Lords Sitting of 26 February 1919

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
LORD INVERFORTH.
The Right Hon. Andrew Weir, Minister of Supply, having been created Baron INVERFORTH of Southgate in the County of Middlesex—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to remove disqualifications on the ground of sex for the admission of persons to practise the law.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

COAL INDUSTRY COMMISSION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I have now to ask your Lordships to pass this Bill through all its stages to-day in order that it may receive the Royal assent at the earliest possible moment, and so authorise the effective inception of the Commission which the Bill seeks power to establish. Your Lordships are, I am sure, familiar with the situation. What has passed recently in another place has, I think, made it more than ever urgent that despatch should be shown by this House. I accordingly make the Motion which is on the Paper.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI. and XXXIX. be considered in order to their being suspended for this day's sitting so that the Coal Industry Commission Bill may have precedence of the other Notices and Orders of the Day, and that it may be passed through all its stages.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I need not say that I do not rise in any way
340
to oppose the Motion which the noble Earl has made, or indeed to complain of the action of His Majesty's Government in bringing it forward. The national position, as we all know, is far too grave for us to take any thought of our own amour propre in this matter, or even of the amour propre of your Lordships' House. But I do think that it is necessary to point out on this occasion that the effect of the Motion made by the noble Earl is practically to reduce to a nullity the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House. I think it may be assumed that when we reach the Committee stage the noble Earl will point out to us that it is practically impossible for us to send the Bill back with any material Amendments, or even drafting Amendments, to another place, in view of the necessity of its being submitted to the Royal Commission this evening. That may be a necessity—I do not dispute it—and I am quite sure that it is deplored by nobody more than the noble Earl opposite. But, of course, it does reduce the position to this—that although, I suppose, some speeches will be made by your Lordships on the Second Reading of this Bill, for all the effect they will have they might just as well be made at the Oxford Union. It will hardly be supposed that the newspapers will even go to the trouble of reporting a debate of that kind which can have no conceivable effect upon the position in this House or out of it. That being so, I can only express—what I believe is shared by many of your Lordships' House—a feeling of profound regret that His Majesty's Government have found it necessary to take this course. But the urgency cannot possibly be disputed; not merely days but even hours are valuable in this particular instance. The noble Earl, therefore, has an irrefragable case; but it is, I think, a most deplorable necessity.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I beg leave to move that the Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships have been discussing the general labour situation for two or three days, and that debate will be resumed next week. I therefore think that it is probably unnecessary to go into the broad aspects of the particular difficulty in the coal-mining industry, and I suggest that I should confine my remarks to a brief outline of the clauses of this Bill.

341
I may remind the House that the demands put forward by the coal miners consisted of a demand for a six-hours day, for a 30 per cent. increase in wages, for nationalisation of the mines or something of that character, and for special demobilisation terms for men engaged in working in and about coal mines. This demand reached the Coal Controller, and through him the Government, a very short time ago, and an offer was made to increase the wages by 1s. a day upon the existing war wage to meet increased cost of living; and furthermore that an immediate Inquiry should take place in order to investigate other problems which were raised by these demands.
I imagine that everybody is familiar with the subsequent course of the controversy. This Bill is presented in pursuance of the decision of the Government to make the investigation to which I have referred. An Act of Parliament is necessary in order to invest the Inquiry with statutory powers, to give it full powers to conduct its investigations in the completest possible manner. The second clause of the Bill confers upon the Commission practically all the rights, privileges, and powers which are vested in the High Court of Justice. The Commission therefore has power to order the production of papers and documents, to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of any evidence it may desire; and there is a penal clause under which any person who infringes these instructions can be committed for contempt of Court. At one time, I understand, it was contemplated that the names of the Commissioners should be inserted in the Bill. That has not been carried out in practice, though it has been announced that Mr. Justice Sankey will act as Chairman of the Commission. But the personnel of the Inquiry is largely dependent upon the decision taken by the miners who, I understand, are to-day discussing their attitude on the subject.
I readily acknowledge the justice of what was just said by Lord Crewe. I deplore, as sincerely as he does, the fact that a Bill of this magnitude and complexity—not the Bill itself because that is a simple thing, but the issue governed by the Bill—should have to be pressed forward at such short notice. But I am afraid we are almost helpless in the matter. The fifth clause gives the Commissioners the power to
342
make Interim Reports, and instructs them as soon as practicable to make an Interim Report on the questions of wages and hours of work of the colliery workers. That does not specify in legal terms the actual date on which these gentlemen are expected to finish their Report upon that aspect of the question; but the Prime Minister has promised that the first part of the Report—namely, that relating to wages and hours—should be submitted on March 20. General questions—those, for instance, dealing with the organisation of the industry as a whole—can be dealt with under less pressure and at a subsequent date. Any Reports which are prepared by the Commission will in due course be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
I must admit that the time available is very short for a subject of such magnitude, but a great deal of preliminary work on the one side and the other has already been accomplished. A good deal of valuable evidence is already in the hands of the various Government Departments, and between now and the third week of March probably a great deal of good work can be done to elucidate this problem of hours and wages. If there is any technical point in the clauses of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will no doubt reply on questions of practice and procedure. Meanwhile, on the main principle of the Bill, I commend it to your Lordships' favourable consideration, and beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
THE EARL OF LINDSAY: My Lords, I should like to enter a protest against what I consider to be the utterly inadequate time that is going to be allotted to this Commission to make their inquiry regarding the advance of 30 per cent. in the men's wages and the reduction in the hours from eight to six. I understand that the Commission will assemble on March 3, that they will not commence to take evidence until March 5, and that their labours are to be concluded by March 20. That is, roughly speaking, a fortnight. I think we shall all agree that, considering the scope and magnitude of the Inquiry, this time is all too short. We all know and sympathise with the reason for cutting down the time allotted to the Commission; it is, if possible, to avert what would be nothing more or less than a. national calamity—a

343
great strike. But when we come to consider the area covered by the coalfields of Great Britain and Ireland—I understand that Ireland is included—and when we further consider that there are some 3,000 to 4,000 collieries affected, it will be seen how utterly impossible in the time allotted it will be to get anything like as complete evidence as one would wish. Then you should further bear in mind that the conditions of working, wages, and many other things vary considerably in different districts, not only in regard to coalfields as widely separated as Northumberland and Somerset, but in places situated quite close together, where the conditions are entirely different. For instance, South and West Yorkshire have always claimed to be, and are, on an entirely different footing from one another with regard to wages, &c.
I view with grave suspicion this evident anxiety of the miners' leaders in the other House, and those who are evidently more interested in the nationalisation of mines, to divide the task of this Commission into portions. I do not think it is right; I believe that eventually it will work out disadvantageously to the scope of the whole finding. They ought to have been kept together, and then the Inquiry would have been of greater value. If, as the men's leaders say, their plans are based upon justice and they are certain they can be granted without any damage being done to existing interests, what harm is there in a little further delay? What difference will it make if this Inquiry lasts, say, another month or even six weeks, which, after all, is only a reasonable time? I do not think that the public or a great many of the members of either House of Parliament fully grasp the meaning of these demands. I am pretty well acquainted with the workings in one portion of the coalfields of England, and I do not believe that these demands are put forward by the men themselves. They are put forward by a group of leaders and men who desire to put the owners in an impossible position. It is not the case of holding a revolver to one's head, but a "75." They know perfectly well that their demands cannot possibly be acceded to.
If I may be allowed to refer to it, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his speech yesterday made a statement which I think might give grounds for misapprehension, though I am sure he did so un-
344
intentionally. He stated that what excited a great amount of distrust and suspicion amongst the men was that on previous occasions, whenever demands of this or a similar kind had been made, they had always been put off by the owners of the industries affected saying their demands were likely to jeopardise, if not to ruin, the industries concerned. He went on to say that these prognostications had never been fulfilled, though the men had always had their requests acceded to. With all due respect to the noble Earl, I entirely disagree with him. I agree to this extent, that their demands have always been acceded to, but at whose expense? It has always been at the expense of the public, who have to pay in the long run.
I will give your Lordships a recent instance. Some of you may be aware that the last two advances to the miners of 2s. each, totalling 4s., were agreed to in order to meet the increased cost of living. What happened? The owners were obliged to go to the Controller, the late Sir Guy Calthrop, whose early demise we all so deeply deplore and whose advice at this juncture would have been of immense value. He was obliged to accede to the owners' request and allow them to add an additional 4s. to the selling price. This sum was ear-marked specifically for the men's wages, and any sum not used up as such had to be returned to the Controller. That is an exact example of what will happen in this case. I do not know whether your Lordships have any idea of what this modest request will mean to you and to the country, but it has been computed, and I think very modestly, that on the average it will mean an additional cost of at least 8s. per ton. Your Lordships can very easily work out what that will amount to, and what the public will have to pay.
The real reason why I have risen is that. I have always regarded this House as the guardian of the public and the public interest, and I think it will be very wrong if, having regard to what will be the after effects of this Inquiry, a protest is not made at this juncture, and if I do not point out that the time allotted to this Commission in which to take evidence on this very important subject, is in my opinion far too short.
VISCOUNT WIMBORNE: My Lords, I only wish to ask a question, and that is

