite irrespective of whether they would support Miss Douglas-Pennant's case or not. In writing that letter, however, I had no intention of reviving any imputations against the persons referred to in my speech in your Lordships' House.
  My Lords, in bringing this case before your Lordships' House, I was actuated by no personal motives or prejudices. In

  5
  common with every member, I believe, of your Lordships' House I desired that the State should be a model employer, and, rightly or wrongly, it seemed to me that as regards general conditions and as regards the observance of contract between employer and employed, the State in this case, had not set that example which is expected of it. I regret that on the second occasion on which I brought this matter before your Lordships' House I made statements that were inaccurate and therefore misleading, and I trust that your Lordships will realise how sincere is the apology I desire to tender to your Lordships for having made incorrect statements in this House.
  EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, the House will have listened with sympathy and with respect to the ample and the obviously sincere apology which has been offered by the noble Earl, and I certainly do not desire, by anything that I may have to say, to acid to the difficulty and delicacy of the position which he occupies. In a moment or two I shall allude more specifically to the case to which he has referred, but your Lordships will realise, and indeed the noble Lord has himself realised, that this is not a personal matter alone. He prefaced his remarks by saying that he was going to offer a personal explanation to your Lordships' House; and so he did. But the personal explanation, fully as we accept it, does not dispose of the case. Because, as your Lordships will remember, it was your Lordship' House who, by a considerable, one might almost say overwhelming, majority assumed a special responsibility in this matter. Therefore it is not only the attitude or the conduct of an individual Peer, but the conduct and reputation of your Lordships' House are also involved.
  Will you permit me briefly to recall to you the Parliamentary history of this case, or rather that portion of it only which concerns your Lordships' House? I need not here allude to what passed in another place, although it is fair to remark that the House of Commons showed a juster perception of the proportions and character of this case than some of us did in your Lordships' House. Neither need I allude to the several White Papers that were circulated at different stages of this controversy; nor to the abundant correspondence that appeared in the Press. I will confine my attention to the occasions
  6
  upon which the matter came before this House. They were three in number.
  The first was on February 27 of the present year, and the discussion was inaugurated on that occasion by a number of questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill. Lord Stanhope was content with observing in his speech that the Government had a very weak case; but the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, who was always far ahead of his colleague in imputation, told us that the answers given from this Bench were palpably evasive and incorrect. The second occasion was on May 29, and it was then that the noble Earl moved for a Judicial Inquiry. On that occasion his charges were more precise. He said that there was a regular conspiracy against Miss Douglas-Pennant; he declared that a grave injustice had been inflicted upon her; and he further said that every conceivable regulation and instruction had been over-ridden. He was supported in his demand for this Inquiry by two noble Lords who sit upon the Bench opposite me, Lord Buckmaster and Lord Salisbury, although in pressing for an Inquiry they refrained from in any degree sustaining the particular charges that had been made.
  It was in that debate that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—who had been consulted at each stage of this case, who had himself taken an enormous amount of trouble about it, and who had advised the Secretary of State throughout—issued to your Lordships a solemn warning, that you were about to take a course which could lead to nothing but disaster and failure. That warning, coming from that authoritative quarter, was ignored, and your Lordships decided by a majority of 69 to 20 to insist upon this Judicial Inquiry; the minority of 20, I may remark in passing, consisting of few beyond those who are the regular supporters of His Majesty's Government upon this Bench. Therefore it mould be true to say that practically the whole House of Lords who were then present, except those who were under an official obligation, supported my noble friend Lord Stanhope in his action.
  A NOBLE LORD: A good many walked out.
  EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I am talking only of those who voted. For reasons into which I need not now enter, the Government declined to grant that

  7
  Inquiry, and accordingly on July 30 Lord Stanhope re-appeared upon the scene. He now moved for the appointment of a Select Committee, and in making that Motion he used these words—
  "The House of Commons—the elected House—is totally uninterested in safeguarding the rights of people to a trial; it is left to the Peers of this Realm to take action against oppressions, this time of a tyrannical bureaucracy, in order that they should insist on a right of trial."
  And it was upon this occasion that the noble Earl came with additional information to your Lordships, and he added those charges, both of specific and of general immorality, which he has now so amply withdrawn.
  In this debate my noble friend Lord Ampthill, whose vocabulary had not suffered by the respite it had enjoyed, used these terms. He spoke of the "subtleties and evasions and equivocations and misrepresentations of the case which have been made by the spokesmen of the Government "; he denounced all those "miserable quibbles" by which it had been sought to evade the real issue and to escape inquiry; and he described the dismissal (as he called it) of Miss Douglas-Pennant as "an absolutely unprecedented and arbitrary act." The Motion of the noble Earl for a Select Committee was then carried, again by the overwhelming majority of 69 to 42.
  At this stage I became, for the first time, directly associated with this case. I might, I think, have dissevered myself altogether from it. I thought then, and most of us think now, that a very profound mistake had been made. But nevertheless your Lordships' House had taken upon yourselves the responsibility of setting up this Committee, and I felt it to be my duty, in the post which I happened to occupy, to do everything in my power to render your action effective, and to invest it, in its consequences, with the requisite dignity and impartiality. Therefore on behalf of the Government I promised every assistance to my noble friend Lord Stanhope. I attached only two conditions to the setting up of this Select Committee. One was that it should be presided over by a noble Lord with judicial experience and authority; the other was that there should only be placed upon it Peers who had taken no part, either by speech or by vote, in the discussions that had already occurred. These conditions were accepted, and the Committee was set up.
  8
  Your Lordships will, I am sure, agree with my noble friend Lord Hylton in the few remarks that he made upon the services rendered by the Chairman of that Committee. We were fortunate in persuading Lord Wrenbury to occupy that post. He is one of the most experienced, the fairest, and the most learned Judges who have sat upon the Bench, and we all of us know, from his contributions to our debates from time to time, that he is a distinguished ornament of this House. The tribunal over which he presided was a capable and impartial tribunal. It took an immense deal of trouble about the case. I do not know on how many occasions it sat—
  A NOBLE LORD: Eighteen.
  EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: It sat on no fewer than eighteen occasions, and finally presented the House with a unanimous Report. What do we find in that Report? I am not going to summarise its findings, extending as they do over so wide a field. I will merely on minor points, relatively minor points as compared with the grosser charges, read just. a few passages from the Report. The Committee state at different times in their Report: "These Minutes completely destroy Miss Douglas-Pennant's charge of obstruction"; "Miss Douglas-Pennant's charges of obstruction are not substantiated"; "the stories brought forward are mostly absurd, without point, trivial, and groundless"; "the alleged intrigues against Miss Douglas-Pennant are due to her distorted vision, and there is no truth in them." The evidence of one witness—I am alluding to Turnbull now—"as a substratum for the vast superstructure of immorality, connivance, and encouragement is contemptible." "To have launched these accusations and to support them by no evidence other than the above is, in our opinion, deserving of the gravest censure."
  As to the charges about Hurst Park, the Committee say: "All the accusations of immorality and conniving at immorality are wholly unsupported by evidence." Again they say of them that: "They are grossly defamatory and untrue." Therefore it comes to this—because these sentences are a fair summary of the whole of the Report—that these charges which were so recklessly flung about, and which spared neither authority, position, nor sex completely broke down. Not one of the

  9
  imputations which were made was sustained. Rarely, if ever, has an attack been made by responsible persons which rested on such flimsy foundations, and rarely, if ever, has such an attack met with such complete refutation and exposure.
  I pass to the particular incident to which the noble Earl has referred. I pass to it not in the least degree with any idea of adding to the feelings of natural mortification and self-reproach to which he has just given expression. I mention it only because it has a wider implication and meaning. We none of as can conceal from ourselves that the main reason why your Lordships' House acted in the mailer you did was that they relied implicitly upon the character and the asseverations of a noble Lord possessing the reputation which Earl Stanhope in our midst enjoys. It seemed scarcely possible to us to believe that charges made upon the word, and let this be added, under the protection, of a Peer who declared himself with regard to the most serious of them that he had seen almost the whole of the evidence and several of the witnesses, could be untrue.
  If the noble Earl will allow me I cannot help alluding, in passing, to one incident to which he did not refer but which appears in the Report of the Committee. It is this. The particular charge to which we are alluding is that concerning the relations of a military officer and a young lady, and it appears from the Report that after his speech in this House the noble Earl was asked by the solicitor for the colonel, who thought his name had been directly implicated, if that was the case, and the noble Earl, I think he will now admit, acting in grave error, sheltered himself behind the privilege of your Lordships' House and declined to reply. What was the result? We have to look at it in its wider aspect. This young lady, the daughter of a major-general, herself a young woman who had, I believe, rendered not inconspicuous war service, was left to lie for months under the cloud of a disgraceful charge. She was compelled to submit to the indelicacy of a medical examination; she was subjected in the witness box to a most dishonouring cross-examination by counsel for Miss Douglas-Pennant; and it turns out at the end, as the noble Earl has himself admitted, that he had not seen a single witness, he did not even know who told him. He thought, he said, before the Committee that it was Miss Douglas-Pennant,
  10
  and when she was questioned and disputed that assertion on his part he said somebody else had told somebody else who had told him. So much for the specific charge of immorality against these two unfortunate persons.
  As to the general charges of immorality at Hurst Park, they were equally deplorable, and they turned out—and I am glad the noble Earl recognises it—to be equally unfounded. These charges were scattered wholesale by Miss Douglas-Pennant, and the only evidence she could produce was one Turnbull, a man to whom I have referred and who proved nothing at all. That such charges should have been made, based on such evidence or lack of evidence, is a proof of the length to which in this case recklessness and malice were allowed to go.
  I turn away with pleasure from that particular aspect of the case. I would like, after what the noble Earl has said, to pass a sponge over these particular incidents and charges. But let your Lordships remember that the Committee was set up not to consider charges of immorality, specific or general, alone, although the victims of these charges were undoubtedly the persons who suffered most. Scarcely anybody who could be brought within the purview of this matter was spared. Persons who had rendered invaluable service were defamed as dishonest intriguers. The most wounding charges were aimed against ladies like Lady Rhondda and Dame Katherine Furse, against eminent politicians such as Sir Auckland Geddes, and against distinguished soldiers such as General Brancker. If these charges had not been made under privileged conditions Miss Douglas-Pennant would have been answerable in damages and costs amounting to many thousands of pounds. As the Committee say in almost the concluding words of their Report—
  "It has compelled the Committee in substance to try the issues in what ought to have been some half-dozen or more actions for libel before some half-dozen or more juries, and to do so when this Committee have no power to give effect to their findings by awarding damages against the libeller or even to give costs to the parties libelled."
  As it is, my Lords, the total expenses to the State in preparing this case, in paying legal expenses to the persons who were implicated, in respect of printing, and paying the shorthand-writers, will have amounted before the bill is complete to

  11
  considerably over £10,000. Of this sum only £220, that for the cost of the shorthand writers, can be charged upon the Vote of your Lordships' House.
  Such, my Lords, is the financial consequence of this proceeding. I fail for my part to see any single compensating advantage. I earnestly hope that no noble Lord, if any speak after me in this discussion, will endeavour to make the point that the Committee was justified because of the complete exposure of the charges which were made, since that would be tantamount to saying that charges have only to be made sufficiently scandalous and sufficiently numerous in order to justify your Lordships in setting up a Select Committee to enquire into them.
  I desire to say only one more sentence in conclusion, and it is a sentence which I utter with every possible feeling of respect. I speak of the position in the matter taken up by your Lordships' House as a whole. I doubt not, indeed I am convinced, that the majority of your Lordships acted from perfectly honourable motives in this matter. You thought that this lady, who had many friends, who was undoubtedly an able woman, and who had herself rendered distinguished services in many fields connected with the war and otherwise, was the victim of personal injustice. You were led to think that a discreditable state of affairs existed in one of the branches of the Public Service—namely, the Royal Air Force, and particularly the women's portion of it. You believed, or were led to believe, that a conspiracy existed to hush up this condition of affairs; and, my Lords, led by these motives, which in themselves were entirely honourable, however mistaken, you took the law into your own hands and three times rejected the advice offered to you by responsible Ministers of the Crown. You acted, I have no doubt, in the interests of justice, but you undoubtedly gave the impression, and this was not the least unfortunate aspect of the case, that you were doing for one who was connected with your own order, what you would have been less eager to do for one of more humble circumstances.
  Several NOBLE LORDS: No, No! and Oh, Oh!
  EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I do not say it is a correct impression, but it was the impression which was conveyed. You have only to look at the papers.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: An utterly false impression.
  EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: An uterly false impression, I agree; but it existed and was commented upon in the public Press. The result is that a large sum of public money has been expended, an immense amount of personal suffering has been caused, most inadequately compensated by the vindication that has been received, and a precedent has been set which I entirely concur with the Chairman and the members of the Committee in saying they earnestly trust will not form a precedent ever to be followed in the future.
  I hope, my Lords, that this experience will lead every one of us—because, never mind on which side of the House we sit, we are all liable to act upon the same motives—to be less quick and impulsive in our suspicions, more moderate in the censures that we are sometimes too ready to pass upon public servants, more scrupulous in the evidence which we require in the support of charges of a very defamatory character and; above all—and this affects the House alone—more jealous how we guard and more careful how we set in motion the great prerogatives which, as the Upper House in the Parliament of this country, we enjoy.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am quite sure that your Lordships will echo the words of the noble Earl opposite, that we respect and sympathise with my noble friend Lord Stanhope in the very ample words which he used, and which he ought to have used, in respect of the misinformation which he gave to your Lordships' House, and for the deplorable wrong it inflicted upon an innocent woman. My noble friend made the apology which a gentleman would wish to make, and which as a gentleman he did make, and every one of us respect him for the attitude which he has adopted in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
  I agree with much of what the noble Earl opposite has said. I agree that it is not only deplorable that charges should have been made against this lady, but also against the high public servants, men and women, who came within the purview of the charges. I quite agree that that was a very unfortunate and deplorable thing, and I am very glad that they have been vindicated. The noble Earl opposite, however, did not confine himself to speaking

  13
  with respect of my noble friend's apology, nor to reciting what the Committee had found. He also found considerable fault with your Lordships' House for the action which the majority saw fit to take. I am afraid that I cannot go with my noble friend in all he said in that respect, and I speak to some extent from an impartial point of view, because, as the House and the noble Earl opposite are aware, I did not vote for the Inquiry which has been the subject of this Report.
  But, my Lords, was it so very odd that an Inquiry was asked for? After all, the Prime Minister himself said that an Inquiry ought to be held. The House must remember that, and that was the strongest ground which was put forward during the first of the two debates which were held in your Lordships' House to discuss this matter. The noble Earl opposite says that he hopes no one will say that the Inquiry is justified by the result. I deplore that the Inquiry was held upon information which was incorrect, and which ought not to have been incorrect; but I do not think it is unfortunate that the suspicions which the previous history of this question had engendered were cleared away. After all, there was a long history—the noble Earl went into a great deal of it—but there was a long private history beyond what he recited, of goings and comings between the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Secretary and the parties, and a whole cloud of suspicion was engendered. I think it was a good thing, and not a bad thing, that that should be cleared away, and that all persons implicated should be found to be entirely innocent; and I do not think my noble friend is right in saying it is immaterial that the result of the Inquiry turned out to be what it did turn out to be.
  The whole point is, upon what information did your Lordships think fit to order an Inquiry. The information was wrong. Of course, that is agreed. The information was not only wrong but it ought not to have been wrong. But, given information presented to your Lordships as it was, although I did not vote for the Inquiry and was not satisfied personally that an Inquiry ought to be held, I am not prepared to criticise the majority of the House because they took a different view. The noble Earl has reproved your Lordships. Honestly, that is an unusual thing for a
  14
  member of your Lordships' House to do. What the majority decide we generally accept and submit to and may I say that I did regret in the noble Earl's speech that he should have suggested that in the action which the majority of your Lordships' House took there was a suspicion abroad that we should not have so acted if the lady in question had not been connected with our own order.
  NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will characterise such an impression as an absolute falsehood. I do not believe that there was a single member of your Lordships' House who voted in the majority but was inspired with a pure desire to see justice done and to see an abuse righted, absolutely irrespective of what the position of this lady was.
  EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I accepted that. I did not deny for one moment what the noble Marquess has said. All that I said was—and I repeat it—that it was unfortunate that the impression existed and that the conduct of your Lordships' House gave justification to it. And that impression was more than once stated in this House in the course of the debate.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that it is to be regretted that the noble Earl, with his authority, should have given some sort of advertisement to a suggestion such as that. All that I have to say, in conclusion, is that I earnestly hope that the history of this case will not act as a restraint upon your Lordships' House in doing your duty to investigate and apply remedies to abuses wherever you think they exist. It all depends upon the information on which your Lordships think fit to act, which in this case was of course wholly incorrect, but it would be a deplorable thing if as a result of this Inquiry and as a result of the speech of the noble Earl your Lordships did not, wherever you see fit, have what inquiries seem good to you made in order to investigate abuses and do your best to remedy them. After all, the path of the reformer is a very hard one. He has all the vested interests of the Government against him, and he has all those who command all the best information against him, and has to do his best Sometimes he makes mistakes Some-

  15
  times, as in the case of my noble friend, his zeal outruns his discretion, but I am quite certain that on the whole it is a good thing that abuses should be inquired into, and I earnestly hope that the result of this Inquiry may not restrain your Lordships from doing your duty whenever the occasion arises.

