Lords Sitting of 14 July 1919

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

SEX DISQUALIFICATION (REMOVAL) BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law with respect to disqualifications on account of sex, and with respect to the rights of Peeresses.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MILK PRICES.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I desire to ask what is the cause of the delay in setting up the Select Committee on the question of the discrimination in milk prices, which the House resolved should be set up a week ago. I hope that ray noble friend Lord Hylton will realise that this is a question which is pressing at this period of the session. There is not very much time before we adjourn, and the Committee ought to be set up at the earliest possible moment, owing to the anxiety felt on the subject in the Western counties.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I shall move to-morrow that the Select Committee be composed of Lord Rathcreedan (Chairman), the Earl of Northbrook, the Earl of Mount-Edgcumbe, Lord Hindlip, and the Earl of Strafford. I am sorry that there has been delay, but my noble friend knows that it takes a little time to get the names of members willing to serve.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Can the noble Earl the Leader of the House give us any information as to the proposed course of business during this week?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, at the close of to-day's business, after we have dealt with the matters upon the Paper, the Ways and Communications Bill will be brought up from another place and a First Reading will be given to it here. To-morrow (Tuesday) we shall take the subjects which are down upon the Paper. On Wednesday there is a Question in the name of Earl Brassey about the coal industry, which I believe excites a good deal of interest and will give rise to a debate that will occupy the greater part, if not the whole, of the sitting. On Thursday we propose to take the Report stage of the Housing and Town Planning Bill. Notice has already been given from this Bench of the intention to move the suspension of Standing Order XXXIX in order to take both the Report stage and the Third Reading of that Bill on that day. I would further, with a view to what I am going to say presently, suggest that your Lordships should meet at three o'clock on Thursday afternoon in order to give ample time for the purposes that I am describing. Then, when we have finished those stages of the Bill, I would propose that at half-past five my noble friend Lord Lytton, who is in charge of the Ways and Communications Bill, should make his expository statement in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, to which, as I have said, your Lordships will have been asked to give a First Reading to-night. It would be unreasonable to ask the House to proceed with the discussion after the speech of Lord Lytton, which will occupy, I dare say, a considerable part of the latter end of the sitting; and I would then propose that the Second Reading be taken on Monday next, so that your Lordships will have had the interval between Thursday and Monday to render yourselves conversant with the Bill as explained by my noble friend. That I think, covers the business of this week and takes us on to Monday next.

WEST HARTLEPOOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  CLOWES SETTLED ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a, passed, and sent to the Commons.

CREATION OF PEERAGES.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH rose to move for a Return of all the Peerages created during the tenure of office of each

483
Government from the year 1880 down to the present time.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my attention was attracted to this subject during the sittings of the Second Chamber Conference a year and a-half ago, and I then noticed what an enormous increase there had been in the creation of Peerages in recent years. So far as I could ascertain the facts for myself, in the 25 years from 1880 to 1905, 91 Peerages were created, or an average of less than 4 a year. In the 12½ years subsequent to 1905 there were 150 Peerages created, or an average of 15 a year. During the tenure of office of the present Government there have been, as far as I can understand, 48 new Peerages created, or at the rate of about 24 a year, besides 12 promotions; or, in other words, 60 new Peerages in the 2 years. I know that there are exceptional circumstances. Some of the higher stages of the Peerage were granted to members of the collateral branches of the Royal Family who gave up German titles, and there were, of course, one or two in connection with the war. But the enormous proportion of the Peerages which have been created during the last 2 years have had, so far as I can see, no relation to the war at all.
I think it is very important that we should know the exact facts, and the only way to do that is to get a Return which will be published with authority. I may mention that since I have put the Motion down on the Paper I have had my attention called to a Return which deals with the years 1830 to 1899, and over the whole of that long period there was an average of about 6½ or 7 a year new Peerages created. That shows what a new departure has been made in recent years in the enormous number of additions which have been made to this House. I have not given notice of it, but I would ask the noble Earl the Lord President whether it would not be expedient in giving the Return to know which of the Peerages mentioned in it may have become extinct on failure of heirs.
Moved, That there be laid before the House a Return of all the Peerages created during the tenure of office of each Government from the year 1880 down to the present time.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, the question raised by my noble friend is one of importance, and I shall have
484
no difficulty in promising him the Return for which he asks. The matter is one into which I have been making such investigation as was open to me this morning, and, while agreeing with the general propositions laid down by my noble friend, I am not certain that his figures are altogether correct. The Return for which he asks will, of course, check them when it is made
But I might, perhaps, in relation to the figures which he has given, acquaint your Lordships with those that to the best of my ability I have been able to ascertain in looking into the matter to-day. It is true that the pace has been greatly accelerated during the past century and still further accelerated during the past few years, for the reasons to which my noble friend, though only partially, has alluded. Perhaps the following figures may interest your Lordships. When Queen Anne succeeded to the Throne there were 188 members of your Lordships' House; when George III came to the Throne in 1760 there were 224; when George IV succeeded in 1820 there were 372; when Queen Victoria succeeded in 1837 there were 439; after her long reign and upon the accession of King Edward in 1901 there were 591; when King Edward was succeeded by the present Sovereign in 1910 there were 623; and at the present time, in the year 1919, there are a little over 700 members of your Lordships' House. This shows that during the last 100 years there have been 330 additions to the Peerage, and that over 100 of these have been during the last eighteen years.
Perhaps I may make the process rather more clear if I give, with as much accuracy as I have been able to secure, the figures of the respective Administrations. I need not for the present purpose go further back than Mr. Gladstone's long Administration which began in 1868. Between 1868 and 1874 there were 39 additions to the Peerage—that is, at the rate of 6½ per annum. Mr. Disraeli followed from 1874 to 1880 with 29 additions—that is, at the rate of 5 per annum. Then came Mr. Gladstone's Administration of 1880 to 1885 with an addition of 28—that is, 5½ per annum. Then followed Lord Salisbury's long Administration from 1886 to 1892, with 38 additions—that is, at the rate of 6 per annum. This was followed by the successive Liberal Administrations of Mr. Gladstone and Lord Rosebery, from 1892 to 1895; there were during that period

485
16 additions—that is, at the rate of 5½ per annum. When the Liberal Ministry fell we had the long era of Conservative Administrations under the lead, first, of Lord Salisbury, and afterwards of Mr. Balfour; they were in office continuously from 1895 to 1905. During that time 44 additions were made to your Lordships' House by Lord Salisbury, and 18 by Mr. Balfour—62 in ten years; that is, again, at the rate of about 6 per annum. Thus we see that up to that date, 1905, the ratio was approximately the same—something between 5 and 6 per annum.
We come now to the moment at which the pace was accelerated and when, I think my noble friend was justified in saying, a new departure supervened. This was when Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman became Prime Minister in 1905. He was succeeded in 1908 by Mr. Asquith, who remained in office as the head of a purely Liberal Ministry until May 25, 1915. We may therefore take it as a continuous period of Liberal Administration lasting for over ten years. During that time 89 additions were made—that is, the annual rate rose from 5 or 6 to 9.
Lastly we come to the latest phase, starting with Mr. Asquith's Coalition Government which took office in May, 1915. That Government remained in power until December, 1916, and was then succeeded by the present Administration. During the little more than a year and a-half of Mr. Asquith's Coalition Government 21 additions were made; that is at the rate of about 15 a year. During the present Administration, which has lasted from December, 1916, to the present day—I do not think my noble friend's figures were quite right about this—there have been, so far as I can ascertain, excluding the 4 Peerages given to members of the Royal family, 36 additions to the Peerage.
A NOBLE LORD: 42.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I make it out to be about 36, but I may not be quite right. That, again, is at the rate of 15 a year, so that if we take the two periods of the Coalition Governments—years of war, I would remind your Lordships—from May, 1915, to the present date, there have been 57 additions, which means a rate of 14 per annum. Thts we have gone up under conditions of war. We went up, in the period of Sir H. Campbell-
486
Bannerman's and Mr. Asquith's Administrations, from the rate of 5 or 6 a year to 9. We have now gone up to 14. Of course, as my noble friend remarked, this is largely due to exceptional circumstances. But I would point out that the exceptional circumstances do not arise out of the war alone. They arise out of the existence of a Coalition Government and the fact that the Coalition Government represents two Parties—I hope I may say all Parties—in the State, and that therefore the distribution of honours is inevitably on a larger scale than it would be with a Ministry formed of persons of one political complexion alone.
It is not for me to say—perhaps your Lordships may wish to discuss the matter later when you get the Return—whether the distribution has been, or is, excessive. It certainly appears to me that, whatever value may be attached to the legislative privileges of your Lordships' House, the charms of the Peerage as a social attraction do not diminish, and I am told by those who have cognisance of such matters—I am very glad to say that I have not—that one of their difficulties is not in admitting candidates to the privilege of the Peerage, but in excluding those who think they have not only a great claim but a superior claim to anybody else to appear in your Lordships' House.
I do not say that the figures which I have given are very consoling, although I am myself rather at a loss to know what conclusion to draw from them. There is, however, this to be remembered, that while this great increase has been taking place in the strength of your Lordships' House the population of the country has been increasing also, and I assume that it is not an unfair thing to say that the Peerage ought to bear some ratio to the numerical strength of the population as a whole. Let me give your Lordships the figures in that respect at one or two different periods. I take the population of England and Wales as distinct from that of Scotland and Ireland, for this reason—that Scotland has her own representative Peers, as has Ireland. I do not; know that, if I included those populations, the result would be very different; but for the purposes of my calculation, in order to make it more fair, I exclude them. In 1815, at the close of the Waterloo campaign, there was a total of 336 members of your Lordships' House. If we deduct

487
from these the Bishops, who sit here by right of their Sees, and the Irish and Scottish Peers, who were representative then as they are now; there were in 1815, 256 Peers out of a population in England and Wales of 11,000,000 persons; that is a ratio of one Peer to every 43,000 of the population. In 1854 the number of Peers had risen to 454. If you make a similar deduction from that total you get—I am not quite certain of my figures here; I drew them up with some haste—you get, I think, a ratio of one Peer to every 50,000 of the population.
Now we take the year 1918 which is the latest year for which I have been enabled to procure figures. If we make a similar deduction of the Bishops, the Irish and Scottish Peers, and the Law Lords from the total number of Peers, we get a total of 626 Peers for a population in England and Wales of 37,500,000; in other words, we now have one Peer to every 60,000 of the population. It is for your Lordships to draw what deductions you like from that. Whether the ratio is a fair one or not it is not for me to say. All it does prove is that as the population is increasing, the number of Peerages is not increasing in the same ratio. These are general observations, which I have made with a view to assisting the noble Lord in the Inquiry which he has instituted. When he gets the Return he will no doubt revert to the charge, and I anticipate a discussion which will be interesting if not fruitful.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, the noble Earl has given interesting figures, and I am going to suggest that he should make them still more interesting. I cannot say that I was altogether impressed by the argument which the noble Earl used at the close of his speech. We were to have a Peerage which was to be commensurate with the population. I always flattered myself in the old days that the noble Earl of all people regarded admissions to this House, not from the point of view of a compliment to individuals or as a there satisfaction to the nation that the population was adequately represented in regard to numbers, but in the sense that they would strengthen this House by the attendance of those members who were honoured with Peerages. What I venture to put to the noble Earl is that the great profusion, for which he has apologised, in the creation of Peerages during the last
488
few years has not added to the strength of this House, because the large majority of those who have been appointed attend very rarely; and one of the most important questions which the public regards, so far as it regards the debates of this House, is that for a long period of years there has been a tendency for members of this House to gravitate to the support of one political Party. If, when Mr. Campbell-Bannerman took office in 1906, the pace of creations of Peerages was greatly increased, as it was, and that pace was taken into a canter by Mr. Asquith and into a gallop by Mr. Lloyd George, if the public are to be satisfied it will not be merely because additional compliments have been paid to individuals, but because those who were appointed did act in some degree in leavening the Debates and Divisions of this House. We all know to our regret that the numbers attending this House have not been increased in relation to the additional number of Peers who have been appointed, and I think that as a record is kept every day of the attendance of Peers, it would not be at all unfair to ask the noble Earl to add to the Motion of my noble friend words to this effect—
"and of the attendance at the sittings of the House, of Peers created since January 1st, 1906."
I move that addition, not because I wish to pick out any class of Peers for special notice, but merely because the whole basis of this great creation of Peers has been the idea that you would produce a body more in accord with the advanced principles of the day. If the result of creating those Peers is that we have not the advantage of their attendance here, then the whole of that object is defeated. I ask my noble friend to accept the addition of these words.
Amendment moved—
At the end of Motion add—"and of the attendance at the sittings of the House, of Peers created since January 1st, 1906."—(Viscount Midleton.)
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I confess to being taken by surprise by the Motion of my noble friend. I always deprecate, as a matter of Parliamentary usage in either House of Parliament (it is easier in this House than the other), suddenly introducing an Amendment or Motion at the last moment of which no notice has been given, which is sprung upon the House, and which raises an entirely different, and in this case a wholly

489
irrelevant, issue. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh is entirely entitled to ask for the information he did. I gave it with readiness, but I submit that to tack on to the Motion a record of the attendances of your Lordships' House is not only to do an invidious thing but it is to treat a domestic matter, for which your Lordships are responsible, as if it were a matter of national importance comparable with the issue raised by Lard Balfour of Burleigh. If the noble Viscount desires at any time to raise this question, to censure this House or individuals in the House for failure to perform their legislative duties, let him raise the question and we will meet him. I dare say a good many withers would be wrung in that operation, but do not let him tack it on to this Motion. If he desires to press the matter to a division, I shall ask your Lordships not to accept his addition to the Motion.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say that if the noble Viscount desires to divide, I personally shall have to record my vote with the noble Earl opposite. It does not appear to me that the creation or multiplication of Peerages has a great bearing, or indeed any real bearing, on the question of attendance. If the attendances of noble Lords in your Lordships' House are to be canvassed I am afraid it will be necessary, if the Return is to be at all a fair one, to discover and publish the attendance of all noble Lords whether they have succeeded to hereditary Peerages or whether they have been created. There is no obligation, so far as I am aware, on a man who has been created a Peer to attend more frequently than those who have succeeded to hereditary Peerages, and the selection of the year 1905, at which a particular Government came into power opposed to the views of the noble Viscount, appears to me, to say the least of it, invidious. Therefore I sincerely trust that the noble Viscount will not persist in his addition to the Motion. If he desires at some other time to raise the whole question of attendance at your Lordships' House it is another matter, but I trust that this particular Motion will be left alone and receive no addition.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Before we go to a Division I should like to say one word on the matter. I was not prepared for the addition, and I do not
490
know whether it rests with me to accept it or not. It rests with the House. I suggest to the noble Viscount that if we are going into the question of attendance we ought to take a longer period. I went into this matter with some care at the time of the Second Chamber Conference, and the officers of the House made a complete return of attendances over a period of years. There would be no reason for this House to be afraid of having that Return made public, if it was done over a sufficiently long period, because the attendance here took myself and the members of the Second Chamber Conference with complete surprise, as we did not believe it had been nearly so large as was indicated by the figures. I ask the noble Viscount, therefore, to consider carefully the period and to make it a longer one than he suggests.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not know exactly what course my noble friend will take on this matter, but I confess I cannot regret that he has raised this point. It seems to me to be of the highest importance that it should be well understood, not only by the public but also by those gentlemen who have been honoured or are about to be honoured by His Majesty's favour and created Peers, that they are not made Peers merely in order to have "noble Lord" written in front of their name, but in order that they should take their part as members of the Parliament of this country. That appears to me to be a most important matter.
The idea that gentlemen who have earned the favour of the Sovereign—for perfectly good reasons, I believe, in the vast majority of cases, for work in various professions and departments of life—get their Peerage merely for the sake of the "gilding" which it gives to their names, seems to me the most degrading view of the Peerage which can be conceived. Peers are here in order that they should sit and vote as members of the House of Lords; and though I quite agree with Lord Balfour of Burleigh that probably the attendance of this House is sometimes underrated, yet there is no doubt—it is notorious—that the vast majority of Peers never come into your Lordships' House at all, or very rarely, That is a very deplorable matter.
It is quite true, as Lord Balfour of Burleigh said, that the obligation to attend is quite as much on the Peer who succeeds by inheritance as on the Peer who is