345
whether the date March 20, which I understand is not in the Bill, is conditional upon the miners' representatives taking their place upon the Commission of Inquiry. I should be glad if the point could be cleared up, because the advantage of getting the miners to take part in the Inquiry is clear, and I understood from the debate in another place yesterday that there was a sort of understanding that the date had been modified to attract them to come and take a hand in the Inquiry.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I do not think that I did as a matter of fact say what the noble Lord opposite ascribes to me, as to the capitalist saying he would be ruined by each advance and yet surviving, but I have not much hesitation in associating myself with the sentiment. I do think that we cannot discuss this Bill usefully this afternoon—we have not time and shall not have the opportunity—and it is a most unfortunate thing that the Inquiry itself should be so rushed. To that extent I should be quite prepared to associate myself with the noble Lord opposite, in saying that into an industry so large and so complex you cannot have anything like a reasonable Inquiry in what is practically a fortnight's working time. I raised a point yesterday as to nationalisation, as to which the noble Earl in charge of the Bill said nothing, and I suggested then, what I think was rather borne out afterwards by the remarks of the most rev. Prelate, the Archbishop of York, that an announcement on that subject would possibly stave off immediate proceedings on the part of the men. I rather gather, if I am correctly informed by the journals this morning, that they have agreed or are likely to agree to postpone the actual strike, on the understanding that this Report will be ready by March 20, and, if so, the immediate object is gained. I think it is the Government, and the Government alone, who are to blame for the hurried nature of the Inquiry. These matters ought to have been taken in hand months ago, and it has been known for months that the situation was acute. In the circumstances we can say nothing useful, but must simply let the Commission be set up and hope for the best from an Inquiry which is clearly not an Inquiry in the sort of atmosphere in which one would consider the matter with a reasonable chance of arriving at an honest solution as between the parties.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I only rose to concur entirely with what has fallen from the noble Earl who has just spoken, but I submit to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that if a Minister of Cabinet rank makes such a pronouncement as was made more than three months ago, surely it should be possible on another occasion for the Government to take the matter into sufficient consideration to avoid such a most unfortunate state of facts as has how arisen. After all, there are many men in this House with great acquaintance with the coal trade, but it does not need great acquaintance with the trade to know that there is a vast difference between different classes of mines, and that it would be absolutely impossible for one body of men, many of whom have had no previous acquaintance with the subject, to arrive at a proper solution, dealing with the whole trade, in the time suggested. For any of us to attempt to debate the Bill this afternoon would be lending ourselves to a farce, and we can only accept the situation which has arisen and trust that the noble Earl will do his best to prevent our being placed in a similar position should other difficulties of a like kind arise in connection with other trades.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I think Lord Russell is wrong in saving that these demands were made months ago. Certainly one of the most difficult of the demands to accede to was that dealing with demobilisation, which has only reached the authorities within a very few weeks from to-day.
EARL RUSSELL: The one as to demobilised men receiving pay?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes. Some of the demands are in effect quite new. I am afraid I have to express my agreement with much of the criticism that has fallen from your Lordships. I would demur, as an admirer and advocate of this House, to the view taken very strongly by Lord Crewe, that because it is not in the power of this House to amend a Bill discussion is therefore fruitless. I do not accept that view, and I do not think that the value of discussions in this House is to be measured by the number of Amendments which we put into Bills. If your Lordships think it is farcical to present this Bill to Parliament, I can only

347
express my regret. Lord Wimborne asked me as to the actual date of the Report. The Bill states that the Report shall be made as soon as practicable. I am informed that, if the miners join the Inquiry, March 20 is the date by which the Report can be expected.
VISCOUNT WIMBORNE: It is conditional then?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If they do not join the Inquiry, it is contemplated that it will not be finished by the 20th. But there is a material point which I think has not received enough notice in this brief conversation℄namely, that these Reports will be Interim Reports, not Final Reports. Everybody admits that the time is short and the subject is large. There are wide variations in conditions and practice of coal-mining, not merely from one end of the country to another, but from one corner of a county to another. Everybody knows that and acknowledges it. If your Lordships will read the terms of Clause 5 you will see that the Commissioners shall make as soon as practicable an Interim Report on the questions of wages and hours. That, I think, puts a different complexion on what was stated by my noble friend Lord Midleton. I can only add that Mr. Justice Sankey, the Chairman, has been consulted on this question, and, though I dare say he would like a longer interval of time, he has said that it would be possible to issue the first general review of the position by that date in an interim fashion, assuming that he can get the help of the miners.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Bill read 3a, and passed.

FOOD PRICES.
VISCOUNT DEVONPORT VISCOUNT DEVONPORT rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are taking steps, and if so what, to bring about an immediate reduction in the prices of food and other supplies to the consumer; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, during the three days' debates which have taken place in this House on the subject
348
of industrial unrest many reasons have been assigned as to the causes, but probably the outstanding one of all is to be found in the increased cost of living. I think this has contributed more than any other cause towards what we call industrial unrest. As regards wages, until now the demand for increase of wages has been based almost entirely on the increased cost of living. There has been no general demand for new conditions such as are now presented to us, but the advances that have taken place since 1915℄all of them℄have been of the variety that I may call war bonuses, and the insistence on the granting of these bonuses has been based exclusively on enhancement in the cost of living. In consequence of this, wages have more than doubled, and if I may quote a figure which was given the other day by Lord Emmott℄I think we can accept it, because he is a careful speaker and an authority upon the subject with which he was dealing℄he mentioned that the increase in wages per year is between £700,000,000 and £1,000,000,000. If that has been governed as I suggest it has been, by the price of food, it is a very important question for us to consider when and how a reduction can be brought about.
During the last eighteen months the Government have been in entire control of the purchase of all food supplies and practically of their distribution, in so far as they have fixed the selling prices through the various stages of commerce from the wholesalers down to the final distributor. Prices have been advancing all the time. Wages show that. And it is not to be wondered at considering the circumstances in which the Government found themselves in their buying operations. The Government have been the sole buyers. They had a limited sphere for their operations. They have not had at their disposal, as was the case in pre-war days, the whole of the markets of the world, but they have been limited more or less to a narrow area, consisting mainly, though not entirely of course, of North America. I would like to say that I am convinced that were it not for control, in spite of its difficulties and handicaps, prices would have gone very much higher.
We have now got to the stage where war conditions no longer prevail. We are released from the submarine menace, and shipping, although not absolutely free, has had restored to it a considerable amount

349
of freedom of which it was deprived wider war conditions. Therefore I say we are entitled in these circumstances to expect, and indeed to look for, some modifications as regards prices, and certainly as regards control. I dare say your Lordships have noticed that in the last few days there have been many official communications passing from the Ministry of Food to the Press on this subject of prices and control. Certain modifications—some of great importance—have been already announced. I think these modifications in themselves go far to support the argument that has been used that a revision was urgently needed. I think it has been delayed in some cases far longer than has been justified. I shall, perhaps, touch upon that in a moment or two in order to prove what I say. I propose to show that inherent in the situation to which I have referred are reasons and difficulties of purchase which account for high prices. At the preseirt moment a much greater scope exists for effecting a More sweeping reduction of control prices, and the general opinion which prevails so much is correct, that the most abbreviated period of a continuance of control will best promote the interests of the country.
The Government position is this. They have stated, I believe, that they are the best judges of the moment when control should be removed, but a contrary opinion has prevailed for some time among the shipping people especially, and also among the mercantile community—and there is abundant evidence to show that control in many things should be relinquished. To demonstrate that, I
will briefly deal with the position of the stocks of some of the leading commodities, those which are vital. Many of these stocks are increasing, and in addition to that the visible supplies—that is, supplies that are available, and yet are not within the United Kingdom—are so great that if the trader were free to operate, as he was before control was imposed, it is fair to assume (and it is stated generally) prices would fall much below those at present ruling.
Take first the case of wheat. The stocks of wheat in the United Kingdom on January 1 were over twelve million quarters, that is double the amount of stocks in 1917, and half as much again as we had in 1918. Lord Crawford, who is an expert on all questions pertaining to the stock of wheat, will remember quite well the serious position which with we were con-
350
fronted about January 1, 1917. I unfortunately had to bear the brunt of that when I first became Food Controller. We had large quantities of wheat bought at the other end of the world, in Australia—about 3,000,000 tons—but it proved to be ungetatable. Consequently unless some very immediate and effective steps were taken I do not hesitate to say that by the month of April this country, in 1917, would have been, not breadless, but in such a condition that there would have been certain and constant distribution of it. I think Lord Crawford will agree with that. Now the stocks in this country are large, and they are, I am told, rapidly increasing, and there is available all the wheat the Government bought and never brought home. Lord Crawford will be able to tell us what is the position of that supply. It was bought by the Asquith Government in 1916, and as far as I know it remains there still. I have not verified this, but I shall be glad to be informed whether the Government in the following year also bought the Australian wheat crop. If that be true, the stocks of wheat in Australia at the present moment must be enormous, and my noble friend will do us a great service if he will tell us the exact situation as regards the wheat in Australia.
I observed in the papers the other day an official communication from Mr. Roberts, the Food Controller, saving that it would be impossible to bring home more than 1,000,000 tons of this wheat during the cereal year. I do not think that statement should be accepted. I have made several inquiries in the last few days among shipping people with whom I am constantly in touch, and they assure me that there would be no difficulty at all in bringing home a much greater quantity than that suggested. In the Argentine there are apparently large quantities of wheat and also of maize, which are offering at prices much below those at present being paid by the Wheat Commission in the United States, whence they are drawing the main portion of their supplies.
I expect most of your Lordships noticed a very important letter which appeared in The Times last week from Mr. Runciman, a former President of the Board of Trade, one who has considerable experience in mercantile affairs and in shipping. What he said in effect was this—that wheat is now sold by the Government, landed in this

351
country, at 94 s., but if buyers were free to operate on their own account it could be landed at 28 s. lower; that is to say, 66 s., including freight; and he made a similar statement in regard to maize. I do not pretend to be an expert on these questions, but I think we ought to have some reply to that statement, because it is urgently necessary in the interest of the financial stability of this country that we should get down the price of wheat at the earliest possible moment, if for no other purpose than to get rid of that milestone around the taxpayers' neck—the £60,000,000 per year by reason of the loaf being artificially reduced to 9d. by subsidy. That is a terrible burden of over £1,000,000 a week, and therefore if there is anything in Mr. Runciman's contention—and I expect there is a great deal—it surely would be expedient on the part of the Wheat Commission to avail themselves of these cheap wheat supplies in order that we may get rid at all events of that heavy financial responsibility.
But it was stated that there was a reason why these cheap markets should not be resorted to exclusively for our benefit, and one reason was this—that the cereals are being bought by the Wheat Commission on an inter-Allied basis. The Department that issued this official communication—I expect it was the Wheat Commission itself—went on to say—
"And clearly we could not have all the cheap wheat ourselves and leave the expensive sources of supply to our Allies."
If this means that we are prevented by some arrangement with the Allies from taking advantage of cheaper markets, it would be interesting to know how long this engagement is to last. In war time we had to submit to everything, and we did so with a good grace, but I think now that the war is over there would be a degree of impatience evinced by people if, because of inter-Allied arrangements, we were stopped from getting full advantage of buying in the cheapest market.
I pass on from wheat to meat. The stocks of imported meat in the United Kingdom are accumulating very rapidly. I think they are about 100,000 tons, and in New Zealand and Australia there are about 150,000 tons of meat awaiting shipment.. The storage there is full to repletion. During the war, of course, the tonnage difficulty has been such that we
352
have not been able to get the advantages of the meat supplies that Australasia at all times is willing to offer, so that at the present moment they have this enormous accumulation in their storage. In addition to that, they have a larger number of animals than ever before awaiting slaughter, pending increase in storage accommodation, because it is obvious that when storage accommodation is full to repletion they cannot go on slaughtering. Again, there is the position of our own flocks and herds. I am told that they are increasing. I know that they are being drawn upon, but only in a very modified way as compared with pre-war days. We are taking out of our flocks and herds in this country no more than 40,000 tons a month, while in pre-war days the amount would be double that, or perhaps even more.
Another thing I would refer to is tea, although I am glad to notice that an intimation has been given by the Government that control over tea is to cease in the coming month. It has been obvious for a very long time that the stocks of tea were such that continued control was unnecessary, and had been unnecessary in this country for the last month or two, during which time the stocks have been almost as high as at any previous period. Now I believe there are 142,000,000 lbs., and in addition to that there is available for shipment in the countries of production a similar quantity. Control no doubt has been held up unduly, but since the Government have intimated that they are going to release the control of tea—I think in a month's time—I do not press this matter very strongly.
I pass to the question of prices, which is far more vital. How are prices affected be control apart from or in addition to purchase price? I first ask the question. "What is the object of control?" I think when control was imposed the object was to secure an equal distribution for all alike; secondly, to establish uniform prices, so that all could buy at the same price and no one get more than he was entitled to. At the same time the idea was to prevent inflation of prices, speculation, and manipulation, and it was considered that with the Government as sole buyer competition would be eliminated and purchasers would be assured in consequence of better terms. I myself had the privilege of first introducing Mr. Hoover to the

