Lords Sitting of 18 December 1919

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
TRADE MARKS BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to without amendment.
PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL.
Returned from the Commons with certain of the Amendments agreed to without amendment, and one other Amendment agreed to with Amendments. The said Amendments considered (on Motion) and agreed to.
ALIENS RESTRICTION BILL.
Returned from the Commons with certain of the Amendments agreed to without amendment, and certain other Amendments disagreed to and Amendments proposed in lieu thereof.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): With Your Lordships' sanction, perhaps it would be convenient that the two Notices which stand on the Order Paper in reference to the business of the House in the name of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should be taken together. I think your Lordships are familiar with these Notices. The first Motion, with regard to Standing Order No. XXI, permits variation in the Order of Business and Notices of Motion, and likewise deals with Bills on Tuesdays and Thursdays which, under the Standing Order, take precedence of all other Notices. Standing Order No. XXXIX precludes more than one stage being taken in a single day, and it is proposed that that Order also should be considered with a view to its suspension for the remainder of the session. So far as I know, there is only one other proposal which will have to be placed before your Lordships of which the House is not already apprised —a Bill to extend the Profiteering Act for a further period. That Act comes to an
370
end, I think, during the month of January, and is to be extended under the new Bill for a few months.
As to Monday, there is a Notice of Motion on the Paper in the name of Lord Bryce calling attention to the situation in Austria, and inquiring as to steps His Majesty's Government may be able to take to relieve the situation. Lord Curzon appreciates the importance of that question, and suggests that it should be taken, if not first, at any rate early in our proceedings on that day so as to ensure that it shall be discussed in good time. I do not give any pledge about the actual position, except that Lord Curzon desires that it should be taken early.
With regard to to-day, the Amendments made by the Commons to the Lords' Amendments to the Aliens Restriction Bill are before your Lordships, and it is suggested that we should proceed with that subject at once. After that, I suggest that we should take the Committee stage of the Housing (Additional Powers) Bill, and then the further stages of the Scottish Land Settlement Bill. Your Lordships observe that there are at least a dozen more Notices on the Paper, many of them, of course, being purely Departmental Bills, but I shall be glad to discuss with noble Lords as to which Notices shall be taken after those three Bills.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: What about the Agricultural Councils Bill?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If you would like that taken fourth, I will settle off-hand to do it now.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Then we will take the Agricultural Councils Bill after the Scottish Land Settlement Bill. I am afraid that I am not in a position to state anything about the Prorogation, beyond that it is hoped that it may be possible to prorogue Parliament on Tuesday next.
Moved, that Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being suspended, and that for the remainder of the session all Government Bills and Notices which are entered for consideration on the Minutes of the day shall have precedence of other Bills and Notices. That Standing Order No. XXXIX be also considered in order to its being suspended for the remainder of the session.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I have no adverse comment to offer on the announcement which the noble Earl has just made to us, and certainly I have no intention of offering any opposition to the two Motions for the conduct of business. The arrangement appears to be designed with the purpose—which I hope it will achieve—of making the best use of the limited time which is still left to us. I cannot help congratulating His Majesty's Government that the mass of business with which we might conceivably have had to deal has been sensibly reduced by the abandonment, if not permanently at any rate for a considerable time, of a large number of their most important measures. I am particularly glad to know that the Leader of the House and the noble Earl recognise the gravity of the matter which is to be brought forward by Lord Bryce on Monday next, and that it is intended to give it due precedence on the Order Paper. If His Majesty's Government find that it can be taken first it would, I think, meet the wishes of many members of your Lordships' House; but I understand that, even if some minor or almost formal business comes before it, it will be in no way crowded out but will have all the precedence which I am sure the whole House would agree that it deserves. I understand that the noble Earl desires to proceed at once with the consideration of the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments to the Aliens Restriction Bill, and I have no objection to offer to that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I want to ask a question as regards the carrying over of Bills to another session on which the Government said something in the other House a few days ago. I think your Lordships would wish to be informed what are likely to be the subjects of the process of carrying over. I refer especially to a Bill which I think is called the Emergency Powers (Continuance) Bill, which is known shortly as the D.O.R.A. Continuance Bill. I should like to know how that is going to be dealt with.
While His Majesty's Government are hesitating about answering that question, may I say that in my humble view the question of carrying over is a very important one and deserves very careful consideration, and I should very much like it if the Government would provoke a debate in your Lordships' House at an early period next session in order to discuss the whole subject.
372
I know that there is a great deal to be said on both sides, but there is a particular form of carrying over which has always seemed to me to be well worthy of consideration—namely, where Bills have passed the Commons but have not passed the Lords. Those Bills come to us—as we have often had occasion to complain—very late, and we have had great difficulty in dealing with them. If at that particular stage they could be carried over—by a Standing Order of the House of Commons and not of our own only—I have a strong feeling that public business might be very much better transacted; because the effect would be that nothing which the House of Commons had done to the Bills would be lost, while your Lordships would have an opportunity in the early days of the next ensuing session of considering these important Bills with the due deliberation which ought to be given to them. I am sure that the result would be that the wisdom of your Lordships' House applied to those Bills would turn them into much better Acts of Parliament than can possibly be the case in the closing days of a very crowded session. I think there was a moment when it was necessary to make a pause, and during that pause the noble Earl might make a note of the very respectful suggestion I have made with a view to a discussion at an early date.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I have profited by the pause, for which I am obliged to the noble Marquess. No Bill is going to be carried over from this session to the next—I believe that there are no powers to do so. If the noble Marquess desires any assistance from the Government to do what he calls "provoke a debate" on this subject next session, I am sure Lord Curzon will be most happy to meet him. It is an interesting subject. I have been familiar with it in the House of Commons, and my impression is that I take a different view from Lord Salisbury. I only wish to add, with regard to what Lord Crewe said, that I merely safeguarded the Austrian question to this extent, that it might be a matter of convenience not only to us but to the other House if perhaps only for a few minutes of our sitting on Monday were occupied by an exchange of opinions; but the Motion of the noble Viscount Lord Bryce shall have a position of first-rate importance on our Order Paper.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ALIENS RESTRICTION BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments.
[Te references are to Bill as first printed for the House of Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
Clause 9, page 5, line 11, leave out from ("Kingdom") to the end of subsection (1) and insert ("and to whom this section applies shall be deported forthwith unless the Secretary of State on the recommendation of the advisory committee, to be constituted under this section, shall grant him a licence to remain").
Page 5, line 23, after ("the") insert (''said") and leave out ("hereinafter mentioned").
The Commons disagree with these Amendments, but propose the following Amendment in lies thereof ("shall be deported forthwith unless he shall within two months after the passing of this Act make an application to the Secretary of State in the prescribed form to be allowed to remain in the United Kingdom, stating the grounds on which such application is based, and unless the Secretary of State shall grant him a licence to remain: Provided that this subsection shall not apply to such former enemy aliens as were exempted front internment or repatriation on the recommendation of any advisory committee appointed after the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen, and before the passing of this Act, or to the wife or to the children under eighteen years of age of any such alien").

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 5, line 26, leave out from the beginning of subsection (3) to the end of subsection (9) on page 6, and insert the following new subsections:—
"(3) This section shall apply to any former enemy alien now in the United Kingdom (not being a former enemy alien exempted from internment or repatriation on the recommendation of any advisory committee appointed after the first day of January nineteen hundred and eighteen and before the passing of this Act) as to whom there shall be delivered to the Secretary of State, within two months after the passing of this Act, a statement in writing signed by any credible person to the effect that the continued residence in the United Kingdom of that alien is, for reasons relating to the alien, undesirable in the public interest, and giving particulars of the allegations upon which such reasons are based.
"(4) The Secretary of State shall refer all such statements to the advisory committee to be constituted under this section, and the committee shall thereupon require each alien affected to make to the committee within one month, in a form prescribed by the committee, an application to be allowed to remain in the United Kingdom, stating the general grounds on which the application is based, and the answer of the alien to the allegations made in relation to him, and the committee shall examine into such allegations and in the result may—

(a) recommend that the alien be immediately deported; or

374

(b) if satisfied that the allegations are groundless or insufficient, and that the alien affected holds an exemption recommended by any advisory committee appointed in the year nineteen hundred and fifteen, recommend that such exemption be not disturbed; or

(c) in any case in which it seems to them right and proper so to do, recommend that the alien be granted a licence to remain, subject to such terms and conditions (if any) as may appear to them to be, fitting in the circumstances.

"(5) In granting a licence under this section, the Secretary of State may include in the licence the wife of an applicant and any child or children of his, and such inclusion shall, notwithstanding anything in this section, have the same effect as the grant of a licence.
"(6) A list of the persons to whom such licence is granted shall, as soon as may be, after the granting of the licence, be published in the Gazette.
"(7) Any licence so granted may be at any time revoked by the Secretary of State.
"(8) If such licence is not granted, or if, having been granted, it, is 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 so long as the order remains in force. 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.
"(9) The provisions of this section shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other provisions of the principal Act or this Act or any Order in Council made thereunder."
The Commons disagree to this Amendment, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:—
"(3) The committee may, unless satisfied by reports from the naval, military, air-force, or police authorities that there is good reason to the contrary, recommend the exemption from deportation of a former enemy alien on any one or more of the following grounds, namely:—

(a) Old age;

(b) Permanent illness or infirmity;

(c) Service during the present war (whether by the applicant or by any son of the applicant) in His Majesty's forces or the forces of any allied or associated Power;

(d) Residence in His Majesty's Dominions either from early youth or for a long period;

(e) Valuable personal service to this Country or any part of the British Dominions or to any allied or associated Power during the recent war;

(f) The possession of valuable technical or industrial skill;

(g) Proved sympathy with the cause of the Allies;

(h) The fact that deportation would involve either (1) serious hardship to the applicant or his wife, children, or dependants, or (2) injury to any British interest;

(i) The fact that the mother of the applicant is a natural-born British subject.

375
"(4) In granting a licence under this section, the Secretary of State may include in the licence the wife of the applicant and any child or children of his under the age of eighteen and such inclusion shall, notwithstanding anything in this section, have the same effect as the grant of a licence.
"(5) A list of the persons to whom such licence is granted shall, as soon as may be after the granting of the licence, be published in the Gazette.
"(6) Any licence so granted may be at any time revoked by the Secretary of State.
"(7) If such licence is not granted or if, having been granted, it is 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 so long as the order remains in force. 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.
"(8) The provisions of this section shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other provisions of the principal Act or this Act, or any Order in Council made thereunder, providing for the deportation of aliens."
Moved, That the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships do not insist upon several of the Amendments which were made to this Bill by your Lordships, and which have come back from the House of Commons. The Lords Amendments were considered late last night in another place, and upon most of them agreement was arrived at. The only Amendments of importance to consider now are those in Clause 9. The Amendment which was proposed to this clause by Lord Newton received most careful consideration in another place last night, and after prolonged debate and a Division in which the Whips were taken off, it was rejected by a majority of 128 to 66 or nearly 2 to 1. But the House of Commons have not insisted on the restoration of the clause as it was originally presented to your Lordships. They have instead adopted the Amendments which were placed on the Paper during the Committee stage in this House by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Finlay.
The adoption of these Amendments, I think, is a very substantial concession to the opinion expressed by your Lordships. If your Lordships will allow me to take them seratim I would observe on paragraph
376
(a) "Old Age," that no limit is placed upon the age of the applicant and no limit is made as to the age at which exemption can be granted, the decision being left to the Advisory Committee. As to paragraph (b) "Permanent illness or infirmity," that, I think, requires no comment. Paragraph (c) reads—"Service during the present war (whether by the applicant or by any son of the applicant) in His Majesty's Forces or the Forces of any Allied or Associated Power." Therefore, service to any of the Allies during the war—that is to say, service to the Allied cause—will be a reason for exemption if the Committee so agree.
Then, as to paragraph (d)—"Residence in His Majesty's Dominions either from early youth or for a long period,"—I would point out that no definite limit is placed to such residence. It is left to the Committee to decide what they consider should give the applicant exemption. Paragraph (e) is similar to paragraph (c). It reads—"Valuable personal service to this country or any part of the British Dominions or to any Allied or Associated Power during the recent war." That would cover I think service of all kinds, and it would be for the Committee to decide what service would entitle the applicant to exemption. The next paragraph is (f)— "The possession of valuable technical or industrial skill." That is self-evident. Paragraph (g)—"Proved sympathy with the cause of the Allies"—is I think a very important provision. It will permit the Committee to exempt any person who has shown that he has been on our side during the war and it will prevent the possibility of any such person being sent back to his country of origin, to which he has been opposed during the war, and by which he might possibly be caused some hardship.
Then I come to paragraph (h) which is the most important provision in the Commons Amendment. It runs as follows —"The fact that deportation would involve either (1) serious hardship to the applicant or his wife, children, or dependants, or (2) injury to any British interest." I venture to think that no one who does not come under this clause can complain if a deportation order is made against him. Consider it this way. The deportation of any person to whom no serious hardship is caused either to himself, or his wife, or children, or dependants—dependants is a wide term—

377
or if no British interest is involved or injured in his deportation, cannot cause any injustice either to the person himself or to any British interest. Next we have paragraph (i), which is a narrow provision, but it does safeguard anybody who has a natural-born British mother and who wishes to remain in this country.
That is the state of affairs before your Lordships. The choice is different from what it was when the Bill was originally brought before your Lordships' house. The Amendment of my noble friend (Lord Newton) briefly was this. It placed upon the public, or the Government, to notify that any person should be brought before the Advisory Committee. That is to say, it was not necessary, under that Amendment, for the person to come before the Committee unless his case was notified by a credible person. By the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount, however, all cases will have to come before the Committee, but it does not seem to me that any possible hardship can be caused, and I venture with great respect to think that the object of my noble friend in preventing any injustice being done will be attained by the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment, although I admit that possibly more trouble will be caused to applicants. Therefore, I move that your Lordships do not insist upon your Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the Amendment in Clause 9, page 5, line 11, nor upon the Amendment in page 5, line 23, and doth agree to the Amendment proposed by the House of Commons in lieu thereof.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, in common with many of your Lordships I have listened to my noble friend's statement with considerable regret—a regret all the greater because, as everybody knows, this clause to which we object never figured in the original Bill. It was put in as the result of a bargain—I do not say a corrupt bargain —which had to be driven with certain people in order to settle some obscure difficulty that had arisen with regard to the French pilots. I do not propose to discuss the clause, because it is so well known by this time, but I cannot help feeling a profound conviction in my own mind that His Majesty's Government, or at all events many of the noble Lords sitting on the Front Bench, are in their hearts just as much aware of the folly and absurdity of
378
this clause as its proposers, and I shall be glad to relieve them from the difficulties into which they have got.
I said I was not going to discuss the clause, but in case there is any one here who does not understand what it is I will give its purport in two or three words. Briefly it is this—that because certain atrocities were committed by the German military and naval authorities during the course of the war, an Austro-Hungarian governess is to be deported from this country and sent back to a country which probably is in a state of starvation at the present moment. It is not a performance on which this country or the Government can pride itself, and, that being so, it is not surprising that practically all the arguments in favour of the original clause have disappeared.
Now that all the arguments for the clause have disappeared we are asked to assent to it in virtue of a promise made during the General Election. Who made those promises? The Government did not make them. Such promises as the Government made have been carried out. The promises were made by a certain number of mistaken people who were sincerely, apparently, under the impression that this country was incurring a serious danger by retaining a number of women and waiters. They urged that these people should be turned out of the country. I ask, Is it seriously contended, because a certain number of candidates—numerous candidates—at an election made rash promises, that this country is to make an absurd exhibition of itself in the eyes of the civilised world?
Personally, nobody dislikes more than I do disputes with the other House of Parliament; and I can recall but few occasions on which I have recorded a vote against the other House. I have always borne in mind an observation made by Lord Lansdowne—whose absence I much deplore on the present occasion, as I know that his voice would have been heard on the side of sanity and reason—to the effect that if we are going to indulge in the luxury of fighting the House of Commons we ought to fight on favourable ground. The disputes which have taken place between us and the other House have usually been in connection with constitutional questions, or matters connected with property, and as a consequence this House has always been unjustly denounced as