491
created, but it is true that the Peer who comes here by creation of his own motion and will has accepted the Peerage, and therefore has accepted the obligations which attend on the Peerage. It is a very astonishing thing that a large majority—I do not say all—of those who have been elevated to this House do not seem to acknowledge the obligations which rest upon them. Lord Balfour of Burleigh has said with truth that the period over which this Return should stretch requires careful consideration, and I think also I ought to say, in justice to the noble Earl the Leader of the House, that there is probably an inconvenience in raising a debate of this kind and pressing it to a Division except after notice. How far that will weigh with the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, I do not know, but I think the noble Earl will probably agree with the substance of my noble friend's speech—which was, in effect, that those who receive Peerages ought to accept and fulfil the obligation which the Peerage throws upon them.
LORD SEMPILL: I do not know what your Lordships are going to do with the addendum moved by the noble Viscount, but I should like to point out the hardship that would manifestly accrue from its acceptance, and that is that many members of your Lordships' House have during the period of the war been serving their King and Country, and naturally have been unable to attend in this House. I think that period ought, therefore, be taken into consideration if the noble Viscount's addendum be accepted.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: If I may say a single word, as having had an opportunity of sitting in both Houses of Parliament, I should wish to add to what has fallen from my noble friends. First of all, let me say that on a fitting occasion I should be entirely in favour of some Motion of this kind, but it ought not to be confined to the House of Lords. I observe, in the elected House consisting of upwards of 700 Members, that Bill after Bill quite recently has been hurried through and sent up to this House, less than 200 members out of the 700 having taken part in the Divisions. It is impossible, with that happening day after day in the elected House, that the views and opinions of the constituencies can be adequately represented.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: After the suggestion made to me, I shall not trouble your Lordships with further discussion. I only hope that when the noble Earl finds his numbers a little decreased he will remember the word "irrelevance" which he used to me on a matter which I consider very relevant on a subject of this kind. If he should sometimes find that the numbers behind him are not as large as they might be, in view of the additions which are made month after month to the Peerage, the noble Earl must recollect that on this occasion he has not given full rein to the feeling which I know he has held all his life as to the obligation resting on every Peer, and more especially on those who have been created, to give attendance in support of their Party.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, original Motion agreed to.

THE LOSS OF THE "LEINSTER."
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE rose to call attention to the circumstances attending the loss of R.M.S.S. "Leinster" and to the existing condition of the communications between England and Ireland; and to move for an inquiry.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is much business before the House this evening and I shall try to be as brief as possible, but the question is one of some importance, and I am afraid I shall require a little time in which to explain it to your Lordships. It may seem, at first sight, as if the two subjects in my Question have net very much to say to each other, but I think I shall be able to show that they have a great deal in common. It is hardly necessary to point out that in moving for an inquiry I only intend to do so with regard to the circumstances attending the loss of the "Leinster."
If any of your Lordships were to ask an audience of Irish Unionists what was the most successful institution in Ireland, you would be told that it was the Kildare-street Club, Dublin; but if you appealed to a larger number of Irishmen, especially outside of Ulster, you would be told that it was the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company. Guinness's Brewery might possible run it somewhat close, but for political

493
reasons I believe the preference would be given to the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company. It is a peculiarly Irish institution of which we are all proud. It is very well run, and for a number of Years has carried the mails between England and Ireland with great success, in spite of very keen but perfectly legitimate competition on the part of the London & North Western Railway Company. There is a feeling abroad in Ireland that they have been very badly treated by the Government during the war: in the first place, with regard to the arrangements which were made to provide for the safety of its vessels when crossing the channel; in the second place, with regard to the arrangements made as to pensions granted to the widows and orphans of some of its crew who were drowned when the "Leinster" was torpedoed; in the third place, as to the arrangements which were being made by the Government for replacing the steamers that had been sunk; and, in de last instance, there is a feeling in Ireland that not only the Steam Packet Company itself but all Irishmen, and indeed all Englishmen, suffer owing to the arrangements which are now made by the Post Office as to the running of the mails, which arrangements entail very serious inconvenience on all who wish to hold any communication, of any kind, either by travelling themselves or by letter, with Ireland.
I raised the subject of the sinking of the "Leinster" in this House in October last, but both I and my noble friend Lord Somerleyton, who then replied on behalf of the Government, were somewhat handicapped in doing so because there were facts known to all of us to which we were unable to allude, because by so doing we might have furnished information which would have been valuable to the enemy. That embargo has now been removed, because the facts have been made public both at the meeting of the Company and also in the public Press. The attitude taken up by the Government with regard to the sinking of the "Leinster" was expressed by the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Balfour, in the House of Commons the day after the disaster occurred, in the following words—
"An Irish packet boat crammed with men, women, and children, was deliberately torpedoed in broad daylight by the Germans. It was carrying no military stores, and was serving no military ends. It was pure barbarism."
494
We all know that when Mr. Balfour made this statement he only said what he believed to be the absolute fact, and I am perfectly certain it is the case that the "Leinster" was carrying no military stores and serving no military ends, but it is known to all of us that all the mail packets were used for the purpose of conveying backwards and forward between England and Ireland soldiers going on leave or rejoining their units.
A statement prepared by the company tells me that in the spring of 1918 the War Office converted the mail packets into troopships, and gave directions that the night boats were to carry 500 naval and military ratings and as many officers as wished to travel. Later that was modified to 500, including officers. This was the state of things in force at the time that the sinking of the "Leinster" took place, and then it was incumbent upon the Admiralty to provide adequate protection for this very large number of soldier, I think between 3,500 and 4,000, which crossed daily, to and from Ireland. In addition, the mails were sorted on board, which necessitated the presence on board of a large number of Post Office sorters. These, of course, we expect to be looked after by the Post Office, and those civilians who were on board expected their interests to be safeguarded by the Board of Trade. Those three Departments of the Government were actively interested in looking after the safety of these ships, and it must not be forgotten that the company were in a different position as regards the sailing of their ships front any other vessels which were going to sea at that time, because they were under contract to carry the mails in any circumstances, whatever might be the weather or whatever might be the danger from submarines, unless they obtained a specific order from the Admiralty that they were not to sail.
I will point out to your Lordships the difficulty which attended this. I may state that on one occasion when the "Cork," a cargo boat belonging to the company, was sunk, the chairman of the company went at once to Kingstown and saw the captain of the "Leinster" and asked him if he thought it was safe for the "Leinster" to cross that night. He said on the contrary that he thought it extremely dangerous, whereupon the chairman went to see" the Admiral at Kingstown and asked him to give orders that the ship was not to sail.

495
The Admiral informed him that he had no authority to do so, and that the only person in a position to give orders not to sail was the Admiral commanding at Cork—the Commander-in-Chief. Consequently he agreed to send a telegram to the Commander-in-Chief to ask if permission might be obtained under the circumstances for the ship not to sail. Fortunately the Commander-in-Chief agreed to this being done, and the message ordering the "Leinster" not to sail arrived just a quarter of an hour before the time at which she was due to start. This points out the difficulties which attended ally stoppage of the mail steamer.
It may interest your Lordships to know what safeguards the Admiralty consider necessary in order to protect the ships. In the year 1916 I think it was they gave orders, without the knowledge even of the directors of the company, that the ships were to be armed with guns. This was after the submarines were armed with much heavier guns, so that the guns put on board the mail boats were absolutely useless, and only served as an excuse for the Germans to say that they were sinking armed ships. They also gave instructions to the directors to supply a large number of additional life belts. In fine weather a seaplane used to cross with the mail boats, but only in fine weather. Latterly, as we know, the night sailings were discontinued, and all ships were only allowed to sail by daylight, which as a matter of fact made them an easy prey to the submarines. Under these circumstances it is not astonishing that the directors of the company thought that they ought to ask for further protection, and after the "Leinster" had narrowly escaped by a few yards being torpedoed at the end of 1917 the chairman of the company applied to Lord Justice Duke, who was then Chief Secretary, asking him to supply an escort. Mr. Duke agreed that an escort should be provided, and for a few days accordingly it was provided. But this was soon dropped, and on the directors expostulating they were told that the matter had been referred to the local representatives of the Minister of Shipping in Dublin. If he considered it necessary to provide an escort one would be provided, but at that time he did not consider it necessary. Considering the large number of troops on board and the number of civilian passengers travelling your Lordships may be interested to know who was the repre
496
sentative of the Ministry of Shipping in Dublin. One would have thought that he would be a distinct naval officer who knew something about the matter. Not at all The local representative of the Ministry of Shipping was the general manager of the London and North Western Railway Company at North Wall Station, a very capable railway official but a gentlemen who could naturally know nothing as to the directions that ought to be taken to protect a ship at sea.
These were the circumstances on October 10, 1918, when early in the morning a German submarine was sighted off the Kish lighthouse. This did not make any difference to the sailing of the "Leinster." She was not warned or told not to sail, and she accordingly started, with 770 souls on board of whom no less than 500 were soldiers. When she got about twelve miles out—I am not quite sure that I am right as to the distance—she met the steamship "Ulster" on her way from Holyhead to Kingstown. It is interesting to note that subsequently the commander of the "Ulster" stated that in the whole course of the journey from Holyhead he had not sighted a single patrol boat. Within three minutes of the "Ulster" passing the "Leinster" the latter was torpedoed by a German submarine, presumably the one which had been sighted off Kish. The "Leinster" was not sunk, but her wireless installation was so badly damaged that she was only able to send out the signal: "Torpedoed, torpedoed, torpedoed," which fortunately was heard by the "Ulster." I will ask your Lordships to think what would have happened if the submarine had risen to the surface a few minutes before. The submarine would probably have got the Ulster "and the "Leinster" by right and left torpedo with the result that 1,500 souls would have perished instead of 500. As it was there was no destroyer near the submarine which had a clear way. She maœeuvred into position to launch another torpedo, and this she did, and the "Leinster" sunk, and 770 souls, or as many of them as still survived, were struggling, in an angry sea. There they remained for an hour and a half. A destroyer came to the rescue, and fortunately 200 of them were saved.
At the time this happened questions were asked both in this House and another place, and a demand was made for an inquiry. Dr. Macnamara, who replied on behalf of the Government, stated on

497
October 15 that the Admiralty were entirely responsible for the safety of cross-Channel boats carrying a large number of passengers. He also stated that were it not that an Inquiry would involve the time and attention of those fully occupied with the work of protecting the Mercantile Marine, the Board of Admiralty would wish nothing better than that the carrying out of this duty should be investigated in the most minute manner. Subsequently on the 24th he again stated that the Admiralty would court a public inquiry, but that the proposal could not possibly be acceded to as the information laid before such an inquiry would be of the greatest possible value to the enemy. None of the reasons which then operated against the granting of an Inquiry have any effect now and there is no reason why it should not be granted. I have therefore to ask His Majesty's Government if, under the altered circumstances, they will agree to one being held.
I think that I have shown that the precautions which were taken by the Admiralty to safeguard the passengers between the two countries were in no degree adequate. When I asked a Question with reference to an inquiry last November I also asked my noble friend Lord Somerleyton what arrangements would be made as to the granting of pensions. He replied as follows—
"With regard to the second question, I am glad to be able to answer it entirely in the affirmative. The widows and children and other dependants of the officers and members of the crew of the "Leinster" who lost their lives when the vessel was torpedoed will, as a matter of course, be granted pensions and allowances in accordance with the War Risk Compensation Scheme for the Mercantile Marine."
I was perfectly satisfied with that assurance. I thought that all that could be done for these poor widows and children would be done, and I was very much astonished to hear that in two instances pensions had been refused. Those were the cases of a superintending engineer of the company who was drowned (Mr. Ferber) and of Mr. Lewis, the shore steward.
It was stated that no compensation could be given to the widows of these men. I communicated with the First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. Walter Long, who was kind enough to see me on two occasions with reference to the matter. I was accompanied by Mr. Watson, the chairman of the company, and also by Dr. Macnamara, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty,
498
and Mr. Leak, representative of the Board of Trade, were present. On the second occasion there was also present Sir Norman Hill, Chairman of the War Risks Association. I was informed that it was impossible that pensions could be granted to the wives of these two men because they were not on the books of the "Leinster." What was the position of these two men? They occupied a similar position to that of staff officer whose duties are to see that the engines of the various ships of the Fleet are kept in proper order. Similarly Mr. Lewis was obliged to cross first by one ship and then in another for the purpose of supervising the catering and the linen and the various arrangements on board. It seems to me that it would have been as reasonable at the time of the Battle of the Bight, when Admiral Beatty was obliged to leave the "Lion" when she was hit and to go on a destroyer, to say that, if unfortunately that gallant. Admiral had then been killed, his widow would not have been eligible for a pension because he was not on the books of the ship to which he transferred himself.
I really can hardly believe that the Government, or the noble Earl who replies for the Government, can defend the position which has been taken up by the Board of Trade in this matter. I am told that they have already broken through the rule in one instance, where a pension was granted to the widow of an officer of a Cunard vessel. But, at any rate, I understood, in the conversation which I had, that if it was found undesirable on the ground of creating a precedent to break through this rule, a compassionate allowance would be granted in the case of the widows of these two men. The Board of Trade now say they have no money with which to do it—and this at a time when thousands of pounds are being squandered daily on unemployment allowances. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to tell me that this question has been reconsidered and that the widows of those two men who died, killed by the Germans in the execution of their duty, will not be refused a pension on a mere technical ground.
The third question to which I wish to refer is the attitude taken up by the Government in replacing the ships of the Company which have been lost since the beginning of the var. In 1915 the "Connaught" was taken possession of by the Government,