353
Government to explain his policy. That was before he was appointed Food Controller, but it was obvious that he was going to be so appointed. The point that he insisted upon most emphatically was that there should be only one buyer in the market, not only as regards this country, bat as regards the Allies. The object, of course, was to eliminate competition. The people in this country readily assented to control, not only in relation to purchases but also as regards the fixing of prices, because they assumed that they would thereby he protected from exploitation, and that the Government itself would stand in the position of protector of their interests. The implied understanding was that any advantages that might accrue to the Government by reason of the skill or magnitude of its operations would be to the advantage of the consumers also.
I am sorry to say that I shall have to point out to-day that the increase in prices in many cases—in fact, in almost all—is attributable in part at least to Government action by reason of their charging consumers for the commodities they buy a very much higher figures than is fair and reasonable having regard to their cost price and the consequent expenses attendant on buying. The first example I will take will be that of bnported meat. In August, 1914, the Government made a contract with the Argentine shippers for beef. I think it was a very good contract. They paid 5⅗;d. a lb. for the beef for Army requirements, and the cost here I am told was about 7½d. per lb. including freight, insurance, and handling charges. At the time the contract was made the shippers were afforded the privilege of shipping on their own account a quantity equivalent to 20 per cent. of that shipped on Government account, and that of course was disposed of here by them for civilian consumption, and I have no doubt that they did remarkably well out of it. When the Government took over control themselves it became necessary, of course, for them to secure this 20 per cent., because they were the only distributors in the market, and they paid these Argentine packers, who were really the American packers, 10½d. a lb. for this meat. The Government now sell to the trade the same meat at 1s. 2¼d. per lb., which gives them apparently the enormous profit of 3⅗d. per lb. If we allow a margin—and I am prepared to hear that that must be allowed—for handling expenses, &c., it still leaves a profit that the Government
354
are taking which I think requires considerable explanation.
Let us pass on to Colonial meat. That also was bought by contract from the Australian and New Zealand Governments. The Government bought chiefly mutton and lamb, and the f.o.b. contract price for mutton was 5¾d.—it costs here I am informed 9d.—and the cost of lamb on the other side was 6⅛d.—and here it cost 10 d. I can speak with some intimate knowledge of this class of meat, because I had a good deal to do with it when I was Food Controller. The contracts, however, were made, before food control was established, by the Board of Trade who have ever since had the handling of the matter up to a certain point. When I was Food Controller this meat used to be sold to the wholesaler by the Board of Trade at 10 d. per lb. I believe at the present moment it is handed over at cost price, but the Ministry of Food is charging the wholesaler in Smithfield 1s. 3d. per lb. That gives a profit to the Government of 5d. per lb. on lamb, and 6d. per lb. on mutton. No wonder that prices are high if the Government take for themselves a stupendous profit of that kind.
My Question was on the Notice Paper before the Government intimated their intention to reduce the price of meat by 2d. per lb. They say that this will involve no charge upon the Exchequer. I think that is self-evident. I contend that the reduction should not be 2d. per lb. but should be double that, or perhaps more. I submit further that this reduction should have been made months ago. The Government should not have saddled the consumer with a profit of 5d. and 6d. per lb. They have no right to do so, and, if industrial unrest proceeds from high prices entirely, conduct of this kind must contribute something towards it.
Apart from this, there are reasons why high prices should be still further and instantly reduced. We see almost daily a statement in the papers of the numbers of men demobilised. It was 1,000,000, then it grew to 1,250,000, and I saw to-day in the paper that it had got to 1,700,000. That has a tremendous effect on the meat situation. A soldier when serving as such is entitled to 12 oz. of meat per day, when he gets it. That is 5¼ lbs. per week. The moment he becomes demobilised he only gets 19 oz. a week. That means that every man who is demobilised puts into

355
circulation, in effect, 4 lbs. of meat. That in it self ought to have an enormous effect upon the situation, and I assume that the Government have taken note of it.
I pass on to butter. Here again the Government, through the Dominions, purchased the entire output of New Zealand and Australia. The price they paid in Australia was 175 s. and in New Zealand 181 s., and they also bought large quantities from Argentina, for which they paid 165 s. The cost of freight, insurance, and handling charges is estimated at 36 s. per cwt., but the Government are selling at 252 s. per cwt. That gives them a profit of more than 4d. per lb. before they distribute it to the dealers, who transmit it finally to the consumer.
There is the case of tea. The Government took over the entire production of Ceylon and India. The prices were fixed on the average price that was realised by the grower for the three years previous to the war. A liberal estimate of the full average price paid for tea in the country of production at Calcutta and Colombo, f.o.b., was 9d. per lb.; and when freight, handling charges, insurance, and brokerage are added, the cost here would not exceed ls. per lb. The bulk of these teas are sold to the great distributing firms at. 1s. 4d. per lb., with a rebate, I believe, of a small sum. These rebates are rather difficult to follow. They are in some cases ½d. and in some cases, I believe, as large as 1½d. But take them at any figure between those poles, and it will be seen that the Government here again are making a large profit on a very heavy commodity, as tea is—not less than 2½d. a lb.; and in many cases double that. But the appetite of the Government seems to grow on what it feeds on. The other day they permitted a sale of tea for export to take place. The prices were allowed to take their own range, and on many transactions the Government netted a profit of over 1s. a lb.
I could quote many examples relating to other commodities, especially those that form a staple part of the working man's dietary. I will take another commodity, the case of wool. That plays a very large part in the making of clothing. The Government is taking a net profit of 30 per cent. on all the wool it distributes to the factories for manufacturing purposes. Unless it can be explained in some way, this
356
seems to me to be a dreadful profit to be taking on a raw material. Of course, the Government may justify themselves by saying that these profits in here to the public purse, or that they are a set-off against losses incurred in some other direction. But in whichever way they explain it, I maintain that it constitutes a tax on food and clothing, and I do not think that the Government are justified, either constitutionally or in any other way, in imposing upon the people a tax. Their duty is to transmit their purchases to the consumer as near to cost price as possible, covering, of course, their working expenses. I doubt very much whether Parliament itself knows about the heavy charges being imposed by the Government. I have spoken to many members of Parliament about it recently, and very few of them have the faintest idea that the Government is making these large profits on its purchases. Looking at it from the constitutional point of view I would submit that the only authority to levy taxes—which these certainly are—is Parliament itself. The Government by the annual Finance Act receives its only authority to levy taxes, and in no other way can they be constitutionally levied.
I have not the slightest doubt that my statement will be contested in many particulars, but there is an easy method available for placing the matter beyond controversy. To-day we had a Bill before us setting up a special Commission on coal prices, profits, and wages. The whole basis of wages is prices, and I submit that this taking of big profits by the Government is a fair matter for inquiry, and I should be quite willing, as far as I am concerned—and I know many others would be also—that the whole thing should be a matter for investigation at the hands of a Select Committee. It is certainly a very serious matter, especially as wages have been so much affected by the cost of living, that we should find that much of the enhancement of the cost of living has been caused by Government action. I am quite certain the country did not know this and would not approve it, and the least we can expect is that we should have some sort of a statement as to what the results of these operations have been. At present we are considerably in the dark. The Government may have made profits of millions—they must have made them. If they are going to urge that it is legiti-

357
mate and that the money inures to the public purse, at all events, if we carry it no further, let us have some sort of statement as to what the yield has been, and then we shall be able to form an opinion for ourselves.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I reply in general terms to the Questions put by my noble friend by saying that the Ministry of Food desires to reduce prices, that it has done so materially already, and that it will do its utmost to continue that process. Before dealing with the specific arguments brought forward by Lord Devonport, I will refer to the actual reductions which have recently taken place. As regards meat, an all-round reduction of 2d. per lb. has been ordered as from March 3, and it is hoped that before long a further reduction will follow. I will refer to the bread question later when I deal with another aspect of the controversy. As regards cheese, a reduction of 2d. per lb. has been announced, and the possibility of a further reduction is under consideration; this, however, must depend upon the prices at which imported cheese can be obtained, and the price to be fixed for milk at home. Milk, again, will naturally fall during the coming months from the winter prices, but it is improbable that the price will fall below the summer prices prevailing in 1918. Condensed milk has been reduced by 1½d. a tin.
The margarine industry will be decontrolled as from the early days of March; the price will be lowered by 1d. or by 2d. per lb. That is made possible by two facts, both of them to the credit of the Ministry of Food. One is that ample supplies of raw material have been accumulated so that the industry can start with a secure outlook upon the future; and the second is that great and successful efforts have been made to develop the plant and equipment of margarine manufacturers. There a reduction in price is imminent. Tea is to be decontrolled in three or four weeks time; and it is probable that a reduction of anything from 2d. to 4d. per lb. can be ensured. The price of fish has fallen; and a substantial reduction is hoped for before long in the price of canned salmon. Dried fruits have come down by 2d. a lb. on the principal fruits; and currants have been reduced by 4d. a lb. Mill offals have been reduced by 10 s. a ton; some reduction seems probable in cereal
358
products, and I believe also in beer, though I am not sure.
Those are specific examples of reductions which have already been effected. I admit that the existing prices are still high, but I wish in justice to the Ministry of Food to point out what I think is very often forgotten—namely, that food prices have been more effectively regulated in this country than other prices, and that rises in food prices—from, say the middle of 1917 until the Armistice—have been relatively smaller than the rises in other articles of universal use, such as textiles, leather, soap, oil, candles, and coal. And if we compare the range of prices in Britain with the prices prevailing abroad, I think one gets an interesting comparison which shows that here at any rate we have managed to control our prices more effectively than others have done. I dislike quoting long rows of figures to your Lordships, but if I may take four main subjects of consumption I desire permission to do so—namely, beef, bread, sugar, and butter. Take beef. In this country the price of beef is 1s. 6¾4d.; in the United States, 1s. 9d.; in Paris, 2s. 2d.; and in Milan, 3s. Bread is complicated, of course, by varying forms of subsidy which exist here and with our Continental Allies. In this country bread is 9d.; in Paris, 10 d.; in Milan, 1s.; and in the United States 17½d. Sugar in this country is 7d.; in Paris, 8¾d.; in Milan, 1s. 6d.; in the United States, 5½d. Butter here is 2s. 6d., in the United States, 2s. 11½d.; in Milan, 3s. 4d.; in Paris, 4s.
You will observe that in only one item of those four fundamental food commodities is the price paid in this country higher than the prices paid in Italy, in France, or in the United States; and these are typical of other, though subordinate, food prices. Our difficulties in this country may be considerable, but I think we have surmounted them more successfully than they have been overcome elsewhere. There has been a good deal of controversy, and I think some misunderstanding also, about the attitude of the Treasury, which has been charged with obstructing the reduction of prices on the ground that such a reduction would reduce appropriations in aid of the Exchequer. That is really not the case. The Treasury has readily consented to dispose of stocks below their cost price, though insisting that reasonable conditions in such disposal shall be observed. It is