379
the home of prejudice and reaction. I defy any one to argue that we are animated by any such feelings at the present moment. No personal question is involved in this at all. So far as I am concerned, I am not acquainted with a single solitary soul who will be affected by this Bill, and many noble Lords who are in favour of the Amendment that we inserted are in the same position.
The issue is perfectly plain and simple. It is an issue between what is right and what is wrong; between justice and injustice. So strong is our case that it has brought together the strangest and most irreconcilable elements. We have on our side—I am speaking of those who supported the Amendment—the Labour Party, and, so far as I know, the whole of the Bishops. We have every member of the Tribunals that were set up to consider this question, with the exception of one individual; and last night I had the astonishing experience of hearing the official Leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Commons deliberately and ostentatiously thanking God for the presence of the House of Lords—a thing which I never expected to live to hear.
There will be many people beside the official Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons who will, in all probability, thank Providence for our existence if we insist upon the attitude we have taken. I cannot imagine a fight upon a more favourable issue, and I implore noble Lords not to lose this priceless opportunity of demonstrating the real value and independent opinion of this House. I have not the slightest doubt that if we adhere to our position—I have every intention of adhering to it myself, and dividing upon the question—we shall have the support of every fair-minded man in the country.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, at no stage of the discussion of this Bill have the Government Whips been put on in favour of the view which the Government present. I trust that I am right in assuming that there is no intention to-day to put them on in this House. This House, therefore, is in a position to form an entirely independent and unfettered judgment upon this Bill, and I ask for consideration at your hands for a few moments while I lay before you the reasons why I beg you to stand firm to the resolution you have already formed.
380
In the first place, I think it is right to emphasise again the fact that nobody in connection with this measure has ever suggested that it was required in its present form for the purpose of National Defence. No one says that the present form of the Bill is necessary to protect us against the insidious action of hidden foes within our country. Nor has it ever been suggested that the form into which your Lordships changed the Bill would expose this country even to the possibility of peril. The fact that this has not been suggested is sufficient reason why your Lordships should rest assured that, as far as the matter of primary importance is concerned—the protection of this country from enemies within and without—the form into which your Lordships placed this Bill is abundant and adequate for the purpose.
This is also evidenced in a still stronger way by the fact that the Government, in whose hands there must be information of the most secret and intimate kind with regard to the action of aliens in this country, were so convinced that there was not the least need to interfere with them at all that when they first introduced this Bill they made no provision whatever for removing a single one. That is not an oversight, because no Government could possibly so neglect its duty as to omit to introduce into a Bill a provision which was necessary for national safety and upon which they had such an opportunity of private and secret knowledge. It could not have been an oversight, because the clause—not quite in the form in which it comes before your Lordships now, but in a form very closely allied to it (the only difference being that the noble Viscount, Lord Finlay, has lent his great assistance for the purpose of making more reasonable what I do not hesitate to say was a perfectly irrational and unreadable clause)—is the equivalent of the clause as it came from the House of Commons. It was introduced in Committee, so that the Government had their attention called to the fact that this proposal was made. If there could by any chance have been an oversight in the first instance there could be an oversight no longer. And they put down an Amendment in the name of a member of the Government to delete the clause. That was the then considered policy of the Government, and I do not wish to go by way of reproach into the reasons why that policy was changed. It is common knowledge, I believe, that owing to a misunder-

381
standing which occurred in the House of Commons there was a Resolution passed the adoption of which would have caused a breach of faith with one of our Allies. It surely only was wanted that somebody should come down to the House of Commons and explain that there had been this mistake. It is perfectly impossible to believe that any representative assembly in this country, with the knowledge that there had been such a mistake, would have insisted upon adhering to it.
That course was not adopted. The course which was adopted is one which, I think, is full of peril to legislation in this country. The group of people who had been responsible for the Amendment, which the Government quite rightly disliked, had a private interview with some members of the Government—I do not know with whom —at 10 or 9, Downing-street, with the result that the matter came back, the Resolution which had been passed was permitted to be rescinded, and the Government came down in favour of this clause. It is not unimportant or irrelevant to consider those facts when you form your mind upon the need for this clause. So far as the Government are concerned it is clear that they thought there was no need at all to interfere with the 20,000 people who during the war had remained in this country, and who had never had a word said or even whispered against their character.
In those circumstances the Bills came before your Lordships, and it was then pointed out that the clause really was one which both in detail and in principle was extraordinarily unjust. I will not refer to the details again, because it is unnecessary to repeat them, but in principle it was unjust for this reason, that it called upon a very large number of people, scattered all over the country, to make an application founded upon definite grounds which had to be established in order that they might be allowed to remain any longer in this country. People, some of them learned Judges, one at least a very distinguished member of your Lordships' House, and men carefully selected to form Committees, who examined these aliens in the earlier and later stages of the war, pointed out in the White Paper that they attempted when they began their work to arrange categories. They had not got the cast iron categories of an Act of Parliament, and were at liberty to form their own, and they
382
attempted to arrange them, and change them from time to time as circumstances arose, in order to facilitate their work by seeing whether these people could be grouped within definite lists or categories. They abandoned it because they found it was unworkable. They gave it up altogether and were compelled to resort to what, after all, is the only possible thing, and that is the exercise of a wise, and I might add kindly, discretion in such a matter.
When we come to these new clauses I do not want again to trouble your Lordships too much with detail, but just to show you that I am right in saying that you cannot frame a clause to meet all varying circumstances I would refer to this. Take "old age." There is no definition of "old age," and no one can say what it may be. At some time you will have to fix a limit, and then the difficulty begins. But although "old age" is a reason for exemption, "tender age'' is not. If there were children in this country of a German father who had died, those children would be compelled although they were quite children—am I wrong?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I would refer the noble and learned Lord to the words "Residence in His Majesty's Dominions either from early youth or for a long period."
LORD BUCKMASTER: You think that is sufficient? I should hesitate greatly to say that it was. You have put down old age as a special category, but not tender age, and I should doubt whether the children of a father who had come over here, or children of an alien father born here, would be entitled to say that they were exempt because they have been resident "from early youth or for a long period." It is just one of those things which show how difficult the matter is. Another thing which shows the difficulty even better is this: I take the case here, that if an applicant can show that he has rendered service during the war, or had a son serving, he may be exempted. But suppose a woman can show that she has had a brother killed in the war? Is there any suggestion that she could get exemption? Or she may have had two brothers killed. Can she get exemption?
Or take the case of people who have come back here—an English woman who has

383
married an Austrian and comes back here with her children. She herself is outside the section, because she is a British subject, but the children—I don't know what their early youth may be—must satisfy the Court that their mother is a natural born British subject, or else they have got to go back. And remember in all these cases it is these people who have got to apply. In the case which the noble Earl suggested to me, that of residence since early youth, it is these children who have got to make application. Can your Lordships imagine such a thing? They have got to send in their application and establish these facts, and if they do not do it, owing it may be to the slightest oversight, within two months, no power in the world can keep them here. If by any accident the application is omitted, at the end of two months they must be taken away. There is no discretion left in the Secretary of State or any power in anybody to say they may remain. Go they must.
Then, finally, let me point out this. The noble Viscount on the last occasion suggested that the general clause found here with regard to serious hardship will cover all the difficult cases. Let us just see if it will. My Lords, I still think, in spite of what the noble Viscount has said, that when you proceed to consider serious hardship here the tribunal will consider it in relation to the cases of hardship already mentioned. Otherwise, they will say, what was the use of giving all these illustrations if it was intended that the clause should have this wide and liberal interpretation. But serious hardship must mean something more than normal or common hardship. It cannot be just the hardship of sending people back. If a person comes and says "It is very hard to send me back," that is no good. It must be more than that. I ask your Lordships to consider what that may mean. The numbers of the people still left here are given in varying figures from time to time, and no doubt are increased by the number who, having been originally interned, were examined by the 1919 Committee and certified to be perfectly fit to remain, although they were in a worse position than the people left here, because they were interned. There are some 3,000 of them and they are chiefly men. If you deduct those you have from 17,000 to 19,000 left, and 8,000 of those are Austrians. I mention the Austrians because, I state frankly, in considering the case in relation
384
to Austrians there is no fear of having our minds or our judgments distempered by any recollection of the horrors and the brutalities of the war. I doubt if there is a single member of your Lordships' House who has ever been in Austria who has not come back with the kindliest possible recollection of the courtesy and kindness that he met with from the inhabitants. I have never heard any one make a complaint about the general action and conduct of the Austrian people. If ever there was a case when an unhappy nation had to suffer for the sins of its rulers it is the case of the Austrian people. As between ourselves and the Austrians, speaking as a race, there was no racial hatred, there was no racial animosity, and there was not the most trifling cause of dispute. These people have had to suffer because their rulers went mad. 8,000 of these people are here, and it is a small computation to say that 4,000 of them are women.
What has happened? Has anything happened to cause your Lordships to change the opinion that you formed when the Bill was here before? There is only one incident relevant to the whole question that appears to me to have happened, and that is this. In this interval there has been an appeal issued in our papers over some of the most trusted names in the nation, and supported by a personal recommendation from the noble Earl the Leader of this House, urging people of their charity to help the people in Vienna who are dying for want of food. That is what has happened. If instead of considering these 4,000 Austrians individually you take them altogether, you cannot possibly say they are not to go back, but the Bill has said they are. It is said: "What is the serious hardship? It is only the common hardship of having to go to a country where there is no food."Let me ask your Lordships, what will these people say? They will come and say, "No one has made any charge against us. We have lived here five, six, seven years. We have done you no harm. No one says we have. In our own humble way we may have done you good. We beg of you, let us stay. The conditions in Austria are very hard, and in Vienna the very stones cry out for food. Let us stop." You say, "No, it is a general class of case. We are very sorry. We have great personal compassion for you, but there is the Act of Parliament and we have to administer it. We are sorry indeed that you must go."

385
That that must be the case any one who has sat upon the judgment seat cannot fail to know. Again and again when the judge, if it were possible for him to trust to his own feelings, would desire to do something other than that which the strict letter of the law compels, he is bound to repress every feeling of compassion, and all he can say is "I am nothing but an officer to execute the law. The law is this, and it must be obeyed." And so will it be for anybody who administers this Act of Parliament.
I cannot help thinking that your Lordships will consider that nothing has been done, nothing has happened, nothing can be said, to change the opinions which on similar considerations your Lordships deliberately affirmed before. After all there is sorrow and trouble enough for the world, sorrow that we cannot lighten, and trouble that we cannot take away, and there is no reason why we should by deliberate action add one single bit to the vast mountain of sorrow in the world.
I have only one word to say in conclusion. I am asking your Lordships to exercise your powers by adhering to the opinion that you formed, and to differ from the other House. I know quite well that in past times your Lordships have taken this step, and that there have been severe things said about the course that you took. I do not mention this in the least for the purpose of criticism, or of remonstrating with what was then done. I only mention it lest it may be thought that I am false to my own political history when I tell your Lordships that I criticised, and criticised severely, the action that you took. We may have been wrong in this matter but the reason was that given by the noble Lord, Lord Newton. It was said that your Lordships had looked too carefully to the interests of people who had influence and great position. I will not for a moment say a word upon the justice of the case, but I would ask your Lordships to consider what that case is now. These people have no friends, they have no protectors, there is nobody that can stand between them and the inevitable trouble that must come upon them except your Lordships' House. You are not being asked to-day to support people who are powerful, and people who are possessed of great means and great estates. I ask your Lordships for support on behalf of a people who are desolate and oppressed.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords: I should not wish to do anything which would take away the effect of the last words of the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken, words which seem to me must carry absolute conviction to reasonable people as to the broad lines of policy we ought to pursue at such an hour as this. The one point that I wish to dwell upon for a moment is the one that was raised the other day when I was challenged, I think by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cave, whom I do not see here to-day. I then raised the point regarding the application of this proposal to the vast numbers of women who will find themselves under its provisions after having already been distracted by the sorrows and trouble that they have gone through. They will be called upon now to submit to another inquiry and to undergo another investigation. They must find out what they have to do, and they must act within two months.
We were told the other day that if we looked at the Bill we would see that these women were exempted, because they had been before former Commissions, and that they would not have to apply again. But I would point out to your Lordships that in the clause before us now by far the greater part of these women are deliberately and entirely excluded from the benefit of that exemption, because it was at an earlier date and not a later one that they made application to be allowed to remain in this country, and that their cases came before the Commission for decision. The only people exempted under this are those to whom exemption was given by the Committee appointed in January, 1918. I challenge criticism when I say that nearly all the women who received exemption after satisfying the Commission at that time that it would obviously be absurd to deport them will, if this passes, have to go all through this process afresh, because it was not subsequent to 1918 but prior to it that they received the exemption. That seems to me to show either carelessness in the way in which this clause has been drawn in the form in which it comes to us, or a deliberate desire to subject these people to what is really an intolerable hardship in a civilised country. For two years past they have had their position reassured. They have had an assurance that they might stop in this country and make an attempt to earn their livelihood