499
and in 1917 this ship was sunk in the Mediterranean. The undertaking which was given when the "Connaught" was commandeered was this: His Majesty's Government undertook in the event of her loss to pay whatever sum was necessary to replace her by a vessel suitable in all respects to carry out the postal contract, and also to be responsible for any adverse effect which the requisition might have on the mail contract. After the vessel was lost a further undertaking was given. As it was not possible, owing to the exigencies of war, to allow the construction of the vessel to commence (and I would ask special attention to this) His Majesty's Government agreed that priority would be given for her construction over that given for any other vessel privately owned or owned by a railway company designed for a service similar to that of the mail steamers; and they also agreed that the Company should not be prejudiced in respect of the Post Office contract service.
How has that undertaking been carried out? Instead of the "Connaught" there has been provided a ship called "The Duke of Connaught," which takes about five hours to cross the Channel, with the result that travellers almost invariably miss the connection with Dublin by the night mails to the South and West. And, as far as giving priority to the rebuilding of a new "Connaught" is concerned, not only has that not been done but I am informed (and I will ask the noble Earl to inform me whether I am correct in the information I have received) that a priority has been given to the London and North Western Railway Company for five vessels, and that one of these vessels, the "Curraghmore," is already finished, and four more vessels will very soon be ready for service. Perhaps the noble Earl will be able to explain how the Government justify this breach of their undertaking.
Then there is the wider question of the communications between England and Ireland, and that is chiefly in reference to the arrangements made with the Post Office, by which the mail steamers leave Kingstown at a very much earlier hour than they previously did. I believe the Post Office justify this on two grounds. In the first place, the trains now take twenty minutes longer from Dublin to Kingstown than they formerly did, and this is not a very good justification, as under the new arrangement the trains
500
reach London at 5.30 instead of 6.10; and in the second place they are desirous of delivering the Irish mails by the first post in the morning. I never get my Irish letters till 11.30. I have made inquiry of Irish people living in different parts of London and I am told that this is the case with them also; their letters are not delivered until half-past eleven. This causes the gravest inconvenience in several ways. In the first place, any one living in Ireland beyond Dublin (I take my own instance) takes two hours longer to reach London than formerly, and in a long journey of sixteen hours this makes a considerable difference.
But this is of comparatively small importance compared with the other point, which is that under the old arrangement the mails were delivered over nearly the whole of Ireland in time for a reply to be made next clay. Now the mails are not delivered till the train for England has departed, and thus there is a difference of twenty-four hours in the reply reaching London. This must cause the greatest inconvenience to people engaged in business and correspondence between the two countries. I have made inquiries both from the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company and from the London & North Western Railway Company, and they both assure me that they are perfectly ready to resume the old times of sailing and starting from Holyhead if the Post Office would only agree. I hope the noble Earl will tell me that the Post Office are willing to make some arrangement to this effect.
I have tried to put the facts before your Lordships as to the neglect of the Admiralty in safeguarding the ships, as to the shabbiness of the Government in granting pensions to the widows of those who have been killed, as to the construction of new steamers, and as to postal arrangements. Had I taken longer I might have been able to make even a stronger case, but I venture to think that the facts I have put before you are such as to deserve consideration from His Majesty's Government. I beg to move the Motion of which I have given notice.
Moved, That an Inquiry be held into the circumstances attending the sinking of the R.M.S.S. "Leinster."—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF LYTTON): My Lords, the

501
noble Lord in putting his Question has travelled over a great deal of ground and dealt with matters which affect various 'Government Departments, but as his main criticism is directed towards the policy of the Admiralty, and the precautions, or lack of precautions, for which they were responsible, which led to the loss of the "Leinster," I think it will be convenient for me to answer the Question; and as the noble Lord has warned me in advance of some of the points he intended to raise, I shall be able to give him the answers with which I have been supplied from the other Government Departments concerned. The noble Lord has moved for an Inquiry to examine into the whole case—
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: Into the sinking of the "Leinster" only.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I quite under-.stand. This Motion I am unable to accept, not because there is any information which it is necessary to withhold now that the war is over, but because I think there is no information which cannot be given without the necessity of instituting an Inquiry which would single out this particular loss from many others which unfortunately occurred during the war. I hope to be able to-day to give my noble friend much fuller information than has hitherto been possible, and I trust that he may feel, when he has heard what I have to say about this subject, that it will not be necessary to press his Motion for the establishment of an inquiry.
Before I go into that Question, however, perhaps I had better clear on one side the points which the noble Lord has raised affecting other Government Departments. First of all, there is the question of the widows of two officers belonging to the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, Mrs. Ferber and Mrs. Lewis. It is quite true, as the noble Lord has pointed out, that these two officers were on board the "Leinster" in a capacity which makes it impossible to bring their dependants under any existing Government schemes for pensions or compensation. As the noble Lord probably knows, there are two schemes. First, the War Risks Association which is a fund administered and contributed to by the State and the shipping companies for the payment of compensation to the dependants of all the officers and crews who are borne on the ship's books. Second,
502
there is the Injuries in War Compensation Scheme, which is designed to cover the servants of any Government Department who may have lost their lives while travelling on duty. Neither of these two officers can come under either of these two schemes. They were servants of the company travelling on the company's business,
I agree with the noble Lord that this is a particularly hard case—all exceptional cases are. I personally should be extremely glad if some means could be found for paying compensation to their dependants. I am informed by the Board of Trade that great I trouble has been taken to ascertain whether any exceptional measures could be taken in order to provide compensation in these two cases, but up to the present moment without any success. I have not been acquainted with the matter before, and if the noble Lord will accept my assurance—he will understand that I cannot give him any promise—I will make it my business personally to inquire further into these two cases to see whether it is possible, since they cannot be brought under any existing funds, for some exceptional measures to be taken to meet these two cases.
The next point which the noble Lord raised had reference to the replacement of the "Connaught." It is true, as the noble Lord has said, that the City of Dublin Steam Packet. Company was given an assurance by the Shipping Controller—he will understand that this is not a matter which concerns the Admiralty—on June 9, 1917, as follows—
"When it can be put in hand the construction of the vessel to replace the 'Connaught' will be given priority over any cross-Channel boat of similar speed, etc., built for private, i.e., non-Government, use on the England-Ireland service."
I am informed that the Shipping Controller considers that this promise has been adhered to, and the company's solicitors were informed on May 5 of this year that the promise had not been broken either in form or in substance. My noble friend, therefore, has been, I think, misinformed as to priority being given to the London & North Western Railway Company. I am informed that the London & North Western Railway had in April of this year no boats on the stocks or building other than it had when this undertaking was given to the City of Dublin Company. If, therefore, they have ships building at the present time they must be ships begun before this undertaking was given to the City of

503
Dublin people. It must be added that the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company could have given orders for proceeding with the building of their new boat, if they had chosen to do so, after January 7, 1919, this being the date when private shipping companies were informed that they could once more proceed with shipbuilding.
One point raised by the noble Lord concerns the Post Office, and has reference to the existing service between Kingstown and Holyhead. It is true, as the noble Lord has pointed out, that whereas this service left Dublin at 8.10 in the evening in 1918 it now leaves at 7.5; and whereas it arrived at Euston at 6, it now arrives at 5.30 I am informed that the reason for this change is in order to ensure that the service will connect with the first delivery in central London; but during the months of May and June the train was on an average twenty-two minutes late and on six occasions failed to connect with the first delivery. It is clear that if the train were re-timed to arrive at 6 o'clock in the morning—which is what I understand the noble Lord to desire—the connection would rarely be made unless there were greater punctuality (which there is no reason to expect); and it is felt that there is greater advantage to the community in starting the service earlier from Dublin so as to connect with the first post in central London, than by delaying its arrival for half-an-hour and thereby missing the first delivery.
I come now to the main point of the noble Lord's case—namely, the criticism he has raised against the Admiralty for the steps they have taken in the protection of the steamers on the mail route between Dublin and Holyhead. I fully accept, of course, on behalf of the Admiralty all responsibility for whatever measures were taken for the protection of shipping on this route as on all others. Needless to say, I accept no responsibility whatever for the loss of any particular ship. In spite of all the precautions which the Admiralty have taken ships unfortunately have been lost. What I accept responsibility for are the steps taken to ensure the least possible risk at the time. I think I ought to explain that in dealing with the submarine activities of the enemy our policy naturally fell into two parts—an offensive part and a defensive part. The public generally are apt to forget altogether the offensive measures
504
which were taken for the protection of shipping. It is generally imagined that the only measures of protection were of a defensive kind, and if they were not such as to satisfy the public at any moment it was thought that the Admiralty were neglecting their duty. I have no hesitation in saving that if it were not for the offensive measures taken concurrently we should not have come through as successfully as we have done. Our offensive policy consisted in attempting to harass, and if possible to destroy, any submarine either on its operating grounds or on its course to and from them. For this purpose large numbers of small vessels, comprising "P" boats (a special type of anti-submarine vessel produced during the war), older destroyers, sloops, submarines, trawlers, drifters, yachts, and motor launches, were employed and in the later stages of the war United States submarine chasers were brought over in large numbers. All these vessels were equipped with the latest devices for detecting the presence of submarines, and for destroying them when brought within the necessary range. Those measures were being taken continuously in the Irish Sea as in all the other waters round our coasts, and to those measures is due to a large extent the immunity which I will endeavour to show in a few moments by giving the figures of the actual losses which have taken place.
The second branch of our policy, the defensive side, consisted in the convoy system of protecting our over-seas trade. This system necessitated the employment, as escorts for the convoys, of all the faster and more modern destroyers which could be spared from the essential forces operating with the Grand Fleet, and rendered it quite out of the question to spare any vessels of this type for regular escort of individual vessels on cross-Channel routes. Even so, although they were reinforced by a flotilla of United States destroyers, we had not at any time a sufficient number of these destroyers to contend with the heavy and arduous work thrown on them in the Atlantic. I would beg your Lordships to remember that at this time a fresh strain was put upon us by having to provide escorts for the protection of the large number of troops coming across from the United States; and the escort of cross-channel traffic was carried out across the English Channel only in the case of troop and ambulance transports. Then also, in what I call the defensive branch of our

505
operations, for the purpose of evading enemy submarines instructions were issued by the Admiralty to the masters of all British vessels with regard to zig-zagging, use of high speed, keeping a good look-out, use of armament, smoke screens, and so on, all of which our experience during the war proved to be of value.
As to the application of these methods to the case of the "Leinster." At the time this vessel was torpedoed the following craft were stationed on the Holyhead-Dublin route, in addition to a large force of trawlers and drifters employed further north working from Lame in pursuance of the first part of the policy to which I referred—namely, hunting and harassing the submarine—at Holyhead, under the command of the captain of H.M.S. "Patrol," a most capable officer, there were ten older destroyers, one "P" boat, six U.S. chasers, eighteen motor launches, two rescue tugs; and at Kingstown, under the command of Commodore Kingstown, there were twenty-seven trawlers and drifters, one yacht, four motor launches.
At the time of the accident these forces were employed as follows. Of the Holyhead boats five destroyers were at sea working in positions which had been ordered; five destroyers were in harbour refitting, coaling and resting; the one "P" boat to which I have referred was at sea off the Skerries, three U.S. chasers were at sea working south from the Isle of Man and three U.S. chasers were in Carnarvon Bay; the motor launches were sheltering owing to the weather. Two rescue tugs at Holyhead raised steam and were sent out, bid they had to return on account of the heavy weather. Of the vessels which I have mentioned at Kingstown thirteen trawlers and drifters were at sea on the Northern and Southern patrols and in the Bay of Dublin, fourteen trawlers and drifters were preparing to relieve some of these or were refitting or resting or out, of action owing to influenza, one yacht was in the harbour, having just returned from sea and four motor launches were in harbour owing to the weather.
I know that these facts are not interesting given as I am obliged to give them, but I merely mention them in order to give all the information at my disposal with regard to the forces which were available at Kingstown and Holyhead and where each one of these ships actually was on this
506
day. This statement is given so that it may be clear what the vessels on this route were doing at the time of the accident. As soon as the "S.O.S." was received with the information that the "Leinster" was torpedoed, all vessels at sea which could be communicated with closed to the scene to save life and to hunt the submarine. All vessels in harbour that could raise steam were also sent to the spot for the same purpose. There are two points which I want to emphasise in connection with the facts which I have given. The first is that of the various means at our disposal, none were of themselves infallible, and the second is that the cumulative effect of all these operations, offensive and defensive combined, was the means which prevented the designs of our enemies from being fulfilled. In the public mind it was generally assumed that if a vessel was escorted it was safe and that if a vessel was not escorted no adequate protection had been provided for it; and it is against these two erroneous views that I want to say one word. As was proved in the case of the "Justicia," which was torpedoed in the midst of her escorts, because a ship was escorted it was not necessarily safe, and that method was not, in itself, infallible.
Again, I want to show, by quoting to your Lordships certain figures, what was the combined effect of all those measures that were being taken. The following figures for the first nine months of 1918 clearly show the comparative safety of the Irish Sea traffic compared with that in other areas, and it may fairly be considered conclusive that the protection in the Irish Sea accorded by the Admiralty was on a scale commensurate with the submarine danger and the total forces available. During this period—the first nine months of 1918–4,456 steamers of over 500 tons gross or an aggregate tonnage of 5,499,000 tons crossed the Irish Sea. Of that 4,456 steamers three of over 500 tons were lost, and of the aggregate tonnage of five and a half millions the aggregate tonnage of these ships was 3,672 tons, bringing the percentage of loss to sailings, expressed both in numbers and tonnage, to ·067. During the same period the losses of the United Kingdom overseas trade represented 1·37 per cent., and the losses on all United Kingdom trades, including Irish, coastwise and cross-Channel traffic, were ·49 per cent.

507
I quote these figures because I think they show two things. First of all, that the consequence of the various measures, both offensive and defensive, which were taken by the Admiralty for the protection of shipping in these dangerous times, was to produce amongst all ships a very low rate of loss having regard to the danger; and, secondly, that the Irish Sea received quite as much protection as any other part of the huge area which we had to guard with the forces at our disposal. I want to assure my noble friend—I hesitate to pursue the matter any further at this stage or to give any further details—that if there is any information which has not been produced in answer to questions in Parliament on other occasions or which I have failed to give to-day, I shall be delighted to obtain it for him. Any information which will bear upon the steps which the Admiralty has taken in regard to this or any other loss which has occurred during the war we have always been willing to give, and we are now able to give, seeing that it can no longer have any benefit for the enemy.
When the noble Lord asks for an inquiry, I must point out that if an Inquiry were granted into the loss of this particular ship there would be no reason for not granting at the same time an Inquiry into the loss of any other ships which, under circumstances either similar or different, may have been lost during the war. If it were not possible to obtain sufficient information without setting up an Inquiry of that kind I should have nothing to say. I do believe, however, that having regard to the fact that considerable time has now elapsed since the loss took place and the difficulty—perhaps, in seine cases, the impossibility—of obtaining the necessary evidence from witnesses who alone could give it, no really useful purpose would be served by setting up an Inquiry into the loss of this particular ship. Any information which is desired for the public in order that they may judge how far the criticisms which have been raised against the Admiralty are justified or not we are willing to produce in any form in which it may be asked for, but, for the reason I have mentioned, we are unable to agree to the Motion and I hope my noble friend will feel, after the information I have given him and the assurances with which it was accompanied, that it is not necessary to press his Motion on this occasion.
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, I hope that in the few remarks I want to make on this subject my noble friend Lord Lytton will not think (and I am sure Lord Oranmore and Browne does not think) that there is any question in our mind that throughout this war, both In the Irish sea and elsewhere, anything has been left undone by the Admiralty. Nothing in gallantry has been omitted by the Navy to protect our vessels across the Atlantic or the Irish Sea or the English Channel. To suggest anything to the contrary was very far from my noble friend's mind, and it certainly is not in my mind.
Lord Lytton has the disadvantage of answering not only for one Department with the action of which he is familiar, but also for two Departments from which he has had to derive information, and I think such strictures, if they may be so described, as were made by my noble friend Lord Oranmore and Browne, and such suggestions as to what ought or ought not to have been done in the case of the Royal Mail steamers between Kingstown and Holyhead, arises from the peculiar position in which those ships were and the combination of circumstances which exposed them necessarily, and also large numbers of people, to very special dangers. I would rather deal with that particular point a little later. I only want at the outset to try and remove from my noble friend's mind the idea that there was any question of attacking the Admiralty, certainly not the Navy, in this matter. It would be far from anything that I should purpose to do
The first question, which relates to the Board of Trade, was as to grants to the dependants of two men which have not been granted on the ground that they were not borne on the books of the "Leinster" at the time. In fact, these men were travel ling on the "Leinster" equally with the officers and crew for the purpose of the passage and for the purposes of the company, and the noble Earl really agrees that in equity their case is as hard as that of the dependants of men who were lost in the "Leinster" and who were on the ship's books. I understand that he will do his best to devise seine method by which the technicalities of the question can be overcome. I cannot help thinking that there must be some way round, and if there is I certainly think it ought to be found and followed. I am, of course, not familiar,