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND (POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to Order).

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 1, page 2, lines 5 and 6, leave out ("by His Majesty's Command")
Clause 1, page 2, line 16, leave out ("of His Majesty's Privy Council")
Clause 2, page 2, lines 22 and 23, leave out ("His Majesty's Privy Council") and insert ("members of both Houses of Parliament")
Clause 2, page 2, lines 23 and 24, leave out ("of the Privy Council")
Clause 2, page 2, line 25, leave out from ("of") to the end of subsection (2) and insert ("fifteen members of the House of Lords nominated by the Lord Chancellor and fifteen members of the House of Commons nominated by the Speaker of the House of Commons to be appointed on the passing of this Act to serve for the duration of the present Parliament and thereafter to be appointed at the commencement of each Parliament to serve for the duration of that Parliament.
"Any casual vacancy occurring by the reason of the death, resignation or incapacity of a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee shall be filled by the nomination of a member by the Lord Chancellor or the Speaker of the House of Commons, as the case may be")
Clause 2, page 2, line 30, at end insert ("and the Committee shall be entitled to sit and to transact business whether Parliament be sitting or not, and notwithstanding a vacancy in the membership of the Committee. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Ecclesiastical Committee may regulate its own procedure").
Clause 3, page 3, line 5, leave out ("His Majesty") and insert ("Parliament")
Clause 3, page 3, line 6, leave out ("their") and insert ("its")
Clause 3, page 3, line 7, leave out ("its") and insert ("the") and after ("expediency") insert ("thereof")
Clause 3, page 3, line 11, leave out ("His Majesty") and insert ("Parliament")
Clause 3, page 3, line 14, leave out ("His Majesty") and insert ("Parliament")
Clause 3, page 3, line 20, leave out ("passed in accordance with this Act")
Clause 3, page 3, line 23, at end insert ("Provided that a measure shall not make any alteration in the composition or powers or duties of the Ecclesiastical Committee, or in the procedure in Parliament prescribed by section four of this Act")
Clause 3, page 3, line 23, after subsection (6) insert as a new subsection:
"(7) No proceedings of the Church Assembly in relation to a. measure shall be invalidated by any vacancy in the membership of the Church Assembly or by any defect in the qualification or election of any member thereof."
Clause 4, page 3, line 25, leave out ("His Majesty") and insert ("Parliament")
Clause 4, page 3, lines 29 and 30, leave out ("an address from") and insert ("a resolution being passed by")
Clause 4, page 3, line 30, leave out ("asking") and insert ("directing"), and after ("measure") insert ("in the form laid before Parliament")
Clause 4, page 3, line 34, at end insert ("Provided that if upon a measure being laid before Parliament, the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons acting in consultation, shall be of opinion that the measure deals with two or more different subjects whch might be more properly divided, they may, by joint agreement, divide the measure into two or more separate measures accordingly, and thereupon this section shall have effect as if each of the measures resulting from such division had been laid before Parliament as a separate measure")
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I rise to ask your Lordships to concur in the Amendments which have been introduced by the House of Commons to what we have called, popularly, the Enabling Bill. The Amendments tend in the direction of strengthening and giving effect to certain criticisms which found expression in this House. Three of the changes are of substantial importance. In place of the Privy Council Committee, which was criticised and to which exception was taken, the Commons substituted a Committee of both Houses of Parliament nominated by the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker. By another Amendment a further limitation is placed upon the powers which could be exercised under the Act in the direction of amending its procedure. In the third place, a clause is inserted to make impossible any action which might conceivably amount to what is called "tacking." All these are in the direction desired by critics in this House, and I invite your Lordships to concur in what is now proposed.
When I introduced the Bill last June I ventured to express the hope that we might see it pass through Parliament this session. That hope was courteously derided by some of my friends as fantastic. I had more confidence than they in the willingness of Parliament to look fairly upon a reasonable proposal which, while retaining such Parliamentary control as is required, would

17
enable administrative changes, many of them imperatively needed and long overdue, to be carried into effect. I then clearly expressed the wish of the Church's Representative body. Parliament has accepted that view, and now if your Lordships agree to these Amendments we may hope for the Royal Assent within a few days. I am grateful to those both here and in the House of Commons who, though their attitude was one of criticism and in some cases one even of apprehension, yet realised the need of such a measure as this and couched their criticism and their Amendments in such a form that we were able for the most part to accept and even to welcome them. I hope, nay I am sure, that what we have done in accepting Amendments has gone a long way towards relieving the fears that were expressed.
If it be still supposed by any that the Bill when it stands on the Statute Book will tend to impair the national character of the Church of England, to narrow its comprehensiveness, or to harm its freedom, there are two things which I desire to say First, if I believed that any one of those consequences would arise I should never have made myself in any way responsible for this measure. I believe the very opposite to be the case. In the next place, my Lords, the effect of the Act must depend largely upon how its provisions are handled in early days in the Church Assembly and elsewhere. Speaking not for myself only but I am sure for others associated with me in promoting this measure and in accepting Amendments, I can say without reserve that we expect to be able to secure such reasonable handling of the new powers given to our Church Assembly—and remember, my Lords, that these powers are definitely and in set terms limited by the will of Parliament in each individual case of their exercise—as to render impossible the mischief which a few of our friends, I fancy, continue to fear. I ask of my friends on the other side a little patience and an avoidance of exaggerated and inflated hopes and fears.
Your Lordships may have noticed with satisfaction, as I have, that the most vigorous and persistent of the critics of this Bill, the Bishop of Hereford, has with characteristic public spirit declared his intention, when once the Bill is upon the Statute Book, to give us his powerful aid in making it work thoroughly satisfactorily. That position will, I am sure, be taken by
18
others who may have doubted the wisdom of our acts. My Lords, it will necessarily take time to get the new plan into full and active operation, but my own belief is that within a very few years every one who cares about the matter will agree that this measure has provided a wise, reasonable and workable plan to the advantage both of Church and State, and to strengthen in its truest sense and in accordance with modern conditions the national character of the Church of England. I ask your Lordships to agree to the Commons Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I do not rise to offer opposition to the Motion which the most rev. Primate has made, nor to delay your Lordships for more than two or three minutes. It is true that the Bill has been improved in form, and for the Ecclesiastical Committee of the Privy Council there has been substituted a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. That is a relief to those who were concerned at the introduction of what threatened to be a new body of advisers of the Crown. So far, that has gone. For the rest the Bill stands very much where it did, and the effect of it is briefly this—that the Church will be able to set in motion much more easily than before, and with much less control by Parliament, the reform of its own affairs.
If that were all, I should be, as I said on speaking on the Second Reading in this House, very much in sympathy with the Church. I think it needed such a measure, and, as I said at the time, those of us who took that view were very to have concurred in a Bill limited to the provision of such machinery. But, my Lords, there is another aspect of the question on which the most rev. Primate touched only very slightly. What is the body, what is the Church that is to set these powers in motion? A Church which will be very different from the Church as it was before this Bill received the Royal Assent and the new machinery came into operation. The assembly which is set up will be, unlike the present Church of England, not an assembly of the nation at large, not the Church of the nation at large, but the Church of a fragment of that nation.

19
I use those words advisedly. I have been a student of these things for long. Some of your Lordships thought that I spoke as a Presbyterian. I am not a Presbyterian, any more than I am an Anglican. I am one of those who look upon these things with the deepest interest, and have given much thought to them in days gone by; and what I wish to say is this, that in setting up, in place of the Church of England as it was, a body which will be the controlling influence in the Church, which is subject to a test, and which will consist of a very small section of those who hitherto have been regarded by the Constitution as members of that Church of England, or at least as coming under its roof, you have made a very great change.
I am far from thinking that it is a bad thing to set up a body of this kind. On the contrary, I have had intimate friends in almost every denomination of religion in this country, and I have watched what earnest-minded men can do and how infinitely better they are at their own particular work and in their own particular sphere than any body extended by the State so as to include everybody at large. I have no doubt that the work of the earnest-minded men who have sought to bring about the passage of this Bill, and who have sought to bring about that passage for the accomplishment of great spiritual reforms, will bring to them those justifications among their own people which they have to offer, and I entirely sympathise with the view of those who look upon it as really a question of earnestness so far as this question is concerned.
What I am moved by is this. Hitherto the Church has had bulwarks; it has been a great body co-extensive with the nation, and it has had the defence of many people who were not committed to the details of its doctrines but who yet looked upon it as a valuable influence. These included, as I pointed out on the Second Reading, men of the very highest intellectual eminence, men who thought that it was a good thing that the State should at least recognise great spiritual ideas, and who saw in the Church a means of defending those ideas. Many of these men, a great number, will be shut out by this Bill, far more than you think or realise. The Church now stands by itself as the Church of those who hold certain definite doctrines, and, in making themselves effective members of that Church, have submitted to a test. You
20
will find, if I am not wrong, that a very large number of people will move away from the Church and will not accept it. The Church of to-morrow will be a very different institution from the Church of to-day, and, if that is so, however much better it may be in the quality of the smaller body of which it will in future consist, what is the position to which this measure brings it? It brings it into a position in which no Established Church has ever been able to maintain itself as an Establishment. On the new basis the Church will tend, not to-day, not to-morrow, not perhaps for some time, but inevitably under these great intellectual forces which after all control the currents of opinion in the long run in a community like ours, to be the Church of those who hold these definite opinions, to the exclusion of those who cannot accept them.
The most rev. Primate, notwithstanding what he said at the end of his speech, has initiated a new movement. It is quite true that the Bishop of Hereford, in the letter which he wrote to The Times of this morning, has said that he will support the Bill and make it work. That is what one would expect from the right rev. Prelate; all those who know him would expect him to say that. But he also pointed out in his letter another thing, and that was that the real gravaman of the case against this Bill was that it did much more than give the Church control of its own affairs; it altered the nature of the Church. That has been done, and a current has been set moving which, in the long run I think, will lead to the Disestablishment of the Church. In the end that may not be a bad thing. It is not a matter which, so far as I am concerned, will take away anything from the vitality of what remains. But it is a great and far-reaching change, and I do not think it is a change which many of those who supported the Bill had in their minds when they gave their vote in support of it. That is all I wish to say.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in answer to what has been said by the noble Viscount, and I will try to say it very shortly indeed. So far as the spiritual, and, indeed, any life of the Church is concerned, neither this nor any other Act of Parliament can affect it in any way. On the second point to which he referred, I think the noble Viscount did not bear in mind the fact of the very large support which the Non-

21
conformist communities have given to this Bill. I look upon that as a very important factor as regards the growing friendship between the Anglican Church and the Nonconformist communities; and also I should like to express in public as a member of the Anglican Chinch how grateful we are for the genuine support Which was given us in the conduct of this Bill, recognising, in the words of his Grace the Archbishop, that it would enable us to have a larger spiritual life and do more for the spiritual progress of our country than is possible under present conditions.
There is one other matter on which I think the noble and learned Viscount hardly appreciates how the work of the Church of England is really carried out. If he did I am sure he would come to the conclusion that the effect of this Bill is not to narrow but immensely to broaden the basis on which the Church will practically operate, in the future, and for this reason. I yield to no one in my veneration for the four Houses of Convocation, but it has been felt for a long time that, so far as the laymen are concerned—who, after all, have a great interest and a Tight to express their opinion on Church questions—there was no adequate representation under existing conditions. We were merely members of a voluntary body which was in its nature and character too much like a debating society. The effect of this Bill is to give the layman a real, true, and substantial voice in the National Church Assembly. I feel certain that every one who has watched the development of the Church of England during recent years and who has realised the growing desire of the Church layman to become an effective power in the spiritual life of their Church will feel not only that this Bill has not narrowed the basis of our Church work but lots given an inducement to laymen which is of the greatest importance, and will lead them to give greater support and greater loyalty to Church work than at any time in the past.
On Question, Commons Amendments agreed to.

ALIENS RESTRICTION BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2:
Extension of powers.
2.—(1) Subsection (1) of section one of the principal Act shall be amended by the addition at the end thereof of the following paragraph:—
22
(l) for determining what nationality is to be ascribed to aliens in doubtful circumstances, and for disregarding, in the case of any person against whom a deportation or expulsion order has been made, any subsequent change of nationality.
(2) His Majesty may also by Order in Council under the principal Act made regulations requiring information to be given as to the property, liabilities, and interests of former enemy aliens, and for preventing (without notice or authority) the transfer of or other dealings with the property of such aliens.
LORD PARMOOR: When the Bill was in Committee the noble Earl in charge of it (Lord Onslow) promised to consider whether one or two limiting words could not be put into Clause 2. I would ask him whether he has now any form of words which he thinks might be introduced in the direction he indicated.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Since the noble and learned Lord spoke, an Amendment has been drafted which I think will meet his views. It is to insert the following words at the beginning of Clause 2:—"For the purpose of enforcing the provisions of any Treaty of Peace concluded or to be concluded between His Majesty and any Power with which His Majesty was at war in the year one thousand nine hundred and eighteen."
Amendment moved—
Beginning of Clause 2, page 2, line 16, insert the said words.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD PARMOOR: I think these words would admirably carry out what the noble Earl himself said was the limited purpose of the subsection.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: There is also a consequential Amendment upon that Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 16, leave out ("also").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: To Clause 7 I have a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 23, after ("Order") insert ("in force on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and nineteen").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9:
LORD BUCKMASTER: The seven Amendments to Clause 9 are purely drafting. I trust that the noble Earl takes that view.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 6, after ("unless") insert ("the Secretary of State on the recommendation of")
Page 5, line 7, leave out from ("shall") to ("a") in line 8, and insert ("grant him")
Page 5, line 25, leave out ("said Advisory Committee") and insert ("Advisory Committee to be constituted under this section")
Page 5, line 31, leave out ("either")
Page 5, line 33, leave out ("statements") and insert ("allegations")
Page 6, line 6, at end insert ("of his, and such inclusion shall notwithstanding anything in this section have the same effect as the grant of a licence")
Page 6, line 13, leave out ("shall be") and insert ("is").—(Lord Buckmaster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON had an Amendment on the Paper to Clause 9, in subsection (8), which subsection ran as follows—
(8) If such licence is not granted, or if, having been granted, it shall be revoked, the Secretary of State shall make an order (in this Act referred to as a Deportation Order) requiring the alien to leave the United Kingdom and thereafter to remain out of the United Kingdom for a period of seven years after the passing of this Act. The Secretary of State may by a Deportation Order require the alien to return to the country of which he is a subject or citizen.
The noble Lord's Amendment was to leave out "seven" and insert "three." The noble Lord said: I think on the whole I shall not move this Amendment, because the character of the clause has been transformed in the course of discussion here. It is quite obvious that, as the, Bill now stands, anybody who is deported will be a person who deserves deportation, and therefore I am not concerned as to the period of exclusion.
LORD BUCKMASTER: May I suggest, for the consideration of the noble Lord on the Woolsack, whether he will not consider on the Third Reading, instead of putting in "for a period of seven years" the words "for a period not exceeding seven years," because the words in the Bill leave no discretion of any sort as to the period, and a period not exceeding seven years, it appears to me, might be more elastic.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will consider the matter before Third Reading. I am not at all sure that a better Amend-
24
ment would not be to substitute some such words as "as long as the Order remains in force." The noble and learned Lord might consider with me about it.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 21, after the second ("of") insert ("the principal Act or").—(Lord Buckmaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER moved to leave out subsection (11), which ran—
(1) This section shall not apply to a woman who was at the time of her marriage a British subject.
The noble and learned Lord said: This is an Amendment which really precedes an Amendment by Lord Newton which begins on line 29. Mine begins on line 27. The truth is that this Amendment is due to the fact that, owing to some oversight in the preparation of the original Amendments, it was omitted to notice that all these sub-clauses from line 27 down to the end of line 4 on page 8, ought to be cut out in order to give effect to the Amendment that was accepted by your Lordships' House. If the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack agree with that view, I need not trouble your Lordships with further discussing the matter.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Yes.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, lines 27 and 28, leave out subsection (11).—(Lord Buckmaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER moved in subsection (20), after "Order," to insert "in force on the first day of January nineteen hundred and nineteen." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 9, after ("Order") insert ("in force on the first day of January nineteen hundred and nineteen").—(Lord Buckmaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think it would be convenient if I considered together the next Amendments, standing in the name of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the noble and learned