359
worse than useless to make reductions in prices unless those reductions can be maintained. We could sell the whole of our sugar stocks to-morrow at a reduction of 2d. or 3d. a lb. if we liked; we could sell in twenty-four hours at that reduction the whole 60,000 or 80,000 tons if we wanted to. But one must remember that such a course would involve a serious, and, perhaps a paralysing loss to numbers of small people who hold stocks.
It must be remembered that the Ministry of Food has constantly pressed private traders to take stocks. I myself during the last two or three years have constantly pressed the baking trade or householders to take flour stocks in order to relieve congestion at our ports. It is quite easy for us to smash prices. We could smash prices in sugar, or flour, or any article which is not perishable; but the result would be great distress, and possibly ruin, to some of those small people who have made their stocks, very often at our instance, in order to obviate difficulties in regard to port congestion and so forth. But quite apart from the loss of profit to individuals and small people, we must not cut our prices prematurely. That would accentuate all the existing difficulties. It would be disastrous in every way, and until we can be sure that there will be no reaction from a reduction of these prices, I submit to your Lordships that it would be most unwise to take action in that direction.
I would like to say a word or two about what Lord Devonport said as to undue profits on the part of the Government. I recognised with satisfaction that Lord Devonport admitted that the Government was entitled to a moderate margin.
VISCOUNT DEVONPORT: To cover expenses.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I thought the noble Viscount went a little further, and said there might be a moderate margin, which means a reasonable profit.
VISCOUNT DEVONPORT: I must contradict that. It is the last thing to which I should dream of assenting. Handling expenses and charges incidental thereto I agree, but profiteering on the part of the Government is, I think, an outrage.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I thought the noble Lord was prepared to assent to
360
the Government making a moderate profit, so long as it did not do anything excessive in that direction. I make a great distinction between the State earning a profit and the private individual; in other words, the State, acting on behalf of every citizen in this country, is entitled to do things which the private trader in certain circumstances may have to be forbidden to do. That is my personal view. I do not know whether it is right or wrong; if, as so many people claim, the State is not at liberty to make any profit, I wonder if that is to be axiomatic for the future, and whether it is to apply to telephones, post office, port authorities, and mines and railways, which may have become the property of the nation during the next generation. I think that, when the State is acting commercially, in justice to those with whom it must be in competition it should not suppress and abandon the honourable ideals of commercial life. I think an honourable profit is a test of commercial success, and if you once remove that test and tell State departments it does not matter if they make losses, which some people are inclined to do, then you get this trading reduced to a mere routine, to a red-tape machine, which will rapidly develop into a serious loss to the State, and thereby into a serious burden upon the taxpayer and a hindrance and impediment to industry as a whole.
The effort of the Ministry of Food throughout has been to cover costs. It may have made profits here, considerable profits perhaps, but it may equally have made losses in other directions, and it is not unreasonable to set one against the other. As to an Inquiry into this subject by means of a Select Committee, that of course is a matter which I cannot settle for myself, without considering it very carefully with the Food Controller. I think it will be quite sufficient if, with the assistance of the Controller and Auditor-General and Parliamentary Committees which are already in existence, this question of profits by the State, whether in food or in other trading capacities, should be investigated, but I must most respectfully remind your Lordships that the pressure upon these new Departments is tremendous. They were almost entirely recruited from volunteers. Their nucleus of trained and permanent Civil Servants is insignificant. With the return of peace these departments are gradually finding it very difficult to maintain their work at its high level of

361
efficiency, because so many of their officials desire, naturally and properly enough, to return to their own businesses. Unless some advantage is to be gained to the public welfare from these Committees of Inquiry, I greatly hope that they will not be heedlessly forced upon these departments. The burden of such a fresh obligation would in many cases be serious.
Now let me deal with two questions relating to bread-stuffs. The first question which Lord Devonport asked was about Argentine wheat, and he referred to a letter written the other day, which asked in effect why we should buy wheat in Canada and North America when cheaper wheat can be bought in South America. That criticism was based on several assumptions, which seem to me to be ill-founded. It was based, in the first place, upon the assumption that we have got credits in South America to buy this wheat. We have not. Secondly, it was based on the assumption that all this wheat belonged to Great Britain. It does not, or if bought it would not. It also seemed to me to be assumed that the quantity was adequate to provide for all our needs. If we got it all, the quantity would not be adequate. It also assumed that tonnage was available to carry it all. It is not. And finally, that port and loading conditions in the Plate would make it possible to move this wheat, if we had tonnage and finance. Unfortunately, the industrial conditions in the Plate have been such that for weeks past whole ports in that great exporting country have been completely paralysed. If my memory serves me aright, during last week not 20,000 tons of grain was shipped from the Plate, an astonishingly small figure.
Finally, pressing the Argentine claim is apt to ignore our commitments to our Dominions. It is quite true that Canadian wheat is much more expensive than Argentine wheat, but Canadian wheat is largely grown for Allied purposes. Tremendous, stupendous efforts were made in Canada to increase her acreage, and although the price of Canadian wheat on the seaboard may be a large figure compared with the f.o.b. price at Buenos Ayres, none the less I am not quite prepared to admit that this is a matter in which cheapness is the sole, or indeed the governing, factor; and this is well illustrated by the position, about which Lord Devonport asked a
362
question, in Australia. We purchased very large quantities in that country, but we have also shipped large quantities. Lord Devonport said that he asked some of his shipowner friends about bringing it home, and they told him there would be no difficulty in doing so. I make a sporting offer to my noble friend. If he will introduce me to those shipowners, I will undertake that they shall have grain cargoes either to this country or Mediterranean ports, or be given an Indian option or a Suez Canal option. Every ton we can get in Australian waters will be loaded home for wheat or wheat flour. We have not found it so easy to get freight. The fact is that the Armistice has by no means solved the tonnage difficulty—by no means—and the grain, though of course it will be shipped as soon as possible, is not moving towards this country as rapidly as one would desire.
Here, my Lords, I wish, if I may, to make an observation to deprecate alarming and often misleading statements made on general food questions. They only make the public think that their interests are being neglected, and it seems a great pity that allegations of this character should be made. A day or two ago I read in a paper half-a-dozen lines which I should like to quote to your Lordships. It is a paragraph headed "Food Left to Rot"—
"In Australia, for want of shipment, hundreds of thousands of tons of wheat are at present stacked and going rotten and being devoured by rats. The same remark applies to our own country, where, in 1918, one-half of our yearly crops was given to the pigs, having been stored and held back so long that it went bad. Then take the case of Paraguay and the River Plate, where the same conditions prevail. Farmers and others remain idle because shipping has been messed about and used for all sorts of improper purposes."
There are three allegations which seem to me to be so ill-founded as to be quite fantastic.
The statement that hundreds of thousands of tons are going rotten and are being devoured by rats in Australia is an extraordinary exaggeration. The statement that in this country the same remarks apply—that grain is going rotten in this way, and that one-half of our yearly crops was given to the pigs because it had been stored and held back so long that it went bad—I have no doubt is made in good faith, but it fills me with astonishment. The crops

363
of the 1917 harvest—home-grown crops—amounted to over 8,000,000 quarters of wheat, over 7,000,000 quarters of barley, and over 26,000,000 quarters of oats. That is a total of 41,000,000 quarters of grain. It is alleged that one-half of it was stored and held back so long that it went bad and that it went to the pigs. In other words, that over 20,000,000 quarters of grain was fed to pigs. The last statement is just on a parity with others.
It is said that the same conditions prevail in the Plate; that is to say, the crops were held for so long that they went bad, and that farmers and others remained idle because the shipping has been messed about and used for all sorts of improper purposes. That is an allegation which cannot be sustained. Shipping in the River Plate, I think, was handled with extraordinary discretion and judgment. As many as fifty ocean-going steamers were in process of being loaded in a single day, and the quantities shipped from the Plate last year were, I suppose, unparalleled.
The idea that we held excessive stocks seems to me to be based on another misapprehension. During the war we did our utmost to accumulate stocks. These stocks were our best insurance against a continuance of the war, and in many ways they are a valuable insurance on reentering a time of peace. At the Armistice we held enormous stocks of ammunition which will be scrapped, but none the less their manufacture was imperative, because it was the most effective insurance that we could encompass. It is exactly the same with food, excepting indeed that the stocks we have accumulated help us to revive private trade. I have already referred to the fact that the heavy stocks of raw materials secured during the war and the development of the manufacturing industry of margarine has not only allowed a substantial reduction in price, but has practically given a great stimulus to this valuable trading business. That trade can now be de-controlled, because the competition which will reduce price has been effected.
One word in conclusion in reply to what Lord Devonport said about de-control. The Ministry of Food has every wish to revive private trade and enterprise, but international obligations, to which my noble friend alluded, still exist. These treaties cannot be denounced off-hand.
364
It is necessary, when these high contracts are abrogated, that terms and conditions shall be arranged so that none of the contracting parties shall suffer unduly, But, quite apart from international obligations, we must be cautious from the point of view of defending our own domestic interests. Lord Devonport said that the object of control was to equalise prices and to secure fair distribution. I differ from him. The primary object of control was to secure supplies. The first article controlled in this country was sugar. The object of that control was not to equalise prices or to look after distribution—both of which in the autumn of 1914 were looking after themselves—but to make certain that supplies were forthcoming. The second great object to be controlled was wheat and bread-stuffs. That was solely taken in hand by the State because, owing to the higher range of prices and the growing menace of submarines, the corn trade was finding itself unwilling and unable to face the risks of maintaining our necessary supplies. Subsidiary objects followed no doubt, very important objects too, of equalising prices and maintaining a fair distribution.
All these three objects have, on the whole, been satisfactorily achieved. As soon as these objects can be safely entrusted to private enterprise de-control will follow. But premature action will, in many respects, do much more harm than good; and difficult as it must be for private enterprise to continue to acquiesce in being controlled by the heavy hand of the State, I am sure it is to the public interest as a whole that these matters should not be unduly rushed forward, and that de-control should not take place until one can be assured against a reaction in prices. I am quite certain myself that the Ministry of Food is fully alive to the advantages which will follow de-control and the liberation of private enterprise, but it is determined that it shall not be brought into effect until the public interest justifies it.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, may I be allowed to say a few words in reply to the noble Earl? The noble Earl, towards the close of his observations, took objection to a challenge of Lord Devonport that the Ministry of Food have been making high profits, and he raised the question, Is this contention to hold good in future, and may we not look forward to a time