509
on the second point, with the details of the arrangements as to the priority to be given to the "Connaught." She was lost in March, 1917, and I understand that up to the present date nothing at all has been done with a view to her replacement. I am informed that the company think they have been very hardly treated, that the proper facilities have not been given them, and I was disappointed when listening to the noble Earl to hear him say that the company had refused something, or they might have done something, in January 1919.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I said they might have replaced their vessel in January of this year.
THE EARL OF DESART: Was a slip placed at their disposal then?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: So I understand.
THE EARL OF DESART: That is certainly not the information which my noble friend has, or which I have. I understand that they have had no opportunity of replacing the vessel. I want to call attention to what the position really is on that point. The condition of the whole service is very serious indeed. The whole of the south and west of Ireland was served before the war by a Mail Service of two daily passages, by two North-Western lady passages, fast steamers on the Fishguard and Rosslare route, and a bi-weekly service from Cork to Fishguard. At the present moment, owing to the losses of the "Connaught" and "Leinster," the City of Dublin mail steamers are only two in number, and they are expected to perform a day and night service, and if anything goes wrong there is none at all, except such steamers as they can charter for the time. It is quite impossible that the mail service can be reliable. There is also a night boat-by' the North Wall route, and a passenger service from Fishguard to Rosslare which is not popular with passengers.
It is absolutely necessary that some relief should be given to Irishmen and Englishmen who are still travelling under, I think, unnecessarily uncomfortable conditions. No complaint was made during the war; they put up with it. But I should like to have an assurance that it is in the mind of the Government to give
510
such facilities as they can for a reasonable service to Ireland. On this point may I ask whether there is any probability of the three turbine steamers of the Great Western Railway, which were requisitioned being shortly released; any chance of that route being utilised again. It would afford considerable relief, serving as it does a great part of the South of Ireland more conveniently than the Dublin route.
With regard to the change in the times of the service and the communications to which the noble Earl referred, I, of course, do not know the details as well as he does, but I know that they do cause considerable inconvenience, and as far as I can make out, the main object, the only object, was that in London letters should be delivered by the first post. I have been in London some time, and on not one single occasion have I got letters before 12 or 12.30 in the-afternoon. That is the experience of all my friends.
As to the protection of these boats, I want rather to press this matter. They were in a very peculiar position. Under the War Office, though not requisitioned in a technical sense, five-sixths of them were requisitioned every right. Under the Post Office they had to sail, and their officers had no discretion as to whether it was safe to do so or not. They followed the same route, perfectly well-known route, known to the Germans as well as to ourselves, and I think it was a case in which particular protection deserved a little exceptional consideration. I crossed a good many times whilst. I was a member of the Irish Convention, and I do not suppose there was ever less than 600 or 700 people on board. A few of those were civilians; the large majority soldiers. There was no room to move, and though I quite recognise that a ship travelling from 21 to 22 knots is not as likely to be torpedoed as a smaller and slower ship, I was very conscious every time I crossed that if anything did happen, by collision or torpedo, there was hardly a "dog's chance" for anybody on board. That was proved when the "Leinster" was lost. Whether that might have been met by an escort, whether some different form of patrolling the route might have done something, I do not presume to say. No doubt the matter was considered, but it cannot be repudiated that an escort would have been of use. In this particular case an escort had been used. It was always used when the Lord Lieutenant crossed.

511
It was used in the Stranraer and Larne route, and on the routes of the English Channel boats. I cannot believe it could be quite as useless as is suggested. I recognise the difficulty of escorting when smaller and slower destroyers were the only ones available.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I did not say it was useless—it was not infallible.
THE EARL OF DESART: It was useful; and it is quite true that the smaller destroyers in heavy weather cannot keep up with a vessel going 22 knots, not because they have not sufficient speed, but because they are liable to "bury" themselves. I know I shall be answered that in very rough weather there is rather less chance of being successfully torpedoed than in fine weather; and possibly in fine weather there might have been some system of escort, which I think the noble Earl was right in saying would not be infallible, but which would have been of use psychologically—I think the presence of an escort must be of use psychologically—and also of use in picking up people. Of course, I accept entirely what the noble Earl has said, but I was informed by a man who was in the water for nearly two hours that as far as he could make out the first destroyer did not come on the scene until nearly an hour after the "Leinster" sank. That is rather a long period, and of course on such a cold day it was a very serious thing that there should have been delay. Whether there should be an Inquiry or not I have some hesitation in expressing an opinion, but I think there would be this advantage in an Inquiry, that it is very much demanded in Ireland, and the holding of it would give great satisfaction to public opinion.
The statistics given by the noble Earl this afternoon may no doubt be convincing to some people but they will not be read in Ireland, and there is no doubt of the salient facts that the ship sailed and was obliged to sail knowing there was danger—there was a submarine known to be there—and that there was apparently a considerable amount of delay before the hope of safety arrived for those in the water. Those three circumstances do raise a very strong feeling in Ireland that the reason for them ought to be known. It is quite true, as the noble Earl has said, that it is a considerable time since the loss, but the reason given at the time was that the facts could not be made known without giving
512
information to the enemy. That therefore disposes of the "considerable lapse of time" argument. I do not know that very much would be found out, but there is, as I have said, a very strong feeling in Ireland that an Inquiry is required, and it is a natural feeling, and I hope that the Government may see their way to grant it.
Before I sit down I want to ask three questions which are apart altogether from the Inquiry. Firstly, we have an assurance about pensions. I want to know whether facilities will be given as far as possible for the replacing of the "Connaught" and of the "Leinster." On that I must say one word. The position of the "Leinster" appears to b this. She was insured—not for War Risks—but could not possibly be eplaced by the insurance money in consequence of the large increase in the cost of labour and materials, and it is very difficult for the directors to embark upon replacing her unless they have some assurance with regard to the continuance of the mail contract. I understand that that contract can be terminated by six months' notice, and therefore the directors do not see their way to run the risk of building a boat of that enormous value if there is a chance of losing the mail contract. I therefore want to know whether that will be considered—of course I do not ask for an answer to-night—whether they could be given security for some longer term.
I want also to ask whether the practice of commandeering a large portion of the ship for soldiers will be continued. If necessary it must be so, but it is important to know that because it affects this company very much. I also ask whether there is any prospect of the Fishguard and Rosslare steamers being released, and thus another route made available. The present conditions for travelling are very hard for some people. During the war people were constantly being left at Holyhead or Kingstown for sometimes one and sometimes two days, and the discomfort was very great. I do not know that I can press the case further, but I think the City of Dublin Packet Company has served Ireland and England very well for a great many years. They were the pioneers of good boats and good travelling, and they have a great claim on both communities which I hope will be considered as favourably as possible.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I will communicate with the authorities concerned

513
upon the points which have been raised, and let the noble Earl have an answer to them.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Could not the noble Earl go one step further? Two or three points have been made quite clear, and that is that the Admiralty did all that t hey could in those seas in protecting all classes of vessels, and I think the noble Earl might have said that no Commander-in-Chief could have done more than was done, and that the services of the Admiral in question were of the utmost value to the country. They were successful in protecting a large number of vessels, but from the time the American troops began to come over it was impossible to afford more destroyers in the Irish sea. On the other hand, it is clear that the mail had to sail under the postal contract: that instead of, as Mr. Balfour suggested, serving no military purpose, she was carrying a large number of military ratings. I myself crossed over at that time repeatedly, and I know that she was crammed with troops. In those circumstances I do not know what my noble friend feels, but I would not press for an. Inquiry so far as it affects private individuals. I feel that private individuals crossed kit risk of their lives, but if they were obliged to cross they were bound to run that risk and you could not expect the Government at all times to protect the mail.
If, however, they could not protect the mail and the ship had to go, I think the question of compensation ought to be treated more generously. Would it not be possible to admit that the pensions, which have not as I understand been given on the full scale that Las been given to combatants, should be treated as the pensions of combatants? Secondly, those travelling on duty, which includes officials of the company forced to cross in connection with the mails, should be admitted to pension; and thirdly, that some consideration should be shown to the company, which was forced to run this risk in the greatest possible dangers during the whole of that period. If the noble Earl would give us an assurance that those three points will be reviewed, which I do not think would be unduly onerous on the Admiralty, then I hope my noble friend would accept that instead of an Inquiry.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The noble Viscount will understand that I cannot
514
give him any pledge on behalf of a Department with which I am not connected, but I have no doubt whatever that the Ministry of Pensions has given a great deal of consideration to the questions that have been raised, so far as they concern pensions under the Ministry of Pensions and I know that the Board of Trade have given special considerations to the two cases which I have dealt with. The only thing I can do—and this I will do—is personally to take up with the various Departments the cases to which he has referred, and see whether anything can possibly be done which has not yet been done. Beyond that I cannot give any undertaking. I cannot say that pensions will be reconsidered, or that those who have not received them will receive them but I will undertake personally to investigate the cases with the Departments concerned
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords. I thank my noble friend very much for the very full information that he has given me, and also for his offer to give me further information if I desire it. With regard to the question of the pensions to the widows of the two men to whom they have not been given, their case has been so well and so strongly put by my two noble friends that it is hardly necessary for me to say anything more on this subject. I should like to call the noble Earl's attention to the fact that an exception has been made in the case of an officer of the Cunard Company. Legally I believe he did not come under the War Risks' Scheme, and yet a pension was obtained in respect of him. I would also point out that if it is thought undesirable to create a precedent by giving pensions to these two ladies under that scheme, that compassionate allowance should be granted. I feel certain that the noble Earl is willing to give the matter his full attention, and with the sympathy that I know he has for the case I feel confident that a pension will be granted.
With regard to the question of the mail steamers, I would again point out the inconvenience that is caused by the delay of an additional twenty-four hours in obtaining a reply in London to a letter sent from here to any part of Ireland. It seems to me that this more than counterbalances any advantage which might be gained by delivery in London by the first post. In spite of the assurance of the Post Office, I can testify from my own knowledge that letters are never delivered till

515
half-past eleven or half-past twelve. After the very full particulars which the noble Earl has given with regard to the precautions and safeguards which were taken by by the Admiralty in the matter of mail steamers—although I might criticise them in some respects, and I am of opinion that they might have been improved in certain particulars—I do not think that it would be fair for me to press for an inquiry. I therefore ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

THE AFGHAN ATTACK ON INDIA.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India (1) When the communications that have passed between the Viceroy of India and the Amir of Afghanistan, of which indications have apparently been given to the Press, will be published in full. (2) Whether it is a fact that Simla has been declared a "war area" as regards the operations against the Afghan attack on the North-West Frontier.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD SINHA): My Lords, in reply to the first Question asked by my noble friend I can only repeat the promise of the Secretary of State for India in answer to a Question addressed to him in another place on June 30, that he proposed to lay full Papers before Parliament but was unable to name a date, inasmuch as no reply had then been received from the Amir to the latest communication from the Viceroy. That reply has since been received, on July 3, but has necessitated further correspondence, and I can only repeat the promise that as soon as possible full Papers shall be laid before Parliament. I may mention also that they are in course of preparation. With regard to the second Question there is no official information whatsoever in the India Office as to Simla having been declared a "war area" as regards the operations on the North-West frontier, but inquiries are being made.
LORD SYDENHAM: As regards the first Question, can the noble Lord give any idea when it is hoped that an Armistice will be finally arranged? As I understand it, the situation at the present time is really most unsatisfactory. I believe our men are held back but are liable to be
516
fired at at any time, and the Afghans say they have nothing to do with it, and that it is all done by frontier troops. I hope, therefore, that this state of things will be brought to an end as speedily as possible.
LORD SINHA: I can only state, in reply to the supplementary Question, that the authorities are fully alive to the unsatisfactory situation, but in the interests of the public I do not think it would be advisable for me to make any further statement.

FORESTRY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Establishment of Forestry Commission.
1.—(1) For the purposes of this Act it shall be lawful for His Majesty by warrant under the sign manual to appoint seven commissioners, to be styled the Forestry Commissioners, of whom one, to be appointed by His Majesty, shall be chairman.
(2) There shall be paid to not more than three of the Forestry Commissioners, in this Act referred to as "the Commissioners," such salaries in each year (not exceeding in the aggregate four thousand five hundred pounds) as the Treasury may direct.
(3) Subject to the provisions of this section the term of office of a paid Commissioner shall be ten years, and the term of office of an unpaid Commissioner shall be five years.
(4) On a casual vacancy occurring owing to the death, resignation, or incapacity of a Commissioner, the person appointed by His Majesty to fill the vacancy shall continue in office until the date on which the Commissioner in whose place he was appointed would have ceased to hold office.
(5) A person who has vacated office as a Commissioner shall be eligible for re-appointment.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (2), to delete "three" and to substitute "one." The noble Lord said: If the House were to accept my Amendment the effect would be that instead of having three paid Commissioners there would be only one, and presumably he would be the Chairman of the Commissioners. Provision is taken for a Chairman to be

517
appointed by His Majesty in this first clause, and I do not think during the discussion of the Bill on Second Reading that any statement was made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster regarding the reasons why three out of the Commissioners to be appointed should be paid. It might be argued that you should pay three if these three Commissioners were to represent England, Scotland, and. Ireland, but apparently that is not the ease, because provision is taken later in the Bill, on Clause 5, to appoint three sub-Commissioners for England, Scotland, and Ireland with very large powers indeed, and upon whom would devolve the work in the respective countries of supervision. No doubt these gentlemen would be men of standing receiving large salaries. It is rather curious to remark that in Clause 5 it is only said that the salaries of the Sub-Commissioners are to be what the Treasury think fit. Those are not the exact words but I think that is what they come to.
As regards the three Commissioners who are to be paid, they are to receive between them £4,500 a year, or rather not exceeding £4,500. I suppose in practice the first three Commissioners would receive that £4,500. Perhaps the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would indicate how he proposes to allot that sum. I suppose there will be £2,500 for the Chairman, leaving for the other two £1,000 a year each. Of course the Chairman would have most of the work to do, and the other two Commissioners would have less re-responsibility and therefore less pay. But a sum even of £2,500 is not a very large sum to pay in these days, and when you come to only £1,000 a year for the other Commissioners the question arises whether it is really necessary to pay them. That £1,000 is only equivalent to £500 before the war, or even less. Do the Government really think that they will get men well-equipped for this work for a payment of that sort? Therefore it seems to me a question whether it is worth while having these two paid Commissioners.
I venture to suggest that in these days when every one is talking about economy, though one regrets that very few people are practising it, the Government should not suggest, for no useful purpose, that there should be these paid Commissioners in addition to a paid Chairman. There might be some reason for it as I have said if the three gentlemen to be paid were to
518
represent the three parts of the United Kingdom, but for practical purposes it seems to me that they will not do so. Under Clause 5 there will be three gentlemen who will have control of the three parts of the United Kingdom. I notice also that there are going to be set up Consultative Committees. That again will further increase the expenses by a large sum. These committees are to consist of five classes, and I see there is to be a representative of labour upon them and of the county councils. In these days representatives of labour, as the noble Earl knows, always claim that they should be paid for their time as well as their travelling expenses. Naturally we shall also have members of the county councils claiming some kind of remuneration. I notice that members of the county councils through their associations are desiring to have their expenses paid even for journeys in their own county. Where you have three bodies for all the United Kingdom the members would have to travel long distances and a large sum, it seems to me, would have to be distributed in expenses of one kind or another. Therefore I hope the Government may be inclined to cut out these two Commissioners. It does not seem to me that there is any real necessity for making any payment to any of these Commissioners, except perhaps the Chairman.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("three") and insert ("one").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I shall give my support to any Amendment which I think can effect reasonable economy, and I assure the noble Lord, from my consultation with those concerned in the promotion of this Bill, that their desire is to carry out the duties imposed upon them in the most frugal and thrifty manner. But I do not think that this Amendment is one which I could accept. The Bill proposes three paid Commissioners. The Chairman will have to give the whole of his time to his office. It is proposed also—of course what I say is provisional, but this is the general scheme—that a second Commissioner should be paid who would devote his time to the purely sylvicultural side of the work, and that the third paid Commissioner should be an expert on all questions connected with the utilisation of timber, the commercial questions that arise connected with trans