387
and to do their best, but now they are to be told: "It is quite true that you obtained exemption in 1915 or 1916, but that is no use to you now. You must begin all over again."
Are your Lordships going to take that line either as regards the detail or as regards the fundamental principle? I believe that you are able to fall back upon larger and wider principles than those, the principles which we endeavoured to embody in the Amendment which we carried the other day. Most earnestly do I hope that your Lordships will adhere to the Amendment which we sent down to the Lower House, and I am quite sure if we do so we shall hereafter earn the gratitude of a great many who at this moment, for one reason or the other, may happen to have voted the other way.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, when this matter was before the House in Committee an Amendment was moved by Lord Parmoor to provide that this clause should not affect anybody who had been exempted by any Committee. It was with regard to that that the noble Viscount, Lord Cave, spoke. He anticipated that the Amendment might be passed, and said he saw no harm in subjecting people who had not been before any Committee to the duty of applying now and making out their case. I think the noble Viscount forgot—wonderful it is, because he was Secretary of State at an earlier stage than that—that there were people even more to be pitied, people who had never been before a Committee because their cases had been sifted by the Home Secretary, and it had not been found necessary to put them before a Committee at all. Be that as it may, Lord Cave's speech and his apparent adhesion to the clause was founded, as he deliberately said, on the supposition that the Government and the House of Commons would accept Lord Parmoor's Amendment and exclude anybody who had been before any committee.
This clause, as it stands now, puts everybody, whether they have been before a Committee or not or were not thought necessary to be sent before a Committee— unless they have been before the later Committee—under the obligation of applying to be allowed to remain in this country. I have been accused in the public Press of being a sentimentalist. I almost wish that I could feel that the accusation was just.
388
But I propose to deal with this purely as a hard matter of business. We were told on the Second Reading, if I remember right, that there were 22,000 alien enemies left in this country. I daresay Lord Onslow will be good enough to correct me if I am wrong. I understood there were 5,000; Lord Buckmaster seems to understand that there were 3,000—it does not much matter—who had been before the last Committee. The balance, whether it is 17,000 or 19,000, are now deliberately put in the position of having to apply within the next two months. I will deal in a moment with the hardship of that, but I want to deal now with the business of it. Everybody will no doubt assume that those 17,000, or the greater number of them, will apply. Surely nobody is cynical enough to wish that they should not know and be excluded because through ignorance, or innocence, or illness, or youth, they do not think of applying. We must assume that they will apply, or that nine-tenths of them will. By what time are those 17,000 or, say, 15,000 cases to be dealt with? It will take years before they are completed.
I assume that there are some dangerous aliens in this country; otherwise there is no justification for this clause at all. Who is to know that their cases will be the first, or the second, the hundredth, or will come in the first or second thousand, or the last thousand? While the cases of a number of perfectly innocent and harmless people are being investigated by this Committee, the really dangerous people would be back in the fourteenth, fifteenth, or sixteenth thousand, and would be enjoying immunity.
The clause, as your Lordships sent it down to the House of Commons, put the thing in a perfectly business shape. Anybody against whom any credible person thought there was a case could be at once brought before a Committee, which would not be glutted but would be able to dispose of the case and get rid of that man at once. This clause as it stands, in order to make a kind of indictment against a nation and to justify a feeling of rancour, puts upon everybody the duty of applying, with the result that the real sinners will probably escape in the crowd or, at any rate, will not have their cases determined for years.
In two months they must apply. Therefore, if any cases of hardship arise Parliament will not be sitting and it will not be possible to remedy this. Some poor boy

389
or girl who has just reached the age of sixteen, who has forgotten or does not know, or is in a remote part of the country as a little servant perhaps to somebody, or an orphan, and makes no application in the two months, goes out, and no power can save them, not even Parliament, because Parliament will not be sitting. It is not the rogues who will be hit by this, nor the mischievous people. They will be alive, and will get their cases postponed for months. It is the simple, innocent people who were children, perhaps, when the war began and only attained the age of sixteen while the war was on, people in sick beds, I suppose even insane people, who will not make their applications and will be ousted under this provision.
Either there is a real distinction between our clause and the Commons clause or there is not. Either it is intended by the Commons clause to send away a great number of people whom our clause would retain, or it is not. Who are the people who would be sent away under the Commons clause, and who will not be sent away under ours? They are, first of all, these poor people who will not have applied in time and for whom there is no locus pœnitentiœ secondly, they are people who may be perfectly harmless but who cannot bring themselves within this clause; and, thirdly, people who will stay for months if not for years and may be the very people your Lordships, the Commons, and the whole nation want to get rid of.
VISCOUNT FINLAY: My Lords, there was no antagonism between the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Newton and that which stood in my name. My Amendment was designed to improve the Bill on the lines on which your Lordships had to deal with it. I have no sympathy with the desire for wholesale deportation. Personally, to speak with perfect frankness, I should have preferred that there should have been no such clause in the Bill. I will go further and say that when Lord Newton's Amendment was carried it was not at all unwelcome to me, for this reason—that I thought it provided a sort of euthanasia for the clause which has given rise to so much discussion.
But on looking at Lord Newton's Amendment, I confess that I am very much struck by the great evil which it might give rise to. Will your Lordships consider what is
390
the effect of the words? I am reading from the clause as amended on the Motion of my noble friend, Lord Newton—
"This section shall apply to any former enemy alien now in the United Kingdom as to whom there shall be delivered to the Secretary of State within two months after the passing of this Act a statement in writing signed by any credible person to the effect that the continued residence of that alien is, for reasons relating to the alien, undesirable in the public interest"
and giving particulars. What a weapon that is for the blackmailer!—that with regard to any person in this country who, falls within the terms of the clause his residence here may be brought in peril by any credible person who takes this action.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Within two months—a short period.
VISCOUNT FINLAY: Yes, it would be notice to those who desired to prosecute that branch of activity to be quick about it. But I do say that surely it is almost unexampled, and likely to be attended with the most disastrous consequences, if an invitation is extended to any credible person to send in an information which may cause such very serious disquiet and discomfort. What a credible person is I do not know. It is so vague that I suppose that among those who desired for some improper reason to put forward a case of this kind there would be very few who could not get some person who would not pass muster as a credible person to send in the information. Surely, under these circumstances, one ought to be very cautious about putting on the Statute Book a provision which invites, indeed which encourages informations of this kind, and, which, I think, every one with any experience of the criminal law would say is liable to the most serious abuse. If it could be amended by providing that the information should be "fiated" by some responsible person it would be another matter.
THE EARL OF READING: Is not the effect of making the statement by the credible witness that there is an inquiry by the Committee?
LORD BUCKMASTER: Yes.
THE EARL OF READING: Then I do not quite follow what the effect of the blackmailer would be.
VISCOUNT FINLAY: Beyond all question it is an inquiry, but if a man lets it be understood that he is going to set an inquiry in motion unless he receives blackmail, will not that be a most formidable weapon to anyone who wishes to cause annoyance in the hope of making something out of it? I think it is a very dangerous thing indeed, and I think it will be very desirable that it should be guarded by providing some guarantee for the bona fides of the person by a fiat from some public authority, or something of that kind. I have felt it my duty to call attention to that aspect of Lord Newton's Amendment which, in other respects, I was rather inclined to welcome when it was passed. My own Amendment was intended to put the Bill, on the lines on which we had to deal with it, rather in a better position, and I think the Commons, by adopting that, have shown that they realise that to some extent it would have that effect. I think that the noble and learned Lord Lord Buck-master is still a great deal inclined to undervalue the effect of the clause about serious hardship being occasioned to the person to be deported or to his family who are to be deported with him. The clause is one which would have, in my view, a very extensive operation. I think there is a great danger in the Amendment which was proposed and carried by Lord Newton, at the same time I recognise that it would to a very great extent, if that evil could be guarded against, prevent what might be unnecessary hardship to a great many people.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am sure the whole House has listened with deep interest to the speech of the noble and learned Viscount. We really needed no assurance from him that he was not in favour of the wholesale deportation of these unfortunate people. Nobody who knows him could suppose that he would be. But a great many people are, and it is some of those who are at the back of those changes which have been made in the Bill as sent down to the House of Commons from your Lordships. On the special point raised by the noble and learned Viscount it will be, of course, for the House to consider whether the particular danger which he anticipated from the wording of the clause as moved by my noble friend Lord Newton is serious enough to make us desire to amend it further. By the rules of the House, as your Lordships know, it is open to us now to amend that
392
clause of ours, if we so desire. But I understood from the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, that the danger is not apparent to all those with the most highly trained legal minds. This provision for the intervention of the credible person was inserted, as your Lordships will remember, in order to reassure those who were afraid that, unless some such provision were made, dangerous people might slip through the net. So far as I am concerned I should have been quite content if only those had to be brought before the Advisory Committee who were considered by the Police to have a record which made that desirable. But the wider provision was, as I say, inserted in order to satisfy those who feared that some dangerous people might conceivably escape.
On the general question I merely wish to repeat that I trust your Lordships will insist upon the Bill in the form in which it left this House to go to another place. I have not been able, as it happened, to read the discussion which took place there, and I do not know in what spirit it was conducted or on what arguments the Commons' insistence upon the original form of the Bill was founded. We all have to judge of these matters for ourselves, and I am glad to know that His Majesty's Government take the view that every man in your Lordships' House must act on his own conscience in this matter without reference to the political Party to which he belongs. I can only say—and I hope I am not given to the use of excessive language in your Lordships' House—that during the thirty-five years that I have had a seat in this House I regard this as the most degrading proposition to which I have been asked to assent. And, that being so, the course that I have to take is perfectly clear.
Noble Lords no doubt may take an entirely different view quite conscientiously. But the proposed action, the effects of which have been so clearly described in moving terms by my noble and learned friend (Lord Buckmaster), appears to me to be so cowardly in itself and to bear with it the possibility of such needless cruelty to individuals, that I for one could never forgive myself if I did not record a vote against the proposition which has come to us from the other House. Like my noble and learned friend, I am not likely to be one of those who enjoy controversy with the House of Commons for its own sake—though I have seen your Lordships

393
engaged in it from time to time. But when you come to what is not merely a matter of taste but a matter of conscience and of profound belief, it appears to me that we have no choice whatever.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I desire to add only two sentences to what has been already so well said by many of your Lordships. I am almost in hopes that this decision may be a unanimous one of your Lordships' House. I say so for two reasons. I do not want to say anything in the least disrespectful of the other House of Parliament—I was a Member of it too long not to have a great affection for the House of Commons—but there are two reasons why I think we may properly insist on our Amendment. The first has appeared only during the course of the discussion which has taken place in your Lordships' House—I mean the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Finlay. It is clear that the House of Commons were very much impressed by my noble and learned friend's Amendment which he would have submitted to your Lordships when it was formally before us; so much that they themselves inserted his Amendment in the Bill. They may have thought—they do not know my noble and learned friend as well as we do—that he was one of those who were in favour of the kind of treatment which is suggested by Clause 9 as it left the House of Commons, only in a better form. My noble and learned friend is known to be a man of such sober judgement and of such influence amongst conservative-minded men, that this may have had a great deal of influence on the vote of the House of Commons. But we now know, and the House of Commons now know, that so far from this being the view of my noble and learned friend he takes precisely the contrary view and would go so far as to say that he would have been glad if Clause 9 had not appeared in the Bill at all. That seems to me to make a substantial change in the position.
The other reason is that there undoubtedly was at the time of the General Election, and there remained in the feelings of some Members of the House of Commons, a sentiment which is fast disappearing from public opinion outside. There was the feeling—very natural, perhaps, in the circumstances—at the end of the war, whilst all the acute sensation of it was still upon us, that something drastic of this kind ought to be done. But the
394
country has had time to consider since then. This country is not a vindictive country. Our people are merciful; they have no desire to attack these unfortunate women and to drive them to Austria to be starved. We are here to correct the effect of impulses which are not the permanent convictions of the people but only a passing phase of their opinion. That is one of our great functions. It is because in doing so we should perform that function that I would join my humble voice to those which have gone before in asking your Lordships to adhere to the Amendment.
On Question, Motion negatived.
Moved, That this House doth insist upon the Amendment in page 5, lines 11 and 23, and doth disagree with the Commons in their Amendment to the Lords Amendment. —(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth also insist upon the Amendment in page 5, line 26, and doth disagree with the Commons in their Amendment to the Lords Amendment.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSING (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause (1):
Provision for payment of money to persons constructing houses.
1. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act the Minister of Health (in this Act referred to as "the Minister") may, in accordance with schemes made by him with the approval of the Treasury, make grants out of moneys providedby Parliament to any persons or bodies of persons constructing houses.
(2) Grants under this section shall be made only in respect of houses—

(a) which comply with the conditions pre-scribed by the Minister and are in material accordance with the conditions as to the number of houses per acre and the standards of structural

395
stability and sanitation approved by the Minister in the case of any scheme carried out by a local authority under section one of the Housing, Town Planning, &c. Act, 1919;

(b) which are entitled by the local authority of the area in which the houses are situate, or on appeal by the Minister, to have been completed in a proper and workmanlike manner;

(c) the construction of which is begun within twelve months after the passing of this Act and which are completed within that period or such further period not exceeding four months as the Minister may in any special case allow:

Provided that a proportionate reduction of the grant shall be made in respect of any house which is not completed within the said period of twelve months unless the Minister is satisfied that the failure to complete the house within that period is due to circumstances over which the person constructing the house had no control.
Any person aggrieved by the refusal or neglect of a local authority to grant a certificate under this subsection in respect of any house may appeal to the Minister, and if the Minister is satisfied that the house has been completed in a proper and workmanlike manner he shall certify accordingly.
(3) In so far as the provisions of any building byelaws are inconsistent with the conditions prescribed by the Minister under this section, those provisions shall not apply in respect of any houses which comply with those conditions:
Provided that, as regards the administrative county of London, the Minister shall not prescribe any conditions inconsistent with the provisions of any building byelaws in force in the county except after consultation with the London County Council on the general question of the relaxation of such provisions in connection with housing schemes.
In this Act the expression "building byelaws" has the same meaning as in Part I. of the Housing, Town Planning, &c. Act, 1919.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (a). The noble Earl said: I have put down this Amendment in order to raise what I think is a very important point, and to get an explanation from my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill. This Bill has been introduced because the first Housing Bill has broken down. Why did that Bill break down? I say that it broke down largely for two reasons, though not for those reasons only. The first cause of the failure of the original Bill was the interminable delay, friction, and subsequent expense, of having to refer every plan up to the Ministry of Health. I do not think it is possible to enlarge too much on the consequences of having to receive the consent of
396
the Ministry of Health to every plan, to every arrangement connected with those plans, to every amendment of those plans, thus involving interminable delay, which delay means friction and expense.
The second main reason for the failure of the original Bill were the conditions of building, the specifications, laid down by the Ministry of Health. I hope that the House will bear that in mind and understand exactly what I mean. I am speaking particularly of the action of the Ministry of Health in respect of building in the country districts. Others may speak about the town; I will speak about the country districts.
I think there is no dispute that under the specifications of the Ministry of Health you could not build a house in the country districts for a less sum than £690. After the period of grace had elapsed and the local authority had been recouped by the Treasury that proportion of the original cost which the nation was to bear, it remained the duty of the local authority to charge an economic rent for the cottages so built. The result was that in a country district the economic rent of one of these cottages would not be less than £40 a year. £40 a year for an agricultural labourer! The thing is perfectly preposterous. £40 a year is something like 15 s. a week, for an agricultural labourer earning from 35 s. to 45 s. a week.
You would have thought that in the face of these figures the Ministry of Health would have altered its specifications. Not at all. It still went on with the absurd "parrot cry"—"These are the specifications to which you are to build. You are to charge an economic rent." The only possible result was that the local authorities could only build houses for persons other than labourers, and the whole immense want of the labouring class for fresh houses in the agricultural districts would have remained unsatisfied. I thought that the whole duty of this new scheme was that we had got rid of the Ministry of Health. I thought we had got rid of the interminable correspondence and the interminable delays caused by their specifications. I thought the intention of the Act was that if a builder could comply with the local bye-laws of the authority where he lived, then he was free to get the benefit of the Act and to build a house.
But, by the words of Clause 1, the whole interference of the Ministry of Health is reintroduced—
"Grants under this section shall be made only in respect of houses—(a) which comply with the conditions prescribed by the Minister—"
That is bad enough, but then you go on to fresh words which were not in the original Bill and were inserted, most unfortunately, in Committee in the House of Commons—
"and are in material accordance with the conditions as to the number of houses per acre—"
Nobody minds that, of course. This is what I object to—
"and the standards of structural stability and sanitation approved by the Minister in the case of any scheme carried out by a local authority—"
and so on. What I want to ask my noble friend is this. Under the words "conditions prescribed" in line 12 and "standards of structural stability and sanitation" in line 15, may not the whole paraphernalia of the specifications which have broken down be re-introduced, and may not this scheme break on exactly the same rock on which the old scheme broke? I hope my noble friend will not tell me that no good houses can be built except according to the specifications of the Ministry of Health, because I should be obliged, if he did say so, most respectfully, but flatly, to contradict him.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am not going to say so.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I knew my noble friend would not do so. We know that the country swarms with excellent houses which do not comply with these specifications. I may say that in my own local district, at the very time when the local authority was finding itself quite unable to build a house for a labourer under the specifications of the Ministry of Health, it passed plans for at least one house which a labourer proposed to build for himself, a house which did comply with the local bye-laws, and which was built at a cost within the means of a man who had saved £300 or £400. I move this Amendment in order to raise this question and to get an explanation as to the true bearing and meaning of these words, and, I hope, an assurance that they do not imply that the Ministry of Health would be able to interfere in this scheme in the way they would have interfered in the last.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 18.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The criticism of my noble friend has been directed generally against the Ministry of Health and to the specification and conditions which have been laid down and which, according to his statement, have checked building under the impulse of the local authorities. I think it is rather hard that the Ministry of Health should be attacked in this respect, because the words, as he knows, as they appeared in the original draft of the Bill went so far as the word "Minister"— "which comply with the conditions prescribed by the Minister."
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Part of his argument was this—that he accepted those words. He did not quarrel with them; he wants to leave them in.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Which words?
VISCOUNT PEEL: The words "which comply with the conditions prescribed by the Minister." You are prepared to leave them in, are you not?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I want an explanation.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will do my best to give an explanation. I was only dealing with the Amendment and pointing out that it does not propose to omit these words, but proposes to leave them in.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: No, no. My Amendment is "Page 1, line 12, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 18."
VISCOUNT PEEL: You want to leave out the whole of paragraph (a). That is rather wider than I understood the noble Earl intended to move.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am prepared to modify the Amendment, if necessary.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Anyhow, the great bulk of this paragraph to which my noble friend objects—and I understand he does

399
not object so much to the number of houses per acre, and so on—
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: No.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The words "the standards of structural stability and sanitation approved by the Minister in the case of any scheme carried out by a local authority," etc., were not introduced by the Minister. They were introduced by the House of Commons. They were forced by the House of Commons on the Minister, and really it is rather hard to blame the Minister for seeking powers which might strangle the building of houses, when it is the House of Commons which insisted on them.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I said that.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I know the noble Earl did. I want to lay emphasis on the fact that they were not so much introduced as forced upon the Minister by a combination of Parties—a very strong combination of Parties—in the House of Commons. Why did they do it? I understand the reason was this. After all they are, officially and technically, the guardians of the finances of this country, and they were, of course, anxious that these subsidies—very unusual subsidies, varying from £160 to £140 a house—should be given in respect of houses that were properly built. It was their duty, in fact, to insist that the subsidy should only be given where these houses were suitable as regards sanitation and structure. What I understand they meant by the amendment was that they did not want to tie houses built by local builders to the detailed specifications which may be necessary in the case of buildings erected by local authorities; at the same time they did not want them to fall below the kind of standard set.
There is plenty of elasticity in the scheme. The mere fact that the words are "standards of structural stability and sanitation" does not tie them to all the details which the noble Earl has said have proved dangerous and deleterious to the building of houses. It is certainly the intention that the conditions prescribed by the Minister should be of a simple nature, and in very plain language, so that these local builders, who have not a great knowledge of elaborate specifications, may know beforehand quite clearly the conditions under which they will obtain the
400
grant. That is the considered statement of the Ministry of Health.
I hope my noble friend will not press for the omission of these words. The House of Commons is, I suppose, quite as distrustful as the noble Earl of Ministers and Governments. It would not be so difficult for the noble Earl to obtain what he desires if he was only fighting the Ministry of Health. But he is not. It is sometimes suggested that the House of Commons is too subservient to the wishes of Ministers, but when the House of Commons does take a matter into its own power and decides that certain things should be done I am afraid the noble Earl will be up against a far more formidable obstacle than if he was dealing with the Ministry of Health alone.
Even if he succeeded in pressing this upon your Lordships' House I cannot, from the information which comes to me, hold out the slightest hope that the House of Commons would not stand by the words which it inserted in order to safeguard the payment of these subsidies. I suggest further that they are not really so handicapping and imprisoning as the noble Earl suggests, but that they do leave considerable latitude. They combine general structural standards with much elasticity as regards details. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have great sympathy with the Members of the House of Commons who are anxious that the money which is to be advanced by the Treasury for these houses should not be misapplied. We are all of course in favour of that policy. The noble Viscount has properly said that it is the special function of the House of Commons to protect the taxpayer's money, but what we have to consider is how we are going to get the housing question out of the "Slough of Despond." The situation is very serious. Your Lordships have heard it ad nauseam. And the reason why it is serious is, that there does not appear to be any chance of the houses being built at such a figure that any possibility of an economic rent remains.
We are afraid that these words, if they stand, are an invitation to the Ministry of Health, almost an obligation upon the Department, to lay down all sorts of conditions—in themselves ideal conditions which, if the money were unlimited and the

401
opportunity were open to us, we should all desire to have—which will shipwreck this scheme just as the last scheme was shipwrecked. That would be a thousand pities. We want to make the scheme as elastic as we can. The noble Viscount has rather taken credit that the clause, with regard to the standards of stability, is so vague. I do not think myself that is a very good recommendation for any clause in an Act of Parliament.
VISCOUNT PEEL: "General," I think I said.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes. Perhaps the noble Viscount did. May I say that in my judgment it is a very vague clause, and such clauses are always objectionable in an Act of Parliament. You may give great liberty and discretion but you should not use language of the meaning of which you are not perfectly certain. I do not know what "material accordance" really means. It is an extremely vague phrase.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I suggest it is an "elastic" phrase.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The rules, if there are rules, of the Department may be left to their discretion, but to put in "material accordance" as well seems to me to be piling one vagueness upon the top of another. I do not admire the drafting of the clause. What I want to impress on your Lordships and on the Government, is that this "standards of structural stability" contains a tremendous pitfall. I do not know whether the metaphor is quite apt. But building, very accurate building, is expensive. The kind of building which the ordinary local builder adopts, and of which many landlords avail themselves, is quite good enough and relatively cheap. A house built on this standard will last 100 or 150 years. We do not want any more than that: we do not want to build for Eternity.
It is these "standards of structural stability" which are so very dangerous. If you say that a wall must be absolutely plumb, scientifically plumb, you add enormously to the expense. I know this because I have seen it with my own eyes in the work on my own estate, and if you want to be economical you must allow the local builder not to build badly but to build after his own standard, or you will not get
402
a cheap house. I very much dread that these words would seem to indicate to the Ministry of Health to draw up all sorts of rules, make these people adhere very rigidly to them, with the result that you would have nothing but expense again, and your new Bill would fail just as your last Bill failed. Those are the reasons why I suggest to the Government that the clause would be much better without these words. We are all in favour of limiting the number of houses to the acre. There is no pitfall there at all. That is nothing but good, but when you come to the "standards of stability and sanitation" you are upon a road which leads to expense. I hope the noble Viscount will reconsider these words before we part with the Bill.
VISCOUNT PEEL: May I ask the noble Marquess a question. Does he really want to leave out the whole of subsection (2) (a), or merely the words after the word "Minister"?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: May I answer for my noble friend. There are many opinions about the ideal number of cubic feet required in a room, and a very little expansion of the standard makes a most enormous difference to the cost of building. I have the same fear with regard to the matter of cubic feet under the head of sanitation as my noble friend has about building. I therefore propose to withdraw the Amendment as moved, and then to move to leave out the word "material'' and also the words "and the standard of structural stability and sanitation." The clause will then read: "which comply with the conditions prescribed by the Minister and are in accordance with the conditions as to the number of houses per acre approved by the Minister in the case of any scheme."
VISCOUNT PEEL: I quite recognise that that is of course a considerable modification of the Amendment moved by my noble friend first of all, but I think we have to see then what is left. We have to recollect that these grants are to be made to private builders. The houses must first of all "comply with the conditions prescribed by the Minister"—That is left in, and I think it is esential—and "are in accordance with the conditions." I am inclined to think, speaking off-hand, that the noble Earl rather strengthens the clause against himself, because to say "in accord

403
ance with the conditions" seems to be rather stricter than to say "in material accordance." The latter gives more elasticity.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The great objection to the word "material" is that nobody quite knows what it means.
VISCOUNT PEEL: We very often do not know what words in an Act of Parliament mean, but I do not know that that is a great objection.
A NOBLE LORD: It is the lawyer's opportunity.
VISCOUNT PEEL: If you cut out these words all that is left is the condition as to the number of houses per acre and (b) "which are certified by the local authority of the area in which the houses are situate … to have been completed in a proper and workmanlike manner." Therefore in order to get the grant all that is needed, apparently, is that they shall be completed in a proper and workmanlike manner. Is that enough to obtain the grant? You might have a house completed in a workmanlike manner whose sanitation left everything to be desired, or which might be quite insufficient as regards floor space or window space. Proper and workmanlike manner only means that the work of actually laying the bricks, and so on, is properly done.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: They cannot do the work except in accordance with the by-laws of the local authority.
VISCOUNT PEEL: A noble Lord said you must look at (b), and I was examining (b).
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: There are by-laws in subsection (3) in addition. Subsection (3) reads: "In so far as the provisions of any by-laws are inconsistent with the conditions prescribed by the Minister under this section, those provisions shall not apply in respect of any houses which comply with those conditions." Therefore they do otherwise apply. You have, first of all, the conditions; then (b); and then the by-laws.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think all I can say is this, that these particular words were laid great stress upon in the House of Commons.
404
They do not, as far as I can understand them, constitute any very great restriction, or too severe a restriction, on the building of these houses, because they have been attacked from two different points of view. Lord Selborne criticised the clause because in his opinion it would stifle building, imprison building, and impose restrictions which were too severe; but Lord Salisbury took rather a different view, and objected on the grounds that the clause was too vague. On the one hand we are told that they are too general, and on the other hand that they are too restrictive, and surely these two criticisms proceed from rather contradictory points of view. I would urge upon the noble Earl that he should not press this Amendment even in its restricted form. These words were looked upon as the real conditions—and I wish to impress this upon your Lordships—under which the House of Commons, without distinction of party, was prepared to give these grants. If these words are omitted in this way I cannot hold out to your Lordships even the slightest hope that the House of Commons will not be adamant upon these conditions, which they believe they have got the right to impose because they are the House which grants the money for the building of these houses. I trust, therefore, that even although some of your Lordships may think these conditions too severe, you will in this case be content to let the whole responsibility for failure of success, if there is failure, rest upon the other House which grants the money and is justified in imposing the conditions.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I quite see that my noble friend is in a difficulty. We all want to get the houses. Is it not possible that if you lay down the particular standard which the Minister has had to lay down you will not get the houses, because that standard cannot be universal for the whole country. Would it not be better to leave out these words and then provide under paragraph (b) that when the local authority have to give their certificate they should not merely certify that the houses are built in a proper and workmanlike manner but also certify that they are of proper structural stability. Otherwise the question of structural stability will not have been considered, apparently, at all, if the words are taken out of (a).
VISCOUNT PEEL: There is the question of sanitation too. Is there very much

405
advantage in transferring these words from (a) to (b) because there is the certificate of the local authority that they come up to the standard of structural stability, and then there is an appeal to the Minister.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: "On appeal by the Minister." I think there is a great advantage in that.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Is the other Amendment withdrawn, and then this further Amendment suggested?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: You have to carry my Amendment first of all.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In the interest of order, I suggest that we begin by striking out the word "material"
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The Amendments standing in my name to Clause 1 are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("carried out") and insert ("submitted")
Page 2, line 12, leave out ("is") and insert ("was")
Page 2, line 29, leave out ("housing schemes") and insert ("the construction of houses under this Act").—(Viscount Peel.)
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
and the words "and the standards of structural stability and sanitation." We shall be in a position afterwards to discuss what words should be put into paragraph (b).
VISCOUNT PEEL: The feeling is so strong in another place that I should not be justified in accepting that proposal.
Original Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("material").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, whether the word proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 28.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Finlay, V.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Peel, V.

Newton, L.

Bradford, E.

Phillimore, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Ranksborough, L.

Craven, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Shandon, L.

Eldon, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Sinha, L.

Onslow, E.

Clwyd, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Reading, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Strafford, E.

Ernle, L.

Wavertree, L.

Faringdon, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Hylton, L.

Churchill, V.

Knaresborough, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Crewe, M.

Ampthill, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Linlithgow, M.

Avebury, L.

Lamington, L.

Salisbury, M.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Lawrence, L.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Clinton, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry)

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Rotherham, L.

Downham, L.

Ruthven of Gowrie, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Ebury, L.

Saltoun, L.

Selborne, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Southborough, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L. [Teller.]

Erskine, L. [Teller.]

Chaplin, V.