25
Lord, Lord Phillimore. These Amendments are the outcome of certain undertakings given by the Government in Committee with regard to Amendments put down by the most rev. Primate and the noble and learned Lord. In framing the Amendments of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack the Government have endeavoured to meet the views of the most rev. Primate and of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillimore. The first Amendment of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is necessary because I am afraid that the Amendment of Lord Phillimore really did more than was intended by him. The object of the clause, to which great importance was attached in another place, is to impose certain restrictions on former enemy aliens as compared with restrictions imposed on all aliens by Order in Council under the principal Act. The clause as it now stands in the Bill, as amended by the noble mid learned Lord, adds nothing to the restrictions applicable to all aliens, and has the disadvantage of causing certain administrative difficulties; thus it would not apply to the arrival in this country of any former enemy alien from any other part of the British Empire because there would be no British Consular officer at his point of departure to visa his passport.
The second Amendment of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will, I hope, meet the wishes of the most rev. Primate and of the noble and learned Lord. This new subsection provides that a former enemy alien resident here now may go abroad for a short time and not be subjected to the three months limit. The new subsection (4) meets, and to some extent repeats, the words of the Amendment moved to Clause 9 by the most rev. Primate in Committee. It is designed to assist the Home Secretary in arriving at a decision. A general rule in this case is necessary in view of the state of public opinion on this subject, but it is recognised that it involves a number of hard cases, especially with regard to British-born wives of persons who have left this country. There was one point raised by the noble and learned Lord and others of your Lordships—namely, as regards the case of distinguished scientists, commercial travellers, and so on. I may, perhaps, explain that the permission given by the Secretary of State to a German subject to return to this country does not take the form of a written document. A l aliens must be in possession of a passport visaed by a consular authority, and where
26
it is decided that a former enemy alien may come here instructions are sent to the consular authority to grant the visa. I may add that general instructions are issued to British Consular Officers to grant visas in the cases of British-born wives of persons who have left this country and of those who prove that their visits to this country are in the interests of British trade or commerce.
Amendments moved—
Page 8, line 14, leave out from ("Kingdom") to the end of subsection (1) and insert ("without the permission of the Secretary of State, to be granted only on special grounds, and such permission shall, save as hereinafter provided, be limited in duration to a period of three months, and may upon special grounds be renewed from time to time for a like period")
Page 8, after line 21 insert the following new subsections:
"(3) The requirement of this section that permission to remain in the United Kingdom shall be limited to a period of three months shall not apply to a former enemy alien who was resident in the United Kingdom at the date of the passing of this Act, and after a temporary absence abroad returns to the United Kingdom.
"(4) Where any former enemy alien, formerly resident in the United Kingdom, and having a British-born wife or a British-born child under the age of sixteen still resident in the United Kingdom, applies, within three months from the passing of this Act, to the Secretary of State for permission to land in the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State shall refer the application to the Advisory Committee constituted under the last foregoing section of this Act, and if that Committee recommends that he be permitted to land, the requirement of this section that permission to remain in the United Kingdom shall be limited to a period of three months shall not apply."—(The Earl of Onslow.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The noble Earl in charge of the Bill has referred to this as an Amendment suggested in the first instance by myself. I desire to state that as far as I am concerned my wishes are entirely met, and I am obliged to His Majesty's Government for what they have done in the matter.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, I desire also to acknowledge what the Government has done, and to accept this Amendment. I wanted to advert to one remark which fell from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill when he spoke of distinguished scientists and others. Before the Bill finally leaves your Lordships' House I hope he will consider whether that covers all the classes of cases in which persons might be permitted to come. I can think of artists of distinction who might wish to come here

27
and who are not compromised in any way politically, also musicians and others. I think it should be considered whether the words could not cover all persons connected with literature, science, and art who can show themselves to be entirely exempt from coming here for any but legitimate purposes.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I confess I regret that it still stands that this country is prepared to treat former enemy aliens after peace upon different terms from other aliens; but perhaps my protest is more to the sound than to the substance—more to the name and appearance than to the thing. I still think that it makes a bad appearance and a bad precedent; but having said that I am not disposed to contest the proposal which His Majesty's Government submit to the House. The explanations which the noble Earl was so courteous as to give me beforehand, and which he has so lucidly stated now, remove a good deal of the objections in practice. The fact that the Government have accepted the most rev. Primate's Amendment in substance removes others of my objections. I have now only one or two things to say.
When this clause comes to be administered, I can indicate one class of case where I hope that the Secretary of State will be advised to administer it liberally and wisely. The International Law Association has for many years, I think, done a useful work, sometimes in postponing war and at any rate in bringing about some good feeling between countries which may have led to the postponement of war. It has been a failure in the end, but I think its work has been useful. It proposes to hold a conference, now that the war is over, as it used to do before, and it will be held at Portsmouth next Whitsuntide. To that Conference we must invite our German and Hungarian members who, by that time, I trust will be at peace with us. We hope that the distinguished Earl sitting below me (Lord Reaching) may be able to preside at that conference. We must ask these people both by the rules of the Conference and because every neutral who comes to our Conference will require us to do so; therefore I hope that those people will receive permission to land on these shores from the Secretary of State, and that we shall not be obliged to send to our former members and say, "We invite you, but we know that you cannot accept."
28
The other is quite a minute drafting Amendment which I should submit to the consideration of the noble Lord on the Woolsack and to the noble Earl. It is on subsection (4). If your Lordships carry the first Amendment nobody is to be admitted without permission granted on special grounds. I think it is intended that the fact that the former enemy alien has a British born wife or British children shall be treated potentially, if the Committee approve, as a special ground, but I do not think it is so expressed. If your Lordships will look at subsection (4) you will see that where any former enemy alien applies to the Secretary of State the application shall be referred to the Advisory Committee, and that Committee may recommend that he be permitted to land. I think the words "he shall be so permitted" are required. Perhaps between now and the Third Reading the noble Earl will consider the point.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I will certainly consider it.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE had on the Paper an Amendment to insert at the end of the clause: "Any such former enemy alien may obtain from the Secretary of State a permission to reside for a period not exceeding three months, which permission may be renewed from time to time. If no such permission be obtained, or if it ceases to be in force, he may be required at any time by the Secretary of State to leave the United Kingdom within seven days, and, in the event of his failure to comply, may be forthwith deported." The noble and learned Lord said: I do not move.
Clause 14:
Saving for diplomatic persons, &c.
14. Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed as imposing any restriction or disability on any duly accredited head of a foreign diplomatic mission or any member of his official staff or household or on any consul or vice-consul to whom His Majesty is pleased to grant an exequatur or on any members of the household of such consul or vice-consul.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to leave out from "household," where that word first occurs in Clause 14, to the end of the clause, and insert as a new subsection: "(2) The Secretary of State may exempt from any of the special provisions of this Act as to former enemy aliens any consul

29
or vice-consul to whom His Majesty is pleased to grant an exequatur and the wife and child of any such consul or vice-consul."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is in pursuance of an undertaking given to the noble and learned Lord in Committee. It has not been found possible to accept the wording of Lord Phillimore, as the adoption of the words would have the inconvenient effect of placing Consular and Diplomatic Officers on the same footing, and this would be a new departure and a new principle which the Government are indisposed to accept. It is, however, recognised that it is desirable to exempt former enemy aliens who are Consular Officers from the restrictions imposed by the bill on former enemy aliens generally, and power is taken in this Amendment to do so. The process will be that Consular Officers of former enemy Powers will be admitted under the rules under which the ordinary admission of former enemy aliens is governed, but When they are admitted and the exequatur is granted, they will be exempted from the further restrictions imposed by the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Clause 14, page 10, line 7, leave out from ("household") to the end of the clause and insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: I am quite satisfied.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

AGRICULTURE (COUNCILS, &c.) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lee of Fareham)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Substitution of Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries for Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
1.—(1) It shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries who shall hold office during His Majesty's pleasure, and from and after the date of the first appointment any reference in any Act or document to
30
the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, or to the President of that Board, shall be construed as a reference to the Minister.
(2) For the purpose of acquiring and holding land the Minister for the time being shall be a corporation sole by the name of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and all land transferred to the Minister by this Act or otherwise vested in the Minister shall (except where and to such extent as the land is held on other trusts) be held in trust for His Majesty for the purposes of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.
(3) Upon and by virtue of the appointment of any person to be Minister the benefit of all deeds, contracts, bonds, securities, or things in action vested in his predecessor at the time of his predecessor ceasing to hold office shall be transferred to and vested in and enure for the benefit of the person so appointed, in the same manner as if he had been contracted with instead of his predecessor, and if his name had been inserted in all such deeds, contracts, bonds, or securities instead of the name of his predecessor. For the purposes of this provision the Board shall be deemed to be the predecessor of the person first appointed to be the Minister.
(4) Section one of the Board of Agriculture Act, 1889, is hereby repealed.
(5) The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Acts, 1889 to 1909, as amended by this section, may be cited as the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Acts, 1889 to 1919.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "or the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, as the context may require." The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment, which is necessary because the expression Board covers both the head of the Department and the Department itself. Therefore, in the new Act, Minister and Ministry will have to be substituted for it.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, at end insert ("or the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, as the context may require").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, in subsection (2), after "land" where that word first occurs, to insert "or other property." The noble Lord said: This is necessary because the Board holds large quantities of stocks and securities on behalf of colleges and so forth, and the Amendment is intended to cover these as well as land. It is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, after ("land") insert (`"or other property").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: The same observations apply to my next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("land") and insert ("property").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I had intended to move the omission of the words, "by this Act," which appear in subsection (2), but I understand that some property is deemed to pass by the Bill, and in these circumstances I do not move.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: My next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("land") and insert ("property").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Amendment which follows is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, after ("and") insert ("as").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I accept.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Lord said: This subsection is no longer necessary, because it is covered by Clause 10 of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 10 to 12, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in the heading to Part II, before "Committees," to insert "Advisory." The noble Lord said: I desire to amend the title to Part II. Your Lordships will notice that Part III is headed "County Agricultural Committees," and I suggest that the word "Advisory" should appear before "Committees" in the title to Part II, to make it clear that they are not the same Committees as in Part III.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 14, after ("and") insert ("Advisory").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I accept that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Constitution of councils and committees.
2.—(1) For the purpose of assisting the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (in this Act referred to as the Board) in executing their powers and duties there shall be established—

(a) a Council of Agriculture for England;

(b) a Council of Agriculture for Wales;

(c) an Agricultural Advisory Committee for England and Wales.

(2) The Council of Agriculture for England and the Council of Agriculture for Wales may from time to time by agreement act together as one Council.
(3) The various councils and committees above referred to shall be constituted as provided by the First Schedule to this Act.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I had intended to move in subsection (1) the substitution of "Minister" for "Board," but as I understand that the Board will continue to exist until the first appointment is made, there seems to me to be no sufficient reason for my moving it. Therefore I do not move.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN VISCOUNT CHAPLIN moved, in subsection (1) (c), before "Wales," to insert "an advisory committee for." The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to have a separate Advisory Committee for Wales, and I move it because the methods and the practice of agriculture are very different as a general rule in Wales from what they are in England. I cannot believe for a moment that in Wales they would like to have English members interfering with their proceedings, and I am quite sure that English members on an Advisory Committee would not at all approve of Welsh members interfering with them. I cannot understand why there should be any difficulty in having a separate Advisory Committee for Wales.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 20, after ("and'') insert ("an Advisory Committee for").—(Viscount Chaplin.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I hope the noble Viscount will not press this Amendment. After all, the Board of Agriculture is responsible for both England and Wales. I know it has been held in the past that it has not been in the interests of agriculture that Scotland and Ireland should not be