519
port, with railway rates, with standardisation, and 101 questions of that character.
I would remind your Lordships that these paid Commissioners are appointed for periods not exceeding ten years, and in order to get good and well qualified men I think your Lordships would agree that it is necessary to pay them. I am afraid I cannot answer the noble Lord's question as to the allocation of this sum between the Commissioners. Attention will, of course, have to be given to that point, but I think that unless we pay these three men we cannot be sure of getting men of standing and experience who will devote the whole of their time to the public service. I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (3), to delete "ten" and to substitute "five." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is one to reduce the term of the Commissioners from ten years to five. I move it on the ground that it is the usual thing in such appointments to limit the appointment to five years, for example, appointments in the Army and the Navy. It is a very useful rule that the period should not be longer, because otherwise, supposing a man turns out not to be competent, it would be impossible to replace him by somebody else except after a lapse-of ten years. It seems to me that when you are making an experiment of this kind, especially as regards these paid Commissioners, the term might very well be reduced to what is the usual practice. Of, course, I can quite see the argument that it is desirable in some cases to give permanency of office, and there would be much more to be said for that if you were only going to give a small remuneration and to get the very best men, but the Government do not propose that.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("ten") and insert ("five").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think I have already anticipated my answer to this Amendment. It is that we want to get first-class men to occupy these positions, and unless we can give a guarantee of ten years it may be extremely difficult to get men to surrender their present position.
LORD STRACHIE: You do it in the Army and Navy.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Let us see if that is quite true. An Admiral is appointed for five years, let us say to the Mediterranean Command, but he knows that unless there is proved inefficiency at the end of that five years he will get another Command.
LORD STRACHIE: And the Commissioners will be continued if they have proved themselves good.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes, but we have to coax these men out of private life, and, in order to do that, I am convinced that five years is insufficient. They will not come for that short period at what, as Lord Strachie has pointed out, is a very moderate salary. I think the first ten years of the history of this Bill are going to be the most critical years in the establishment of the Forestry Department, and it is most desirable that the Chairman and his two principal colleagues during that period should not be subject to more than necessary change.
LORD BUCKMASTER: There is no doubt a great deal of force in what the noble Earl has said, but surely in considering this Amendment there is another matter to be borne in mind. One of the great disadvantages under which every public Department labours is that it is almost impossible to get rid of inefficient men. Though you have used your best endeavour to get the best man you cannot be sure you have got him, and if by chance a mistake is made in appointing these Commissioners they are there for ten years. They may ruin the operation of this Bill. There may be all kinds of complaints made, and there will be the usual official answer given that what they have done is the very best possible thing that in any circumstances could have been done, and you are unable to move them for the whole period of their office. I should have thought the better plan was to appoint a man for five years, with the power of renewal, and let it be understood that the man's chance of renewal depended on the excellence of the work that he has done in the five years.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The practice of appointment for five years as an experi

521
mental stage is very common and well recognised. It is done constantly in University appointments now, and it is done by the Treasury Committee in connection with University grants, and also by the Department of the noble Earl who leads the House, the Research Department under the Lord President of the Council. They make their appointments very often for five years. The reason is at you never know when you appoint a mall whether be is not going to turn our incompetent. If he is incompetent, you are saddled with him under this clause, as it stands, for ten years. On the other hand, if he is competent, of course, he knows he will be continued for five years afterwards.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Our object is to get the best men, and we think that the ten-year tenure will help us in that direction. Lord Buckmaster wants a five-year tenure in order that we may get rid of an incompetent man. I am very sympathetic with that, but I am more keen to get a good man at the outset than frightened of the difficulty of getting rid of a bad man after an interval. Five years is no doubt quite good for a University; it represents a very tolerable rotation for a University student. In the Forestry Department we want a very much longer period.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I hope that the Government will accept the five years. There are many of us who regard the starting of a new and very powerful Ministry as one of the most serious matters which the Government could possibly undertake at the present moment. Nothing except an absolutely overwhelming case makes it desirable that this body of Commissioners should be created. It will require a staff probably running us into enormous expenditure, and if we were to do that permanently it would really imperil the whole Bill. If my noble friend will move that the Bill shall be experimental for five years—the noble Earl laughs—but you plant forests, and you have not to spend your whole time over them; they might then go under the Board of Agriculture, who are quite competent to see that the forests are allowed to continue after the stimulus that has been given by the Commissioners. But to contemplate that this Forestry Commission is to be perpetual and that we are to have another Board which is not under the direct
522
control of Parliament, as I understand, is really legislating with a view to a particular crisis which has now arisen in a manner which will not commend itself to those who follow us. I hope therefore that the noble Earl will see that, if he does not accept the limitation to a period of five years for the paid Commissioner, he is imperilling the whole Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Apart from what has fallen from the noble Viscount who has just sat down, I would venture to join issue with the noble Earl on the very point which he has strongly pressed—namely, that you will not get the best man unless you can offer him a ten-years appointment. I cannot recall any instance of a ten-years appointment in any branch of the Public Service. There may be some, but. I have never heard of one. Apart from that, I do not quite comprehend what class of person the noble Earl is in search of and how he thinks a man will be better secured by a promise of a ten-years appointment than by a five-years appointment with a certainty of renewal—assuming the Commission to continue and not to be dropped as the noble Viscount desires—provided the work has been competently done.
The sort of man who is likely to take a place of this kind is' not one who is making a large fortune in business and has to be lured away on pecuniary grounds. He will be a man who is earning a somewhat moderate competency, the kind of salary or remuneration which is obtained by those of the first class engaged either in processes of agriculture or of sylviculture (so far as people are so engaged), or from the scientific or commercial side in a managing capacity in some house of business. I cannot think that it is desirable to tie ourselves for a term of ten years; because, assuming a competent man to be chosen and assuming that he does his work well, he will be practically certain to be re-appointed if the work is to continue. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will consider whether he cannot accept my noble friend's Amendment.
LORD CLINTON: I hope that the noble Earl will keep the Bill as it stands. We have had several reasons put forward why the gentleman who will be appointed a paid Commissioner should occupy his position with safety for only a short time. There may possibly be grounds for that.

523
But the Forestry authority has before it, under the Report on which this measure is founded, a period of ten years of the greatest importance in which there is laid down a certain definite sum of money to be spent, and a certain definite amount of work to be done. It will be the first duty of that Forestry authority to get the very best man with the highest scientific attainments in sylviculture to carry on the work. It is doubtful whether you could get such a man unless you gave him a fair tenure of office; and it seems to me of such great importance that the best man should be obtained that I hope we shall make no alteration in the measure.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I am inclinded to support the Bill as it stands; because, whatever may be the practice with regard to military and naval appointments or with scientific and University appointments, I think you will not find many instances in a Statute of limiting an appointment to ten years or to five years. Most of these executive commissions are appointed on what might be called the usual Civil Service terms when it is a case of putting their appointments into Acts of Parliament. What I am afraid of is that, when you go and seek your distinguished man and try to lure him out of his private practice, he will look at the Act of Parliament and say that five years is not good enough. I think that those who proposed this limitation of five years ought to have accompanied their Amendment (which they have not) by words which hold forth a prospect that, though the appointment is going to give power to the Government not to renew it at the end of five years, still it should be without prejudice to some hind of consideration at the end of the five years. I confess I do not know how that could be expressed in an Act of Parliament, but I think it is incumbent on those who propose the reduction from ten years to five years to bring forward some mitigating Amendment of that kind.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I assume there would be such consideration; but to make that plain such an Amendment could easily be framed between now and Report.
LORD STRACHIE: It is already provided for in the Bill. Subsection (5) of Clause 1 says, "A person who has vacated office as a Commissioner shall be eligible for re-appointment."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should be very sorry to see a sharp difference of opinion over a very trifling matter. I do not think the distinction between a ten years appointment and a five years appointment renewable is as great as His Majesty's Government are inclined to think. My impression is that if you appointed a man of distinction for five years, and you pointed out to him that he was eligible for re-election, the probability is that he will assume, and rightly assume, that if he did his work properly he would be re-appointed. Therefore all the Amendment comes to is that you should retain power in the Bill—which is necessarily experimental—to change your appointment if in the course of the first five years it appeared that the gentlemen you selected, however distinguished he was, was not quite the man for the post. I do not want to press these things unduly, but may I say very respectfully to the Government that this Bill is necessarily very experimental. It is a very drastic Bill, and rightly so. It wants, therefore, very careful watching. It might easily be that the gentleman you appoint as Chief Commissioner may turn out to be not quite first-rate at his work. Remember, you are going to choose a scientific man. I speak with the greatest respect of scientific; men; I sit at their feet in all that applies to science; but they are sometimes not very good men of business; and it might easily happen that the man you appointed—although of high scientific attainments—when he came to work a great Department which required a novel organisation (which he himself has to I create) he might turn out not to be first-rate, and then it would be a pity not to be able to make a change for ten years without a personal attack on this gentleman. It seems to me that it is the safer plan to have the appointment for five years renewable, and I would suggest to the Government that they would be wise to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Powers and duties of Commissioners.
3.—(1) The Commissioners shall be charged with the general duty of promoting the interests of forestry, the development of afforestation, and the production and supply of timber, in the United Kingdom, and shall exercise and perform any powers and duties which are or may be conferred or imposed on, or transferred to, them under the provisions of this Act.
(2) There shall be transferred to the Commissioners the powers and duties of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland in relation to forestry, and also the powers of those Departments under the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts, 1877 and 1907, so far as those powers relate to insects or pests destructive to forest trees and timber:
Provided that the Departments from whom the powers and duties aforesaid are transferred to the Commissioners shall, if arrangements are made for the purpose, continue to exercise and perform on behalf of the Commissioners such of the transferred powers and duties as may, from time to time, be agreed between the Commissioners and the Department concerned.
(3) The Commissioners shall have power to do any of the following things—

(a) Purchase or take on lease and hold any land suitable for afforestation or required for purposes in connection with afforestation or with the management of any woods or forests, and manage, plant, and otherwise utilize any land acquired, and erect such buildings or execute such other works thereon as they think necessary;

(b) Sell or let any land which in their opinion is not needed or has proved unsuitable for the purpose for which it was acquired, or exchange any such land for other land more suitable for that purpose, and pay or receive money for equality of exchange:

(c) Purchase or otherwise acquire standing timber, and sell or otherwise dispose of any timber belonging to them, and generally promote the supply, sale, utilisation, and conversion of timber:

(d) Make advances by way of grant or by way of loan, or partly in one way and partly in the other, and upon such terms and subject to such conditions as they think fit, to persons (including local authorities) in respect of the afforestation (including the re-planting) of land belonging to those persons:

(e) Undertake the management or supervision, upon such terms and subject to such conditions as may be agreed upon, of any woods or forests belonging to any persons, including woods and forests under the management of the Commissioners of Woods or under the control of any Government Department, or belonging to any local authority:

(f)Establish and carry on or aid in the establishment and carrying on of woodland industries:

(g) Undertake the collection and preparation of statistics relating to forestry, and promote and develop instruction and training in forestry by establishing or aiding schools or other educational institutions or in such other manner as they think fit:

526

(h) Make or aid in making such inquiries, experiments, and research, and collect or aid in collecting such information, as they may think important for the purpose of promoting forestry and the teaching of forestry:

(i) Make or aid in making such inquiries as they think necessary for the purpose of securing an adequate supply of timber in the United Kingdom and promoting the production of timber in His Majesty's dominions:

Provided that any advance by way of a grant under this section shall be subject to the condition that so much of any profit which may be attributable to the grant shall be paid to the Commissioners and restored to the Forestry Fund.
(4) An advance shall not after the commencement of this Act be made under subsection (1) of section one of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act., 1909, for the purposes of forestry, unless before that date the Development Commissioners have made and the Treasury have approved a recommendation for the advance.
(5) It shall be lawful for any of the persons under a disability referred to in section seven of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845, or of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act, 1845, to enter into agreements with the Commissioners for the purposes of this section in like manner in all respects as they are entitled to enter into agreements for the purposes of those sections.
(6) In this section the expression "timber" includes all forest products.
THE EARL OF POWIS THE EARL OF POWIS moved to delete the whole of the proviso at the end of subsection (3). The noble Earl said: I do not move this Amendment in any hostile spirit to the Bill. On the contrary, I warmly welcome the Bill. I think it has been long overdue and if it is passed this session we shall be removing a great slur on. Great Britain. When I have said that, I must own that I think this part: of the clause will have a very deterimental effect on the rest of the Bill. It is proposed by this clause that the "profit which may be attributable to the grant" shall be taken away from a private person who has undertaken planting in the interests of the State. I say "the interests of the State" because it is quite clear that to induce private owners—and by private owners I do not mean only landowners but the corporations of ourlarge towns—to do the work is more to the interests of the State than for the State to undertake the expensive work of planting itself. It is much cheaper to get somebody else to "run the racket," as I may say, than for the State to put down a large capital sum and have to do all the maintenance and planting for the whole period of the growth of the plantation.
What I want to know is how you propose to define profit. It seems to me that the only way to define profit is to calculate after you have taken 5 per cent. compound interest as an amount which is not profit. I mean to say that you cannot call any sum profit until the plantation has shown a return of 5 per cent. compound interest on all the money laid out on the plantation. I think I can put it very briefly in this way. If you put your money into Victory Bonds, without spending any trouble or time in the planting of a single tree you will get 5 per cent. compound interest. I see the noble Lord opposite smiles.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I quite approve.
THE EARL OF POWIS: Possibly he thinks we should spend our interest. After all, I do not see any other way in which you can fairly calculate profits, except by allowing compound interest. Then I should like to know how you propose to define what is attributable to the grant. I should say profit would be attributable to the care of the person who planted, to the choice of the site, to the choice of the soil in which you planted a particular kind of tree, and to the general way in which the plantations were tended during the period of their growth. You may say profit is attributable to these things, but I cannot see that any profit of, the plantation is due to the grant of a few pounds per acre. It would be quite different, if you were acting in a joint co-operative scheme and agreed that the State should give so much (as you do in one of the subsections) towards the planting, and the owner would give the land and the work. You could then agree in what proportion you would divide your profits, if there are any, at the end. The clause says "profit which may be attributable to the grant." If the State is going to take some of the profits I say it is not a grant at all; it is merely a loan. I looked in "Johnson's Dictionary" to see what "grant" meant, and it said "bestow," or giving a concession. If you are simply going to lend money and then take back what you consider is the profit on it, I do not see that it can be called a grant at all, and I think the words of the clause ought to be altered.
There are many people in the country who are always terrified at anything which they consider in the nature of a dole for landlords, but this is not a dole to land
528
owners. It is very doubtful, in fact, whether a landowner will be able to make any profit after you have given him this grant. It is merely a cheap method of insurance for the State because the State is obliged, in consequence of the devastated nature of our forests and the lack of growing timber, to grow some timber in the public interests. By inducing private owners to plant you take the cheapest way in which you can get the timber grown. Therefore, I say that the grant is in no way a dole to the landowner. It is an effort to persuade the landowner and the corporations of our great towns to undertake a very precarious investment in the interests of the State.
With regard to the question of profit I should like to add that I think it is extremely doubtful whether anybody who plants at the present time can anticipate any profits at all, because planting now will certainly cost double, if not more than double, what it cost before the war. Labour is very much more expensive. In addition to that, most of the private planting will have to be done on areas which have been recentlyfelled, and I think the noble Lord will agree with me that most of these areas are in a most hopeless condition. They present largely the appearance of a jungle in which you might expect to find any wild animal, let alone the little squirrel which I see is referred to later on. The clearing will cost, at least in many cases, about £5 an acre, and if you double the cost of planting before the war, it will mean about £12 an acre, to which you will have to add another £5 an acre for clearing. In some cases you will have to clear not once but two or three times, due entirely to the lack of labour during the war. The Government are some of the worst offenders. Though I have not seen some of the Government forests myself, I am told there are acres and acres of pinewood with all the loppings lying about breeding every pest that is destructive of timber. I am told that in some cases on some of the Crown lands you can see the pine weevil already devastating the growing timber.
I have said this in order to show the precarious nature of the work which you are asking private individuals to undertake, and the doubt as to whether there would be any, profit at all. If the State determines to take the profit you will at once choke off all private enterprise. It becomes simply the game which many of us have heard of, but which none of us have found