Harris, L.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 2:
VISCOUNT PEEL: The Amendment to this clause standing in my name is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 2, after ("under") insert ("the preceding section of").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
VISCOUNT PEEL: This Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 25, leave out ("and").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
VISCOUNT PEEL: The first Amendment to this clause standing in my name is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 1, after the first ("construction") insert ("within their area").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: There is an Amendment which unfortunately is not on the Paper, and it is proposed in order to meet the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Churchill. The words are: to insert in subsection 1 after "buildings" ["any works or buildings"] the words "other than works or buildings authorised or required by, under, or in pursuance of any Act of Parliament." The point was raised by my noble friend Lord Churchill that railway companies and other bodies might not be able to get on with their work if they were subject to these restrictions. The restrictions were never intended to apply to railway companies and statutory bodies. I move the insertion of these words in order to meet his objection.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 1, after ("buildings") insert ("other than works or buildings authorised or required by, under, or in pursuance of any Act of Parliament").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next Amendments on the Paper in my name are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 12, after ("appeal") insert ("consisting of five persons")
Page 4, line 13, leave out ("consisting of five persons who") and insert ("which shall")
Page 5, lines 2 and 3, leave out ("on the Table of the House for twenty-one days") and insert ("before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Prohibition on demolition of dwelling-houses.
6. If any person at any time after the third day of December, nineteen hundred and nineteen, without the permission in writing of the local authority within whose area the house is situate, demolishes, in whole or in part, or uses otherwise than as a dwelling-house any house which was at that date in the opinion of the local authority reasonably fit or reasonably capable of being made fit for human habitation, he shall be liable on summary conviction in respect of each house demolished or so used to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such imprisonment and fine, and where the person guilty of an offence under this section is a company, every director and officer of the company shall be guilty of the like offence unless he proves that the act constituting the offence took place without his consent or connivance.
In this section the expression "dwelling-house" means a building constructed or adapted to be used wholly or principally for human habitation.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, after "reasonably capable," to leave out "of being made," and insert "without reconstruction of being rendered." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment was put down in order to meet my noble friend Lord Midleton, and it makes it clear that Clause 6 does not apply to a house that is not capable, without reconstruction, of being fit for human occupation. Therefore this clause does not over-ride the protection given to an owner of any such house by Section 28 of the recent Act.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have a manuscript Amendment. I wish to insert a new subsection which runs:—"Any person to whom permission to demolish a house has been refused by a local authority under this section may appeal to the Minister on the ground that the house is not capable without reconstruction of being rendered fit for human habitation, and any such appeal shall be dealt with in the same manner as an appeal under subsection (2) of the preceding section of this Act."
I think Lord Midleton will see that this subsection covers, though not entirely, the ground which I think is covered by his Amendment on the separate Paper. The noble Viscount has an Amendment there in these words: "(2) Any person aggrieved by a refusal by a local authority to permit the demolition, or use otherwise than as a dwelling-house, of any house may appeal to the Minister, and any such appeal shall be dealt with as an appeal under sub-

409
section (2) of section five of this Act." The noble Viscount will see that my Amendment does meet his point as to demolition, although it does not give an appeal on the use otherwise than as a dwelling-house. I hope that my noble friend will be content with my Amendment, because I am advised that if appeals are allowed on the more general point "otherwise than a dwelling-house" they may give rise to a great number of appeals and render it lather difficult of administration.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I think the noble Viscount's Amendment fairly meets the point as regards the appeal, but I do not understand him to abandon his own new subsection (2) which is most important.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I intend to put that.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, after line 18, insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL had an Amendment on the Paper to insert the following new subsection: "(2) Notwithstanding anything in this section the permission of the local authority shall not be required in the case of any house the demolition of which is required or authorised by or under any Act of Parliament, or which is used otherwise than as a dwelling-house for any statutory purposes." The noble Viscount said: I beg to move my new subsection, if I may, with one slight drafting change—that is to say, after "or authorised" to insert "by under or in pursuance of any Act of Parliament" which makes it clear.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 21, at end insert:
"(2) Notwithstanding anything in this section the permission of the local authority shall not be required in the case of any house the demolition of which is required or authorised by under or in pursuance of any Act of Parliament, or which is used otherwise than a dwelling-house for any statutory purpose."—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Powers of borrowing for purpose of Housing Acts.
7.—(1) A local authority (including a county Council) may, with the conesnt of the Minister,
410
borrow any sums which they have power to borrow for the purpose of the Housing Acts, 1890 to 1919, by the issue of bonds (in this Act referred to as "local bonds") in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(2) A county council may lend to any local authority within their area any money which that authority have power to borrow for the purposes of the Housing Acts, 1890 to 1919, and may, with the sanction of the Minister and irrespective of any limit of borrowing, raise the money required for the purpose either by the issue of local bonds under this section or by a loan subject to the like conditions and in the like manner as any other loan raised for the purpose of their powers and duties, and subject in either case to any conditions which the Minister may by general or special order impose.
(3) The provisions set out in the Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to local bonds.
(4) Where on an application made by two or more local authorities the Minister is satisfied that it is expedient that those authorities should have power to make a joint issue of local bonds, the Minister may by order make such provisions as appears to him necessary for the purpose, and any such order shall provide for the securing of the bonds issued upon the joint rates, property and revenues of the authorities.
The provisions of any such order shall have effect as if they were contained in a Provisional Order made under section two hundred and seventy-nine of the Public Health Act, 1875.
(5) Any local authority by whom any local bonds have been issued may without the consent of the Minister borrow for the purpose of redeeming those bonds.
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON moved, at the end of subsection (1), to add the following new subsection—
"(2) A county council or any statutory committee thereof may, with the consent of the minister, borrow any sums which they have power to borrow for the purpose of the provision of houses for persons in their employment or paid by them by the issue of local bonds in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is brought forward because, as your Lordships are aware, county councils have to do a large amount of housing on their own account for the purposes of roadmen and policemen, and although some county councils are doing it through the housing authorities, the district councils, a large proportion of them are building their own. This Amendment was drafted by, and I move it on behalf of, the County Councils Association. The Association want to make it perfectly clear that county councils are going to get the financial benefit of this Bill for their cottages. I can hardly believe that it is the intention of the Government to do anything else. On the other hand, they do not think that the Bill is clear on the point, and they want it to be per-

411
fectly clear that the county councils are going to get the financial benefits of borrowing for the purpose of housing their own employees. Considering the large sums they have to spend and that the Report of the Committee on which this Bill is founded recommends that county councils shall do the borrowing for the district councils, I can hardly believe that the Government leave any other intention.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 26, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My noble friend does not in this case attribute undue intelligence to the Government. He has correctly stated their intention. The clause was originally rather differently drafted, but now it entirely meets the purpose which my noble friend desires it should.
LORD MONK BRETTON: In those circumstances I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 23, leave out ("made") and insert ("granted").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10:
Acquisition of land for purpose of garden cities or town-planning schemes.
10—(1) Where the Minister is satisfied that any local authority (including a county council) or two or more local authorities jointly, or any authorised association, are prepared to purchase and develop any land as a garden city (including a garden suburb or a garden village), or for the purpose of a town-planning scheme for the area in which the land is situate, in accordance with a scheme approved by the Minister, and have funds available for the purpose, he may with the consent of the Treasury and after consultation with the Board of Trade, the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Minister of Transport, acquire that land on behalf of the authority or association either by compulsion or by agreement in any case in which it appears to him necessary or expedient so to do for the purpose of securing the development of the land as aforesaid, and may for that purpose exercise any of the powers of a local authority in relation to the acquisition of land
412
under the Housing Acts, 1890 to 1919, and may do all such things as may be necessary to vest the land so acquired in the local authority or association.
(2) In this section "authorised association" means any society, company or body of persons approved by the Minister whose objects include the promotion, formation, or management of garden cities (including garden suburbs, and garden villages), and the erection, improvement or management of buildings for the working classes and others, which does not trade for profit or whose constitution forbids payment of any interest or dividend at a higher rate than six per centum per annum.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON had on the Paper an Amendment in subsection (1), after "are prepared to purchase and develop any land" to insert "in regard to which a town-planning scheme may be made." The noble Viscount said: This is one of the cases of doubtful language which my noble friend Lord Salisbury alluded to a few minutes ago. According to this clause, where the Minister is satisfied that any local authority (including a county council) are prepared to purchase and develop land as a garden city, he is to set to work to get that land for them, and for that purpose he may use any of the powers of the local authority. I am quite sure that the intention of the Government is that any land which these persons are to be allowed to seize should only be land which could have been seized in a similar way in regard to a town planning scheme, and I think it would make it much clearer if at the outset, and without references to other Acts of Parliament, it was made clear that under this clause they can do nothing which they were not empowered to do in regard to the seizure of land for a town planning scheme.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think this Amendment would rather unduly restrict the operation of the clause, because the noble Viscount wishes to apply the town planning limitations to the acquisition of land for garden cities. If he was, prepared to move the words after the second "or" in line 32 I should be ready to accept such an amendment.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Is it intended that any land, no matter what the restrictions which have been put upon it by Act of Parliament for any purpose, may be taken for a garden city?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Obviously the words would be wider than land which is aimed

413
at by the limitations that define what town planning means. Because otherwise it might be confined to entirely undeveloped land, and it might be necessary for the purpose of garden cities to take land which was to some extent developed.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Let me put a case. It is not at present open to any authority to say—"I intend to have a garden city. I will take So-and-So's path" and proceed to do so, after only going through a certain formula. Is it not possible under this clause to do something which was not possible before?
VISCOUNT PEEL: The clause is simply for this purpose. When local authorities or authorised associations not only desire to take land for the purpose of garden cities but also show that they are financially able to take it for that purpose, it enables the Minister to act as their agent, and merely as their agent, for the purpose of acquiring the particular land.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I agree to the noble Viscount's alteration.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 32, after the second ("or") insert ("in regard to which a town-planning scheme may be made").—(Viscount Midleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL had on the Paper two Amendments, the first, in subsection (1), to leave out "and may for that purpose exercise any of the powers" down to and including "1890 to 1919;" and the second, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection—
("(2) The provisions of the Housing Acts, 1890 to 1919, relating to the powers of a local authority to acquire land for the purposes of Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, shall apply for the purpose of the acquisition of land by the minister under this section, and the minister in exercising his powers of acquiring land under this section shall be subject to the same conditions as are applicable to the acquisition of land under the Housing Acts, 1890 to 1919, by a local authority.
"(3) A local authority shall have power to acquire land for the purposes of a scheme approved by the minister under this section and to develop any land so acquired in accordance with the scheme, and shall have power to borrow as for the purposes of the Housing Acts, 1890 to 1919, any money required for the purposes of so acquiring or developing any land.")
The noble Viscount said: In moving these Amendments I would explain that
414
the first Amendment is merely introductory to the second proposing the insertion of two new subsections. The purpose of the clause is really to secure a careful limitation on the powers of the local authority, and also on the Ministry as regards what they can and cannot do. It was re-drafted in this way mainly to secure that commons, open spaces, and land of that kind could not possibly be taken under that clause. I am advised that probably it could not have been taken as the clause was originally drawn, and this is only to make assurance doubly sure. The new subsection (3) simply makes clear what was possibly open to doubt—the power of a local authority to develop land for a garden city and to borrow money for that purpose.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 2, leave out from ("aforesaid") to ("and") in line 4
Page 7, line 6, after subsection (1), insert the said new subsections.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11:
Meaning of local authority, 53 & 54 Vict. c. 70.
11. In this Act the expression "local authority" means the local authority within the meaning of Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890:
Provided that for the purpose of the application of the provisions of this Act (other than those relating to expenses under section sixteen of the Housing, Town Planning, &c. Act, 1919) to the county of London the London County Council shall be the local authority to the exclusion of any other authority, except that in the City of London the common council of the city shall be the local authority for the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to the prohibition of certain building operations and the prohibition of the demolition of dwelling-houses.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to leave out from "to the exclusion of any other authority," to the end of the clause, and to insert "and that in the city of London the London County Council shall be the local authority for the purpose of the certificate as to the completion of houses to be given under the provisions of this Act relating to the payment of money to persons constructing houses." The noble Viscount said: The object of this is that the borough councils may be the local authority for the purpose of Clause 3, and the London County Council the local authority for the whole of the county of

415
London outside the City for the purposes of all the clauses of the Bill except Clause 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 23, leave out from ("authority") to the end of the clause and insert the said word.—(Viscount Peel).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, after Clause 11, to insert the following new clause—
". For the purpose of securing the proper execution of this Act in the administrative county of London, the London County Council shall have the power to require a district surveyor under the London Building Act, 1894, to perform within his district such duties as the Council think necessary for that purpose, and the Council may pay to a district surveyor such remuneration as they may determine in respect of any duties performed by him in pursuance of this section."
The noble Viscount said: This is put in at the request of the London County Council and has the effect of making the district surveyors the authorities who should give the certificates under Clause 1.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 11, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
VISCOUNT PEEL: There are several Amendments on this clause which are purely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 8, line 40, leave out ("to Part II.")
Page 9, line 3, leave out ("to Part I.")
Page 9, lines 8 and 9, leave out ("and to section two hundred and thirty-three")
Page 9, lines 9 and 10, leave out ("respectively")
Page 9, line 11, leave out ("and to section two hundred and thirty-seven").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14:
Short title and duration.
14.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919.
(2) The provisions of this Act, other than the provisions thereof relating to powers of borrowing for the purpose of the Housing Acts, 1890 to 1919, the Public Authorities and Bodies (Loans) Act, 1916, and the acquisition of land for the purpose
416
of garden cities and town-planning schemes, shall continue in force for two years only from the commencement thereof, and no longer:
Provided that section thirty-eight of the Interpretation Act; 1889 (which relates to the effect of repeals), shall, in relation to the provisions of this Act which cease to be in force on the expiration of the period aforesaid, apply as it these provisions had been repealed by another Act passed on the date of the expiration of the said period.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, in subsection (2) after "1919" to insert "and," with a view to moving later, in subsection (2), to leave out "and the acquisition of land for the purpose of garden cities and town planning schemes."
The noble Marquess said: I do not wish to press this Amendment on the Government if they do not wish to accept it, but I should be very glad of an explanation. Clause 14 proposes primarily to make this Act only an Act of two years' duration. But there are certain things which are excepted from that limitation, and are made permanent. Among other things the acquisition of land for the purpose of garden cities and town planning schemes is exempted and becomes permanent. Just now the noble Viscount induced your Lordships to insert an Amendment apparently considerably changing the provisions under which garden cities can acquire land under the earlier clauses of the Bill. The procedure, as the Bill stood, was that they went to the Minister and then, apparently without any more bother, the Minister could authorise the garden city company to take any lands in which the two parties agreed upon. They might come to anybody's park and say "We want this land for a garden city"; they would then go to the Minister and ask him to approve. If the Minister approved, then the land could be acquired. There were certain safeguards, but I never quite made out how far those safeguards went. In the course of our proceedings a few minutes ago the safeguards seemed to have been increased on the motion of the noble Viscount. I should be very glad if he would explain how far that alters the situation. Certainly, upon the face of it I do not think that a garden city company ought to be put upon the same footing as a local authority and to have rights to acquire land compulsorily for garden city purposes.
In order to prevent any misconception, I should like to say that I myself am a great friend of the garden city movement, like many of your Lordships. I have a