365
when high prices can legitimately be made? I was sorry to hear that observation. It is an entirely new thing altogether. I hold, and I venture to say it has always been held in days gone by, that Governments, British Governments at all events, have no business to embark upon trade at all, and they have only done so in this case under the stress of this terrible war. I hope it is not to go out that in future trading on the part of Government may be looked forward to. Certainly we live in strange times, and we hear a good many proposals that I object to altogether, particularly to its being accepted at the present time that Government, as a habit, may legitimately be engaged in trade.
The noble Earl said the Ministry of Food had made profits and losses. But what has the Ministry of Food done on the balance? I have put a question on this matter on former occasions, but I have never been able to elicit an answer from the noble Earl. I did elicit a reply as to what they were spending fur six months of last year, and it was just under the rate of £400,000,000 per annum. When I asked that they should show us the other side he was unable to tell me anything at all, and from that day to this I have never had a reply to that question. The noble Earl told us that considerable reductions had been made in prices already. That quite true, and I was very glad to hear it. I hope that further reduction will be made in the future, and without much more loss of time. One thing he did not reply to. My noble friend Lord Devonport spoke of the price of imported meat, and said the price charged was due very much to control. He pointed out that on lamb and mutton, which I think he said came from Australia and on which the price was 6⅛, per lb., the Government were making 5d. per lb, profit on lamb and 6d. per lb. profit on mutton. We have had no reply on that point from the noble Earl. I think we ought to have heard something about it, for it is a remarkable case.
With regard to the diminution of prices which ought to accrue, Lord Devonport pointed out another thing. He told us that soldiers were allowed to have meat at the rate of 5½ lbs. per week. What does that mean? Already 1,200,000 of these men have been demobilised, and if you multiply that by 5d. you get a very amazing sum which might have been forthcoming for the reduction of prices. I do not want
366
to delay the House, but I wish to say this about the Ministry of Food. I think the Ministry of Food—and I have shown it before in this House—are very largely responsible for the rise in the price of meat. I remember one of the debates we had here, and the question has never been answered, when we were told that it was only a question of 130,000 animals which had better not be killed under a certain scale of prices. Lord Milner was brought here, and we were told on the highest authority that that was the case. When I asked a question ten days afterwards in this House I was told that under that scale of prices there had been killed just under 1,500,000 animals, and of that number 275,000 were two year old. You do not kill two year old animals as a rule in England; if you do, you do not get one-third as much meat as if the animals were four years old. That was the policy of the Ministry of Food at that time. I do not know whether they have improved since, but I do know that we hear complaints of them in almost every direction that farmers are still hampered and do not know which way to look because of the restrictions still imposed, and that the sooner these restrictions are removed and the Ministry of Food comes to an end the better it will be for all people concerned in this country.

AUSTRALIA AND SHIPPING.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government, in view of the fact that the interests of the Commonwealth of Australia are being detrimentally affected for want of additional passenger and cargo tonnage, what steps the Government are taking to secure the use of some of the enemy steamers that were especially built for the Australian services, particularly as these ships can be put into commission forthwith, and British shipping companies are prepared to either charter or purchase them.
THE CIVIL LORD OE THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF LYTTON): My Lords, I am afraid that the Question of the noble Viscount is rather premature at the present time. I must remind him that the German merchant ships to which he refers are not yet under the control of the Allies. We have made a demand for those ships to be handed over, and negotiations are now going on in order to secure that they shall be placed in our hands, but until that has

367
been done it is obviously impossible to say what steps will be taken to utilise them. Those ships, when they do come into our hands, will be disposed of by the Inter-Allied Maritime Council, acting in consultation with the Commission which has been set up for considering the supply of food to enemy countries. Those will be the bodies who will be responsible for the use made of the ships when they are obtained. But until the ships are in our possession I am afraid that I cannot tell the noble Viscount what steps can be taken to utilise them.

DISPOSAL OF GERMAN FLEET.
LORD ISLINGTON LORD ISLINGTON rose to call attention to the statement recently made in the Press that the Conference in Paris are contemplating the sinking of all German naval ships now in British custody at Scapa, and to ask His Majesty's Government if there is any probability of this policy being carried out.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, what has chiefly influenced me in placing this Question upon the Order Paper is the remembrance of a somewhat significant remark made by my noble friend Lord Curzon in the course of his speech in the debate on the Address. In answering certain comments in regard to the lack of publicity of what was taking place in the Conference, the noble Earl informed the House that he was "surprised"—and if I remember right he added "on some occasions even concerned"—at both the amplitude and accuracy of the information obtained and imparted by the journalists at that Conference to the Press in regard to what was taking place within the Conference. When, therefore, I saw last week in nearly all the journals of the Press a statement—and I am bound to say the statement had with it a certain very positive ring—that it was seriously contemplated by the Conference to dispose of German ships now in custody in British ports by sinking them in mid-ocean, I recalled to my mind the remark of the noble Earl, and it appeared to me to be reasonable to ask His Majesty's Government if there was any truth in that statement, and, if so, whether they would give us the grounds upon which that decision has been made.
I have seen it estimated more than once that the ships of all classes and of various
368
calibre that are now in custody in our ports taken from the German Fleet amounts in value to something around £40,000,000. It would therefore appear on the face of it that a policy of destruction of this fleet, unless there was some very good reason for it—taking into consideration the present financial position of this and all the countries concerned—was a policy which might be deemed wasteful in the extreme. I do not desire to suggest by this Question, nor by the remarks that I am addressing to your Lordships, that the preservation of these ships should imply their subsequent use for naval war purposes by any one or any group of the Allied countries. I see in to-day's paper that a demand is being made by the French Government for a proportion of those ships to be handed over to that country. I can quite see—and I am sure that your Lordships will share the view—that there are obvious objections and difficulties in the way of carrying out such a policy, and I certainly do not intend, in the few remarks that I make to the House, to dwell on that aspect of it, because that aspect should, I think, properly be left to the representatives of the Powers to be decided at the Conference.
I am regarding this policy of destruction—if there be any truth in it—from the more immediate and practical point of view, and one which I think may reasonably be raised in the Parliaments of the countries concerned, and certainly of all those countries there is no Parliament in any one where there would be more justification for discussion of this subject than in the British Parliament. The destruction of a great fleet of modern battleships of various classes would appear to entail the destruction of a mass of material which surely could be converted to value of a considerable amount. I have heard it said more than once that these ships cannot economically be converted to commercial use. I am not competent to give an opinion upon that point, and I suppose that there would be only few in this House who would be in a position to do so, but I contend that before so drastic a course as that stated in the paper last week was given effect to, every effort should surely be made to test to the full as to whether these ships and the material of which they are composed cannot be put to useful and valuable purposes.
I submit that, far better than taking the opinion of individuals however expert in

369
that subject, the surest proof and the most reasonable test that could be made to see to what extent those ships could be put to other purposes would be to take each of the various classes of the ships and put them up to public auction. It would then be in the discretion of contractors to decide whether it was worth their while to buy the ships for a commercial purpose, or with a view to scrapping them and utilising the material of whîch they are composed. If such a procedure were given effect to it would be quite easy to impose a condition that no purchaser of any of the ships could utilise them hereafter for war purposes.
My reason for bringing this matter forward, and eliciting if possible an answer from His Majesty's Government, is that this is certainly one of the first and one of the largest tangible assets that has come to hand and is indeed available to the Allies. If there be value in it—and it is difficult to believe that there is not—surely it should not be squandered away unless some very good and unanswerable reason is given for doing so. We have to demand of Germany a vast sum of money to meet the solemn obligations which we, together with our Allies, have undertaken, to see to it at the earliest possible date and as effectually as possible, that the countries of our Allies, Belgium, France and Serbia, which have been laid waste should receive full reparation at the hands of Germany. Surely every £ that can be made available should be collected, and collected at the earliest date, to carry out with promptitude the reparation so urgently needed and anxiously awaited in these sorely-stricken lands. He would be a very light-hearted optimist who to-day can anticipate that a full sufficiency of wealth will be forthcoming from Germany to meet this tremendous and urgent liability to carry out promptly and adequately this indispensable work of reparation.
It does, therefore, seem to me—and I hope that your Lordships will share the view—that it is of the utmost importance that every resource that comes to hand should be put to this purpose, and that no resource, even though it be modest or insignificant, should be diverted to any other purpose, still less to what would really appear to be a mere spectacular, dramatic demonstration, which might be pleasing to the contemporary militant
370
eye, but which is not to be considered in comparison with the immense responsibilities and the great financial difficulties that confront us. The demands of the times are too urgent, the financial resources of the future are too precarious, and I therefore hope that His Majesty's Government will tell us that the project of destruction is not to be carried out. I feel sure also that if my noble friend is in a position to reply in that sense, it will allay the apprehension of many thousands of people in this country and in the Allied countries as well.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I do not find myself in disagreement with anything that my noble friend has said. But I fear it is not possible for me to give him very much information, and if he will consider for a moment the circumstances of the case I think he will understand why that is so. The subject which my noble friend has raised in his question might very well give rise to a long and interesting debate. The question of what is to be done with the German Fleet is one of the utmost interest and of considerable difficulty. But that is precisely the question which those who are now assembled in Paris have come together to decide. It is one of the main conditions of the peace which will be imposed upon the enemy; the decision, therefore, does not rest with His Majesty's Government, but with the representatives of all the nations, who are now assembled to draw up the terms of peace.
My noble friend has read a statement in the newspapers that one suggestion put forward for consideration by the Conference is that these ships should be taken out to sea and sunk in deep water, and he asks me to say whether there is any possibility of this policy being carried out. I am afraid I am not in a position to say whether that—which is one of the various suggestions put forward—is, or is not, likely to be accepted. But I think I can assure my noble friend of this, that if this proposal were accepted and carried out it would only be because all the representatives assembled in Paris came unanimously to the conclusion, after considering all the questions to which he has called our attention this afternoon, that this was on the whole the best course to adopt. That decision must rest with the Conference.