529
anyone willing to play with us, "Heads I win; tails you lose. In any case it is "Heads I win" for the State, because the State will get what it wants done in the cheapest possible manner. I ask the Government to withdraw this proviso because it will not in any way help the Bill and will rather tend to stop private enterprise. If the proviso means anything, it will undoubtedly choke oft private enterprise; and if it does not mean that the State will take all the profit, I do not see that it is worth anything at all.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 18, leave out from ("Dominions") to the end of subsection (2).—(The Earl of Powis.)
LORD CLINTON: I think that this proviso will be extremely difficult to carry out in practice. The noble Earl has laid down, generally, what we understand by profits. The trouble I have in my own mind is how any private owner is going, year by year, to set out the actual cost of the work upon these few acres on which he may receive a grant. He will have to allocate to them such portion of his rates, taxes, tithe, and expenses of management, which will be exceedingly difficult to separate from the remainder of the estate. The trouble in calculating will really be so great that, while it may be an interesting operation for a firm of chartered accountants who have not too much to do, it will put such a serious task upon the private owner that the result must be that he would have to refuse the grant. That really would be a misfortune. It is to the interest of the State that a man should take the grant. It is through him that the State will be relieved of a considerable capital outlay, and therefore for the comparatively small grant which is given on reasonable terms the State may expect to have timber grown at a less cost than it could do it itself. It is to the advantage of the State that the owner should take the grant, and certainly a disadvantage that the owner should refuse it.
I think it is possible that the method of calculation may be eased to some extent if a way could be found of laying down some general basis upon which the cost could be calculated so as to avoid the complications year after year to which I have referred. I am sure something could be done, but whether it could be made satisfactory to owners is doubtful, because you would require a varying basis to suit different
530
localities. If some form of that kind could be put forward it would take away some of my objections to this proviso. The noble Earl argued whether the proviso was worth while; profits are not likely to be great if you are going to take 5 per cent. cumulative interest. The proportion which the State would advance (suggested at £2 an acre) would be almost infinitesimal to the proportion which the owner would have to spend as his first cost of planting and annual cost of maintenance. The State would get so little out of the division at the end that it really seems hardly worth while to go in for this cumbrous form. I hope the Government will consider whether this proviso should not be at all events simplified.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I think, having listened carefully to the speeches of the two noble Lords, that there is some misunderstanding as to the meaning of the proviso. I quite agree that it is extremely clumsily worded, and that in any circumstances its intention would be difficult to carry out. Both noble Lords have, I think, taken the view that whatever grant is made it is made upon certain conditions as to repayment, but it does not seem to me that, under the Bill, that is necessary at all.
The Bill provides for two things—grant and loan. A loan, of course, involves an obligation to repay, but I do not see that the grant provides any obligation to repay at all, and if you struck out this proviso it appears to me that the effect of the Bill would be this. You would leave in the hands of the Commissioner power to make advances, which so far as I can see are not limited in extent, to such person as he chose to select, and that even although those grants were the cause of much private profit being made there would be no obligation upon him to repay the very money that had produced the profit. That is, as I understand, the Bill. This proviso is introduced merely for the purpose that in cases where money has been advanced, not by way of loan but by way of grant, if a profit is produced by the use of that money the profit should, in the first instance, be applied for the purpose of repaying the money granted out of the public purse. If I am right in that interpretation, I cannot help thinking that both noble Lords would agree that it is impossible to have a scheme provided by this Bill which would enable public money to be

531
advanced at the instance of the Commissioner to private subjects, to be used for the purpose of earning profit, and then when that profit is earned the public money shall not be repaid.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I cannot help agreeing with the noble Earl who has moved the Amendment, and the noble Lord opposite. It seems to me that this is a provision which will bring in nothing to the Government and may deter people who are willing to plant from planting at all. When do you expect profit will begin to be obtained from planting timber? You will not get any profit before the timber has been planted something like eighty years, and you may by that time have a new owner. Suppose a public-spirited landowner determines to plant 1,000 acres; he would not plant it all at once, but would plant in sections, so as to get continuous profits as from crops, but probably the profit at the earliest would not begin until the end of seventy or eighty years, while the bulk of the acreage would still be coming on. In the meantime the land may have been sold two or three times. It is extremely unlikely that there would be any profit at all, and yet for the sake of the hypothetical profit at the end of eighty years you are going to put in a clause which will make every landowner say that he will not be bothered about planting a single acre.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I fully recognise the doubt and difficulty which have been referred to. You may have variations of tithes, rates, and taxes, and of the yield of timber, and above all there can be and probably will be variations in the rate of interest, which may upset all kinds of calculations, and finally the profit is doubtful or more than doubtful. I acknowledge the whole of that. At the same time I will point out to your Lordships that I do not think it is of any use our putting into this Bill a clause which is going to put a definite money grant into the pocket of an individual owner. That is what it amounts to. The omission of this subsection as proposed is in effect a charge upon the taxpayer, on the assumption that any planting takes place, because it prevents the taxpayer from being recouped money which ex hypothesi the State is going I to advance to him. Therefore I think on general grounds this proviso should remain in the Bill, even if the difficulties are unanswerable.
532
I do not think the difficulties are unanswerable. There is no obligation under the clause on the private owner to accept a grant from the State, and therefore when the private landowner proposes to plant, and approaches the Forest Authority for a grant, he is granted say £2, £3, or£4 per acre whatever it may be, and there and then these parties, I take it, have got to come to an agreement as to repayment. The land may change hands two or three times in a hundred years. Contingencies take place in a forest which are not contemplated in anything else in our body politic. Nevertheless it ought to be possible to draw up a working scheme. I must demur to what was said by Lord Powis and Lord Sheffield as to the obligation to repay money to the State in respect of profit earned stopping private enterprise. I cannot see that in the least. Certainly if no agreement should be reached by a private owner and the Forest Authority no grant of public money subject to repayment will be made, but that is not going to prevent private individuals from planting their own land.
I will engage to say that the vast bulk of the land planted in this country during the last fifty, eighty, or 100 years was not planted from the point of view of profit. It was planted for other reasons—for shelter, for amenity, or a variety of other reasons, and not on the strict ground of profit. The proof of that is very clearly shown by the fact that in nine cases out of ten those of us who own woods can show no accounts to prove what we spend upon them. I therefore acknowledge the difficulties of assessing profit sixty or eighty years hence, but I nevertheless press upon your Lordships how much better it is to leave that element of doubt in the Bill than to state that private or public landowners are anxious to get money grants and that they do not mean to make any repayment in respect of profit accruing therefrom.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I confess I am left in a considerable quandary as to the exact meaning of the proviso, because the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, who is very competent to take charge of it, speaks continually of a grant subject to repayment.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If I did that, I was wrong. I meant profit attributable to a grant subject to repayment. I did not mean the whole thing.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I confess it looks to me more like a loan than a grant as described 'by the noble Earl. But what I should like to call attention to is this, that my noble friend says he recognises all the immense difficulties that this clause will produce. Is that a good way of legislating?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I did not say that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: He did recognise, in the most candid way, and I thought was much to be praised for it—
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I do not wish to be misunderstood. I said I recognised the difficulties, not that the Act is going to produce, but the difficulties of drawing up an agreement.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Where is the agreement?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: There is no compulsion for anybody to take a grant, or for the authority to make one; therefore it must be under an agreement if a grant is made.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I agree that it will be extremely difficult eighty years from now to have the least idea of what profit is attributable to the grant. I do not understand how the word "attributable" is to be interpreted. Supposing it was alleged that unless the landowner had received the grant he would never have gone in for the enterprise. It might have made all the difference to him, whether to enter upon the process of planting a large plantation, whether he got a grant at all. I suppose you might in that case argue that the whole profit was attributable to the grant. The word "attributable" is as vague a word as you could use, and if the noble Earl and those in charge of the Bill mean the profit to be divided in proportion to the capital invested, it should be made clear.
I do not know who is going to be called upon to interpret this proviso. Is it a Court of Law or the Commissioners? or, rather, their successors, because the present Commissioners will long have been underground at that time. I cannot think the Government are well advised to put in an Act of Parliament this proviso which they themselves in their more candid
534
moments admit it is almost impossible accurately to interpret. That only means hereafter either that it would be treated as meaning nothing in particular, or else it would produce losses. It is all right for the legal gentlemen, but for nobody else.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am quite prepared to take note of what Lord Buck-master and Lord Salisbury have pointed out, that there may be some ambiguity in the use of the word "attributable," and I will make it my business to see that the expert draftsmen examine the problem, which will be recorded in Hansard. I would repeat to your Lordships that if you cut out this portion of the clause it may be necessary to cut out the earlier subsection.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I am very glad that the noble Earl has made that statement. I agree that the wording as it stands is difficulty to work out, though I have no doubt an arbitrator would work it out. The noble Earl has put his finger on the real point. This is not a Bill merely to dispose of £3,500,000 of public money. We know from the Report that within forty years it will be £15,000,000, and in the end, as I calculate, about £40,000,000, having regard to the fact that all the calculations here were made on pre-war prices. The main purpose of the Bill is to enable a body of Commissioners to make grants to persons engaged in forestry. They can make loans, but that is another thing. They can also make grants. I do not like this Bill for other reasons. I think it is quite inadequate, but the noble Earl is at least trying to save us from the reproach of having it go forth to the world that an enormous sum out of the already depleted Exchequer of this country is to be given in grants to landlords who are profiting by having their forests developed by the State.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: It seems to me that this question is one involving very great difficulty. We have heard the arguments advanced from this Bench, and those presented by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. I confess that I entirely agree that it would be impossible to strike out this proviso and put nothing in its place, because it would be altogether improper to allow grants of almost unlimited amount