33
under one Board and it is undesirable in matters of agriculture to introduce what would be racial differences. I think the noble Viscount is misinformed with regard to the attitude of Welsh interests in this matter. As a matter of fact the Welsh members in the House of Commons, who I presume are in a position to speak for their constituents, were strongly in favour of one Advisory Committee for England and Wales. That opinion should carry weight, and I cannot believe that English agriculturists would object to what is after all but a very small minority representation of Wales on the Committee which is to advise the Minister.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I am afraid I must press my Amendment. The noble Lord says he does not think it desirable we should create any racial differences, or do anything to create racial differences. They are not racial differences, they are practical difficulties. I fancy I know as much of the feelings of English farmers as the noble Lord himself, and I am certain that if you were to ask English farmers if they desired to have Welsh gentlemen on this Committee for the purpose of deciding points of great interest to England they would think that the company of Welshmen under such circumstances was entirely superfluous. I do not see ally reason for objecting to the Amendment.
LORD ERNLE: I should also like to express the hope that the noble Viscount will not press the Amendment. What we have to aim at is the general improvement in agriculture in England and Wales and one of the means by which we may hope to introduce better methods of agriculture to the backward parts of Wales is by bringing Welsh farmers into closer contact with their more skilful and experienced brothers in England. That was the object which the framers of this Bill had in combining the Agricultural Advisory Committee for the two countries. I quite agree with the noble Viscount that there is no question of racial antagonism. It is not that. It is the improvement of agriculture for the whole of England and Wales.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: As this part of the Bill is framed on the recommendation of the Report of the Agricultural Sub-Committee, over which I had the honour to preside, and follows exactly the recommendation of that Committee,
34
I hope the noble Viscount will allow me to explain to him the reason why we recommended that the Councils for England and Wales should be separate but that the Advisory Committee should be united. The Councils were in our Report intended to be agricultural parliaments. They would not be in permanent session but occasionally meeting for a general discussion of agricultural affairs, and we thought that in the case of these Councils the arguments in favour of separating Wales from England were greater than the arguments in favour of uniting them. When we came to the Advisory Committee the opposite argument prevailed with us. This Committee is meant to sit permanently. It will be at the Minister's elbow in order that he may consult it at any time. The President of the Board of Agriculture has reminded us that he is responsible for agriculture in England and Wales, and we thought it would be an unnecessary complication, and would lead to delay, if on every matter on which he required advice affecting England and Wales—there must be many such matters—he would have to consult two separate committees. Therefore it seemed to us that the argument of practical convenience was on the side of having a single committee. If on this Committee Welsh opinion was in the least likely to override English opinion I should indeed share the jealousy of the noble Viscount but as it is constituted I can scarcely think there is any danger of that.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I was not aware that this subject had been considered by the Committee over which the noble Earl presided and that after considering the whole question they came to the conclusions he has just announced. In these circumstances I should hardly be justified in pressing the Amendment to a Division, but I do not like it, and if any ill comes out of it it is the responsibility of the noble Lord opposite, of the late Minister for Agriculture and of the Earl of Selborne, a former Minister for Agriculture.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN VISCOUNT CHAPLIN moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Viscount said: I object to this subsection for precisely the same reasons as I gave on the last Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 22 to 24, leave out subsection (2).—(Viscount Chaplin.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: The noble Viscount will observe that this is not a statutory obligation. It is only when they agree that it would be desirable, in the interests of agriculture generally in England and Wales, to meet together that they should be permitted to do so.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Where are they to meet?
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Presumably in London. It is only in the somewhat rare cases where it is obviously a matter that concerns the agriculture of both countries so nearly that it is desirable if they so wish to meet together for the purpose of consultation. I hope my noble friend will not deny them that power, which I think will be very rarely exercised.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I think it is probable that there will be great inconvenience. If the meetings are ever held in London, I don't think we shall be troubled with a great number of Welsh members.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4
Duties and powers of Agricultural Advisory Committee.
4. The Agricultural Advisory Committee shall advise the Board with respect to all matters and questions submitted to them in relation to the exercise by the Board of any powers or duties which do not relate to the industry of fishing, and shall be at liberty to make recommendations to the Board in relation to other matters affecting agriculture or other rural industries.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN VISCOUNT CHAPLIN moved, after the word "Committee" to insert the words "when requested." The noble Viscount said: This is a very simple Amendment. The Clause would then read: "The Agricultural Advisory Committee, when requested, shall advise the Board with respect to all matters and questions submitted to them," etc. I venture to think myself, having served as the Minister of Agriculture, that I should be very sorry to have an advisory committee upon whom it was made an obligation to advise me upon all sorts and kinds of matters whatsoever. I have therefore suggested that that should be done "when requested" by the Minister. As the clause now stands this Committee will have to advise the Minister upon every-
36
thing connected with agriculture or affecting it in any way, and I cannot conceive under those circumstances what is the use of a Minister of Agriculture at all. He ought to be the guiding and shining light for the prosperity of agriculture and everything connected with it. It is quite right that he should take advice upon matters of difficulty, when he wants it, but I cannot conceive that we ought to put a clause into an Act of Parliament which is obligatory and which says that the Committee shall advise the Minister upon every single question under the sun connected with agriculture.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 32, after ("Committee") insert ("when requested").—(Viscount Chaplin.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I think the general intention of the framers of the clause was very much in the sense that the noble Viscount has suggested—namely, that the Committee should advise upon matters that were referred to them; and so far as I am concerned I do not object to the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN VISCOUNT CHAPLIN moved, at the end of the Clause, to leave out "or other rural industries." The noble Viscount said: I want to know what those other industries are. There are a number of rural industries which have nothing on earth to do with agriculture in any kind of way, that I am aware of. Take the county of Northamptonshire. There is a flourishing and prosperous boot-making industry in almost every parish in the county. What particular industries are referred to in this Bill? I presume it is not intended to include shoemaking. I have a small residence in the county of Northamptonshire, and I travel over great parts of the county at times in the winter, and I never was so struck by anything as the enormous quantities of boots and shoes manufactured in every parish in the county. Are these words in the Clause intended to apply to that industry? Surely they must be. It is a rural industry, and there may be many others of which I am not aware, and my reason for moving this Amendment is to ascertain what is really intended.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 37, leave out ("or other rural industries").—(Viscount Chaplin.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I think my noble friend's objection really comes to this. He thinks the words "or other rural industries" are too wide. Of course it is obviously not the intention of the Bill, or of any one, that these Committees should concern themselves with bootmaking, or it might be in my own county, with chair-making. What were intended to be covered were the minor rural industries allied to agriculture.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Will you make that clearer in the Bill?
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Perhaps it might meet the point if we inserted some such words as "other rural industries allied to agriculture," or words to that effect. I should like, however, to have a moment in which to consider the exact words, and I will introduce something on the Report stage if that; will meet my noble friend.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will consider this matter before Report.
LORD, LEE OF FAREHAM: I have undertaken to do so.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I would ask the noble Lord to consider what constitutes a rural industry, because the same industry carried on in a town and in a rural district might be considered in one case an urban industry and in the other a rural industry. Therefore it should be considered how the word "rural" governs the word industry.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I hope I have made it clear that I agree the words of the Clause are somewhat ambiguous as they stand, but because there is some difficulty in drafting an Amendment I ask to be given time. I have undertaken to introduce words, but I should like time to consider them.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I trust that the noble Lord will not introduce the words which he indicated just now, "allied to agriculture," because they would exclude all woodland industries.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Perhaps the noble Lord will undertake to make,
38
privately to me, suggestions which would help me.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Supplementary provisions as to councils and committees.
5.—(1) The Board may make general regulations for regulating the proceedings for the appointment of the members of each council and committee established by this Part of this Act, and the number of meetings and the proceedings and quorum of each council and committee, and the appointing body, council, or committee shall act in accordance with those regulations.
(2) The President of the Board, or, in his absence, a secretary of the Board, shall be entitled to attend any meeting of a council or committee established by this Part of this Act and act as an ex-officio member and chairman of the meeting and have a casting vote, but, save as aforesaid, shall not vote at any meeting of the council or committee.
(3) The Board may require any of their officers to act as secretary or other officer of a council or committee established by this Part of this Act.
(4) Any regulation made under this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith; and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation, and it shall henceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there-under.
(5) The expenses of any council or committee established by this Part of this Act shall, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Board, with the consent of the Treasury, be defrayed by the Board out of moneys provided by Parliament; and such expenses may include such sums as the Board think reasonable for the travelling and subsistence expenses of the members of the council or committee.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), after "meetings," to insert "and the mode of convening them." The noble Lord said: I have looked carefully through the Bill, and cannot find what provision is made for calling these meetings of the councils and advisory committee together, and I therefore suggest this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 4, after (`"meetings") insert ("and the mode of convening them ").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I accept the Amendment.
On Question Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in subsection (2), before "Secretary of the Board" to insert "the Parliamentary." The noble Earl said: I put down two Amendments to sub-clause (2) and I should like to explain what was in my mind. I quite agree that if the President attends the meetings, as I hope he often will, that if he wishes to do so he should be able to take the Chair, though I think it is quite right not to make it compulsory on to do so. I think also that the same should be true of the Parliamentary Secretary. Therefore I have moved to insert the words "the Parliamentary Secretary." I have no objection whatever to have a Secretary of the Board attending; on the contrary, I think it might be a great advantage that he should do so but I do not think he ought to take the Chair in the absence of the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary. The body itself should be able to elect a vice-chairman to occupy the chair when neither of the Parliamentary chiefs is present.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, leave out ("a") and insert ("the parliamentary").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: This Amendment is also, I think, put down by my noble friend Lord Strachie, and I am prepared to accept it. I quite agree with the observation of Lord Selborne that it is desirable if the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary is present that he should have the power to take the chair. Frequently it will occur that it will be the Minister who will wish to have the advice of the committees upon some specific point, and in those circumstances it would be obviously desirable that he should be in the chair and should be able in that contingency to lead the discussion. I am quite prepared to accept this Amendment and agree that it will have the effect of excluding the permanent official of the Board from taking the chair.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK had an Amendment on the Paper, in subsection (2), to leave out from "Act" to the end of the subsection. The noble Earl said: The Amendment that stands in my name on the Paper is rather more drastic than the other Amendments dealing with this subsection, because I propose to leave out practically the last three lines of the sub-
40
section. Perhaps the most important point in my Amendment is met by the Amendment of which the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has given notice, which takes out the words that give a casting vote to the President of the Board or the Parliamentary Secretary should be occupy the chair. The question as to whether the President or the Secretary should be the chairman of the committee is dealt with by the Amendment that appears on the Paper under the name of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe; therefore it will be perhaps more convenient, if the noble Chairman thinks so, that I should now merely move to omit the words "an ex-officio and"; that will leave Lord Bledisloe the opportunity to move his Amendment with regard to the Chairman. I will now propose merely to leave out the words "an ex-officio member and."
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: That, I think, would be the more convenient course, and if the noble Lord's Amendment is carried the rest can follow as consequential.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK moved in subsection (2), after the words "this Act," to leave out "and act as an ex-officio member.'' The noble Earl said: I should like very briefly to explain why I consider it undesirable that either the President or the Parliamentary Secretary should act as ex-officio members either of the Council or of the Advisory Committee. I personally see no objection whatever to the proposal in the subsection that the President and the Secretary should have the right of attending the meetings of the Council or of the local Advisory Committee. I feel certain that their presence would be welcomed by members of those Committees, and that on very many occasions their advice and the information that they may be able to give would be most helpful to the Council or to the Committee. I have for very many years strongly supported the proposal for the formation of a Council or Committee or some body which would reflect the opinions of the best agriculturists and would be in a position to advise the Board on important matters when such assistance is required, but if that Committee or body is to be of any use two conditions should prevail. One is that the Committee must be thoroughly representative and have the confidence of the best agricultural opinion in the country. The second is that it must be

41
independent of the Board of Agriculture. If the opinion prevails that the Advisory Committee is too much under the influence or the control of the Board, the committee will not carry the agricultural opinion of country behind them.
I ask your Lordships to consider for a moment what the constitution of this Advisory Committee will be. Except for the purpose of dealing with the Diseases of Animals Act, when two members appointed by the Ministry will be added to the Committee, there will be twelve members of this Committee, and of those six will be persons who have been nominated by the Board. Two will have been directly nominated by the Board to the Advisory Committee, and the Council will nominate four out of the number of persons who have previously been nominated to the Council by the Board. Therefore on your Agricultural Advisory Committee you will have six representatives, or one half, who are nominees of the Board of Agriculture. If you are going to add another member to that Committee as an ex-officio member in the person of the President of the Board or the Secretary of the Board, although by this subsection he will not be entitled to vote, I myself feel that the usefulness of the Committee as an advisory body to the President of the Board will be very much weakened.
I should have imagined that what the President of the Board would wish to have would be an absolutely independent expression of opinion from persons who are entirely free from any control of the Department. I fear very much that in the event of the President or his Parliamentary Secretary presiding at the meetings of the Advisory Committee it will very greatly weaken the confidence that agriculturists throughout the country will have in the decisions of that Committee, and that, rightly or wrongly—possibly wrongly—they will think that the Committee have, in coming to its conclusions, been unduly influenced or controlled by the Department.
It is on those grounds that, in the best interests of the Minister of Agriculture and of the Department, I think it very desirable that though the Minister or the Secretary might attend, they should not hold the position of being members or ex-officio members of the Committee. The noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture may say that I am needlessly alarmed, and that all the four persons
42
nominated by the Board or from whom the selection may be made will be persons who have had a practical experience of agriculture. I have perfect confidence that while the noble Lord remains at the head of the Board this will be the case. But this is not a temporary Act, but probably will be in force for many years.
Amendment moved—
Clause 5, page 3, line 10, after the word ("Act") delete the words ("and act as an ex-officio member").—(The Earl of Northbrook.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I think a real distinction should be recognised between the Council and the Advisory Committee. As Lord Selborne, I think, said, the Council is an agricultural parliament; the Committee is a body appointed to advise the Minister and will be constantly available to give him advice (in accordance with the Amendment, which has been accepted, moved by Lord Chaplin) when it is requested to do so. I hope it may meet the views of your Lordships that a different procedure should rule in the two cases. Perhaps it might be better if the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary was neither an ex officio member nor chairman of the Agricultural Council, which is, if you like, a free parliament; and that, if it is your Lordships' wish, I should agree that it should not apply to the Council. But with regard to tine Advisory Committee, this is a body which will meet frequently and which the Minister will wish frequently to consult. I do not know how much importance is attached to the phrase that he should be an ex officio member, but I do attach importance to the provision that he should have the right to take charge of the Advisory Committee when he feels it desirable to do so, and I hope your Lordships will not deny him that right.
As will be seen from the Amendment, which I have put on the Paper, I think there is a real objection to voting. After all, an Advisory Committee is a Committee to give advice. It is not a Parliamentary body divided into two sets where a vote will be taken. It is not obligatory upon the Minister even to accept the advice of the Committee if it is given. In those circumstances I think the voting provision is altogether superfluous, and I have suggested that it should be eliminated. I am, however, very disinclined to agree to give up the right of the discretion of the

43
Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary in his absence, to take the chair in the Advisory Committee, and I hope that that point will not be pressed by your Lordships.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I hope the noble Lord will not object if I express a some, what different view from that which he has put before the House, because I, for my part, regard this Advisory Committee as far the most important part of the Bill, and their advice, if they are allowed to give it with absolute freedom, is calculated to assist the President of the Board and his officials in the very difficult work which they have nowadays to do. I am anxious to see the Advisory Committee a really live body which will give its genuine opinion and advice to the Minister unrestrained, or at any rate without any appearance of being restrained, by the Minister or his officials, and certainly without any appearance of Ministerial pressure.
As the noble Lord knows, I have the honour to-day of presiding over two bodies one of which is certainly of a somewhat similar character to this: the two bodies being the Central Agricultural Advisory Council and the Federation of County Agricultural Executive Committees. The noble Lord knows that whenever he or his representative in the House of Commons attends a meeting of either of those two important bodies, they are always most warmly welcomed by farmers from every part of the kingdom, who listen with very great respect to everything they say. But I cannot quite contemplate the same conditions operating here, should the Minister who presides over the meeting he in fact a member of the body which is giving him advice, because he will be in effect advising himself, which on the face of it is perhaps rather absurd.
The noble Earl has pointed out that, subject only to the appointees from Scotland, there will in fact be only six persons nominated by the Board and six persons appointed from outside on the Advisory Committee. Immediately an extra member comes in, in the person of the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary, there will, in case of a Division, he seven members representing the views of the Board directly or indirectly, and six only representing the independent opinion of the farming community. As the noble Lord himself says, after all it does not matter much what the advice is so
44
long as it is the genuine advice of the agricultural community, bearing in mind that he need not take the advice if they give it. But it still remains open to him, and it is not trenching in any way upon his Ministerial responsibility, to listen to what the Advisory Committee appointed mainly by the agricultural community says. He can either take or dispense with the advice as he may think fit. I do not want to press that point unduly. My fear is that if the Minister is Chairman as of right (not in his discretion, on certain occasions, but of right) he may in fact dominate the Committee.
LORD STRACHIE: I think Lord North-brook's Amendment is better, in the sense that it goes further; but I was sorry to hear the President of the Board of Agriculture say just now that he thought it desirable that the President of the Board or the Parliamentary Secretary should be ex-officio a member and also Chairman of the Advisory Committee.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I did not quite say that.
LORD STRACHIE: Anyhow, I do not think he barred the idea of his being Chairman of the Advisory Committee, and if he is attending there as a member it will be very natural at once to make him Chairman. It has already been pointed out to your Lordships that from the mere fact that he will nominate half the members of this Advisory Committee and will himself make the seventh, his influence will be very great indeed. Still, I cannot help thinking it is a mistake that you should have him or his Parliamentary Secretary as Chairman, because not only does this Committee debate questions which are properly referred to them, but as provided by Clause 4 they "shall be at liberty to make recommendations to the Board in relation to other matters affecting agriculture or other rural industries." I thought that was the most satisfactory part of the clause, and the idea of that, I take it, was that this advisory body should be independent to a large extent, and if they thought that the President of the Board of Agriculture or his Parliamentary Secretary was not carrying out the views of farmers generally, or was attempting to do things that he should not do, they would have the right to say so; and therefore I think we ought to have a more independent body.
LORD ERNLE: I think on this question there may be a perfectly legitimate difference of opinion. My own view is very strongly in favour of the President of the Board of Agriculture being Chairman of the Advisory Committee. When he asks the advice of the Advisory Committee he probably, indeed certainly, will have in his mind a large number of points to which he wishes to call their attention. If, after calling their attention as Chairman, he likes to go out, he is quite at liberty to do so, but I submit that he ought, without any doubt, to be Chairman of the Advisory Committee. And it seems to me there is another point. You want the President to use this Advisory Committee, and I think that people rather misrepresent—quite accidentally, of course—the actual powers and working of the Advisory Committee. Supposing the President of the Board asks the advice of the Committee on any point, and supposing their advice is contrary to his subsequent action, that point can be elicited by a Question in the House of Commons, and when the President's action is reviewed the fact that his Advisory Committee gave him contrary advice will be of some importance.
On the other hand, he may not call in his Advisory Committee at all, and in that case the fact that he did not can also be elicited by Question and Answer in the House of Commons. That arrangement is a very delicate one. If it is properly handled, if there is perfect give-and-take between the President and his Advisory Committee, if they are his skilful, practiced friends, who are called in to advise him on specific points he will use their advice, and, if he uses it, it will be of immense value, I believe, in the future development of agriculture. It will be a more or less permanent body of men who will provide for a more or less continuous agricultural policy. If you do not make him Chairman, if you treat it as a hostile body or as a body which may be hostile, he will not use it and you will lose that great advantage. I am therefore entirely in favour of the President being the Chairman of his Agricultural Advisory Committee. I do not think that he ought to be Chairman of the Agricultural Council, which is the more Parliamentary body. The Advisory Committee is, as it were, his Cabinet, and I think it would be absurd if the Prime Minister was not Chairman of his Cabinet.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I confess my view is very much that of the noble Lord who has just sat down. We have now agreed that the President, or his understudy the Parliamentary Secretary, is to be Chairman of this body. If I have heard aright that is the understanding we have come to now. That he should have no voice in the ultimate decision does appear to me to place him in a rather undignified position. I am not in favour of this immense number of advisory committees, and I have had a very curious experience on one. My noble friend sitting beside me (the Earl of Selborne) was once good enough to ask me to sit on an advisory committee on a question affecting the horses in this country, and I accepted. I believe they ultimately made their recommendations to him, but If found out that when this was a much larger Advisory Committee (although it was only allowed to come to my knowledge quite late in the proceedings) they had made, long before I belonged to this body, one of the most preposterous mistakes that ever was heard of in connection with horse breeding. I think I am right to sound a note of warning on the subject of advisory committees. The Prime Minister at that time had given £40,000 a year for the improvement of the breed of horses in England—the first time that anything on a substantial scale had been done. What were their first proceedings? It was an immense committee in the first instance, but it gradually became smaller. I discovered that the first thing they did was to spend £40,000 on the purchase of brood mares and so ill-managed was the whole thing by the Advisory Committee, by the advice they gave, that what do you think the produce in foals was? In the course of four years rather less than the original number of brood mares. And to such a pitch had the thing come that even the Treasury (which, I suppose, does not know very much about horses) declined to allow the thing to continue unless a complete change was made. Knowing all this from my own personal experience I do not think it is out of place to say that I am not in favour of too many committees of this kind, and unless they are very carefully managed—better than they have sometimes been in former days—I do not think we shall be doing a wise thing in substantially altering the clause before us.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I quite agree that this is an arguable point, but on