417
garden city suburb upon my own property in Lancashire, and I have just sold a lot of land to another garden city in the South of England; so that I have not the least desire to pose as an opponent of garden cities. On the contrary, it is a movement in which I immensely believe for the future. At the same time, however, garden city companies are not public authorities. They consist of men of great philanthropic zeal, of great ingenuity, and of great business capacity, but, like all men who have a great deal of zeal, they are occasionally impulsive, and sometimes think that everything ought to yield to the object which they have in view. They would not do their work so well as they do if they had not that sort of burning faith in their own movement. It is for this reason that I am sure your Lordships will agree that they ought not to be entrusted with very wide powers of their own motion. It is clear that gentlemen of that temperament—magnificent and useful as it is from the point of view of the country—ought to be subjected to all the safeguards generally applied to private persons (for they are private persons) when they come to the State to ask for compulsory powers. The question I would like to put to the noble Viscount therefore is, As the Bill now stands, after his Amendments upon the earlier clause of the Bill, what safe-guards are there with regard to garden city companies when they apply for the compulsory acquisition of land?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think I had better confine myself to Clause 10, because I understand that the noble Marquess is dealing only with that clause?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is right.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: We are now upon Clause 14.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then I will move my Amendment. The reason why I do so is to suggest to your Lordships that the garden city part of the Bill should be made temporary like the rest, as I am doubtful about the safeguards included in Clause 10. In the famine of houses at this moment I am willing to go a very great length in allowing the garden city companies to have a free hand. The present is a time of emergency, and we should allow all the agencies which make
418
for building to go any length so long as we can get the people housed; two years are over I think the ordinary limitations ought to be applied.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 27, after ("1919") — ("and") (The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The purpose of the Amendment, I understand, is to limit the operation of Clause 10 to two years?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is right.
VISCOUNT PEEL: May I point out that in this case I am afraid Clause 10 will have exceedingly little operation? Clause 10 applies not only to those bodies of whom the noble Marquess has spoken but also to local authorities. They have to plan out these schemes, show that they have the money, and finally go to the Ministry of Health and ask them if they approve of the scheme, and, if so, to acquire the land for them. Those are fairly lengthy processes, and if the operation of the clause is limited to two years it is almost equivalent to a negative of the clause in both cases. I may, perhaps, respectfully congratulate the noble Marquess on being so successful a procreator and begetter of garden cities, but I wish to point out that the garden city companies, in order to set the wheels of the Ministry of Health in motion, have to have their schemes approved. It is only when the schemes are approved that the Ministry can, if it likes, merely as an agent, step forward and acquire the land for them. But if these people are sometimes animated by zeal without discretion (as the noble Marquess suggests) I cannot imagine a better cure for them than to meet the cold and unsympathetic eye of the Ministry of Health. That is enough, I think, to damp the enthusiasm of any one. Therefore the fact that they have to persuade the Ministry of Health that it is a good scheme will at least convey to most people that the zeal of these excellent business men is well-and not ill-directed. Consequently I would urge the noble Marquess not to press this limitation of two years.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next Amendment is obviously necessary. If the bonds were limited to two years there would be no point in investing in them.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 28, after ("1916") insert ("trustee securities").—(Viscount Peel).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule:

PROVISIONS AS TO LOCAL BONDS.
1. Local bonds shall—

(a) be secured upon all the rates, property and revenues of the local authority:

(b) bear interest at such rate of interest as the Treasury may from time to time fix:

(c) be issued in denominations of five, ten, twenty, fifty, and one hundred pounds and multiples of hundred pounds:

(d) be issued for periods of not less than five years.

2. Local bonds shall be exempt from stamp duty under the Stamp Act, 1891, and no duty shall be chargeable under section eight of the Finance Act, 1899, as amended by section ten of the Finance Act, 1907, in respect of the issue of any such bonds.
3. The provisions of section one hundred and fifteen of the Stamp Act, 1891 (which relates to composition for stamp duty), shall, with the necessary adaptations, apply in the case of any local authority by whom local bonds are issued as if those bonds were stock or funded debt of the authority within the meaning of that section.
4. Local bonds issued by a local authority shall be accepted by that authority at their nominal value in payment of the purchase price of any house erected by or on behalf of any local authority in pursuance of any scheme under the Housing Acts, 1890 to 1919.
5. The Minister may with the approval of the Treasury make regulations with respect to the issue (including terms of issue), transfer and redemption of local bonds, and any such regulations may apply, with or without modifications, any provisions of the Local Loans Act, 1875, and the Acts amending that Act, and of any Act relating to securities issued by the London County Council or by any other local or public body.
LORD MONK BRETTON: I wish to call your Lordships' attention to the Schedule because the terms of it are of great importance. Your Lordships know that the financial proposals of this Bill are founded on a Report of the Treasury Committee of which Mr. Goschen was the chairman. What I complain of is that in this Schedule the Government have not followed out the recommendations of that committee so far as they could have done so. I particularly ask the Government to insert in the Schedule an Amendment (which I am sorry is not down on the Paper) to make the bonds free of Income Tax to small investors. The Committee say they are going to rely
420
on the man who is going to live in the house; they want the small investor because they cannot get the big one. It therefore becomes of great importance that the recommendation of the committee should be put into the Bll to make these bonds free of Income Tax for small amounts. As I understand the matter, the noble Viscount is prepared to accept an Amendment, but the difference between his proposal and mine is that he wants it to be only up to £100 free of Income Tax, whereas I suggest it should be up to £500, as is done in the case of War Savings Certificates. I will not weary your Lordships by reading the Amendment until I have heard what the noble Viscount has to say.
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is a privileged Amendment because it suggests that the interest on these Bonds up to £500 should be paid free of Income Tax. I am prepared to accept an Amendment in slightly different form, limiting the nominal amount on which the interest is paid and on which Income Tax will not be collected, to £100, and I have the authority of the Minister to say that he will do his best to urge another place not to insist upon this being regarded as a privileged Amendment. If my noble friend will agree to move it in the following form, I will accept it— "To insert the following new clause in the Schedule:—" (4) A local authority shall in the case of any person who is the registered holder of local bonds issued by that authority of a nominal amount not exceeding in the aggregate £100 pay the interest on the bonds held by that person without deduction of Income Tax and any such interest shall be accounted for and charged to Income Tax under the third case of Schedule D in the First Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1918, subject however to any provision of that Act with respect to exemption or abatement." If my noble friend would do that I would accept it.
Amendment moved—
In the Schedule, page 10, line 19, at the end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON moved to omit subsection (4) as it appeared in the Schedule. The noble Viscount said: I want to ask for an explanation from the noble Viscount. As this subsection reads, it suggests one of the most extraordinary

421
financial operations which has ever been suggested in an Act of Parliament. Apparently, what happens is that the local authority may issue say 5 per cent. stock at 90, which may go down to 85, and when they come to sell the houses, the fortunate person who has the offer of a house at cost price of, say, £800, produces eight bonds of the value of £85, and the local authority has to take them in full discharge. If that be the intention of the subsection, I shall have to put myself in order by moving its omission.
Amendment moved—
In the Schedule, page 10, lines 20 to 23, leave
out subsection (4).—(Viscount Midleton.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My noble friend has advocated in a strong speech the proposal of the Government because he has dwelt upon the extraordinarily attractive nature of the bonds and that, after all, is the reason why they are issued. I think you might almost call these bonds a sort of "housing currency," except that they bear interest at 5½ per cent. This provision that the bonds shall be taken by the local authorities in payment for houses will ensure, as my noble friend sees, that they will not go to a discount. That makes them extremely attractive to small investors and the object, of course, is to draw money from small local people who would not invest it in a Government loan or more distant securities.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Is there any check on the local authority issuing their bonds at a heavy discount? Nothing could be more absurd. I can quite imagine that in Ireland local authorities would issue their bonds at extraordinarily favourable terms and that, subsequently, persons who desired to buy houses, and whom they desired should buy houses, will get them at a ridiculous discount. I really think that the matter requires further consideration by the Government.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It seems almost incredible that the local authority would issue bonds at a discount which might a few days afterwards be brought back to the local authority to receive at their face value. It would be the same thing as a banker issuing notes at a discount and, the next day, receiving them in payment at full value. The noble Viscount has made a suggestion with regard to Ireland.
422
It may be possible. I am not so familiar as he is with the conditions there. But if that is so, I can reassure him, because it is not possible. The Regulations are to be issued by the Ministry and one of the Regulations, of course, would be that the bonds should not be issued at a discount.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments, read.
Moved, That this Report be now received.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I desire to call your Lordships' attention, and especially the attention of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, to a circumstance which happened last night. When your Lordships were in Committee on this Bill a very strong speech was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shaw, in which, in respect to a certain paragraph which was afterwards struck out by your Lordships, he urged the House not to take that course. He told us that a practice had grown up in Scotland of arbitrators under the principal Act awarding unduly large compensation to landlords in respect of land devoted to small holdings. He quoted a case called the Lindean case, in regard to which he went into some detail, in showing us that everything had been allowed for—all sorts of different items—and that the arbitrator had finally added a very large sum of money for depreciation of the selling value. He said that if your Lordships took the course which the House afterwards determined to take, this practice, which had been followed by other arbitrators, would be pursued, and that the result would be to render the whole working of the Bill, if it became an Act, inoperative. He made a considerable impression upon your Lordships, and, amongst others, upon the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack, who used his noble and learned colleague's argument as a cheval de bataille in the arguments he addressed to us on this side of the House. I am now informed that, so far from that instance being apt, there are no arbitrators under the Bill at all. Arbitrators are removed from Part II of the Bill, and conse-

423
quently the decision as to what this compensation will be, will not vest in these arbitrators, who are apparently so misguided in Scotland, but in the Land Courts itself. Therefore, if these arbitrations have been unjust in the past, they will not act as a precedent for the future. The whole matter will be determined by the Land Court, which is certainly not an authority unduly favourable to the landowners' interest.
I considered it right to point this out to your Lordships, because I think that the argument addressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shaw, made a great effect on the House (although not a sufficient effect to control your Lordships' vote), and it might make a considerable impression in another place. I think it right to place on record that the whole argument addressed by the noble and learned Lord, no doubt owing to inadvertence on his part, rested upon a complete and absolutely foolish idea that there were to be arbitrators, who would follow the evil example of arbitrators in the past in awarding absurd compensation and so defeat the operation of the Bill. If this fact which I have now ventured to give to the House turns out to be absolutely true, I hope that it will have a correspondingly convincing effect upon the noble and learned Lord and those with whom he has so much influence, with the result that there will be no difficulty in accepting the general wish of your Lordships House as was shown last night.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: When the noble Marquess says that the whole basis of the argument addressed by the noble and learned Lord disappears he is of course wholly in error. The noble and learned Lord cannot have been unaware—I called attention to it on the Second Reading of the Bill—that matters of this kind would henceforth be not under arbitrators but under the Court of which the noble Marquess has spoken. I was particularly careful to make it plain that I was not impeaching the arbitrators in any way. That was not the basis of my criticism. The basis of my criticism was giving to the tribunal the duty of assessing, by way of compensation, that which did not admit of any reasonable system of assessment. May I remind your Lordships of what I said. I said the objection to this proposal is that you are inviting the tribunal to give compensation on the basis of selling
424
value to an owner who has not sold, and who may not have the slightest intention of selling, and in respect to him you cannot award compensation founded on any scientific or reasonable basis. It is perfectly plain that the same objection applies whether the arbitration is made by an honest and capable arbitrator, or whether it is made by a Court, which cannot discharge this task simply because it is given a principle on which to adjudicate on which, in our view, it is impossible to adjudicate. I will carefully reread what I said, and also what Lord Shaw said, and if either of us gave the impression that the decision in the future would be discharged by an arbitrator we certainly gave an impression which cannot be justified. I should be surprised if we did so, but I will read it again and there will be a further opportunity to discuss the clause.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON moved a manuscript Amendment on page 7, Clause 6 line 2. The noble Lord said: I am moving this Amendment with the consent of the Scottish Office.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment has been accepted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW moved, in Clause 9, in subsection (11) ("b") after "include," to insert, "any compensation for injury done to the value of the sporting rights of such land or estate in so far as it exceeds the estimated value of such rights if the land was taken and put to the full reasonable use to which it could be let under ordinary lease or ordinary agricultural or pastoral tenancy." The noble Marquess said: The effect of this Amendment is sufficiently clear from its terms. They were handed to me a short time ago by the Duke of Atholl, and I understand that he has had the advantage of a private conference with the Lord Chancellor. I will therefore simply move
Amendment moved—
Page 7, clause 9, line 5, after ("include") insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess will understand that the wording of this Amendment will have to be reconsidered, and it may be necessary to make some modifications in it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved a manuscript Amendment in Clause 9, page 7, line 6. The noble Duke said: I will be very brief over this. The subsection— (11)—provides for compensation being given for loss of selling value both of land taken and of the remainder of the estate. My Amendment confines the compensation to loss of selling value of the land which is taken, and if that be satisfactory to the Government the clause would be limited to compensation for loss of selling value of the land actually taken. The reason I suggest this Amendment is that, as far as I can understand, during the earlier debate objection was taken that excessive compensation had been paid in the past, or if not excessive that it was higher than the Bill could stand, and the other was that too large an amount had been paid for the loss of amenities. I try to meet those objections by my Amendment, which practically provides for putting back half of what was excluded last night.
LORD CLINTON (who was indistinctly heard): I trust that your Lordships will recognise that this Amendment is a real attempt to meet the difficulties which were obvious to us last night. The noble and learned Lord, in the arguments which he addressed to your Lordships, contended that the exclusion of the sub-clause struck at the very principle of the Bill itself. I should like to submit, with all respect, that it does not appear to us that the exclusion of the sub-clause affects the principle of the Bill, although it does affect the actual question of the cost. If, however, the cost is a legitimate one it ought not to be ignored. The principle for which we have to contend is the same principle as has been admitted by members of the Government, namely, that where land is taken for public purposes fair compensation should be given for it.
The arguments which were addressed to your Lordships by the Lord Chancellor and by Lord Shaw last night dealt very much more with the excessive amount of compensation than with the principle of compensation itself, and they cited the case which has already been alluded to, in which it was apparent from the figures given that there had been what I think may be termed "excessive compensation"; but that compensation was very largely due to injury presumed to be caused not to land taken but to the remainder of the estate, and this Amendment which we are now
426
considering excludes all compensation for that remainder of the estate, while it I desires to secure compensation for land actually taken.
I should like to point out that while in the past there may have been good ground for paying compensation for the whole of the estate, because in the past the custom was, if there was a sale of an estate, for one owner to sell to another and the amenity value of that estate may to an extent have been struck at, it is not the case now, and when land is sold it is bought almost always by persons who desire to occupy it. That weakens our argument at once for any amenity of compensation for a large estate, but strengthens our argument for compensation for land actually taken, because it is obvious that if you plant on a piece of land, as you are under this Bill, a certain number of tenants with fixity of tenure, there can be no object in an occupying owner coming in, because he cannot get possession of the land. You might, however, find a purchaser who would give a very low number of years purchase for land. There is obviously in that an actual direct loss to the owner which I think he ought not to be required to suffer. There is, of course, the question of mortgages. A man who wishes to lend money on any security will be very unwilling to do so unless he is able to sell, and if the existing owner cannot sell then it is clear that the mortgagee cannot sell with the object of foreclosing. I think those are two certain sources of injury which ought to be considered in dealing with this matter. No doubt the noble and learned Lord will contend that there is considerable difficulty in arriving at any fair valuation of the injury which may be received. I at once admit that there is, but I do not think it is impossible.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is the view of those who advise me in this matter, and who have technical knowledge, that the affect of this Amendment would be very slight in diminishing the amount of compensation payable for loss of selling value. The amount of compensation involved is so negligible as not in their view to be such as to make the change involved in this Amendment a material concession. At the same time I recognise, of course, that it leaves the Bill less unsatisfactory from the point of view of the Government than it was in the form in which it left this I House last night. Naturally, under those