535
to be made without any kind of check upon the volition of the Commissioners, and with no sort of provision as to the amount of the grants or what is to happen if profits are earned.
I fancy that the real difficulty in this matter arises from the condition of England in the matter of forestry as compared with Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. What is called afforesting on anything like a considerable scale can hardly be carried out in any part of England, except in one or two areas quite well known, mostly on Court property where planting can be carried out on a large scale. What I take it is expected and required in England is that there should be not only to a certain extent an increase of the planted areas, but also very much more, an improvement in planting on something like a commercial scale the woods and coverts which are already in existence. Therefore you can hardly hope in England to have anything like a large forest policy. That, I take it, is the meaning of this system of loans, and even more of grants. A great many of them very likely will be concerned with quite small areas in order that there may be, even in those parts of England which cannot be called woodland, a substantial supply of timber on which the country can fall back in case of need. That being so, it may be that a system of grants is necessary.
It would have been far preferable, I think, if grants could have been avoided altogether, or if they had to be made that the whole expense should have been undertaken by the State, and all the profits, if any were earned, should also accrue to the State. This is a sort of semi-nationalisation of timber, and in practice I have no doubt that it will be extremely difficult to carry out. On the whole, after having heard the debate, I am inclined to think that, although the effect of this rather mysterious formula in the proviso will be to a certain extent discouraging, your Lordships will be wise not to try to turn it out of the Bill unless a substitute can be provided, which so far has not been suggested. On the whole, therefore, I am inclined against the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Powis.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I cannot think the legal advisers of the Government can have thought over this somewhat sketchy proviso. The noble Earl in charge
536
of the Bill talks of negotiations between the Commissions and the individual. The negotiations must take one form. As I understand the proviso, the Commissioners must insist on the condition. What is the condition? It is a personal condition. The man who takes a grant must bind himself—that is the effect of the legal language—and his heirs to pay that sum back by way of profit which some sixty, seventy, or eighty years hence is ascertained. Is there anybody in his senses who would burden his heirs with such an arrangement as that? Alternatively, the noble Lord seems to think this might be a charge upon the land. The words of the section do not so provide, but if they did so provide I, as an old lawyer, and an old real property lawyer, should deprecate them vastly. The burdens upon land, the burdens that run with the land, the encumbrances upon the land which make the land uncommercial and not negotiable, are far too many already. Add another one to them and you will find the greatest difficulty in disposing of your forest. I cannot help thinking that this proviso has not been thought out, but is merely an idea thrown forward as a sketch.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: There is one thing which has become apparent, and it is this. Although it may be possible for some one to understand this proviso, there are few of your Lordships who have succeeded in putting the same interpretation upon it. I hope that my noble friend will meet the draftsmen, and that when it conies up on Report we shall have a clause which any ordinary person who will have to plant trees in the future may have some chance of understanding.
As far as I understand, it really comes to this, that it is intended to have two forms of loan, one a form of loan which there may be a possibility of repaying, the other a loan which it is thought there will be no possibility of repaying and which for some reason or other is called a grant. And a proviso is put in, apparently to satisfy the conscience of the taxpayer, which no one can possibly understand. Surely it would be much better, if it has to be repaid, to call it by its proper name. A grant is a grant, and is something which has not to be repaid. It is a very great mistake to have the proviso in this Bill, and unless it is made intelligible it would be much better to take the whole matter out of the Bill.
THE EARL OF POWIS: May I ask the noble Earl to answer my question with regard to what the Bill means by profit?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That, after what has been said by noble Lords opposite, I refuse to embark upon. I have a perfectly clear idea in my own mind of what profit is. I know, in the case of my own woods, after a term of years whether there has been a profit. Accordingly, if there had been a grant or loan at the plantation of these woods thirty or forty years ago, I should know how much of the money should be attributable to my own capital, to my own land, to my own services rendered, and proportionately how much would be attributable to the State. But I think I have made the noble Lord a reasonable proposal. It is that I should consider very carefully what has been said in view of the multifarious difficulties which have been mentioned, and if, humanly speaking, it can be made clear it shall be made clear. From the point of view of procedure it would probably he desirable for the noble Earl to withdraw his Amendment, and not for the House to exclude these words.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Prevention of damage by rabbits and vermin.
4.—(1) Where the Commissioners are satisfied that trees or plants are being or are likely to be damaged by rabbits or vermin owing to the failure of an occupier of land to destroy sufficiently the rabbits or vermin on the land in his occupation or otherwise taking steps for the prevention of such damage, the Commissioners may, after giving to the occupier and owner such opportunity of destroying the rabbits or vermin or taking such stops as aforesaid as in the opinion of the Commissioners is reasonable, authorise in writing any person to enter on the land and kill and take the rabbits or vermin thereon, and the Commissioners may recover from the occupier summarily, as a civil debt, the net cost incurred by them in connection with the action so taken.
(2) Any person acting under an authority given by the Commissioners under this section shall, if so required, produce his authority, and if any person obstructs any person so authorised in the exercise of his powers or duties under this section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
(3) The person entitled to kill rabbits or vermin on any common lands shall for the purpose of this section be deemed to be the occupier of the land.
(4) For the purpose of this section the expression "vermin" includes squirrels.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (1), after the first "any," to insert "officer of the Commissioners." The noble Lord said: This is really an Amendment of Lord Bledisloe's, although my noble friend, who is not present, proposed to insert the word "competent." I intended to suggest to my noble friend that it was not going far enough to give the power to "any competent person," and that it would be better to entrust the power to any officer of the Commissioners. I think what my noble friend had in view is that you should not have some men turned loose into a wood who had no idea of catching vermin or rabbits without at the same time doing harm to winged game. But "competent" would admit the village poacher, I think. He would certainly be the most competent man to turn into your coverts to destroy rabbits, and I think we ought to see that the person empowered should be an officer of the Commissioner:, and not anyone taken haphazard by them simply because they thought he was the most effective man for catching rabbits and destroying vermin. It is right that only responsible people should be allowed free access to coverts, otherwise a great deal of damage would be done to pheasants which, of course, do no harm whatever to the woods.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 3, after ("any") insert ("officer of the Commissioners").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Surely it would be a mistake to say that none except those who are officially employed by the Forestry Commission shall be entitled to destroy vermin. The Forestry Commission will not have trappers and gamekeepers all over the country. There will be occasions when there is a spinney or a copse with too many rabbits in it, and they will choose the nearest man that they could find who is competent to destroy the rabbits. To say that they must employ one of the permanent staff of the Commission is needlessly to obstruct the machinery of the clause. I think we must assume that they are not going to employ a man who is poaching for pheasants or injuring the timber. They have to employ him in writing, and under the Statute the owner of the land is entitled to make that man produce his authority for going on the ground. That should be sufficient safeguard. I think, therefore, that the Amendment ought not to be pressed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is intended to secure some small measure of protection for an animal which, I cannot help thinking, must many times have endeared himself to your Lordships' affections. As the Bill stands any person who has squirrels upon his land may, at any time, no matter what the character of his land may be, have some other person put upon his land to destroy these squirrels, and, when they have been destroyed, have the pleasure of paying for the cost of killing them. It is perfectly reasonable that, if the Commissioners are going to plant forests, they should have all necessary powers for the purpose of securing those forests against the unnecessary ravages of noxious animals. That I understand, and it may be that a forest of the Commissioners will be one of the most dreadful things on the face of the earth. It will have no form of life in it, and it will be girdled round with barbed wire, perhaps six feet high, in order to keep out the deer. I think I saw a picture of such a forest once; it was in an illustration of Dante's "Inferno."
That may be appropriate for a Government forest, but when you come to private land it surely is rather serious that a man should be at liberty to have animals to which he may be much attached upon his property destroyed because somebody has decided that trees or plants are liable to be damaged by rabbits or vermin. I beg your Lordships to notice the extraordinary area that the clause covers—"trees or plants": any tree, any plant liable to be damaged by rabbit or by vermin owing to the failure of the occupier to destroy; and then, vermin being deemed to include squirrels, you may send in somebody to kill squirrels. Surely that cannot be what the Government intend if it really be designed to protect forests, I would ask them why they do not send in people to kill the roe-deer and black game which are just as dangerous to forests as squirrels.
Lord Bledisloe assures me (and I accept his assurance) that the squirrel is a much maligned animal, and does not do half the mischief he is said to do. I do not know anything about that, but I know that he is a most delightful animal to watch; and I cannot look forward with satisfaction to an England which is completely destroyed of everything which makes like pleasant. I think that is coming; but for the
540
moment I should like to curb the activities of the Government Departments with regard to the destruction of squirrels, and I beg your Lordships to help me in my small Amendment that is designed to preserve an animal which I believe all will say incorporates more than any other animal the very spirit of English woodland life.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 17 and 18, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Buckmaster.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: I also have put down an Amendment to leave out this subsection. On a small estate my father was a great planter of trees, and a great planter of choice conifers. He, and I since, have always encouraged squirrels. I have never found any serious mischief done by them. I doubt very much, unless it be very small trees, that they can possibly damage the leader of a conifer; because I cannot see how they could stand on a piece sufficiently stiff without at the same time finding there too stiff a place to bite. What I have known them do freely is to bite off the ends of branches, little things about 6 or 9 inches long—a matter which does not harm at all. It is possible that they have barked lime trees, but not so as to do any serious mischief. I have known them eat cherries, but they were cherries from which they drove the birds and which the birds would have eaten if the squirrels had not done so. It may be that they have some power (unknown to me) of destroying young larch forests. If it be so, it is easy for the owner of the larch forest to prevent that; he has only to put a comparatively small area of bare land between his neighbour's squirrels and his forest in order to keep it safe from the squirrels. Squirrels are not like rabbits which run long distances for that sort of purpose. A squirrel is one of the most beautiful objects in English natural life, and I cannot help thinking, if we were to look into the matter, that we should find on balance that he performs some good purpose which we shall lose if we destroy him. I hope very much that your Lordships will omit this subsection.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: I should like to tender myself as a witness to character on behalf of the squirrel. I have had the same experience as the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down. During a number of years I watched very carefully, having often heard that the squirrel bites off the

541
leaders of the coniferous trees, and the young branches. I have constantly gone backwards and forwards to see whether the squirrels—which I am happy to say are abundant where I live—have done that, and I do not remember one case during recent years in which I have ever found any harm done by the squirrel. Squirrels are, as noble Lords have said, one of the most agreeable denizens of the woods, and a constant amusement when we see them. I can say the same thing with regard to lime trees. I have never known squirrels do any harm to lime trees. I therefore hope that your Lordships will deal in an indulgent manner with these charming creatures.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I regret to appear as an enemy of natural life, particularly of so beautiful and pathetic a specimen as the squirrel. But the squirrel is a nuisance and a danger. So far as my experience goes, the squirrel is a forest pest which ought to be removed. What is more, I defy Lord Phillimore to find any authority on forest protection which has a good word to say for the squirrel. Lord Bryce paid a great tribute to the æsthetic value of the squirrel, but he did not say what good the squirrel would do. He will destroy a number of coleoptera and he is a voracious eater of certain larvae. That is all to the good. But the good he does is not compensated for by other forms of forest nuisances which he commits. When it is said that he does not move about—
LORD PHILLIMORE: He does not move so far as the rabbit.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: On the contrary, I think the squirrel is a quicker migrator than the rabbit; certainly I do not think that rabbits could have spread over the Midlands of Great Britain quicker than the squirrel has done. The squirrel cuts the leaders of all forms of conifers; he smashes up the seed pod in a reckless manner; he kills young fledglings; he will dig up acorns that have been planted to seed a young oak wood; and I hope your Lordships will not be misled by the appeals to sentiment and mercy which have emanated from Lord Buckmaster and others. I would add in general defence of this clause, to which Lord Buckmaster took rather wide objection, that the words are taken verbatim from the Corn Production Act; they confer no new power; all the
542
powers in this clause exist to-day. The only reason that it is put into this Bill is that the powers now belonging to the Board of Agriculture with respect to killing vermin shall be transferred to the new forest authority. The only difference is that in this case the word "squirrel" is introduced, which was not the case in the Corn Production Act.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have always been led to believe that the squirrel is an obnoxious animal; but I view with a certain amount of regret the idea that we are going to have squirrels exterminated.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: You cannot exterminate them; it is impossible to do it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl has not yet tried. The real difficulty of the clause is its great width; because it is the early words of the clause, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, has called attention, which make it so drastic. The words are "Where the Commissioners are satisfied that trees or plants. …" That is any trees. The noble Earl might have a large wood in which he liked to have squirrels and rabbits and as they belong to him altogether with the trees one might imagine that they would be left alone. But under the powers of this clause it will be possible—although the landowner does not mind a few trees being injured by the rabbits or squirrels—to send in officers of the Commissioners to shoot every rabbit and squirrel in the wood. Surely that cannot be intended. I can understand the Government desiring to protect the Government trees or trees for the growth of which they had advanced a loan, but not trees belonging to a landowner which he likes to have destroyed. Surely he may be allowed to do it if he likes.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Under the Corn Production Act he is not allowed to have his own corn and roots destroyed. This clause applies that provision to trees. It is an existing law.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that very drastic indeed; it seems to justify what I said just now that you run the risk of exterminating these animals altogether. The officials of the Forestry

543
Department might come into anyone's garden, or wood, or anywhere else, and kill every animal which came within the mischief of this clause. It is too late, of course, to amend the early part of the clause, but I certainly should have thought that if a landowner likes to have his trees injured he should not be interfered with unless a great public evil will result. I have never heard that suggested, and I should not think it was likely; it cannot be put on the same footing as the production of food which certainly in war time was a very serious matter. But I think a man who is interested in natural history and natural life—like Lord Phillimore or Lord Bryce—might be allowed to keep his squirrels even if they did damage his trees a little.
THE EARL OF MEATH: I would like to ask the noble Earl whether these Commissioners will have power to enter Crown lands, forests, parks, and open spaces, because, if so, as one who has done a little in connection with open spaces, I should certainly enter my protest. In America they encourage every kind of life is public parks. There is a park near Washington where they encourage beavers and every animal that is not noxious. The Government can hardly have considered how they are going to turn the whole of the British Isles apparently into a sort of dreary waste in which we shall see no wild animals of any kind or description. I can hardly imagine that they seriously intend that we should have no squirrels. Life would become almost unbearable if we could not see the squirrels and rabbits. Recently I visited a friend's house and there were twelve rabbits on the garden lawn, with any number of flowers growing. I said, "How can you allow rabbits here? "My friend replied, "I would leave this place to-morrow if there were no rabbits. My gardener is often saying, Why do you have the rabbits?' and I say that I would rather have the rabbits than the flowers."
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I must emphatically protest. The whole experience of any one connected with forestry is to the effect that by increasing the area of afforestation we enlarge our fauna. I would guarantee that if we planted 100,000 acres in Somerset we should have fifteen or twenty new birds in that part of the country. Several of your Lordships, I think, are really exaggerating a little
544
when you assume that, because powers are taken to deal with real pests, elaborate steps are proposed to invade private gardens to kill an odd squirrel or two. This is not the idea. I must assure your Lordships that, from my conversations with the people who are promoting this Bill, I am convinced that they are as anxious as your Lordships to preserve and increase the beauties and amenities of the country-side. They do not look upon this purely as a matter of giving them an excuse to go in and destroy some rabbits which are eating carnations, or squirrels which are in Lord Phillimore's trees; but only where there is a nuisance and where the proper growth of any timber is being interfered with. There is no ground for saying that we are going to make a dreary waste of the country, where there will be no live animals. On the contrary I think the country will be improved as to flora and fauna.
THE EARL OF MEATH: The noble Earl has not answered my question about Crown lands.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Not Crown lands, public lands. Under the Bill Crown lands have no privilege not accorded to the lands of private individuals and if an excessive number of rabbits are bred on Crown lands they will have to be destroyed.
THE EARL OF MEATH: And parks?
A NOBLE LORD: Regent's Park?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The noble Earl is specially interested, we will say, in the great open spaces in Surrey. The fact that a rabbit is bred on common land ought not to secure for it privileges which are not accorded to a rabbit bred on private lands. He is mischievous whether bred on public or private land, and this clause provides, as in the Corn Production Act, the proper way of determining who is to be responsible for killing pests on any land.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I greatly regret that, having regard to the attitude of the Government, I shall be compelled to put your Lordships to the trouble and inconvenience of a Division. I have only to ask in conclusion, when the noble Earl asks us to regard a Government Department in controlling these matter as anxious to

545
preserve and encourage the beauties of our country-side—What has happened during the last two years on the countryside? We have had bird's nests torn out of the hedges by country boys who thought they were, destroying sparrows. They did not know a sparrow from a chaffinch. When I am told that a Government Department is going to encourage wild life I can only say that past experience does not justify the observation.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It certainly was not the Forests Department.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE moved, at the end of subsection (4), to leave out "squirrels" and insert "such animals or birds as the Commissioners may from time to time determine." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment, which is down in the name of Lord Bledisloe, seems to be a very good proposal. It places it in the power of the Commissioners to determine the animals or birds that from time to time should be included. I think it is an important provision, and if the noble Earl is inclined to accept it I will move it.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 18, leave out ("squirrels") and insert ("such animals or birds as the Commissioners may from time to time determine").—(Viscount Haldane.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I accept the Amendment, but I thought we had
LORD BUCKMASTER: It was a Government Department.
LORD SALTOUN: I hope the Government will stick to the text of the Bill. In Scotland a hundred years ago there was no squirrel in the country; now they are all over the country, and are the greatest vermin in fir woods.
On Question, whether the subsection proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 20.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Stanhope, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Lawrence, L.

Sutherland, D.

Yarborough, E.

Newton, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Bath, M.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Camden, M.

Cross, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Salisbury, M.

Haldane, V.

Saltoun, L.

Annesley, L.

Sempill, L.

Bradford, E.

Charnwood, L.

Shandon, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Clinton, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensbury.)

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

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Treowen, L.

Jersey, E.

Ernle, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Lytton, E.

Hylton, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Lindsey, E.

Esher, V.

Hatherton, L.

Morton, E.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Onslow, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Phillimore, L. [Teller.]

Powis, E.

Buckmaster, L. [Teller.]

Rotherham, L.

Strafford, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Denman, L.

Allendale, V.

Dynevor, L.

Strachie, L.

Bryce, V.