371
But I understand that my noble friend wants to know what is the attitude which the representatives of this country will take on this question. I do not feel that I have any authority to disclose any instruction which may be given to our delegates upon this or any other subject which will be discussed in Paris. I think, however, I may say that the point to which we attach overwhelming importance is that these ships should not in future continue to form part of any of the naval armaments of the world, that they should not be added to the fleets of any nation. That is an essential question of policy on which the Government feel very strongly. I do not gather that my noble friend takes any exception to that policy; in fact, I think he supported it himself.
If these ships are never again to be used as ships of war, there really remain only three possible means of disposing of them. The first is that they should be taken out to sea and sunk; the second is that they should be broken up; and the third is the course suggested by my noble friend, that they should be put up to public auction and go to the highest bidder—always subject to the condition (and I understood him to apply this condition) that they are not to be used for naval purposes. I do not know whether it is, in fact, an economic proposition to break up these ships. It is a question upon which expert opinion will have to be obtained. It would take a great deal of time and a great deal of labour, and would, consequently, involve a great deal of money. And when my noble friend said that these ships were valued a £40,000,000 he did not, I think, mean to suggest that here was material which could in any way realise £40,000,000. These ships may have cost £40,000,000 to produce as engines of war; they may be worth £40,000,000 as engines of war, but for any other purpose they are only worth what they could be used for, after deducting the cost of breaking them up. But it is simply and solely an economic proposition. If it would pay to use the material in these ships for any other purpose I have not any doubt that the Conference would decide that the ships should be so used.
If I may express an opinion, I should personally strongly favour the course which my noble friend suggests, because that at any rate does offer some opportunity of finding out whether it is an economic proposition. I think it would be deplor-
372
able, if there are persons in the world willing to buy these ships as scrap and to remove them at their own expense and turn them to some use other than that of using them as engines of war, if the advantage were not taken of such a possibility. But, as I said, the matter is one which the Conference must decide. I can only conclude by again assuring my noble friend that all the circumstances in the case will be taken into consideration, and the course which is found to be on the whole consistent with policy and with the general needs of the Allied countries will, I feel confident, be adopted.

RE-OPENING OF PUBLIC MUSEUMS.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government when it is proposed—

1. To replace the staff of the Board of Education in their permanent offices;

2. To re-open those sections of the public museums which have been closed during recent hostilities.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope I may not receive from the noble Lord who is going to reply for the Government the ordinary kind of stereotyped reply of which, perhaps, I myself have been guilty in former days—namely, that this matter is under the consideration of the Government, who hope that before long the museums of the country may resume their normal conditions and that the staff of the Board of Education may be returned to their own premises.
I shall not dwell upon the fact that to me it seemed quite unnecessary for the Board of Education staff to be removed from the offices which were built for them and which accommodated them well. Nor shall I dwell upon the fact that, after they were turned out of their premises for many months, several of the rooms were not occupied by any other Government Department, and that there was a very extravagant expenditure in new carpets and other things for the new Departments which went into premises that were very well furnished and adequate for the purposes of the Board of Education in the period of peace. But I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that at the present moment the Board of

373
Education staff is distributed almost all over London. One portion is in St. James's square, another is in Cromwell-rd., another is in Exhibition-rd., a very large portion, together with the records, is in the Victoria and Albert Museum, while heads of Departments are in their own premises in Whitehall. It is impossible to administer a great Public Department efficiently if the various branches are distributed and the records are placed in most unsuitable spots—that is to say, in the galleries and courts of a great public museum. I am not going to dwell upon the position as it may concern other museums with which I am not particularly associated; I will leave that to my noble friend Lord Harcourt if he cares to do so after I sit down; but I would like for a moment to call attention to the conditions of the Victoria and Albert Museum. Half the Museum for a very long period has been closed to the public with most disastrous effects on the trade and industry of the country; and that policy is being continued during the period of the Armistice.
Only in the last fortnight two large rooms in the Indian Museum have been taken over, I suppose at the bidding of the First Commissioner of Works, for the purposes of curios connected with the war, with the result that very important classes connected with the great textile industries in Glasgow and in Manchester have been made impossible, and the classes connected with the manufacture of cotton goods—which classes have been held to be of inestimable value in the trade are indefinitely post-posed. A great utilitarian object is therefore removed from the purposes for which these museums were erected, and sacrificed at the bidding of another Minister. I can only express my surprise that a man like my right hon. friend Mr. Fisher should have acquiesed, during a time of peace such as we are now having, in another portion of these museums being taken away from the admirable purpose for which they were intended and being used, in order to store curios.
It seems to me that the Government entirely ignore the great value of the Victoria and Albert Museum. The Museum is not merely for the improvement of public taste and for the curious to visit; it is a great institution which was created in order that the people of this country connected with our great trades might study the manufacture, the workmanship, the
374
quality as well as the design, of the various articles which consumers may require. In the pottery and glass trades, in metal work of all kinds, in architecture, in furniture, in wood-work, in embroidery, in textiles, that Museum has done an infinite amount of valuable work, and is capable to-day of doing much more. If you close a museum you put an end to the opportunities of the people employed in industry to go there and see how things ought to be produced, as well as preventing them from securing instruction; and you turn down all possibility of expansion in production at the very time when it is most important to the trade of the country that every encouragement should be given to manufacturers.
The attendance at the Museum is an indication of the way in which this policy has been pursued. Before the war the attendance was 24,000 persons a week; during the war and owing to the closing of the Museum it dropped down to 7,000, but recently it has risen to 9,000. It is obvious, moreover, that the congestion of the exhibits is such that, the public cannot adequately see the objects they want to see. The Colonial troops come here, having heard of the great reputation of the Museum, and ask to see things which are not on view; consequently they go away full of complaints and disappointment. The circulation portion of the Museum has been entirely closed, so that the exhibits which were sent into the provinces are no longer despatched; and there is a great outcry from the provinces that people in the local trades are deprived of the opportunity of seeing those exhibits. There is a great movement in this country for War Memorials, and no better place exists than the North Court of the Victoria and Albert Museum for an exhibition of War Memorials, but there is no opportunity of having such an exhibition. Furthermore, there is no opportunity of utilising the Museum for the international textile exhibitions which I know were being contemplated at one time. It is because the Museum is being misused at present that I strongly protest against the continuation of its use for storing Board of Education records. These records are most inflammable in character, and are dangerous to the whole of the exhibits in the Museum. It is also because I feel so strongly on this subject that I press the noble Lord to name an early day when this condition of affairs will end.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: My Lords, I ask your permission for only a moment or two to add something to what my noble friend has said about the Victoria and Albert Museum, something that is within my own knowledge as trustee of the other museums and public galleries which have been occupied during the war by the Government, and are still occupied by many Departments. Take first the Wallace Collection in Hertford House. During the latter part of the war that was occupied by the Naval Intelligence Branch of the Admiralty. That Branch was actually moving out on Armistice day, and thereafter the Government proceeded to occupy Hertford House with the Munitions Branch, Special Investigation of Accounts. This Branch may occupy that Gallery for years to come. It has engaged 175 clerks. Before the collections here can be restored some redecoration must be done. But a further injury is inflicted upon these priceless collections from the fact that, by the occupation of the Government Departments, we are compelled to keep them stored in the tubes underground, where they were put for safety against expected air raids which never took place. Anybody who knows anything about armour and inlaid furniture and ormolu knows that a tube 60 feet under London is not a very suitable storage room, although I am bound to say that the Office of Works has done everything in its power to render the tubes as suitable as possible for storage.
The National Portrait Gallery is occupied by the Separation Allowances Department of the War Office, with 400 clerks. All the galleries are occupied, and redecoration must take place before they can be again thrown open to the public and the pictures rehung. The agreement for occupation made and signed between Lord Kitchener and myself provided that it should be restored for public exhibition of the pictures there in not less than three months after peace. Those are the words used in the agreement—"ready for public exhibition." There is no chance of its being ready within twelve months, and I am sure the noble Lord, who is a co-trustee, would not think that statement an exaggeration on my part.
Then there is the London Museum, what is now called Lancaster House. It is occupied by a mass of small bodies, including the French Shipping Mission, the Allied Maritime Council, the Shipping
376
Intelligence Section, the Allied Maritime Transport Council, the American Shipping Mission, the Italian Shipping Mission, and a staff of about 180. They occupy the whole building except the basement. Redecoration will have to be done there before it can be thrown open to the public. All our collections there have been brought back from the tubes and are ready for exhibition and distribution about the rooms whenever the Government remove their clerks and officials. I think I ought to say here that, both in the case of the London Museum and the British Museum, all the objects that were packed away against air raids in the tubes have now been brought back, and that in no single case has the slightest damage been suffered by any single article. I think it is a tribute to the almost loving care taken, in most cases by amateurs, in the packing, unpacking, and transport of these articles.
The British Museum is also partially occupied by a Government Department. The Registry of Friendly Societies, with a staff of 128 clerks, occupies the exhibit galleries of prints and drawings, and also of the Egyptian and Assyrian antiquities, which are always popular with the public. It is a little ominous to think that the proper offices of the Registry of Friendly Societies is now occupied by the Ministry of Pensions, which is likely to be a permanent body. The Statistical Branch of the Medical Research Committee, with a staff of forty and a mass of card indices, occupies much of the storage space of the British Museum, and the basement is used to store the effects of German prisoners of war removed from German colonies—not, I think, a very suitable use to which to put even the basement of the British Museum. The Tate Gallery is occupied by the Ministry of Pensions (Widows' and Dependants' Branch), which is likely to last some time, with a staff of no fewer than a thousand; and according to the agreement made with the National Gallery by the Government at the time when the Tate Gallery was taken over "the whole of the rooms shall be given over ready for gallery uses within six months after the conclusion of war." That is obviously a condition which cannot be fulfilled.
The last of these public galleries which I wish to mention is the Imperial Institute. Practically all the exhibition galleries of the Imperial Institute are occupied—at first by the Ministry of Food, with over 1,000 clerks. They departed, and were