427
circumstances, I shall not dream of resisting it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment—to insert a new clause after Clause 9—I put down in redemption of a pledge which I gave last night.
Amendment moved—
After clause 9, insert the following new clause:
". Where the Board make any order for the constitution of new holdings they shall, if so requested by the landlord, be bound to erect and maintain, or cause to be erected and maintained, such march fences, or fences, as may be necessary to prevent the stock of the landholder straying beyond the limits of the land comprised in the scheme, any dispute as to the necessity for or the adequacy of such fence or fences to be settled failing agreement by the Land Court."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment upon the Paper in my name to Clause 14 is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Clause 14, page 9, line 36, leave out from ("person") to ("shall") in line 38.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
On Question (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES BILL
FORMERLY
AGRICULTURE (COUNCILS, &c.) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LEE OF FAREHAM): The first two Amendments that are down in my name to Clause 5 and also the one which follows in the name of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, have been put down to carry out what I understood was the undertaking that I gave to your Lordships on the last occasion that this Bill was before us. The effect of them would be that the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary will be entitled
428
to attend any meeting of the Advisory Committee and also be entitled to act but not obliged to act as Chairman of the meeting, but without any power to vote. That is the effect of the Amendments which I hope carry out the undertaking that I gave to your Lordships.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 10, leave out ("a councilor") and insert ("the advisory")
Page 3, line 11, after first ("and") insert ("to") and leave out ("an ex officio member and").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, but I should like to know how he proposes to provide power for the council to elect its own chairman?
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: That is done under the regulations in the previous section.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I am satisfied with the amendments, and I presume that the noble Lord is prepared to accept mine to insert after "chairman" the words "ex officio."
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I hope that my noble friend will see that his Amendment is superfluous, because it is obvious from the wording of the subsection that the President or the Parliamentary Secretary will act as chairman by virtue of his office and not as a member of the Committee. I think that it would be tautology to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I want it to be quite clear that the President or Parliamentary Secretary is there as President or Parliamentary Secretary to consult his advisers and not in any sense as a member of the Advisory Body.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I think that the wording carries that with it.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: The next two Amendments in my name are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 12, leave out ("and have a casting vote, but save as aforesaid") and insert ("but")
Page 3, line 13, leave out ("council or").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Strachie, I move the two Amendments standing in his name.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 22, leave out from ("annulled") to "it") in line 23.
Page 3, line 24, after ("thereunder") insert ("or the making of a new regulation").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I accept both of these Amendments.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: The next Amendment on the Paper standing in my name to Clause 7 seeks to define the point which was under discussion in the Committee stage, and I hope that the form of words now proposed will cover all that we had in view.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 7, leave out ("or interest in agriculture") and insert ("agriculture or an interest in agricultural land").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: The first Amendment on the Paper in my name to Clause 8 is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 39 and 40, leave out ("those Acts") and insert ("the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, 1908").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: In regard to the next Amendment in my name to Clause 8 I may say that I did not give an undertaking to vary this clause, but I was anxious to meet the point of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe and I put down this Amendment in order to limit the operation of this delegation to the period during which the Ministry is responsible for the expenditure. I hope that my noble friend will feel that this meets his point.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 42, at end insert ("until the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and twenty- six, notwithstanding that the exercise of such power has not been delegated to the sub-committee under this section").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: The next Amendment in my name is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 3, leave out from ("allotments") to end of subsection (3).—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved to insert the following new clause:—
"10. In this Act the expression 'agriculture' includes horticulture and forestry, and the expression 'rural industries' means local industries connected with agriculture."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is another attempt at definition which I hope will meet the difficulties we felt on the Committee stage. I do not profess that the definition is really precise, but I do not think it is necessary for the purposes of the Bill that it should be, and I hope it will meet the criticisms which have been made.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 9, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: As I was one of those who raised this question, I may say that, although the Amendment is not precise, in my judgment it is very ingenious.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM LORD LEE OF FAREHAM had on the Paper the following. Amendments to the First Schedule—
Page 7, leave out from the beginning of line 5 to ("in'') in line 6, and insert ("(a) Two members of each agricultural committee established by a council of a county and one member of each agricultural committee established by a county borough")
Page 7, line 17 to line 21, leave out paragraph (c), and insert as a new paragraph:
"(c) Thirty-six persons nominated by the Board of whom at least eight shall be representative of workmen engaged in agriculture, four owners of agricultural land, four tenants of such land, three women, six representative of the industry of horticulture, and three representative of agricultural education or research."
Page 7, line 24, leave out from ("each") to ("in") in line 25, and insert ("Agricultural Committee established by a council of a county and one member of each Agricultural Committee established by a county borough")
Page 7, line 38, leave out ("eleven") and insert ("twelve") and leave out from ("whom") to ("women") in line 40, and insert ("at least five shall be representative of workmen engaged in agriculture, two owners of agricultural land, two tenants of such land and two")
Page 8, line 3, leave out ("four") and insert ("five")
Page 8, line 7, leave out ("four") and insert ("five")
Page 8, line 11, leave out ("another") and insert ("one")
Page 8, line 12, leave out ("and a third") and insert ("one")
Page 8, line 13, at end insert ("one shall be an owner of agricultural land and one shall be a tenant of such land")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to the First Schedule. This is the most important section of the Bill, and there is a series of Amendments standing in my name which I should like your Lordships to discuss together, because they are intended to carry out, so far as I can ascertain them, the general views of the House as to the position of the councils and the advisory committees, so far as I am able to adopt them. It is hardly necessary that I should explain the different Amendments, but I think they carry out the undertaking that I gave to Lord Selborne and others of your Lordships who are interested in this matter.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: We are greatly indebted to the noble Lord for the way in which he has carried out the undertaking he gave. I venture to think the Amendments are a great improvement in the Bill. There is one point that I should like the noble Lord to say something more about. I know that he clings very much to leaving the Wages Board to appoint six members themselves. I have always felt very doubtful about that; he knows the reason. I can only repeat my summary of the other day, that the Agricultural Wages Board has nothing to do with anything much except wages, and that this council will have nothing whatever to do with wages. Therefore it is not easy to see, on the face of it, why the statutory privilege of electing members to this council should be conferred on the Wages Board.
There is also the technical objection that the Wages Board is not a permanent institution at present. No doubt there will be a Wages Board of some kind which will become a permanent institution, though not necessarily in the same form. My third criticism is, if you do have six members of the Agricultural Wages Board, why limit the representation as stated? I can understand why you should say that the workmen should have three representatives, but I cannot understand why
432
you should allow the Wages Board to elect one of the nominated members. I should greatly prefer that the whole of that sub-clause should be cut out, and those members added to the members nominated by the Board of Agriculture, leaving the President perfect discretion to nominate whom he feels disposed. I should like to hear what Lord Lee has to say about that. I have one purely verbal criticism to make. It is provided that thirty-six persons shall be nominated by the Board of whom at least eight shall be so-and-so; the words "at least" do not seem to be required there at all.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: It covers all the people concerned under the section.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I should have thought it was not necessary to have those words.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I hope the noble Earl will not press his objection to the specific mention of the Agricultural Wages Board. I have given the most anxious consideration to this matter, and on the broadest possible grounds I attach immense importance to the mention of the Agricultural Wages Board. I cannot conceive of anything more fatal than that the Wages Board should be in any way detached from the general body of agricultural opinion. It cannot do the Board anything but good to keep it in the closest touch with purely agricultural questions, with all of which the question of labour is bound up although it may appear in the background. I have expressed this view strongly before; I feel it as strongly as ever, and I hope that my noble friend and your Lordships will allow this provision to stand. With regard to "at least," that is intended to cover not only the representation of workmen engaged in agriculture, but owners of agricultural land, tenants, women, the representation of horticulture, and the representation of agricultural education. My noble friend will observe that that accounts for only twenty-eight representatives, which leaves eight in hand for the Minister to meet the very point which Lord Selborne suggested where there is a deficiency in some other section.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Very well.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I also welcome this new scheme as an improvement on the

433
one embodied in the original Bill as it came to this House. I hope that, even at the eleventh hour, the noble Lord opposite will reconsider this question of specifically referring to the Wages Board, because, first of all, they are a temporary body set up under a temporary statute. In the second place, there are no other institutions or organisations of agriculturists referred to, and stress is, for some reason or other, put upon this particular organisation whose sole function is to settle in private conference the standard of wages for the time being. It is quite obvious to me that those particular persons who come as representatives of the Wages Board in contradistinction to those who come as representing farmers or agricultural workers, will come there with the settled intention of referring specifically to wages questions. I cannot believe that is going to facilitate the work of the council or render the atmosphere of their deliberations calm, and I venture to think it is going for all time to bring these differences on the subject of wages as between employer and employed unnecessarily to the front.
This Wages Board is only another form of Trades Board. Trades Boards up to now have been set up only in such industries as are sweated on the one hand, and, on the other hand, have not had sufficient labour organisation to put the workers' point of view Agriculture, one is glad to think, is no longer a sweated industry, although I am afraid it was before the war, and so far from agricultural workers being unorganised, they are very well organised to-day, and their organisation would be perfectly capable, as in the case of other trade unions, of fighting their domestic battles with the employer. I hope this domestic question of wages between employer and employed will not for all time be dragged to the front in public discussions such as will take place at these council meetings, but will be matters of domestic discussion and conference as they are now, and as I hope they are going to be to a greater extent in the future, when the whole machinery of wages boards in agriculture comes to be scrapped and you leave it to the organisations of employers on the one hand and of workers on the other to settle these domestic questions. I hope the noble Lord will alter the words "tenants of such land," meaning, of course, tenants of agricultural land. Evidently he means to give proper representation to practical farmers, but a very large proportion of the most enlightened and progressive prac-
434
tical farmers are no longer tenants, but have become owners of their farms. I venture to say that better words to effect this purpose would be "occupiers of such land" rather than "tenants of such land," so as not to rule out altogether the very cream of the agricultural profession, who have to a very large extent purchased their farms during the last few months.
I hope that the words "at least" will be either cut out or will reappear before each class of persons here referred to, because I am sure it is open to the construction which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, put upon it. But may I point out that if by any chance in the future the Minister of Agriculture for the time being were to give the full representation that is open to him to give to the workers under this Schedule, without giving any fuller representation to the other interests concerned, it would be possible to have no less than twenty of the total thirty-six representing the workers in the industry, with a minority of sixteen all told of the other industries represented on this body. For that reason I hope that there will be some modification of this clause, if not now, then on the next stage of the Bill, so as to render it impossible for a Minister in the future—being a member possibly of a very different Government from this—to create a preponderance of agricultural workers to the disadvantage of the other interests which it is proposed should have full representation under this amended Schedule.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I attach great importance to the opinion of my noble friend, but I am sorry that I find myself in disagreement with him in regard to some of these points. I cannot withdraw the reference to the Agricultural Wages Board. I attach great importance to it as a principle, and I hope that my noble friend will not press his objection. But with regard to the question of tenant and occupier, I think he will see, on reflection, that the occupiers to whom he referred—those who are already also owners—will be eligible as owners, and will be included under the heading of "owners." I want to deal with the case of the tenant who is only a tenant, because it is felt that he should be represented and should be given separate representation. Those tenants who purchase their holdings and become owners will be eligible under the head of "owner," and I think that is sufficient provision. With regard to the words "at least" I am

435
inclined to agree with my noble friend. I believe as a matter of strict legal drafting the words would cover all the classes referred to, but I confess that, reading it as an ordinary layman, it would appear only to apply to the first class. Therefore I am quite prepared, even if the words are superfluous, to insert the words "at least" before the classes specifically referred to in my Amendment.
LORD BLEDISLOE: With regard to the owners of single farms who used to be tenant farmers, I would point out that the representation of owners which obviously was intended originally to refer to a very different class would be all too small if it is intended to refer to those who own a single farm which they used to occupy as tenant farmers.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Will the noble Lord accept an Amendment after "Board" to insert "Provided that three of the number but no more shall be representatives of the workmen."
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I am prepared to accept that. But I would suggest that the words would be a little less objectionable if we said "not more than three."
LORD BLEDISLOE: I move that "at least" be inserted before each of the clauses, that is "at least four owners of agricultural land, at least four tenants," and so on.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If it is a point of substance let it be taken now, but as we are concerned with drafting it would be a little unfortunate for that to be taken now.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: How would it be to put in the words "not less in each case than."
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: We can pass it now in its present form, and leave it to regulate on the Third Reading.
On Question, Amendments standing in the name of Lord LEE of FAREHAM agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I have a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 1, leave out ("Advisory Agricultural")and insert ("Agricultural Advisory")
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE: The next is really a drafting matter, my only object being to put in what I deem to be their proper place the owners and occupiers of agricultural land. I understand that the noble Lord would prefer the word "tenant" instead of "occupier," and, subject to that amendment, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 10, after ("be") insert ("an owner and one shall be a tenant of agricultural land, and one shall be").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I accept that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE: The next Amendment, the last on the Paper; is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, lines 14 and 15, leave out ("in equal numbers from representatives of") and insert ("representing respectively").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Line 2 of the new paragraph just inserted in page 7, lines 17 to 21, leave out ("at least") and insert ("not less than ").
Line 3 of the new paragraph, after ("agriculture") insert ("not less than").
Line 4 of the new paragraph, after ("agricultural land") insert ("not less than").
Line 4 of the new paragraph, after ("such land") insert ("not less than").
Line 4 of the new paragraph after ("women'') insert ("not less than").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 7, line 38, leave out ("at least") and insert ("not less than").
Page 7, line 38, before ("five") insert ("not less than")
Page 7, line 39, after ("agriculture") insert ("not less than")
Page 7, line 39, after ("agricultural land") insert ("not less than")
Page 7, line 40, after ("land") insert ("not less than").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.— (Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL.
Commons Amendment to Lords Amendment considered (according to Order).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Commons have inserted certain words in Clause 8, page 13, at the end of subsection (2).
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DOGS REGULATION (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a and passed.
IRISH LAND (PROVISION FOR SAILORS AND SOLDIERS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a and passed.
REGIMENTAL DEBTS (DEPOSIT OF WILLS) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (WAR ADDITION) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.
COUNTY AND BOROUGH POLICE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