47
the whole I think that the course proposed by the noble Lord opposite is the right one. It is to some extent a matter of machinery. Discussions may take place between the Minister and his Advisory Committee whether he sits as Chairman at the head of the table, or whether they state their views rather in the form of a deputation, and he answers them from his chair. But of the two courses I am certain that the former would conduce more to free and uniform discussion between the different parties. I can speak with a certain amount of authority on this particular point, because I have been for five years at the India Office. There the Secretary of State presides over what for practical purposes (although it has certain statutory functions of a different kind) is an advisory committee, namely the Council of India, and I have never found there—and I do not think any other Secretary for India has found—that the mere fact that the Parliamentary head presides over the Council causes any sacrifice of independence or prevents the free statement of views. For the purposes of regular communication, therefore, which I am sure ought to take place—and I quite agree with what Lord Bledisloe said that in some respects the constitution of this Council is as important as anything in the Bill—I think it will be all to the good that the President of the Board should preside over the Advisory Committee.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think the real question of importance here is how this Advisory Committee is going to be composed. My noble friend Lord Northbrook's suspicion of this subsection is really largely influenced by the fact, as the Schedule is at present drawn, that this Advisory Committee is, to the extent of 50 per cent., going to consist of nominees of the Minister. I must say that my attention had not been drawn to that in the way in which it is now drawn by Lord Northbrook, and when we come to the Schedule we ought to have a good deal to say about that. If the Advisory Committee is properly composed I should not share his jealousy of the Minister presiding. I think that the analogy Lord Crewe has mentioned is the true one; and considering the relations which must subsist between this committee and the Minister, and the fact that the Minister will never be absolved of any responsibility by the Committee—the Minister will remain solely responsible for the policy pursued and will
48
be able to accept or reject the advice of the Committee—I think the position might be rather difficult if he did not preside. But from what my noble friend the President of the Board has said, it is clear that the words of this subsection cannot stand as they are at present. He has agreed to make a distinction between the Council and the Committee. That will mean a re-drafting of the subsection. What I would suggest is that we allow these words to stand at present, on the understanding that my noble friend brings up on Report fresh words making a differentiation between the Council and the Committee, and also, I trust, providing for the election of a vice-chairman in either case. Then we shall know how the Committee is going to be composed, and we shall be able to come to a better judgment than at present whether the Minister shall be chairman or not.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I understood that, with the approval of the Lord Chairman, I restricted my Amendment merely to moving to omit the words "an ex-officio member and" Perhaps I have misunderstood the Lord Chairman.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I was suggesting to your Lordships that you should follow the usual course. When an Amendment, which if carried would cut out the rights of noble Lords' Amendments later, comes on, it is the custom to put only a few words so that it cannot be argued, if the noble Lord's Amendment is defeated, that we had already passed the place where their Amendments come on. What I meant to suggest was merely that the noble Lord should move the whole of his Amendment but that technically I should put only those few words.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I am afraid that I misunderstood.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I am sorry if I deceived the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: It is no doubt my fault. I understood that I was moving only the omission of the words "an ex-officio member and," therefore I refrained from making mention of the important question whether the President or the Secretary should act as chairman of the committee, being under the impression—which, I suppose, was a wrong impression

49
—that by restricting myself to those words I should leave my noble friend Lord Bledisloe free to move his Amendment.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Lord Bledisloe is quite free to move.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I will not pursue that point. I only wish to say that I am sorry to find myself in disagreement, as to the relative position of the Council and of the Advisory Committee, with the views expressed by the noble Lord the President of the Board. Personally, I do not think it is really of very great importance whether the President of the Board or the. Secretary is called an ex-officio member of the Council of Agriculture or not, or, indeed, whether he presides over the meetings of the Council. That Council has been described as au Agricultural Parliament, but with all deference to that opinion I hardly feel entitled to give it such a high designation. It is going to be a very large body. It will be composed of ninety members: its duties are clearly defined in this Bill; it is to meet twice a year to discuss not only agricultural matters but questions affecting the disputed point of what are rural industries. These gentlemen, I suppose, will meet every six months; they will have a general "blow off" (if I may use the expression) on agricultural affairs in general. It is true that they may make, if they choose, recommendations to the Board, or pass resolutions to send to the Board, but personally, with all respect to the constitution of that Council, I very much doubt whether those recommendations will carry much more weight with the general agricultural public than resolutions passed at present by the Central Chamber of Agriculture or by the Federation of Agricultural Executive Committees. However, I attach the greatest importance to the constitution of the Agricultural Advisory Committee. That is really the more important body of the two; and I feel that it would be very unfortunate if you were first of all to have half of your Advisory Committee nominees of the Board and, on the top of that, have an official of the Board presiding at their meetings. I cannot help thinking that if you had this the Minister would not be in the position to get what I suppose he desires—namely, the best independent advice possible on agricultural matters; and I feel confident that any decision come to by such a Committee would not have the confidence of the best agriculturists in this
50
country, to which, I understand, the noble Lord does attach some importance.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I trust that your Lordships will accept the advice given by Lord Selborne. I think it is obvious that this clause must be redrafted, and to attempt to tinker with it in the meantime with further Amendments would merely delay your Lordships. I want to be clear about this, that I attach importance to leaving it to the President, or, in his absence, to the Parliamentary Secretary, to take the chair at the Advisory Committee. I propose to include that power in the new clause for this reason—that I am sincerely anxious that the relation between the Minister and this Advisory Committee shall be close and continuous; that there shall not be the possibility of them operating (so to speak) in water-tight compartments; because I am sure that, if the President is merely to be asked in to sit on one side and to listen to the debates of the Advisory Committee, the inevitable result will be that his attendances will be very infrequent, and that the touch between the Minister and the Advisory Committee, which is so absolutely necessary if it is going to be an effective body, will be lost. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to have the clause re-drafted to bring up again on Report and in the meantime withdraw the Amendments which are down on the Paper.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I, for my part, would like to adopt the course of business which has been suggested. It is very difficult to debate this question further until we know the form of the re-drafted clause.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: And how the Committee is composed.
LORD BLEDISLOE: Yes. In the light of what happens on the Schedule we shall be better able to debate this question. May I say, in passing, that it is rather hard to face the heavy artillery of no less than four present and pass Presidents of the Board of Agriculture? What I suggest to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill is that if he thinks it desirable—as apparently he does—that the Minister in either House should preside, he should do so ex-officio, to mark his Office as President or Parliamentary Secretary. In that case he, need not be, and in my humble judgment he ought not to be, an

51
ordinary member of the Advisory Committee. If he is he will be in a sense advising himself. There is no reason why, if he is present, he should not, by reason of his office as President or Parliamentary Secretary, take the Chair and listen to the advice.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: That is really what I meant to imply. I do not desire either that the President should be an ex-officio member or that he should vote, but merely that he should preside when he attends the Advisory Committee.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: On that understanding I beg to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved to leave out subsection (4) and to insert the following new subsection—
"(4) Before any regulation is made under this Act, the draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty sitting days during the Session of Parliament, and if either House before the expiration of that period presents an Address to His Majesty against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of a new regulation."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to make it compulsory upon the Government to accept any Motion which is passed in either House against any regulations that are made under this Bill. It seems to me that the regulations may be very wide and far-reaching. For instance, in Clause 5, the Board may make general regulations for regulating the proceedings for the appointment of members of the Council. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said just now that it depended upon the Schedule of the Bill. The Board of Agriculture have power, if they think fit, by regulation to alter the whole of that under the provisions of the Bill as it now stands, because it only says that his Majesty "may" alter these regulations. Of course it would be in the power of the President to advise His Majesty not to agree either to alter the regulations or to withdraw them because this House or the other House had passed an Address asking His Majesty to do so.
I would remind the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture that under a Bill of which agriculturists thought a great deal, the Milk Bill—I think he was in another place then—the House of Commons
52
insisted, and this House supported it in its insistence, that it should be compulsory on the Minister to withdraw regulations in the way that I suggest in the Amendment, instead of leaving the provision of a permissive character. I cannot move to leave out "may" and put in "shall." Therefore it was necessary to move the subsection in different words, saying that if either House passes a Resolution objecting to the regulations made by the Board of Agriculture under this Bill, then, ipso facto, the regulations shall be null and void. I think this very necessary. As was said just now by a noble Lord sitting on this bench, although we may trust the noble Lord completely—no doubt in his case if this House passed an Address to His Majesty asking him to declare null and void any of the regulations, the President would advise His Majesty so to declare—he may not always be here. We may not have the present Government. We may have an entirely different kind of Government under conditions in which they would not advise His Majesty under this permissive clause, to annul the regulations. In that case the effect would be that this House would be powerless. I am anxious that these words should be put in so that, as in the case of the Milk Bill, it would be impossible for any Minister to advise His Majesty not to annul the regulations after this House or the other House had passed a Resolution that they should be null and void.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: In order to preserve the right of Lord Bledisloe later on, I suggest that the Question should be put to omit this subsection down to the word "void" in line 22.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 16, leave out subsection (4) down to the word ("void") in line 22.—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I am endeavouring to do my best to meet your Lordships in regard to Amendments, but I venture to hope that my noble friend will not press this particular Amendment. I can assure him that the words in the Bill are quite as frequently used in legislation of this kind as those which lie proposes to insert in their stead, and they are not in any sense, therefore, at variance with the established practice. Apart from that fact, I do not really think it is much good trying to stop all the earth, so to speak, in view of the possible

53
Minister that may arrive in the days to come. If you have Bolshevist Ministers they will find means of getting round a subsection of this kind, if necessary by getting rid of the Act of Parliament altogether. But my real objection to his Amendment is that it will involve delay (which will be exceedingly hampering) in setting up the machinery under this Bill, which would be particularly inconvenient in this case. We hope that the Bill will become an Act in the course of the next few days. Parliament will then adjourn, and I am naturally most anxious when the Bill becomes law to proceed with the regulations and setting up the whole of the machinery provided under it. After all, the regulations will deal almost entirely with machinery matters, and I do not think that the position of your Lordships' House will be seriously prejudiced if what is quite an ordinary form is observed in the Bill. Otherwise, the delays will be so serious that it may be some months before the Bill can be put into effective operation at all.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: This is a proposal which has been moved and carried in this House constantly. There was a time when in the other House of Parliament it was thought that to do so was entirely to alter the character of the clause which had been for years the regular practice. When regulations of this sort were asked for and made under different Acts of Parliament, it was provided that they should be laid upon the Table of both Houses and if either House made any objection, then on the presentation of an Address to the Crown they became null and void. It is precisely what the clause does at the present time. The noble Lord says he is extremely anxious to get on with the Bill in a few days. With the greatest possible respect, I think he would do well to let the public and the agricultural world in general have a little time in order to understand all these numerous Bills affecting the land brought in by the present Government. The agriculturists are not very quick at learning what has happened in Parliament, or what the new laws affecting their interests really mean. The vast number of farmers have felt themselves persecuted by the enormous number of Regulations issued day after day, many of them often recalled or altered within fortnight or three weeks of being issued. There is nothing which has done more to dishearten farmers in their task
54
of increasing the production of food, into which they threw themselves heart and soul when appealed to by the Prime Minister, than the practice of the Government of issuing Regulations of every sort and kind. Indeed they have abandoned all hope of securing that increased production under present conditions. This Amendment has been moved in this House on other measures and carried, and I really see no reason why it should not be carried in connection with the present Bill. I hope it will be pressed to a Division.
LORD BLEDISLOE: It might save the time of the House if I referred to my own Amendment which follows. There are really two alternatives, adopted in different Bills. What appears to be the objection to the particular form in this Bill is this. Regulations may be made, and although Parliament objects to the regulations during the period they are under discussion it will be possible, under the last words of this subsection, for all the regulations made during that period to be valid, and any action taken under them to have full operation. I do not desire to move my alternative Amendment if the noble Lord will assure me that no regulation will continue to operate in spite of the fact that action has been taken under it if, during the twenty-eight days, Parliament takes exception to it. Lord Selborne has pointed out to me that this is his interpretation of it, and if it is the noble Lord's interpretation also I do not desire to move any Amendment.
LORD STRACHIE: I have handed a suggested alternative Amendment to the noble Lord which I think meets his objection. The reason I put it in this form was that it was inserted in another place in connection with the Milk Bill, and was accepted by this House an satisfactory. But the alternative words I have handed to the noble Lord meet his objection because it is provided that these regulations could be laid and could be acted upon, but in the case of either House passing an Address then they would be withdrawn without affecting anything which has been done under them. That would, I think, meet the objection which has been raised. If, of course, the noble Lord desires further time to consider them, and is inclined to intimate that he sees no objection to my modified form, between now and the Report stage I shall be ready to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I shall be glad to consider this matter further before the Report stage, but my noble friend will realise that the words he has handed to me are somewhat complicated and were in fact framed to apply to a different Bill altogether. However, I will examine them carefully and see whether it is possible to accept them. I cannot undertake in advance to accept them, because it is obviously a matter which requires to be carefully examined.
LORD STRACHIE: I only ask whether the noble Lord has an open mind on the point whether, if this House or the other House does pass an Address, the Minister would withdraw the regulation. If he has not an open mind but wishes the Minister to have a perfectly free hand, even should either House pass a Resolution against the regulation, then it would be a waste of time further to consider the matter and we had better decide it now.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am sure the noble Lord has not a closed mind on that subject. If he will consult his legal adviser, who has also been my legal adviser, he will know that the case has been thrashed out in this House again and again. What this House now wants is that, if it passes a hostile Resolution, that Resolution shall be operative. Previously there was a loophole by which it could be avoided. We do not want to stop the Minister from issuing regulations and bringing them into force, nor do we want anything done under them to be invalid because they are subsequently disapproved of.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: All I can say is that I will reconsider this matter on the Report stage, and I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied.
LORD STRACHIE: With an open mind?
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I hope I always have an open mind.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, in subsection (5), after "travelling" to insert "expenses," and to leave out "expenses" and insert "allowance." The noble Lord said: This is really a drafting Amendment
56
as subsistence expenses is not an appropriate expense.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 29, after ("travelling") insert ("expenses") and leave out ("expenses") and insert ("allowance").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Constitution of committees.
7.—(1) The council of every county (other than the London County Council) shall, and the London County Council and the council of any county borough may, establish an agricultural committee constituted in accordance with a scheme made by the council and approved by the Board. A committee may consist partly of persons who are not members of the council.
(2) All matters relating to the exercise by the council of their powers under any Act specified in the Second Schedule to this Act, and all other matters relating to agriculture, except such matters as under the Education Act, 1902, stand referred to the education committee, and, except the raising of a rate or borrowing, shall stand referred to the agricultural committee, and the council, before exercising their powers in relation to any matter so referred, shall, unless in their opinion the matter is urgent, receive and consider the report of the agricultural commitee with respect to the matter in question:
Provided that—

(i) on the application of the council the Board, after consultation with the Board of Education, may by order direct that any matter specified in the order and relating to agricultural education which but for this provision would stand referred to the education committee shall stand referred to the agricultural committee; and

(ii) if the London County Council or the council of a county borough so resolve matters relating to any of their powers under any Act specified in the said Schedule shall not stand so referred to the agricultural committee.

(3) The council may delegate to the agricultural committee with or without any restrictions or conditions any of their powers in relation to matters which by virtue of this section stand referred to the committee, and, if so provided by the scheme, any powers so delegated may in like manner be delegated by the agricultural committee to a sub-committee. A sub-committee may consist partly of persons who are not members of the council or of the agricultural committee.
(4) Every scheme under this section shall provide—

(a) for the appointment by the council of at least a majority of the agricultural committee, and the persons so appointed shall be persons who are members of the council, unless, in the case of a county, the council otherwise determine:

57

(b) for the appointment by the Board of at least one third of the members of the agricultural committee, and of any sub-committee to which powers of the agricultural committee are delegated:

c for the inclusion of women as well as men among the members of the agricultural committee:

(d) for the appointment, so far as practicable, of such persons as have some practical, technical, or scientific knowledge of or interest in agriculture.