377
replaced by the Ministry of Munitions. They have now gone. The galleries are occupied at present by the Army Pay Section of the Machine Gun Corps, with 500 clerks; by the Ministry of Labour, with 600 clerks; and by the Effects Branch of the War Office—I think that has to do with tracing the effects of dead soldiers—with over 1,000 clerks. The Institute has really been made a sort of clearing house of flitting departments, and this has had a very serious effect upon the work of the Institute—not only upon the public, who do not go there much for sight seeing, but commercial men have been precluded from seeing the exhibits and resources of India, the Dominions, and the Crown Colonies, and from seeking there, in those exhibits and cases, new sources of raw material for use in this country. The lectures and demonstrations to the public and schools have of course, been stopped, and the scientific, technical, and intelligence work of the Institute itself has been deprived of its access to raw materials, because the exhibits, in order to accommodate all these clerks, have had to be stored away in subways and tunnels. Some of these have now been brought up again out of the tunnels and tubes, and are temporarily stored in houses in Queen's Gate and Prince's Gate, which are not suitable for scientific work.
I do not blame the Office of Works for the occupation of all these museums. I am sure that the whole of the permanent staff have been most anxious to restore the museums to the public at the earliest possible moment. I suppose the responsibility must really rest upon the Cabinet Committee on Office Accommodation, of which I believe the First Commissioner is chairman, but I think the taxpayer has now a right to demand an early re-opening for his own enjoyment, and, if I may use the discredited word, for his own culture. I especially should like to enforce what my noble friend said—namely, that it is most desirable that before the Americans and the Dominion troops return for good to their own shores, they should have an opportunity of seeing something of the treasures of which they have heard so much and been able to see so little, and I appeal to the noble Lord who is going to answer this Question for a definite assurance from the Government that all these museums will be fitted up at a really early and not indefinite date.
LORD STANMOBE: My Lords, in regard to the first part of the Question put by my noble friend, affecting the buildings of the Board of Education, I may say that those buildings are now occupied by the staff of the Controller of the Admiralty. This staff is already in process of demobilisation, and we hope that it will be reduced by about a thousand by the end of April. The total number under the Admiralty Controller in these buildings and also in the buildings of the Local Government Board and Office of Works amount to 2,500, and it is intended to replace the staff of the Board of Education in their offices as soon as the demobilisation is sufficiently advanced.
In regard to the second part of the Question, relating to museums, the Cabinet Committee on Accommodation have decided to clear the staffs from the public museums as soon as possible, giving a second priority to those institutions. The first priority is given to some of the large hotels, such as the Victoria, the Cecil, and the Grand, on account of the great shortage of sleeping accommodation in London. It is not possible to say on what exact date these premises can be vacated, but the First Commissioner is bringing continual pressure to bear on the various Departments to release important accommodation of this nature at the earliest possible moment. I wish I could give some more definite date, but I am afraid that is not possible.

LOCAL ELECTIONS (EXPENSES) BILL.
Order of the Day of the House to be put into Committee, read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, some discussion took place last night, as your Lordships will recollect, upon this Bill, and my noble friend Lord Downham explained some apprehension under which he lay with reference to the terms in which the proviso of the Bill protected interests which he conceives himself called upon and entitled to protect. I have considered the matter very carefully since yesterday. I considered it in reference to the objection of my noble friend, in so far as the objection could be dismissed by the Amendment of a legal or drafting character. It could not in effect. What my noble friend said was this. Under the terms of this Bill, even as modified by the proviso, this consequence will follow—that if any candi-

379
date, on the day on which this Bill becomes law, has spent the moneys allowed in the aggregate under the existing law as modified by this Bill, he cannot spend another farthing.
I am disposed to think the case made under that head by the noble Lord is well-founded. In other words, while the proviso which the House of Commons has adopted has safeguarded a candidate in respect of such expenditure as he had made before the passing of the Act, it had not covered the case of the candidate who had spent all his money before the date on which the Act become law. Some important consequences follow from this conclusion. If the case really does exhibit a grievance it is a grievance which does not admit of legislative correction. It is a difficulty inherent in the nature of the case. It is a difficulty, in other words, which arises from this consequence. When a maximum expenditure is provided by the Bill which is before your Lordships, it is suggested that the prohibitions are unfair to those who have already made expenditure. To meet that a proviso is introduced to say that all expenditure incurred before the passing of this particular measure into law shall be protected.
But the essential fact does remain, as pointed out by the noble Lord, that if you have a candidate who, in reliance upon the terms of the old law, has spent all he was entitled to spend under the old law and under the new law, he cannot spend another farthing, and is therefore at an immense disadvantage as compared with the candidate who comes into the field at the last moment. I confess that consideration of all these circumstances—though I do not pretend to follow the noble Lord in all the views he expressed on the legal point—has led me clearly to the conclusion that the case that is made out, not a case of drafting or a case on technical grounds, but the broad case of the merits that is made out against legislation when you are almost in the midst of an election, is a case which cannot reasonably be answered.
How does the matter stand? Supposing that to-night your Lordships accepted an Amendment in the terms suggested by the noble Lord—terms which, as I understand, the noble Marquess was not disinclined to accept—supposing, I say, your Lordships accepted such an Amendment now, that Amendment would have
380
gone to another place to-morrow. It might or might not have received assent there to-morrow. The matter I understand even there is not entirely removed from controversy. At any rate, it must be pronounced most disputable as to whether the Royal Assent would have been obtained to-morrow. It is conceivable, though not certain, that in the House of Commons the matter might have been agreed on Friday, and in that case the Royal Assent would have been received the same day. The nomination day for London is to-day or to-morrow, and in the country the nomination day has in many cases already been passed.
In these circumstances I am bound to say, quite frankly, that I have advised the Government, quite apart from any technical questions or questions of law such as have been raised by the noble Lord, that on consideration it is hardly fair that men who are already plunged in an election campaign—many of whom have already for many weeks been engaged in the campaign in which they have regulated their expenditure in reliance, and justified reliance, on the existing law—should be called upon at the last moment to recast their whole expenditure; and that, even though it be conceded that all the expenditure at the very moment this Bill receives the Royal Assent is justified, yet, if the aggregate of that expenditure exceeds what is permitted in the two Bills, they should be placed in the paralysing position that they are not permitted to spend a single farthing for the rest of the Election, whereas new candidates can derive all the advantage of the expenditure of money wisely spent at the last moment.
In these circumstances I am inclined to think that your Lordships will conclude that on the whole the Government have arrived at a wise decision. I am encouraged to form that view by two circumstances. In the first place your Lordships are at least the only just begetters of this Bill in any shape or form, because, until the idea occurred to the noble Marquess, I think nobody had suggested that this revised arrangements of expenditure should be made applicable to municipal elections. That suggestion was accepted by the House of Commons. Your Lordships' suggested amendment of the law has become, and will remain, a permanent corrective of excessive expenditure in municipal elections. I regret that the

381
change was not adopted in time to make it applicable to the county council elections, without introducing grievances which in my judgment are too serious to justify your Lordships in persevering with this Bill at so late a period of the day. But, whatever is said about that, this at least is certain—there has been introduced in municipal law a measure of great and permanent value which cannot be made available for the elections of the moment, not I think, as your Lordships will on reasonable consideration conclude, by reason of any blame that can be fairly attributed to anyone.
Your Lordships are not inattentive to what takes place in another place. When the time that was necessary to swear in the Members there, and when many most urgent matters, some of them considered by your Lordships, are taken into account, I think this consideration will satisfy your Lordships that there has been no delay that could reasonably be avoided in recommending this measure to your Lordships' House. In these circumstances and if this course is considered reasonable it is proposed that the Committee stage should not be taken to-night—your Lordships have already discussed many matters—but that the Committee stage should be taken on a convenient date within the next week, and under circumstances which will make this a permanent measure, available for all time, and not at the same time a measure which will occasion unreasonable embarrassment to those who have made their own personal electioneering proposals on a scale which may be altered.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I cannot pretend to be altogether surprised at the course which the noble and learned Lord has thought it right to adopt on behalf of His Majesty's Government. It was quite clear to everybody, when we were discussing this matter on the last occasion, that there is under the Bill as it stands a definite possibility of the infliction of considerable hardship on certain individuals. It was not sought to deny this, but it was the opinion of many persons, and certainly of the London County Council, that the measure was so valuable in itself that it would be a pity not to make it apply to the forthcoming election. I am told that, so far as the London County Council is concerned, that body will be glad if the measure could now be passed in the form in which it comes up to your Lord-
382
ships from another place. However, the Government take the opposite view, and I certainly am not going to attempt to offer any opposition to the course which they favour.
At the same time I do not think that His Majesty's Government can be entirely acquitted of having shown a certain infirmity of purpose in this matter. The reduction of the cost from 3d. to 2d. per head is, as a principle, uniformly approved. It was, as the noble and learned Lord told us, inserted here as an Amendment in the Representation of the People Bill at my instance, and it was only when that Bill went back to another place that, owing as I think to a very unfortunate misunderstanding of the real situation, a change was made and the previous figure reinserted in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord has said that the correction has been made at the earliest possible moment. So far as the present session is concerned, that may be the case; and of course it is true in a certain sense that there has been a change of Government since the dissolution of Parliament. But the two Governments, which I think are in a sense one, might have spoken with the same voice to a nearer extent than they have. However, as the matter now stands, it is clear that it will be the desire of your Lordships' House that this reform should not be applicable to the present municipal elections. I am sorry it is so, but I feel there is nothing more to be said.
LORD DOWNHAM: My Lords, may I add a few words to what has been said. I am confident that candidates drawn from all Parties alike, whether Liberal, Conservative or even Labour, will be most grateful to this House for the consideration they gave to the plea which I raised yesterday for the protection of innocent people who might easily have walked into a trap if this Bill had passed into law. They will be still more grateful to the Lord Chancellor for having saved them from the very perilous position in which they might have been placed if the Bill had been passed into law before the elections on March 6, next Thursday.
As one who is certainly as strongly in favour as any of your Lordships of reducing the excessive expenditure on county council elections, I should like to say that this Bill now will not apply to any elections probably before next November. By next November we may look forward to a great

383
reduction in the abnormal expenditure which has now to be incurred on printing, paper, and material of that kind. It is largely because that expenditure has risen at least 100 per cent. that it is necessary to spend such a large amount of money as is included under the old Act, and which will now be reduced if this Bill is passed into law. I am sure we are doing right in preventing this Bill from applying to the present election, when candidates would be liable to penalties which they ought never to have been allowed to incur simply because they were not in the least aware when they estimated and incurred their expenditure that your Lordships would be asked to join in passing a law which would compel them to spend only £400 instead of £600 on the election. They have been saved from a very perilous position, and I am grateful to your Lordships' House for having listened to the plea I put forward.
Committee of the Whole House put off sine die.