INCREASE OF RENT, ETC. (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Orders of possession.
1.—(1) After the passing of this Act no order or judgment for the recovery of possession of a dwelling-house to which the Increase of Rent, &c., Act of 1915 (hereinafter called the principal Act) or any of the Acts amending the same applies, or for the ejectment of a tenant there from, shall be made or given, so long as the tenant continues to pay rent at the agreed rate as modified by the principal Act or any of the Acts amending the same and performs the other conditions of the tenancy, unless—
(a) the tenant has committed waste or has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or an annoyance to adjoining or neighbouring occupiers, and the court considers it reasonable to make such an order or give such judgment; or
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I rise to move an Amendment in this Clause in deference to a representation that was made last night by the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, who put down this Amendment and would have moved it himself had it been possible for him to stay. My noble friend felt some anxiety lest the necessary and conceded benefit of this Bill might be enjoyed by some tenant who, by subletting a dwelling house or any part thereof, or by taking in lodgers shall make a profit which, having regard to the rent paid, was unreasonable; and he desired that where the Court considered it unreasonable, it could make such an order or give such a judgment. With the guidance of my noble friend's Amendment, I have no doubt that this Bill will alleviate very considerable public mischief.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 18, at the end insert:
"(b) the tenant by sub-letting a dwelling house or any part thereof or by taking in lodgers is making a profit which having regard to the rent paid by the tenant is unreasonable, and the court considers it reasonable to make such an order or give such judgment, or."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have a drafting Amendment on this clause.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 3, line 2, after ("and") insert ("shall").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Then (Standing Order XXXIX having been suspended), Report of Amendments received; Bill read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MENTAL DEFICIENCY AND LUNACY (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD SINHA): I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a— (Lord Sinha.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, before the Bill receives a Third Reading I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Sinha upon the way in which he has carried this Bill through the House.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: And also on the fact that it has fallen to his lot to be Under-Secretary for India at this particular moment. I think he is the first British subject of Indian race who has been a member of this House, and that he should have taken his seat here at this juncture, with the object of carrying this Bill through the House with the skill that he has displayed, is a landmark in the connection between the British Parliament and India. I can only express the hope that my noble friend will be spared for many years to serve his own country at home in making this Bill that great success which all the friends of India and of this country pray for it.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD SINHA: My Lords, in moving that this Bill do pass, may I be allowed to thank the noble Earl for the very kindly reference he has made to me.
Moved, That the Bill do pass. (Lord Sinha.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Then (Standing Order XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

NURSES REGISTRATION (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed, and returned to the Commons.

NURSES REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order).
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I have a drafting Amendment to move in Clause 2, and I apologise to the House that in the hurry last night I overlooked it. I have enquired of the Lord Chairman and there is no objection to it.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 1, lines 26 and 27, leave out ("mental nurses") and insert ("nurses trained in the nursing and care of persons suffering from mental disease").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The next is also a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 12, insert ("any reference in this Act to the Register shall unless the context otherwise requires be deemed to include a reference to any part of the Register and the expression 'register' shall be construed accordingly").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Moved, That the Bill do pass.—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

NURSES REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Then (Standing Order XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3a and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY (ACQUISI- TION OF CAPITAL) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to enable the Government to subscribe an amount of £2,050,000 for further shares in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. The purchase of the shares will be made eventually from the dividends paid to the Government by the Company, but as it will be some time before they are paid it is necessary to take powers to provide the capital sum required. This, as a matter of fact, has been an extremely good investment for the Government. The dividends received were, I think, £68,000 for 1917–18 and over £156,000 for 1918–19. The present rate paid on the ordinary shares is 10 per cent. free of Income Tax, and the preference shares receive their full dividend. It is probable it will turn out more lucrative in the future. I could give your Lordships further particulars as to the great advantage in carrying out this measure but in view of the lateness of the hour, and the state of the House, I will simply move the Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, Committee negatived. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3a and passed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (ANATOMY ACTS, TRANSFER OF POWERS) ORDER.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, in accordance with the provisions of section 8, subsection (3) of the Ministry of Health Act, I beg to move to resolve, That this House approves the said Draft Order. The teaching of anatomy is obviously an important part of medical education, and therefore it is thought that these powers, hitherto exercised by the Home Secretary, should be transferred to the Minister of Health so far as England and Wales are concerned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LUNACY AND MENTAL DEFICIENCY, TRANSFER OF POWERS) ORDER.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, in accordance with the provisions of Section 8, subsection (3) of the Ministry of Health Act, I beg to move to resolve, That this House approves the said Draft Order. The Order has lain for the requisite number of days on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, but it has to be endorsed by direct Resolution. The effect of the Draft Order in Council transfers all the powers hitherto vested in the Secretary of State under the Lunacy Acts and the Mental Deficiency Act to the Minister for Health, except so far as it concerns criminal lunatics and aliens. No new powers are created. It is merely a transfer of existing powers under the Lunacy Act, 1891, and the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913. Your Lordships know that the actual administration of the mentally deficient is under the Board of Control which will be transferred to the Ministry of Health, so that the same people will deal with those mentally deficient. But the Minister responsible to Parliament will be the Minister of Health instead of the Secretary of State. As your Lordships know the Board is composed, half doctors and half barristers, and is under the chairmanship of Sir William Burden, who was lately Under-Secretary in the Home Office. There was a special reference in the Ministry of Health Act as to the proposed transfer, and this Motion is directed to that Act.
Moved, That this House approves the said Draft Order.—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think that some care must be given to this matter. My noble friend most courteously agreed to defer this subject until to-day in order to suit my convenience. I am very grateful to him. These Orders under the Ministry of Health Act must not be taken to be mere matters of form, to be passed through without consideration. No question requires more consideration than lunacy. I do not think any of us are quite happy as to the condition of the Lunacy Laws at the present moment. Many of us are uneasy lest a good many people are detained who ought not to be detained.
I looked through with some care the sections which are recited in this Order. The only one which seemed to me to call for investigation was Section 205 (1) of the

443
Lunacy Act, under which Commissioners or other persons are directed to visit and examine lunatics, or alleged lunatics. That is a very delicate matter indeed. As I understand it, from the Lunacy Laws where the proper authority, which is in this case the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State, has reason to doubt what the actual condition of a lunatic is who is under detention in any lunatic asylum they may direct a Commissioner to go and investigate the facts. That is shortly the effect of Section 205 (1).
It obviously has a connection with public health because it has to do with the mental health of the lunatic. It also has to do in a very marked degree with the liberty of these unfortunate people, and if upon the evidence which the Commissioner collects there is some doubt as to the legality of the detention of the lunatic it is a matter of law, not a matter of health. It is a matter which requires the trained investigation not of a health authority but of a legal authority. Therefore the Lunacy Laws have very properly confided all these parts of the subject to legal authorities.
I have no objection to the transfer to the Ministry of Health of any particular clauses dealing with health, but when it comes to transferring a provision which has to do with a criminal investigation, necessarily an investigation which has to take evidence and has to arrive at a quasi-judicial decision, I greatly doubt whether it is a subsection which ought to have been transferred to the Ministry of Health. It is not, of course, suggested that the whole of the Lunacy Acts should be transferred, but only such section which may be said properly to belong to the Ministry, and it is a question where you draw the line, and I venture to submit that the Government ought to have drawn the line so as to exclude subsection 205 (1) instead of including it. In order to put myself in order I beg to move "That this House approves of the said draft Order with the omission, on page 3, of section 205 (1)."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a somewhat technical matter on which the noble Viscount has asked me to say a word. I agree that there is substance in what the noble Marquess has said, and I should have thought there was no great objection to his proposal. In the ordinary course there would be no technical or legal
444
knowledge in the Secretary of State. No Secretary of State who happens to have been a Law Lord ever looks upon himself or is looked upon as prepared to advise. I remember that Sir John Simon, a week after having been Attorney-General, coming and asking for advice on health, and I doubt whether the noble Viscount will find it worth his while to object to this Amendment.
LORD PHILLIMORE: There is a point here dealing with the liberty of the subject, and I think it should be left to the Secretary of State and not to another Minister. I think the noble Marquess is right in his suggestion, and that really no harm can be done by complying with what he proposes. The Lord Chancellor anyhow is left in his position, and the only question is whether the Secretary of State or a Minister of Health should exercise this power, and I think it is a power which ought to rest with the Secretary of State.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I confess I am not convinced, but I am sure the Minister of Health would not wish to stand in the way, and I advise my noble friend to agree to the amendment.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: After receiving the advice of the Lord Chancellor I will agree to the suggestion of the noble Marquess and so put the Motion as amended.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.

THE NORTH-WEST RUSSIAN ARMY.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether steps will be taken to facilitate the departure from Esthonia of the officers and men in the late army of General Judenitch, or at any rate of those who went forth from this country, and whether His Majesty's Government recognise the duty of providing for the return of those officers and men, whether British or Russian, who have preceeded from these shores to join that army, and whether in the event of its not being possible to bring them away, His Majesty's Government will use its good offices with the Government of Esthonia to procure for them humane and decent treatment.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, the Allied Military Mission under General Niessel are endeavouring to arrange with

445
the Esthonian Government for the future disposition of General Yudenitch's army. As regards the position of British subjects who have been connected with that force, the War Office have informed us that all British military personnel, which had been sent with Tanks, have now been withdrawn, and we are not aware of any other British subjects serving as volunteers in the ranks of the North-West Russian Army. The evacuation of the Russian officers who proceeded from this country is a matter not for His Majesty's Government alone but for the Allied Mission, who may be trusted to use their best efforts to secure for them humane and equitable treatment.

SMALL HOLDINGS.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings at the sale by auction of the Clowance Estate in Cornwall as reported in the Western Morning News of 29th October 1919; whether it is the fact that the auctioneer announced that two of the farms would be offered for sale on the understanding that the county council might eventually acquire them; whether, notwithstanding this announcement, a Mr. Rowe persistently interrupted the proceedings and stated that he had been sent to the sale as an official representative of the Small Holdings Committee of the county council; whether the Small Holdings Committees of the county councils do not practically act as the agents of the Board of Agriculture for the acquisition of small holdings; and whether he approves of such a course of conduct.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the reason why I ask this Question—I may have to ask many similar ones—is that a very regrettable practice has grown up in one or two counties in the West of England in connection with the local branch of the National Farmers' Union. I wish to make it quite clear that, so far as I know, the National Farmers' Union Headquarters have no responsibility for such action on the part of the local branches, and have done nothing to encourage or countenance it. But the practice has been growing up of the local branches of the National Farmers' Union objecting to the
446
sale of estates by auction. It is not confined to cases, such as have unhappily existed, where the sale has been conducted without that consideration for the sitting tenants which we should always wish to see exercised, but it has also occurred in cases where every consideration has been exercised.
There is a case which I may have to bring before my noble friend where no notice was given to the sitting tenants, but they were invited to tender for their farms, and where the local branch of the Union made the sale impossible on the ground that farms ought not to be sold by auction. My Lords, for anybody in a fiduciary capacity an auction is the only course which is open to him. In fact Government Departments like the Charity Commissioners insist upon the land being sold by auction, or, if before that a private bid is made for the land, it has to be advertised in case anybody is inclined to give a larger sum for the property. Sale by auction is also a system which is invariably adopted by farmers in selling their own possessions, and therefore this action on their part is both regrettable and dangerous.
This particular case in Cornwall has been brought to my notice. It is really a flagrant case because the interruption of the proceedings was carried out by a gentleman who asserted himself to be acting as a representative of the Small Holdings Committee of the county council, and as this Small Holding Committee of the county council is in the matter of the acquisition of farms very often the actual agent of the Board of Agriculture, or practically the agent of the Board, I thought that this was a case which I would bring to the attention of my noble friend, and ask him what information he had on the subject and what view he took of such a proceeding.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: With regard to the opening observations of my noble friend, I am in entire agreement that it is not desirable that any class of his Majesty's subjects should set themselves up to interfere with what are perfectly legal proceedings by processes of demonstration and tumult. That is quite clear; but I am sure my noble friend will acquit me of any responsibility for the doings of local branches of the farmers' unions.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Nonewhatever.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I will, therefore, come to the particular case that my noble friend mentions in the Paper. He asks first of all whether my attention had been drawn to the matter. It had, but only by my noble friend being good enough to send me the local paper with an account of the proceedings. That was the first intimation that I had that anything had taken place. The second question is whether it is a fact that the auctioneer announced that two of the farms would be offered for sale on the understanding that the county council might eventually buy them. That is so. The account, which I assume to be correct, shows that the auctioneer made that announcement at the commencement of the sale. I may state, however, in regard to this particular case that it is not quite so straightforward a one as my noble friend supposes, because this estate had been recently sold by Sir Hugh M. St. Aubyn to a gentleman who acquired it for the purpose of speculation, and almost immediately after offered it for re-sale at largely increased prices. There appears also to have been this fact—though I have not yet been able to verify it—that there was a kind of clause in the contract of sale between Sir Hugh St. Aubyn and the purchaser to the effect that he could not attempt to sell or dispose of it again until the lands had first been offered to the lessees and tenants at fair and reasonable prices to be fixed under the advice of a certain gentleman named. It does not appear that that undertaking—if it was an undertaking—was properly observed, and that an advance in the prices over those at which the land had been purchased was fixed which made it impossible in most cases for the tenants to buy.
I think that my noble friend will find that there are peculiar circumstances which may have caused a great deal of bad feeling in the locality. That does not, of course, excuse violent proceedings at the sale. With regard to the action of Mr. Rowe I have nothing to go on except the newspaper report which my noble friend was good enough to send me, but I must at once repudiate any suggestion that Mr. Rowe was acting as an agent of the Board of Agriculture or was authorised in any
448
way directly or indirectly to act for the Board.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I did not suggest that for a moment. I happen to know that the Small Holdings Committees at present often act practically as the agents of the Board of Agriculture, and when a gentleman asserts that he is acting on behalf of the Small Holdings Committee I thought that indirectly that would bring in, however unwillingly, the Board of Agriculture.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I hope that I shall not be held responsible for the actions of gentlemen who are very remotely connected with our operations, and who suggest they are acting with our authority. Mr. Rowe was not authorised in any way. I would point out that the Small Holdings Committees are not really agents of the Board of Agriculture. Our action in the matter is merely that we control in the last resort the price that they pay when they are spending public money. That is the only extent to which we are concerned with the operations of the Small Holdings Committees. With regard to this particular gentleman, I know nothing of the circumstances except what appears in the newspaper report, and I rather hesitate to condemn him unheard, even though his action may on the face of it be both tactless and provocative of very undesirable results. I certainly do not approve of such a course of action.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Will my noble friend make further inquiries?
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Certainly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until half-past three o'clock tomorrow.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before nine o'clock.