(5) Any scheme under this section may, for all or any of the purposes of this section, provide for a joint agricultural committee for any area formed by a combination of counties or county boroughs or parts thereof.
(6) If a scheme under this section has not been made by a council of a county (other than the London County Council) and approved by the Board within six months after the passing of this Act, the Board may, after consultation with the council, make a scheme for the purposes for which a scheme might have been made by the council.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in subsection (4) (b), to leave out "at least" and insert "not more than." The noble Earl said: As the words stand at present the Board might appoint four-fifths or nine-tenths of the whole body were it not for the words providing that the Council shall appoint half the members. I want to draw the noble Lord's attention to the arithmetic of this proposition. The Board is to appoint, as I hope, not more than one-third, but the County Council is to appoint at least a majority of the Agricultural Committee out of its own members. Suppose that the Committee consisted of twenty-one persons. The County Council must appoint eleven of those members out of its own number. The Board of Agriculture would appoint seven, that is altogether eighteen; and it would leave only three persons for the County Council to appoint extraneously to its own members. I think that is too small a proportion. Either the members to be appointed by the Board of Agriculture are too many, or the provision that more than half these members must be members of the County Council is inconvenient. I should have thought greater latitude should have been left to the County Council and that the numbers appointed by the Board of Agriculture are rather excessive.
Amendment moved.
Page 4, line 38, leave out ("at least") and insert ("not more than").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I think the point which Lord Selborne has put is a perfectly sound one, and I am prepared to accept the Amendment. I think, if I may say so, that it is preferable to the Amendment standing in the name of Lord Northbrook, who suggests "at least one-fourth." Of course that might have the effect if read strictly of being four-fifths. I think that the object which he has in view is better met by Lord Selborne's Amendment. If that is carried, it is obvious that it can mean less than one-third, and the case to which Lord Selborne referred of a county council not having a sufficient margin might be adjusted with good will on both sides.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK moved, in subsection (4) (b), to leave out "third" and insert "fourth." The noble Earl said: I should like to explain to the noble Lord that my Amendment, I am afraid, as it stands is a mistake in drafting, owing to my having had the drafting of it myself, but my intention was not that the Board should have power to appoint "at least one-fourth'' but should have power to appoint not more than one-fourth." That is not a matter of principle, that is merely a matter of numbers.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: That is how it stands now—not more than one-third.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to meet me and accept "not more than one-fourth." With the great force of the argument used by the noble Lord on the Second Reading I agree, namely, that when a proportion of the total expenditure incurred by any committee is defrayed from the Exchequer, it is desirable that the Department concerned should be represented upon that committee; but I think the proportion of one-third is really rather an excessive one. I cannot but think that one-fourth of the committee would be quite sufficient to safeguard the Treasury against any unnecessary expenditure. I think it should be borne in mind that at the present moment, when the ratepayers in the country are howling at the increase of the rates, it is extremely improbable that any county council would sanction any extravagant expenditure. I should like to point out that in imposing one-third on any scheme

59
for a sub-committee it will be found extremely inconvenient. I welcome the proposal that the county councils shall have power to appoint outside persons, known as selected members, on committees and sub-committees. That has worked extremely well on Educational, Public Health, Mental Deficiency, and Small Holdings Committees, but that was because the selection of those outside members was left to the county councils, and they appointed persons who had local experience and were qualified. I belive the effect of providing that at least one-third must be nominated by the Board will seriously hamper county councils in the appointment of selected persons.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: It is not now "at least one-third" but "not more than one-third."
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: That is exactly my point, namely, that if the Board exercise their power of appointing one-third on a small sub-committee it will hamper the county councils in appointing selected persons. Supposing they delegate their power to a small holdings committee, and then have to submit a scheme for the approval of the Board. Say there are twenty-one members on the sub-committee. They will have to provide for the nomination of seven members by the Board. That would leave fourteen members to be appointed by the country councils. Now on many small holdings committees the county councils have already appointed four selected persons, and if they continue those members it will leave only ten members of the county councils, and therefore the elected representatives on the county councils will be in a minority on the committee. Therefore the county councils will greatly hesitate to exercise their power of appointing selected persons. I have no doubt that they will exercise their power, but I believe that the local authority has better knowledge of the requirements of the district, that they are persons with experience, and that they should appoint the members instead of the Board. I therefore beg to move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 38, leave out ("third") and insert ("fourth").—(The Earl of Northbrook.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I am sorry that I cannot see my way to accept the Amendment. I think Lord Northbrook
60
has left out of account the fact that in respect of small holdings and allotment committees for some years to come the whole of the expenditure does not fall upon the rates at all but on the Exchequer.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: Only with regard to ex-Service men.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: No, with regard to the whole of the small holdings acquisition, and in those circumstances I think it is a very modest proposition on the part of the Board, that they should not have a majority but only one-third. There should be substantial representation to safeguard the interest of the Exchequer in this matter, and I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: After that explanation I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in subsection (4) (d), to leave out "so far as practicable" and insert "in the case of the council of every county (other than the London County Council)." The noble Earl said: I want the noble Lord to agree to cut out the words" so far as practicable." I do not think that they should be in the clause. There ought to be no difficulty in the council of the country finding people who have practical, technical and scientific knowledge in agriculture. I can understand that in the agricultural committees of county boroughs there might be a difficulty, and therefore I have drafted my Amendment so as not to include them.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 3, leave out ("so far as practicable") and insert ("in the case of the council of every county (other than the London County Council)").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: If my noble friend desires to press the Amendment I am not disposed to resist it, but I would rather that it had not been moved, because the principle of the provision is just as much applicable to the committee of a county borough, like Birmingham for instance, which has a considerable area of agricultural land within its borough or under its control for small holdings. "So far as practicable" is a somewhat vague phrase. If, however, my noble friend insists upon moving his Amendment I shall not resist it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, in subsection (4) (d), after "persons" to insert "only." The noble Lord said: The aim of this is to strengthen the objects which I think my noble friend has in view, that the membership should be limited so far as possible to those having experience.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 4, after ("persons") insert ("only").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (4) (d), after "practical" to insert "commercial." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to afford some definite assistance to small holders and allotment holders in the direction in which they will almost certainly require it—namely, the adoption of co-operative methods through the medium of the Agricultural Organisation Society. I am sure that the noble President of the Board will realise that there are many practical farmers who are experts in husbandry but have very little commercial knowledge of their business, and the great object of such an organisation as the Agricultural Organisation Society is to instruct them better on the commercial side of farming, that element which Sir Horace Plunkett, of all other persons in the United Kingdom, has done so much to promote. I would ask your Lordships to accept this Amendment in the interests of small holders and allotment holders.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 4, after ("practical") insert ("commercial").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN VISCOUNT CHAPLIN moved, in subsection (4) (d), to leave out "or" and insert "and some." The noble Viscount said: If this Amendment is accepted the words will then read "have practical, technical, and some scientific knowledge of." I move this because I think we cannot have too much practical knowledge on everything affecting agriculture on the part of those who have to serve on the Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 4, leave out the word ("or") and insert ("and some").—(Viscount Chaplin.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I am in general sympathy with the object that my noble friend has in view, but I am a little apprehensive that he might by his Amendment cut out the landowner who, whilst having obviously a very serious interest in agriculture, may not possess these qualifications in his own person. I am anxious that that should not be done, and I am sure that would be the wish of your Lordships. If this Amendment were agreed to it would set up a standard of qualification which would, I fear, cut out the person who is an owner of land and therefore financially and otherwise interested in agriculture, but who may not have been able, either from the circumstances of his life or other cause, to give sufficient attention to agriculture to come within this rather rigid qualification.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Does the noble Lord mean by cutting out the word "or"?
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Yes.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Well, could it not read "the appointment of such persons only as have practical, technical or scientific knowledge"? If they have practical and technical knowledge they will not want to have the scientific knowledge. That wording would make anybody eligible who has some scientific knowledge, or, in the absence of that, practical and technical knowledge. I do not see how the owner of the land would be cut out, but if he were cut out by those words probably it would be desirable that he should be.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I think that my noble friend moved to insert the word "and" which would stiffen up the qualifications.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (4) (d), to leave out "or interest in." The noble Lord said: I desire to obtain some explanation from the President of the Board. It is difficult on the face of it to see what sort of persons are contemplated by the insertion of these words, because they obviously cannot be intended to apply to anyone who has a sentimental or romantic interest in agriculture. If they mean persons who have a proprietary or financial interest surely some words should be inserted to make it clear what persons are intended. At present I should imagine that this designation leaves it open to the whole British public to come in.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I was inclined to agree with the noble Lord when I first saw the words, but it was explained to me that interest in any legal document meant some substantial interest and not merely a mental interest, and I believe that is the case. It would be very unfortunate if those who had a proprietary interest were cut out, and that is the reason the words are put in. I think that the noble Lord would find it somewhat difficult to draft a qualifying adjective which would cover all the cases, whereas the word "interest" has a legal signification which is well understood.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: It seems to me, with great respect to my noble friend, that if these words remain anybody and everybody would be admitted, because everybody has a substantial interest in bread, and bread of course is entirely agricultural, except so far as it is made by the baker.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I hope that my noble friend will see that if these words are taken out the particular class to whom I referred—the landowner who has only a proprietary interest in his agricultural land—will be cut out, and I imagine that is not his object. I feel bound to make that point clear.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I do not think the words are happy, but in the light of the President's explanation I do not desire to press this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I desire to move a manuscript Amendment to come at the end of the last subsection. I move to insert: "Any scheme under this Section may provide for the payment as part of the expenses of the Agricultural Committee of travelling expenses and subsistence allowance of members of the Committee or of any sub-committee of the Committee." This is really only in accord with what has been already incorporated in the Bill in relation to the Council and to the Advisory Committee, and it is also the practice, as your Lordships are no doubt aware, with many similar bodies to-day, notably health insurance committees, containing poor persons who could not attend the meetings unless their expenses were paid.
Amendment moved—
At end of the last subsection, insert:
"Any scheme under this section may provide for the payment as part of the expenses of the Agricultural Committee of travelling expenses and subsistence allowance of members of the Committee or of any sub-committee of the Committee."—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I shall be glad to accept this Amendment, which, I may say, meets with the approval of the Minister of Health exercising the old Local Government Board powers, and I am quite sure that without it these bodies would be very much less effective than they would otherwise be. We are most anxious that representatives of the working classes should not be unable to attend on account of the expense, and I am sure that this Amendment will make the bodies more representative of those concerned.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Additional powers of committees.
8.—(1) The Board may authorise, subject to any restrictions or conditions they think fit, an agricultural committee or a sub-committee thereof to exercise on behalf of the Board a y of the powers of the Board under the provisions of Part IV. of the Corn Production Act, 1917, or Part II. of the Land Drainage Act, 1918, notwithstanding that the committee or sub-committee is not constituted in accordance with those provisions, or any powers of the Board in relation to land acquired by them under the Small Holding Colonies Acts, 1910 and 1918.
(2) The agricultural committee shall appoint a small holdings and allotments sub-committee and a diseases of animals sub-committee, who shall respectively act as the small holdings and allotments committee required to be established under section fifty of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, and as the executive committee appointed under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, though the sub-committee may not be constituted in accordance with the provisions of those Acts. Any power of the county council exerciseable under those Acts (except the power to raise a rate or loan) shall be exerciseable by the sub-committee so appointed.
(3) The small holdings and allotments sub-committee shall comprise one or more members appointed by the Board as representing tenants of small holdings and allotments, and any such member shall receive from the Board for travelling and subsistence expenses such sums as the Board with the approval of the Treasury may allow.
(4) A county agricultural committee (other than an agricultural committee for the administrative county of London) shall make such inquiries as appear to them to be desirable with a view to formulating schemes for the development of rural industries and social life in rural places,

65
and for the co-ordination of action by local authorities and other bodies by which such development may be effected, and shall report the result of such inquiries to the Board and to any local authority or body concerned, and the expenses incurred by the committee under this section to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Board with the approval of the Treasury shall be defrayed by the Board.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: The first Amendment in my name to this clause is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 33, after ("council") insert ("or borough council") and after ("Acts") insert ("or any Act amending the same").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE: The next is an Amendment of some substance, and it is one to which many of the county councils have given considerable thought. I move the insertion, in subsection (2), of the words "if delegated to the sub-committee so appointed," before "be exercisable by the sub-committee." I ask your Lordships to notice what is the exact machinery in this and the preceding clause. Your Lordships will notice that in Clause 7, subclause (2), all matters relating to the exercise by the Council of their powers under certain Acts which are specified in the Second Schedule, stand referred, other than educational matters, to the Agricultural Committee. But the Agricultural Committee have no power of dealing in an executive way with these matters; they are to be considered by the councils of the counties on the reports of the Agricultural Committees. Your Lordships may notice, amongst other things, that small holdings matters and the questions that now come before the Cattle Diseases Committees of the counties are included. Further down in subsection (3) your Lordships may notice that the Council—that is, the county council—may delegate to the Agricultural Committee, with or without restrictions, any of their powers in relation to these matters.
What the County Councils desire to point out, or some of them, in this connection is that here, in spite of the provision of the preceding clause and in spite of Section 50 of the Small Holdings Act, 1908, which expressly empowers the council to delegate their power to a Small Holdings Committee, this section purports to set up a sub-committee which is going to have absolute
66
executive powers in relation to small holdings matters, without any reference to the councils who, after all, are the representatives of the ratepayers, and may embark upon very expensive schemes, for which eventually the ratepayers of the county will have to pay. It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord has already pointed out in another connection, that for the next few years they will be, to some extent at any rate, saddled not upon the ratepayers but upon the taxpayers; but eventually, after the expiry of that number of years, this charge will come upon the ratepayers of the county.
I submit, my Lords, if it is still the case that taxation and representation should go together, it must be obviously irregular to place in the hands of a sub-committee of the Agricultural Committee, who themselves are a Committee to some extent of the County Council, absolute executive powers for framing expensive schemes relating to small holdings and allotments, for which ultimately the charge will fall upon the county ratepayer.
For that reason I desire to incorporate the words which will be found in Section 50 of the Small Holdings Act—which, indeed, are already incorporated in this Bill under the previous clause—so as to enable this sub-committee only to deal in an executive way with these matters if they are specifically delegated by the county councils to them.
Amendment moved—
Clause 8, page 5, line 34, after ("shall") insert ("if delegated to the sub-committee so appointed").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I agree with my noble friend that this is a point of very serious substance, and I regret very much that I cannot see my way to accept his Amendment. This matter of the acquisition of land for small holdings in order to carry out the Government's pledge to ex-Service men is so vital a matter, not only in point of national honour but in its social consequences, that we cannot contemplate any procedure which would delay or hamper the provision of these holdings. I quite agree with him that in cases where County Councils are pressing on vigorously with this policy, the delay would not be so serious.
I also find that in a very large proportion of these counties they are so impressed with the importance of pressing on, that