AIR NAVIGATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill I ask your Lordships' indulgence, for, although I have spent a certain number of years in both Houses of Parliament, it has not been my privilege to fill such an important position as the one I occupy now in bringing to your Lordships' notice the Second Reading of a Bill of this description. I feel that at this late stage of the evening I should not be entitled to go into the briefest possible survey of the important matters which have actuated us in moving the introduction of this Bill. But I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact, which has been forced upon our knowledge in the last few years, that the science of the air—a subject we have to regard in its entirety—although it has come quickly upon us, is something which we have to consider as controlling much of our everyday life. A Bill of this description is a measure which even the present generation quite a few years ago would have said would be introduced in a future which none of us would possibly see. I am anxious this evening to impress
384
upon your Lordships the importance of the measure I am introducing.
Hitherto there has been a prohibition of civilian aviation. Consequently, unless a measure of this description is passed, the progress of the industry and of the science itself will be retarded, and we shall be placed in an inferior position in the competition for supremacy in the air which I think we can claim to have at this moment, and which I sincerely hope we shall maintain for all time. We know that there have been various experiments from the earliest times of history with a view to obtaining the mastery of the air, but until the period which stretches over the last ten years we have never been able to say that we have achieved that supremacy and conquered that force of gravity which hitherto has dominated the universe. We are in an analagous position to our forefathers some eighty years ago when railway travelling was first inaugurated in this country, and I think that we are entitled to say that we shall be able to look forward in the future to as great an expansion of this industry of aviation as we have been able to see in railway travelling from the early years of the last century until now.
In making these general remarks I would venture to say a word of caution, and that is that while we are all optimistic and believe that there are immense possibilities in this great science, still we feel that any hasty legislation, or any steps taken without due care and consideration, will retard the objects in view and hamper and hinder those great purposes which we hope to see carried to successful fruition at no distant date. In 1914 the sole functions of aircraft were reconnaissances for the Army and artillery observation, and since then we have seen during the various stages of the war the great progress which aviation has made, and also the great achievement of aviation as one of the decisive factors in bringing about the termination of the great struggle which we are glad has ceased, we hope for ever.
The Bill which I am introducing to-day, as your Lordships are doubtless aware, is an enabling Bill to allow the Government to introduce those Orders which will regulate for the future civil aviation. Your Lordships are also aware that during the war a strong Committee—the Civil Aerial Transport Committee—has made certain recommendations for the regulation of aerial

385
transport when re-opened, which include the licence to pilots and the registry of machines. This Bill is to authorise the issue of Orders which will define what steps shall be taken to carry out these purposes. To carry out these recommendations will require permanent legislation; consequently this Bill is only a temporary measure.
There is also the question of inter-State flying by civil aircraft, which is now being considered by representatives of the Allied Powers in connection with the Peace Conference, for which an International Convention must be prepared and approved by the Allied Powers. To secure the passing of this Convention, and of permanent domestic legislation, will take a certain amount of time, and His Majesty's Government had these two alternatives placed before them. The first was to make temporary provision by emergency legislation, and the second was to postpone the re-opening of civil flying until such time as the permanent Act embodying the findings of the Civil Aerial Transport Committee and the results of the International Conference on Aviation could be enacted. His Majesty's Government decided that it was desirable to adopt the first of these two alternatives, and to provide, by means of the Bill which is now before your Lordships, for the regulation of civil aviation, embodying in Orders to be made under the Bill those provisions of the recommendations of the Civil Aerial Transport Committee which are suitable for the occasion.
I desire to press upon your Lordships that this Bill is an enabling Bill only, and that the actual re-opening of civil aviation will depend upon the enactment of the Orders which are provided by this Bill. It will also be realised that, having regard to the enormous development of aviation during the war, it was impossible to revert to the old system of practically unrestricted flying which prevailed up to the beginning of the war. The matter is one which concerns the safety of the public, and therefore your Lordships will appreciate the necessity of the control of flying by His Majesty's Government for that most important purpose. Before the war the safety of the public on the ground was alone considered. With the expansion of aviation which we see coming it is obvious that the safety of the public in the air—if I may use the expression—must also be safeguarded. It will be seen that
386
provision is made in this Bill for laying all Orders under it on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. That gives an opportunity to either House to raise objection to what is contained in the Orders with a view to revoking those Orders if need be.
As regards the Orders themselves, I should explain that they are being drafted in the Air Ministry, and that at every stage of them the fullest possible consultation is proceeding with representatives of the aircraft industry and with representatives of the House of Commons, where, as your Lordships are aware, there is a Committee which sits for the purpose of considering these matters as they advance stage by stage. If your Lordships consider it right to have a similar Committee in this House—I know well that a great number of your Lordships take a deep interest in aviation—any recommendation made by that Committee will, I need hardly say, be most carefully considered by His Majesty's Government.
I would also explain that the basis of the Orders is the interest of public safety, and that all the provisions of them are being framed with that object in view, and will be as little restrictive as possible bearing that object in mind. Your Lordships are aware that in the discussion in another place certain Amendments were proposed. The contention was that this Bill was a restrictive Bill, and was inclined rather to hamper and hinder the industry than to give it the free scope which is necessary at these initial stages to allow us to extend the industry and to maintain supremacy over all other nations. I should like to emphasise this point, that it is necessary that regulations of licensing and of registration should be made in the interests of the safety of the public. Apart from what is necessary for that purpose, the desire of His Majesty's Government is in no sense to hamper civil aviation in this country.
In asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill I would also crave your indulgence for a further point with regard to the importance of the Bill, without which the prohibition of civil aviation remains, as it is at present, in its most stringent form. I would ask your Lordships' permission to allow this Bill to pass through all its remaining stages to-

387
morrow. It is a measure of great importance, and I apologise to your Lordships for asking you to adopt a course which is distasteful to all of us. But when your Lordships realise that during all this time there has been this hindering regulation which has cramped the activity of those who are energetically disposed to concentrate all their powers into giving us the opportunity of keeping that supremacy which we have maintained and are proposing to maintain to its fullest extent, I feel that your Lordships will agree that the sooner we can have this Bill passed into law the better. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I rise to congratulate the noble Marquess opposite on the very capable manner in which he has performed his task of explaining this Bill in, I fear, a very empty House. I do not propose to discuss the terms of the Bill. The noble Marquess made an interesting suggestion, as I understood, that a Committee of your Lordships' House might be formed which would act with the Air Ministry for certain purposes of administration. I have no doubt that there are not a few members of your Lordships' House who are well fitted by experience and interest in the subject to become members of such a Committee, and I merely mention the matter in the hope that the noble Marquess will take an opportunity of bringing his suggestion to the notice of the House, or to individual members of it in some form, lest in present circumstances his suggestion should escape the notice of those who might be interested in it.
As regards the intention of the noble Marquess to move on behalf of His Majesty's Government to-morrow that Standing Order No. XXXIX. be suspended, I personally have no objection to raise to that course, as I understand that the matter may be somewhat urgent. Of course, it is impossible to say whether some noble Lord may not desire to move Amendments, but I have no knowledge that any one does, and, so far as my friends and I are concerned, we shall raise no objection to the course proposed.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RE-ELECTION OF MINISTERS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a Bill the purpose of which, I hope, may be very shortly recommended to your Lordships. The object of the Bill, as its title discloses, is to render it unnecessary for members of the House of Commons who after their election become Ministers to submit themselves for re-election to their old constituencies. This class of problem is one from which your Lordships studiously and over a long period of time, as far as my researches inform me, disinterested yourselves, because it affects less privileged persons than your Lordships. If any of your Lordships is advanced to Ministerial rank such a new Minister returns here without the temporary inconvenience of re-establishing contact with the electors from whom, it may be, he has parted quite a short time previously. No such privilege has been conceded to members of the House of Commons.
Your Lordships, like the spectators by the bank of a rapidly-running stream, have seen the members of another House nantes in gurgite vasto. This necessity has been in the past irksome to members in another place, and the purpose of this Bill, as originally conceived, was to provide that it should be in no case necessary hereafter for members of the House of Commons, on being promoted to become Ministers, to seek re-election. To that private members in another place offered reasonable and legitimate objection, and an Amendment was inserted to provide that this protection should only extend for a period of nine months in a new Parliament.
The general nature of the provisions of this Bill, of which I beg to recommend the Second Reading to your Lordships, is that in future, if after a new Parliament has come into being any member of that Parliament who has recently come from his constituency is promoted to be a Minister, a by-election shall not be necessary, unless a period of nine months has intervened between the election and his promotion. This controversy has raged in the past. Different parties at different periods of their fortunes have taken different views as to the propriety of the old rule, and as to the reasonableness of the modification which is now recommended to your Lordships by the House of Commons. It has

389
sometimes happened that one Party when in opposition has taken a very different view of the reasonableness and usefulness of the old practice from that which it has felt in the embarrassment of a period of office which has perhaps lost its earliest popularity. It is perhaps not unfair to suppose that the compromise which is now recommended in this Bill is reasonable as between the different views which at different times have been held. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I beg to give notice that at to-morrow's sitting my noble friend the Lord President of the Council will move the suspension of Standing Order No. XXXIX in relation to the two Bills to which your Lordships have just given a Second Reading.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bill received the Royal Assent—
Coal Industry Commission.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of February 25.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Briton Ferry Bridge [H.L.].

D.H. Evans and Company [H.L.].

Falmouth Docks [H.L.].

Hartlepool Gas and Water [H.L.].

Legal and General Life Assurance Society[H.L.].

390

Mansfield Railway [H.L.].

Newark Gas [H.L.].

Pembroke Gas [H.L.].

Sheringham Gas and Water [H.L].

Stourport Gas [H.L.].

Sunderland Gas [H.L.].

West Somerset Mineral Railway [H.L.].

Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in the case of the Petition for the following Bill:
Beccles Waterworks.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

GLASGOW AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY (AYR HARBOUR TRANSFER) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Stanmore), and reported from the Committee.

BLYTH HARBOUR BILL.
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL.
DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BILL.
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL.
NEWPORT HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS BILL.
SWANSEA HARBOUR BILL.
TEES CONSERVANCY BILL.
TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL.
WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL.
Message from the Commons that they have come to the following Resolution, to which they desire the concurrence of this House, viz., "That it is expedient that the said Bills be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons": The said Message to be taken into consideration on Thursday next.
House adjourned at five minutes before eight o'clock.