67
they are themselves spontaneously delegating their full powers to the Small Holdings Committees. But I regret that there are other counties which are not quite so impressed with the importance of this policy and are inclined to hold back. If you are going to make it impossible for the Small Holdings Committee to act particularly in these matters, these fleeting opportunities of acquiring land which occur —as my noble friend is aware sales are now held very often at exceedingly short notice, auction sales with very little notice at all— if the Small Holdings Committee feels that it cannot act and, indeed, has no power to act effectively without having to refer the matter to the County Council in all cases, I think the result will be that the acquisition of land for small holdings will come practically to a standstill.
We are embarrassed daily now with delays which are giving ex-Service men in many districts the feeling that they are being played with in this matter of carrying out the pledge which has been given to them by Parliament. That is causing a great deal of unrest, a dangerous feeling in many districts in those counties where action is being taken slowly. In those circumstances I cannot help, at any rate during this preliminary emergency period, attaching enormous importance to executive powers being given to these Small Holdings Committees.
I quite agree with my noble friend that when the emergency is past and when we arrive at the period where the county councils take over the full financial responsibility for this policy, delegation is no longer important and, indeed, might become undesirable. But I hope he will recognise that during this period for which really the State is financially responsible, it is of the utmost importance that every facility for rapid action shall be delegated to the Small Holdings Committees.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I do not want to press this Amendment at the moment, but I venture to think that the noble Lord, without doing violence to what is, after all, a canon both of Parliamentary procedure and, hitherto, of county government— namely, that representation and taxation should go together—might possibly find some other means of putting pressure upon those county councils who are inactive or reluctant to do their work in connection with small holdings without taking away the self-respect of those councils who
68
are trying to do their duty in this matter and at the same time watching the interests of their ratepayers.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I hope my noble friend will not think this is any reflection on the counties which are doing their duty. If he had tried, as has been tried on many occasions, to bring pressure to bear on county councils by some other means than giving some one else power to do the work I think he would find it would be an impossible task. I hope he will not press this Amendment, which I should regard as a disastrous change in the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (3), after "members," to leave out "appointed by the Board." The noble Lord said: I cannot quite conceive how the Board of Agriculture can possibly know who are really the most efficient persons in a county to put on the Small Holding and Allotments Sub-committee. Those of us who live among small holders and allotment holders have a very good idea, as time goes on, as to what men are—not in a political sense, of which, perhaps, the Board of Agriculture knows more than in the industrial sense—but in an industrial sense the most competent men and the men most capable of doing good work on such an administrative body. For these reasons I desire to ask the noble Lord to leave it to the Agricultural Committees in each county to decide who are the most suitable persons to represent the small holdings and allotment interests and not to leave it to the Board of Agriculture to appoint these persons.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 37, leave out ("appointed by the Board").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I can assure my noble friend that the clause as drafted was not intended to give the Board power unnecessarily to interfere. It was only put in that form in view of the fact that payment by the Board of the travelling expenses and subsistence allowances was made. But in view of the subsection which he moved just now, providing for the general payment of these expenses, this point is got over, and under the circumstances I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: The next two Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 39, after ("travelling") insert ("or expenses")
Page 5, line 40, leave out ("expenses") and insert ("allowance").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved to leave out sub-section (4). The noble Lord said: I only desire to move this Amendment to find out exactly what this sub-section means. It contemplates apparently the use of Government funds on an inquiry by a County Agricultural Committee with a view to formulating schemes for the development of rural industries, and social life in rural places. But it is not made clear what is to happen as the result of their inquiries, whether, in fact, schemes will be formulated and, if so, by whom. It is an extremely picturesque proposal, and personally I wish the effort in this direction all success. In any case, it is obviously desirable that something should happen as a result, and it is to find out what will happen, and what can happen, that I have moved the omission of this subsection.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, lines 1 to 12, leave out subsection (4).— (Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I know my noble friend would be the last to wish to hinder the development of rural industries and social life. This subsection, which perhaps is somewhat lengthy and formidable in appearance, is really a co-ordination provision. As he is aware, there are, at present a great number of different bodies, composed sometimes of men, sometimes of women, sometimes of both, who are all—no doubt filled with enthusiasm as the result of reading the noble Earl Lord Selborne's Report—seeking to take charge of the development of rural life. The object of this provision is, so far as is possible, to co-ordinate and disentangle the activities of these different bodies and to avoid friction between them, and it is proposed, therefore, that in each county an inquiry should be made into what is going on with a view to trying to produce a scheme which will make use of all that is good in these different activities, and bring them to a focus, and presumably the Agricultural Committee will have one of its
70
officers especially detailed to supervise and deal with this matter. We, on the other hand, on the Board of Agriculture propose to have a special section which will keep in touch with the corresponding officers in the county, with a view to trying to bring the whole thing into one authoritative focus.
LORD BLEDISLOE: After what the noble Lord has said, I am quite satisfied. I should rather wish the clause went so far as actually to provide by statutory enactment for the completion of the scheme at the Board which he contemplates.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 10, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: There is a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, lines 25 and 26, leave out ("by whom powers are delegated to the sub-committee").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10:
Short title and extent.
10.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Agriculcure (Councils, etc.) Act, 1919, and the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Acts, 1889 to 1909, and this Act may be cited together as the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Acts, 1889 to 1919.
(2) This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Ireland.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Agriculture (Councils, etc.)" and to insert "Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries." The noble Lord said: As this Bill was introduced into the House of Commons the very important provision was not then included that in place of the Board of Agriculture there was to be set up the Ministry of Agriculture, hence the necessity of the alteration in the Title.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 29, leave out ("Agriculture (Councils, etc.)") and insert ("Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Another drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 32, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Ministry").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
First Schedule:
Composition of councils and committees.
1.—(1) The Council of Agriculture for England shall consist of the following members:—
(a) One member of each of the Agricultural Committees established by the councils of the counties and county boroughs in England to be nominated by the committee:
Provided that, if the Agricultural Committees established by councils of county boroughs shall exceed twelve in number, the total number of members nominated by those committees shall be twelve and the members shall be nominated by the committees in such manner as the Board may by regulation prescribe.
(b) Six members of the Agricultural Wages Board to be nominated by that Board in equal numbers from the representatives of employers and workmen.
(c) Twenty-four persons nominated by the Board, of whom eight shall be representative of workmen engaged in agriculture, and of the remainder three at least shall be women, six shall be representative of the industry of horticulture, and three representative of agricultural education or research.
(2) The Council of Agriculture for Wales shall consist of the following members:—
(a) Two members of each of the Agricultural Committees established by the councils of the counties and county boroughs in Wales to be nominated by the committee:
Provided that, if the Agricultural Committees established by councils of county boroughs shall exceed six in number the total number of members nominated by those committees shall be six, and the members shall be nominated by the committees in such manner as the Board may by regulation prescribe.
(b) Five persons nominated by the governing body of the University of Wales.
(c) Two members of the Agricultural Wages Board to be nominated by that Board in equal numbers from the representatives of employers and workmen.
(d) Eleven persons nominated by the Board, of whom five shall be representative of workmen engaged in agriculture, and of the remainder two at least shall be women.
(3) The Advisory Agricultural Committee shall consist of the following members:—

(a) Four of the members of the Council of Agriculture for England who have been nominated by the Agricultural Committees to be nominated by the whole body of such members representing the Agricultural Committees.

(b) Four of the members of the Council of Agriculture for England who have been nominated by the Board to be nominated by the whole body of such members, and so that one of the persons so nominated shall be representative of workmen engaged in agriculture, another shall be a woman, and a third shall be representative of agricultural education or research.

(c) Two members to be nominated by the Board in equal numbers from representatives of employers and workmen.

(d) Two members of the Council of Agriculture for Wales to be nominated by that council.

(e) Two members to be nominated by the Secretary for Scotland, who shall be entitled to act only in relation to matters and questions arising under the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1874 to 1914.

(4) The Board may by regulation vary the constitution of any such council or committee.
Term of office of members of councils and committees.
2.—(1) Subject to the provisions of any regulations made under this Act the term of office of a. member of a council or committee shall be four years, provided that—

(a) of the first members of each council or committee one half, or if the total is not divisible by two, the larger half shall hold office for two years only, and the determination of the members so to retire shall be prescribed by regulations made by the Board which, so far as practicable, shall secure that the retirements affects equally all interests represented on the council or committee;

(b) a member shall cease to hold office if he ceases to be qualified for nomination by the body by which he was nominated;

(c) any member may retire by notice in writing to the secretary of the council or committee;

(d) a casual vacancy shall be filled by nomination by the body which nominated the member causing the vacancy, and any person so nominated shall act only for the unexpired portion of the term of office of his predecessor.

(2) A council or committee may act notwithstanding any vacancy in the membership thereof.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in subsection (1) (a) to leave out "One" and insert "Two." The noble Earl said: I want to raise a general discussion on the Schedule which I think may very much facilitate business. This is a matter in which the noble Earl, Lord Northbrook, has taken great interest. I am moving that the county councils shall appoint two members to this Council instead of one, and I do so for this reason. I attribute more importance to this Council of Agriculture than Lord Northbrook does. I think it is not an exaggeration to call it a miniature Agricultural Parliament, and it is very badly wanted, in my judgment, now that agriculture has become so reduced in representation in the House of Commons. Now that so many important questions are coming forward, I think it is of very great importance that there should be a small Agricultural Parliament from which on occasion the opinion of agriculture can be enunciated for the information not only of the Government but of the whole country. That is the first function. The second function is as the elected body of the Advisory Committee. If my Amendment were carried, the numbers would rise from 90 to 132, or thereabouts, and I do not think that this is at all an excessive number for an Agricultural Parliament for England, considering that you would never get more than about 100 present. Consider what the present constitution of the Council is. There are 50 county councils—
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: 48.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: 50; but you subtract London and Monmouthshire. Therefore, by the Bill as it stands now, you have 48 elected members. You have 12 members representing the Agricultural Committees of the county boroughs, you have 24 nominees of the Board of Agriculture, and 6 nominees of the Wages Board. Therefore your total numbers are 42 non-elected as against 48 elected. I think that is much too large a proportion of non-elected, because I cannot regard the 12 representatives of the county boroughs as true representatives of agriculture; they are representative mainly of the urban interest. Therefore it would be more accurate to put it this way—the urban interest and the nominees almost approach in numbers the actual elected representatives of the county councils. If, on the
74
other hand, the county councils each appointed 2, then there would be 96 elected representatives of the Agricultural Committees of the county councils, and the urban and nominated interests might be 42 or 50 without endangering the real agricultural character of the Council. A change like that is very necessary for another reason—namely, it would be very difficult for the Agricultural Committee of a county council to make its choice of one member. There is the landowners' interest, there is the farmers' interest, there is the agricultural labourers' interest. It would be very difficult indeed to choose between those three. You will get a far better representation of those three interests, I suggest, if all the counties nominated two than if they nominated only one.
Then I come to the further Amendments I have on the Paper, which Amendments have two objects in view. The first object is to assert the claim of the landowners and the occupiers to representation, the same as the agricultural labourers. To that I attach great importance, and I believe my noble friend entirely agrees.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I thought that as the Schedule is drafted it necessarily limited the discretion of the Minister in making his nominations because it distributed his nominees—so many to labour, so many to horticulture, so many to women, so many to education, and so many to research; and, if my claim is admitted, there would also be so many to the landowners and so many to the occupiers. I thought that, with very limited numbers at his disposal, it would be very much better for him to wait and see whom the county councils elected, and then he could judge how many of each class were necessary in order to fill up the Council and make it truly representative. But if he attaches importance to giving directions in the Schedule as to the numbers to be allocated to each class, it becomes must easier if you allow the county councils to elect two members each; because then the chance of all interests being properly represented is much greater. In the first instance, there is not the same danger of the elected members being nearly out-voted by the nominees; and for my part I should be willing, instead of moving it in the form on the Paper, to move it in another form

75
allocating the twenty-four—or twenty-eight or thirty members as it probably would be —to be nominated by the Board of Agriculture, to the different classes instead of leaving it unspecified. I thought it would be convenient if I raised the whole question in this manner.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 5, leave out ("One") and insert ("Two").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I think there is great force in the observations of my noble friend Lord Selborne, particularly when he points out the difficulty that would undoubtedly remain if a county council or Agricultural Committee could nominate only one of its members. They would always be faced with this sort of thing—are we to pass over the Chairman? And it might perhaps,, in many cases lead to the Committee not being represented in the very best way. In these circumstances, and in view of the fact that really the enlarged council would not be at all too large for a body representing the whole of agriculture, I am prepared to accept his Amendment—two members for one member.
With regard to the other points, I think my noble friend will see that it would be very difficult to make the necessary Amendments here and now; but I am in general agreement with his argument. In view of the fact that the numbers to be appointed by the Agricultural Committees have been doubled, it will involve, of course, a certain increase—not a very great one—in the numbers that will be nominated by the Board, particularly as it is desired to introduce representatives of other interests than those already mentioned in the Schedule. I would suggest, if my noble friend would not press his Amendments now, that I undertake on the Report stage to place Amendments on the Paper which would have the effect of providing that all the classes to which he has drawn attention shall be represented amongst the Board nominees; that there shall be at least 8 representatives of workmen, 4 of owners, 4 of tenants, 3 of women, 6 representing horticulture, and 3 representatives of agricultural education or research. I would ask to be allowed to reserve the exact number that should be nominated by the Board. It is obvious that the 24 must be increased, and I will put down a suggestion with regard to that on Report.
76
I hope that my noble friend will not press his objection to the Agricultural Wages Board being mentioned as such, for this reason if for no other—we have all had occasion, possibly, to criticise some of the decisions of the Agricultural Wages Board, but I am sure it is of the utmost importance that, as this Board has come to stay, it should be brought into the closest possible and constant touch with agricultural opinion. Its representation under these proposals of my noble friend would be so small as to make the effect comparatively little when it comes to voting, but I think it would have the inestimable advantage that the Wages Board would be constantly refreshed with a knowledge of what agriculturists are thinking and saving in their Councils. All these matters will have to be provided for in the clause as redrafted. I hope that, with the assurance I have given that I am in agreement with my noble friend's general view, he will withdraw.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am very much obliged to my noble friend. I have handed to him my own suggestions for Amendment, but, after what he has said, I will certainly not move the Amendments on the paper. I understand that he accepts my suggestion that the county councils should nominate two members each. I hope he will not suggest that the county borough councils should do the same. One member each would be enough for them.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: No; I am prepared to leave that.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think I should be almost certainly prepared to accept his form of allocation of the nominees of the Board of Agriculture, if all the classes he has named are fairly represented. As regards the Wages Board I have some doubts myself on that matter, but I would not press those doubts against my noble friend. What I have always thought was that if the Wages Board ought to be represented, the Minister of Agriculture should nominate them on his own responsibility. I do not see on prima facie grounds why the Wages Board, which has nothing whatever to do with anything but wages, should, ex officio as it were, have representation on a body which has nothing to do with wages. That is how I put it to my noble friend.

77
At this stage I do not prejudge his arguments, but I put it to him that the existing words are faulty. The proposal that there shall be three representatives of workmen and three of employers limits the number I think quite unduly. If he likes to say three of these representatives must represent workmen I understand him, but why he should prevent the Board appointing one of its members who, does not happen to be an elected representative of the employers I do not know. He might want to send his own Chairman. I ask him to consider that, and for the moment I will suspend judgment until his Amendments are on the Paper.
LORD BLEDISLOE: Before this is disposed of, I should like to appeal to the noble Lord not too hurriedly to make up his mind to retain specifically the Wages Board in this Schedule. I should like to remind him that the Wages Board is an ad hoc body, constituted by virtue of a temporary Statute, though I am told it is likely to be re-enacted in some amended form. We are now dealing with what is proposed to be a permanent Statute and there is proposed to be incorporated in it reference to a body, which under an existing Statute, is a temporary body only. The very fact that you are going to have on the Council persons specifically appointed as representing the Wages Board may tend to divert the proceedings of the Council to matters which they were not originally intended to discuss, and the result may be to put quite an undue stress on wages questions, which I venture to hope will sink into the background in the course of a very short time now, and so allow scope for the discussion of far more important agricultural topics.
It occurs to me in passing that the noble Lord would achieve his purpose if he provides for labour being sufficiently and efficiently represented by a sufficient number of persons. If he desires to refer to the Wages Board at all, I would suggest that he should simply provide for the inclusion of a number of persons representing labour "drawn from the Agricultural Wages Board or from other sources," so as not specifically to earmark persons who are necessarily going to the Council to discuss wages questions, thereby possibly providing a serious bone of contention in an otherwise peaceable assembly.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I merely wish to say a few words on this matter, beginning by stating that I very much agree with what has fallen from my noble friend on my right (Lord Bledisloe). I am very glad the noble Lord the President has seen fit to accept the proposal of Lord Selborne. That, I think, will be a great feature in the Bill and add to its prospects of doing good. Lord Selborne spoke of the question of wages. With all the force I can I wish to impress on the President of the Board of Agriculture that, so far as I have been able to form an opinion is different parts of England, the present operations of the Wages Board have done more than anything else to prevent that increased production which has been declared over and over again by the Government to be vital to the future of this country. I do hope that in producing fresh Amendments that aspect will have the full consideration of the President of the Board.
We are all of us anxious—no one more so than myself—to realise the possibility of an enormously increased production of food, but so far from that matter having been properly managed up till now, we began with a terrible mistake on the part of the Government, when the unqualified promise given to the farmers by the Prime Minister himself (and given in Parliament) that no Wages Board should be set up till after the war, was not fulfilled. Since then we have had the appointment of Wages Boards, which undoubtedly—and I am perfectly certain upon this point—have already reduced the increase that had been made to begin with, and will continue to prevent anything like the increase that every one of us desires to see, unless this point raised by Lord Selborne is most carefully and thoroughly considered.
Let me say one word as to this proposal to add members from the county boroughs, as it appeared originally in the Bill. Take the county of Lancashire. Such is the number of boroughs in Lancashire that they will have, in their Councils or their Committees, an infinitely greater number of members than the Agricultural Councils of the county in Lancashire; and that is not the only county placed in that position. You may find many others in the north of England. Although it may be, and I think would be, a very good thing—and I was delighted to hear my noble friend speak of it—that we should have a miniature Parliament for agriculture, it would be a very curious

79
Parliament as suggested. I know there is a clause in the Bill limiting the number of the county borough members, but it would have been a very different Bill than it is likely to be with the Amendments which we have now been promised. All of us, I think, are grateful to the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture for the consideration that he has assured us he will give to the matter.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I only wish to add that your Lordships will realise that similar provisions will have to be made with regard to the Council for Wales.
Amendment, by leave; withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in subsection (3) (b), to leave out from "and so that" to the end of the paragraph and to insert "two of the persons so nominated shall be representative of workmen engaged in agriculture, and one shall be representative of the owners and one of the occupiers of agricultural land."
The noble Earl said: My suggestion is to remodel paragraphs (b) and (c). At the present moment paragraph (b) says that the nominated members of the Council of Agriculture for England shall elect four of their number, one of whom shall be a representative of the workmen, another shall be a woman, and a third a representative of agricultural research. There you have one workman, one woman and one representative of agricultural research. In paragraph (c) you have two members to be nominated by the Board to represent the employers and workmen, and the scheme of paragraphs (b) and (c) is, two representatives of labour, one woman, one representative of education, and one employer. You want in this case to bring in quite definitely the owner and the occupier, and I suggest this change, that the nominated members of the Council of Agriculture should select four of their number, two to represent the workmen, one the owners, one the occupiers, leaving the Board of Agriculture to nominate the woman and the representative of education, or anybody else they choose. I attach great importance to getting the owner and occupier definitely for election among the nominated members of the Council.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 9, leave out from ("that") to the end of paragraph (b), and insert.("two of the
80
persons so nominated shall be representative of workmen engaged in agriculture, and one shall be representative of the owners and one of the occupiers of agricultural land").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I am in general agreement with the proposal of the noble Earl but I shall be glad if he will let me bring the matter up on Report. It will be necessary to make a consequential alteration in the number of members nominated by the Council of Agriculture under (a) and (b). I think they would have to be increased to five in each case in order to bring in all the classes concerned. That will bring up the total number of the Committee to fourteen, leaving out the temporary members for Scotland. I hope he will allow me to bring the matter up on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, in subsection (3) (e), to leave out "act" and insert "attend and vote." The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 19, leave out ("act") and insert ("attend and vote").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second schedule agreed to.
Title:
An Act to provide for the constitution of Councils and Committees in connection with agriculture, and to amend the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Acts, 1889 to 1909.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in the first line of the Title, after "of" to insert "a Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and of." The noble Lord said: It seems that when first introduced it was forgotten that a Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries was set up, and the most important part of the Bill should appear in the Title.
Amendment moved—
In the first line of the Title, after ("of") insert ("a Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and of"). —(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.

NURSES REGISTRATION (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, I am glad to say that I am able to present this Bill as an agreed measure. Those who have followed this controversy, as I have done for more than a generation, will be as pleased as surprised, and as surprised as pleased, with this result. I certainly had thought from the various phases through Which this subject has passed during a number of years that such a result would have been well nigh impossible, but I did not count on the magician-like qualities of the Minister. Your Lordships will remember that there were two Bills introduced last summer; one promoted by a member in the House of Commons and another presented by Viscount Goschen in this House. I am glad to say that this Bill, of which I now propose the Second Reading, has been welcomed by the adherents of that Bill, which I believe was nearly the identical Bill passed in this House eight or nine years ago at the instance of Lord Ampthill.
The controversy in these Bills raged around the formation of the Council. It was found almost impossible to get the various disputants to sympathise with one another, and it was difficult to know how the representatives were to be selected from the various associations concerned. The numbers kept on increasing and I think rose to as many as forty or fifty. After a patient conference the Minister hit upon the idea that instead of leaving these people to be elected (as there was no electorate to elect them) that he would nominate the first council. That is to say, there are two members to be nominated by the Privy Council, two by the Board of Education, five members to be expert in training colleges and schools for nursing, and sixteen others to be nominated by the Minister, making a total of twenty-five. I think it was with some courage that the Minister undertook to nominate those sixteen.
The two former Bills provided that there should be one council for the whole United Kingdom, but since then a Ministry of Health Bill has been passed and I think it is admitted that in the care and treatment of the sick the Ministry of Health should be responsible. This will be the case as regards England and Wales, but, as your Lordships know, the Minister for Health
82
does not have power in Scotland. There it is the Secretary for Scotland and a Board of Health. In Ireland the Chief Secretary is responsible in the same way that the Minister of Health is here, and he has an Irish Health Committee. In effect the national autonomy is to be preserved. The three Bills are necessary; and three registers. To meet that point it will be seen that Clause 6 is a reciprocity clause. That is to say, there will be no difficulty for a nurse in one part of the Kingdom to get her qualification recognised in another part of the Kingdom.
Then, my Lords, without taking you through the details of the Bill, as it is an agreed Bill, I might mention this, that, as has been provided by Parliament when other Registers have been set up, those who are already experts or trained in a certain direction should not be unfairly treated. I call your attention to the fact that in Clause 2 of the Rule these people will have to submit themselves. to certain examinations, but it is provided that those people who are of proper age and character during the first two years—the initial period of the council—should not be called upon to pass those examinations. That is a principal which has been recognised by Parliament before, and I think it is one which is eminently fair, because there are many of these nurses who have acquired certain knowledge and experience in hospitals and infirmaries which might not be recognized as authorised training schools, and at the same time have a very considerable amount of knowledge.
The calculations are to be settled by the Council, and the rules that they are to make are to lie on the Tables of the Houses of Parliament for twenty-one days, and cannot come into operation until they have obtained the approval of the Minister. Then there are to be certain fees charged for those nurses I mentioned just now, in the initial stage not exceeding £1 1s., and nurses are to pay an annual fee of 2s. 6d., which will help to keep the thing going. Then there is a disciplinary clause, for the Council are intended to have disciplinary powers, but at the same time a person feeling aggrieved will have a right of appeal to the High Court, and if an institution is aggrieved by the refusal by the Council of recognition as a training centre, such institution will have a right of appeal to the Minister.
I think on the main points I have said enough to ask your Lordships to give a

83
Second Reading to this Bill. This is the last time, probably, that I shall have the honour of addressing you on these subjects. Your Lordships may remember that last session I had a struggle in this House to try and obtain a second Under-Secretary in the Health Department. Of course I was beaten and had to bow to that decision, but those who opposed me have, and I congratulate them, managed to win both ways; because while they beat me on the question of a second Under-Secretary, although I held out the blandishment that they might have an Under-Secretary in this House, they will nevertheless have an Under-Secretary here in the person of Lord Astor. But having waged this controversy with regard to nurses—sometimes disproportionately acute—for upwards of a generation, it is a very great pleasure to me to ask your Lordships to read a second time a Bill which I think will lay this long struggle to rest; and knowing as we all do what nurses are—it is a noble profession, of course, and I consider it is the gentlest and most humane profession that exists—if without detriment to the public and within the four corners of my Bill, the advantages which have been so constantly claimed for nurse registration prove to be to the advantage of that profession, I shall indeed be glad. I therefore hope that your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Viscount Sandhurst.)
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, it would not be right if this Bill were to pass through the important stage of Second Reading without just a few words on behalf of those who have struggled so long and valiantly to bring about this reform. My object in rising, therefore, is to offer my sincere and respectful congratulations to His Majesty's Government, and particularly to the Minister of Health, for having contrived to bring about agreement in regard to this Bill. I envy my noble friend the pleasant task which has fallen to this lot of piloting an agreed registration Bill through the House of Lords, because like him I remember all that has gone before of the controversy, in which I have had to take some part. I do not, however, grudge him the satisfaction which he will feel when the Bill, as I hope, has been finally passed. My Lords the nursing profession has risen steadily higher in public estimation, and
84
nurses have become more and more indispensable to the whole community, both in peace time and war time, and it would have been deplorable if this year had been allowed to pass by without a settlement of this long-standing question. I am sure that those for whom I have the honour to act and on whose behalf I had the honour of passing through this House a Nurses Registration Bill practically identical in principle with this Bill, would blame me if I had not said these few words of thanks to His Majesty's Government.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: My Lords, Lord Ampthill said it would not be right if those who had been in favour of this Bill did not give it their blessing. It would also not, perhaps, be right if I, as one of those who for twenty years have opposed registration, also did not admit that I have been defeated. I am sure that Lord Sandhurst knows that nothing that could help nurses would be opposed by me, but I want this House not to go away and think that this Registration Bill can be of the smallest use to them.
Nurses who belong to the good training schools, to-day, when they join this registration will find themselves herded together with a lot of nurses who have had very inferior training and whose only excuse for being on the register is that they have been bona fide nursing the public. There is no instance known to us of voluntary registration being of the smallest use, and under this Bill registration is voluntary and not compulsory. We had a very good example in the dentists profession. There was a voluntary register, and what was the result? The whole country was flooded with people who were not registered dentists. They were forbidden to use the name of registered dentists, just as nurses are forbidden to call themselves registered nurses unless they are on the register. They called themselves surgeon-dentists, or put up in their houses "dental surgery," and in that way led the public to believe that they were going to proper dentists. So here there is nothing to prevent a woman calling herself a nurse and holding herself out to be a nurse. She is only prevented from calling herself a registered nurse.
My only object is to try and induce the Government to go a step further. The remedy is so simple. If you make registration compulsory—that is to say, if you stop any woman nursing for gain unless her

85
name is on the register—then the public would have the protection which they have a right to expect. If you did that you would have to pass a law that no woman should nurse for gain unless she was on the register of nurses and that register of nurses would only contain opposite her name, not a guarantee in any sense that she was fit to nurse, but the training that she had had, whether it was one week or one year, or six months, or whatever it was. The public would then be able to protect themselves. If Nurse Jones said that she was a fully-trained nurse, you would only have to look through the register and see how long a training she had had. If you employed her after that you would do so at your own risk. The present Bill cannot possibly help nurses, and cannot possibly keep fraudulent women from calling themselves nurses. My only reason for intervening in the debate, though I am a beaten man, is to beg the Government to go a little further, and let us have a compulsory and not a voluntary register, and a compulsory register in the sense that I have indicated.
THE EARL OF KINTORE: My Lords, I certainly will not detain you more than one moment, but I should like to add to the congratulations which have been showered upon Lord Sandhurst on the happy termination of an agitation which has gone on, I think that I am right in saying, for more than a quarter of a century. The nurses in Scotland, I am afraid, are not entirely satisfied as to the position that they will occupy under this Bill.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: We are not on the Scottish Bill.
THE EARL OF KINTORE: I am speaking about the Registration (No. 2) Bill which, so far as I have read it, applies to England and Wales, but it does not meet what the nurses in Scotland want, which is that there should be a single British register of nurses to apply to all the United Kingdom. I would point out that even if the small Bills for Scotland and Ireland are passed later on, that defect would not be removed. There will be three authorities, each with its own standard, and each with its own conditions for entry, and with its own register, and one might obtain recognition abroad and the others be refused such recognition. Perhaps therefore the noble Lord will see his way to give us a
86
little time to consider this point before we go into Committee.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NURSES REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords this Bill is practically the same as the No. 2 Bill which your Lordships have just passed with the exception of the council. Instead of its number being sixteen it is to be ten. The reason is that the Chief Secretary in Ireland is President of the Local Government Board and is the controlling authority for insurance and health. The larger number of the English Council is due to the necessity of giving representatives to the Privy Council and to the Board of Education. In Ireland there is no Department corresponding to the Board of Education, and there are not so many associations corresponding to the nursing associations in this country. With that exception the Bill is identical with the Bill just read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NURSES REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. It also is identical in regard to its provisions with the other Bill with the exception that the phraseology is different in order to meet what is customary in Scotland. The council will be responsible to the Scottish Board of Health, and will be composed of fifteen members. My noble friend (the Earl of Kintore) raised two points. One was that the Scottish nurses objected to there being three registers and three Bills, but the reason for that is that the powers of the Ministry of Health in England do not apply in Scotland. That explains the reason for the three Bills. In regard to the possibilities of interchange,

87
I perhaps rather too hurriedly explained the reciprocity proposal. The No. 2 Bill requires the Council to confer with the Scottish and Irish councils with a view to identity of standard. It is desirable that there should be a uniform standard for all parts of the Kingdom, and that is essential for reciprocity. In regard to what the noble Earl said respecting not taking the Committee stage at once, I have had a message from the Scottish Office to the effect that the Secretary of State desires that I should not press this Bill in Committee to-morrow, and so I shall await his further views before putting down the Committee stage. That applies to the Scottish Bill. I propose however to put down the other two Bills for Committee to-morrow.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Viscount Sandhurst.)
THE EARL OF KINTORE: Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to ask one question in regard to the Scottish Bill. I gather that the Bill is the same as the English one, but it seems to me that there are one or two differences. One is as to the regulation for appointing examiners. It is provided in the Scottish Bill that one of the examiners shall be a registered female medical practitioner; I fancy that there may be some objection taken to that in Scotland. However much we wish that women should have equal opportunity in the professions, I do not think that at the present moment women medical practitioners have any experience in teaching, lecturing or examining. I do not think that they have interested themselves much on the subject, and it is difficult to see why the clause should appear in one Bill and not in the other.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I am unable to answer that question at the moment, but there will be ample time to go into it in Committee.
LORD AMPTHILL: I should also like to ask a question. Why is it that what is described in the English Bill only as a misdemeanour is described in Clause 8 of the Scottish Bill as a crime and an offence?
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: That is what I thought I had tried to explain. It is due to difference in the legal expressions of the two countries.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TRADE MARKS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I wish, by leave of the House, to move some Amendments. I know that these Amendments have not been printed, but they are purely drafting and I hope that I shall be allowed to move them.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The EARL Of DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I would point out that it is the invariable rule of your Lordships' House that Amendments should not be moved at the Third Reading stage unless they have been first printed and notice given. The reason for that is obvious. Amendments made earlier can be amended at the later stage.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sure we are much obliged to my noble friend for calling attention to this deviation from the proper practice. It must be quite understood that we cannot have Amendments of substance, apart from drafting Amendments, introduced on Third Reading except after notice has been given.
On Question, drafting Amendments agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Second Schedule, page 8, leave out lines 31 and 32.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Bill read 3a
VISCOUNT PEEL: May I ask the indulgence of your Lordships—subject to the caution and the chastisement I have just received—to move a drafting Amendment?
Amendment moved—
Schedule, page 23, leave out lines 44 to 53 inclusive.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

HOUSING (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. I understand that an arrangement has been arrived at by which the discussion—if discussion there be—shall be taken on Thursday on going into Committee or on the clauses of the Bill in Committee. I will therefore content myself by saying now that this Bill has two main purposes— first, to allow the Government to give subsidies to private persons and associations for the building of houses; and second, to enable local authorities to issue short-dated bonds on the security of the rates in order to finance their building operations. There is also a provision with regard to preventing luxury building.
Moved, That the Bill be now read. 2a(Viscount Peel.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think, as the noble Viscount has said, it is a convenient course that we should take the discussion on this Bill at the next stage. Looking round at the Benches at this moment, I think that those of us who are here will agree that our eloquence would be better expended upon another occasion.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

IRISH RAILWAYS (CONFIRMATION OF AGREEMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put in Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Confirmation of the terms of agreement.
1. The provisions of the above-recited agreement which are set out in the Schedule to this Act are hereby confirmed, and shall have full force and effect, as from the date of the said agreement, as if enacted in this Act, and any payments under the said agreement and before the passing of this Act which are inconsistent with the terms of the said provisions shall be adjusted so as to give effect to those terms.
LORD KILLANIN LORD KILLANIN had the following Amendment upon the Paper—
Clause 1, page 1, after line 20, insert:
("Provided nevertheless that in the case of a company having the benefit of a baronial guarantee subject to the provisions of the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, whose line is leased to or worked by another company at a percentage of gross receipts, nothing in this Act contained shall render the guaranteeing authority liable in respect of such guarantee except as provided by the said Act and to an amount ascertained and determined in accordance with the provisions thereof").
The noble Lord said: I should like to have moved this Amendment and to have had it accepted by the Government, but I gather from my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill that there is no chance of the Government accepting it. In these circumstances it would be futile for me to attempt to press it. I put down this Amendment for two reasons. First, because I believe that unless some such arrangements were made in this Bill a distinct and serious injustice would be done to a number of ratepayers in the county of Galway, where I am a member of the County Council; and, second, because I consider that it only carries out the wishes of the Government as expressed by the noble Earl when moving the Second Reading of the Bill. I now understand from the noble Earl that he considers it impossible to accept my Amendment. The noble Earl, however, in moving the Second Reading confirmed an invitation which the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Transport had given in the other House to county councils and local authorities in Ireland to go to the Transport Ministry and represent any hardships they thought might occur under the Bill as it is; and he asked me to assist in that. Since then I have done all I could to bring about a settlement. I communicated with the Galway County Council and the Financial Secretary of the County Council came over. We have had a number of interviews with the Ministry of Transport on the matter, and I hope and

91
believe that we shall come to a satisfactory arrangement. The noble Earl will understand, however, that the arrangement is not finally settled; and in case it might not prove satisfactory to all parties I reserve my right to move this Amendment on the Third Reading of the Bill. I should like to say that my noble friend Lord Oranmore who is interested in his own county had intended to be present this evening and to move a similar Amendment to mine, but he has had to leave the House. He wished me to say that he will abide by such arrangements as the Galway County Council come to.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I am obliged to my noble friend for not pressing this Amendment. It is true, as he says, that negotiations have taken place between those who are interested in the subject matter of this Amendment and the Ministry of Transport; and, although complete agreement has not yet been reached, I have every reason to hope and believe that before the next stage is reached complete agreement may be arrived at. In these circumstances I think my noble friend is quite right not to move his Amendment at this stage.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

MILITARY KNIGHTS OF WINDSOR BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (WAR ADDITION) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, there is a question which arises on this Bill. I do not intend to raise that question now, I merely desire to tell the noble Earl (if I may) that there is a little difficulty which arises in certain cases where
92
men will receive more by way of compensation than their actual wages. It does not happen very often, but in certain cases it will do so, and I shall be obliged if my noble friend will have the point looked into between now and the next stage, in case I may be wrong—which is often the case—or, if I am not wrong, so that he himself may present an Amendment dealing with it.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am obliged to the noble Marquess, and I will certainly look into the matter.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COUNTY AND BOROUGH POLICE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): I beg to move that the House adjourn till to-morrow, and to state that owing to the amount of business on the Paper it seems probable that it will be for the convenience of the House generally that we should sit until dinner time to-morrow, adjourn for dinner, and reassemble, if necessary, an hour or an hour and a quarter later.
[From Minutes of December 12.]

CANNOCK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.

  WALSALL CORPORATION BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before nine o'clock.