Erskine, L.

just kept "squirrels" in. It must be an addition.
LORD BUCKMASTER: This is a dreadful proposal because it places in the hands of the Commissioners power to determine what animals or birds may be destroyed. Those of us who are fond of English country-life have suffered acutely during the war, and perhaps necessarily, in seeing what has been done to our birds during the last two or three years. They have been decimated past repair. And now the Commissioners will be able to continue this work and decide on any bird they like. I hope the Government will not accept it.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I do not know whether Lord Buckmaster has familiarised himself with the point. Nine out of ten birds are helpful to sylviculture, but there are certain birds which are a

547
positive and acknowledged pest. Any man who is fond of woods and forests wishes to encourage birds, and if the forest authority had 100,000 acres its desire, and its first proposal would be to order 10,000 nesting boxes of different types in order to encourage a great variety of bird life which is essential to keep down forest pests. I really do not think we need assume that the forest authorities are going to destroy birds.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I supported the Government on the last Amendment, I am "anti-squirrel." I hope the Government will not put these words in the clause because they are very wide indeed. It says that any animal or bird which the Commissioners choose to say are pests are to be destroyed. The noble Earl says that people engaged in forestry may be relied upon to desire the maintenance of these animals and birds. Can they be relied upon? You have had scientific men saying that some particular thing ought to be done, they go mad upon it, and in another few years it is discovered they were all wrong. Surely we ought not to run these sort of risks and to give an absolute blank cheque to the Commissioners to put any animal or bird they please upon the list is going too far. I hope the Government will not accept it.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I will withdraw the Amendment. I do not want to provoke a discussion at this hour. Perhaps on Report stage the Government will consider it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER had on the Paper an Amendment in subsection (4), before "squirrels," to insert "grey." The noble and learned Lord said: It is not right to trouble your Lordships with this Amendment after the last Division. I had hoped, if the House had been more evenly divided, to persuade your Lordships that no mercy need be given to an alien squirrel and that we might have some protection for our native squirrels. But the expression of your Lordships' opinion is so marked against our native creatures that I do not desire to move any protection for the alien.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Compulsory acquisition of land.
7.—(1) If the Commissioners are unable to acquire by agreement and on reasonable terms any land which they consider it necessary to acquire for the purpose of this Act, they may apply to the Development Commissioners for an order empowering them to acquire the land compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of the schedule to this Act, and the Development Commissioners shall have power to make such order.
(2) No land shall be authorised by an order under this section to be acquired compulsorily which, at the date of the order, forms part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground, or forms part of the home farm attached to and usually occupied with a mansion house, or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling house, or which at that date is the property of any local authority, or has been acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking, or is the site of an ancient monument or other object of archaeological interest.
(3) Where an order made by the Development Commissioners under this Act authorises the acquisition of any land forming part of any common, open space, or allotment, the order, so far as it relates to the acquisition of such land, shall be provisional only, and shall not have effect unless and until it is confirmed by Parliament, except where the order provides for giving in exchange for such land other land, not being less in area, certified by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to be equally advantageous to the persons, if any, entitled to commonable or other rights, and to the public.
Provided that the foregoing provision shall not apply if the order provides for the granting to the public of reasonable access to the land for air, exercise or recreation, unless the land to be acquired has been dedicated to the public use and enjoyment, or is a metropolitan common within the terms of the Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866, or is a suburban common as defined by the Commons Act, 1876, or is subject to a scheme of regulation made in pursuance of the Metropolitan Commons Acts, 1.866 to 1898, or the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, or the Commons Act, 1899, or to a private or local Act of Parliament.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "unless the owner of the land objects to the making of the Order, in which case the question of the compulsory acquisition of the land shall be referred for decision as provided in the Schedule to this Act."
The noble Lord said: The operative words of this Amendment are contained in the Schedule to the Bill, hut it occurred to me that I might be told when we reached that point that the matter had already been decided in the Bill itself, and I thought it better to raise this question on Clause 7.

549
The object of the Amendment is to protect owners against Government autocrats. In our zeal to make the world safe for democracy it appears to me we are creating new despots. Personally I do not dislike autocracy and I think a benevolent despot is the best ruler that could be found. But I must say that in the number of new despots we are creating daily in Government departments I am afraid we shall find there are some malevolent as well as benevolent ones.
May I point out that where land is to be compulsorily acquired by the Commissioners no appeal is allowed from their decision on the subject. Their decision is final, and as far as I can make out it may be made without even hearing what the owner has to say about the acquisition of his hind. We all agree that if land is required for the State private rights must give way, but I submit that the person to decide this summarily should not be a Government official, and that the owner should have the right of appeal to an independent tribunal.
As far as I can make out, there are only two objections. One is" that Government Departments like untramelled power, and the second is that it will be said there will be some slight delay in the acquisition of land if this right of appeal is given to an owner. In the case of a crop which takes eighty years to mature it cannot be a serious matter if two or three months' delay occurs on a matter as to whether the land should be compulsorily taken or not. This is an important matter where this power is going to be given to a Government Department to take land compulsorily, and I hope the Government will see their way to give this appeal to any owner who objects to his land being taken.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 13, at end insert ("unless the owner of the land objects to the making of the Order, in which case the question of the compulsory acquisition of the land shall be referred for decision as provided in the Schedule to this Act").—Lord Oranmore and Browne.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: If the Government are going to accept the Amendment I will not say anything, but this Bill applies not only to this country but to Ireland, and it would be impossible in Ireland to leave it to Commissioners to decide whether they should take some of the very little land which still remains to the landlords in that country, and which may not be of great value for afforestation, without any sort of
550
appeal or any power in the landlords to state their case. We have had some experience of Commissioners in this respect in this country in the last few years. In the last few years it has been in the power of certain authorities to order land to be put under tillage, which land the landlord knew to be unsuitable for such purpose, and in some cases that has been pressed with an absolute disregard of possible profit. Much of the land is now not earning any profit at all, and in this question of afforestation to leave it to what is practically a decision of one man in many cases, whether or not a particular portion of a landlord's property should be taken for a purpose which the landlord knows to be entirely unsuitable—that is a question on which the landlord ought to be heard. Therefore I hope the noble Earl will make it clear that there is some sort of appeal, without which great injustice may be done.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: In the first place, Clause 7 is already a Statute of the Realm. It is quite clear, I hope, that there is nothing new in this clause. It is ten years old, and it transfers to the Forest Commission those duties in respect of acquiring land for afforestation. It comes out of the Development Act. Therefore I am rather reluctant to change this clause which has worked for ten years or more very well, and with which people are generally familiar. Therefore I am reluctant to add to or diminish from the actual text of the section.
What is in effect proposed by Lord Oranmore and Browne is that a Judge of the High Court shall be substituted for the authority—the Development Commissioners—mentioned in Section 7. On the whole I am of opinion that I would rather my case were decided by the Development Commissioners than by a Judge of the High Court. I do not think it is very suitable to force these things upon the High Court of Justice more than one can avoid, and my impression is that the existing authority knows very well what is the general policy and how it should be carried out, and can be trusted to deal with afforestation land as it has dealt in the past with other land. The clause cannot be read except in conjunction with the schedule, and if your Lordships will refer to subsection (3) of the Schedule I think it will be seen clearly that the order to be published by the Commissioners is to be presented to the owners, lessees and

551
occupiers of the land which it is proposed to schedule. I think that shows there can be no question that the owner will be able to state his case.
LORD SHEFFIELD: Can he appeal beyond the Commissioners?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No, I do not think he goes beyond the Commissioners, but it gives him a right to appear before the Commissioners.
LORD SHEFFIELD: No power to challenge the decision?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Surely, if he has notice he can state his case before the Commissioners. I will put it in on Report if that is not so, but I am pretty sure it must be so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should not like your Lordships to come to a decision without being clear upon the point. The noble Earl has said that Lord Oranmore and Browne's Amendment must be taken as a whole, and that you must include in what he proposes to do the proposal in his Amendment to the Schedule, to substitute for the single Arbitrator a Judge of the High Court.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I carefully refrained from mentioning that, on my Amendment, because I thought it might be left to be dealt with when we deal with the Schedule.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I agree that it is inconvenient to deal with it now, and I should not have thought it was wise to change the single arbitrator, but that does not detract from the Amendment before your Lordships, that land should not be taken without giving the landowner an opportunity of pleading his case before an impartial tribunal. That seems to me to be a reasonable thing, and as the Schedule stands without amendment the single arbitrator would not be a long process and he would be an impartial person. I should have thought, therefore, that no harm could be done by allowing the landowner to raise the issue before a single arbitrator whether the land should be taken or not. That is the reason why I think the Amendment is a good one and should not be complicated by discussing the question whether the single arbitrator should be turned into
552
a Judge of the High Court. May I say that the Commissioners, even if, as the noble Earl thinks, they are obliged to give a hearing to the landowner, are hardly impartial in a matter of this kind because they are the people who want to take the land.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It is the Development Commissioners and not the Forest Commissioners.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then I was wrong about that. At any rate, it seems to me there should be a hearing before an impartial authority.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: There is one point which I ought to make clear. I deprecated changing this because it is the existing code of law. There is, however, one point which I have not put before your Lordships but which I think would influence you. I think within a day or two the House of Commons is going to send up a Bill dealing with the general principle of land acquisition. If your Lordships want to change the principle, had we not better do it on a Bill which deals with the whole question? Because if we do it on this Bill we shall leave it unchanged where the Land Commissioners take land, for instance, for reclamation purposes. Of course the Land Acquisition Bill will probably modify the terms of the old Development Act, which we are now discussing.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (2), after "part" where that word first occurs, to insert "of a small holding under 50 acres." The noble Lord said:—I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will feel more friendly towards this Amendment than he has shown himself towards my previous Amendments. The object is to protect the small holder. I think we ought to be just as anxious and careful in these matters to look after the small man as to look after the man who is living in a big house with a big home park or demesne. Otherwise it might be said that while we were looking after our own interests we were neglecting the interest of the small man. It will be no answer to tell us that the Development Commissioners will do that. It may be said that they will look after the park, garden, pleasure-ground, or any other land which is a part of the

553
amenities of the place. I would rather hope that the noble Earl would not proceed as he indicated, but would accept my Amendment. The noble Earl does not think the small man ought to be protected in this matter in the same way as the big man has the home farm protected. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us why that is to be so. Justice ought to be done to the small holder in the same way as justice is to be done to the large land owner.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 16, after ("part") insert ("of a small holding under 50 acres").—(Load Strachie.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: There is HO question of justice or injustice. It is entirely a question of convenience. These are the terms under which land is now compulsorily acquired, and I do not propose to vary them. If Lord Strachie's Amendment were put in, it would very likely prevent the acquisition of a great tract of land just because there were one or two holdings upon it. It might effectively cut the connection between two blocks of forest. The forest authority does not want to buy small-holdings compulsorily. The basis of their scheme is to acquire land which is not suited for agriculture. It is, however, possible that in certain cases, as I described, small-holdings might promote the afforestation of a large area, and having a small holding or two might also make it more easy to secure the permanent staff which one requires for afforestation. I can assure the noble Lord that there is no desire on the part of the forest authority to acquire these small holdings. At the same, time, I think that it would be unwise to preclude them from doing so.
LORD STRACHIE: At this time of the evening I will not trouble the House to go to a Division, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Arran I beg to move, in subsection (2), after "park" to insert "demesne." In Ireland the word "park" has a totally different meaning from its meaning in England. A gentleman's place there is nearly always described as a demesne. For the purpose of protection, I think it is necessary that tins word should be inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 16, after ("park") insert ("demesne").—.(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I do not wish to accept the Amendment, but I must say that I am sympathetic towards it, and I suggest that it should be put down to be moved when the new Acquisition of Land Bill reaches this House. It would apply not only to forestry but to all acquisition of land.
LORD ORANAMORE AND BROWNE: I withdraw it at present, but I reserve the right to bring it up again on Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Establishment of Forestry Fund.
8.—(1) The salaries of the Commissioners, and the salaries or remuneration of their officers and servants and all expenses incurred by the Commissioners in the exercise of their powers and the performance of duties under this Act, shall be defrayed out of a fund to be called the Forestry Fund.
(2) There shall be paid into the Forestry Fund—

(a) the sums issued out of the Consolidated Fund under this section; and

(b) all sums received by the Commissioners in respect of the sale of any land or timber or otherwise received by the Commissioners in respect of any transactions carried out by them in the exercise of their powers and duties under this Act.

(3) There shall be charged on and paid oat of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof, the stun of awe million five hundred thousand pounds, and the said sum shall be issued and paid by the Treasury into the Forestry Fund at such times before the first day of April nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, as they direct:
Provided that the amount to be so issued and paid in each year shall be such as Parliament may determine.
(4) The Commissioners may accept any gift made to them for all or any of the purposes of this Act, and, subject to the terms thereof, may apply it for those purposes in accordance with regulations made by them.
(5) The Commissioners shall cause an account to be prepared and transmitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General for examination, on or before the thirtieth day of September in every year, showing the sums paid into and the sums issued out of the Forestry Fund in the financial year ending on the thirty-first day of March preceding, and the Comptroller and Auditor General shall certify and report on the same, and such account and report shall be laid before Parliament by the Commissioners on or before the thirty-first day of January in the following year if Parliament be

555
then sitting, and if Parliament be then not sitting within one week after Parliament is next assembled.
The Commissioners shall also cause to be laid before both Houses of Parliament an annual report of their proceedings.
(6) Payments out of and into the Forestry Fund, and all other matters relating to the fund and money standing to the credit of the fund, shall be made and regulated in such manner as the Treasury may, by minute to be laid before Parliament, direct.
(7) The Treasury may from time to time invest any moneys standing to the credit of the Forestry Fund in any securities in which trustees are by law authorised to invest trust funds.
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE had on the Paper an Amendment, at the end of subsection (3), to insert "on au estimate to be laid before it by the Treasury." The noble Viscount said: I will not take any time in moving this Amendment. I think possibly that it may be convenient to move it in the words "on an estimate to be presented by the Treasury "instead of" to be laid before it by the Treasury." I think that would be more accurate. It is obvious that this secures the object of having a Minister responsible to Parliament, and also responsible for the estimate. I hope the Government will see their way to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 21, at end insert ("on an estimate to be presented by the Treasury").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule:
(2) The order shall be in the prescribed form and shall contain such provisions as the Development Commissioners may prescribe for the purpose of carrying the order into effect, and shall incorporate the Lands Clauses Acts and sections seventy-seven to eighty-five of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, or, in Scotland, sections seventy to seventy-eight of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845, and those Acts shall apply accordingly, subject to the following modifications:—

(a) Any question of disputed compensation shall be determined by a single arbitrator, who shall be appointed, and whose remuneration shall be fixed, as respects England, by the Lord Chief Justice of England, as respects Scotland by the Lord President of the Court of Session, and as respects Ireland by the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland and the arbitrator so appointed shall be deemed to be an arbitrator within the meaning of those Acts:

556

(b) An arbitrator so appointed may, notwithstanding anything in the Lands Clauses Acts, determine the amount of costs, and shall have power to disallow, as costs of the arbitration, the costs of any witness whom he considers to have been called unnecessarily, and any other costs which he considers have been caused or incurred unnecessarily:

(c) In determining the amount of any disputed compensation under any such order, no additional allowance shall be made on account of the purchase being compulsory, and the arbitrator shall have regard to the extent to which the remaining and contiguous lands and hereditaments belonging to the same proprietor may be benefited by the carrying out of the purpose for which the land is authorised to be acquired by the Commissioners:

(d) The provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts as to the sale of superfluous land shall not apply.

(3) The draft order shall be published by the Commissioners in the prescribed manner, and such notice shall be given both in the locality in which the land proposed to be acquired is situate and to the owners, lessees, and occupiers of that land as may be prescribed, and in the case of land forming part of a common, open space, or allotment, also to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
(4) An order authorising the acquisition of any buildings may, if portions only of those buildings are required for the purposes of the Commissioners, notwithstanding anything in the Lands Clauses Acts, require the owners of and other persons interested in those buildings to sell and convey to the Commissioners the portions only of the buildings so required, if the arbitrator is of opinion that such portions can be severed from the remainder of the properties without material detriment thereto, and, in such case, the Commissioners shall not be obliged to purchase the whole or any greater portion thereof, and shall pay for the portions acquired by them and make compensation for any damage ssutained by the owners thereof or other parties interested therein by severance or otherwise.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: moved, in (2) (a), after "Any question," to insert" as to whether such land shall be compulsorily acquired and." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which covers somewhat the same ground as the one already moved, and which I withdrew but I hope that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will understand that on this subject also I reserve my right to move the Amendment on the Report stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 16, after ("question") insert ("as to whether such land shall be compulsorily acquired and").—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: On the Report stage I shall also point out that a

557
still more convenient stage will occur when the Land Acquisition. Bill is before your Lordships.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved to leave out paragraph (b). The noble Duke said: I shall probably be told in regard to this Amendment to wait until the Land Acquisition Bill is before this House, but I would point out that in this particular instance forestry specially affects the question. There is a great possibility of danger to agriculture itself. Obviously there may be injury to game interests if certain land is taken but that is comparatively a small matter. As regards sheep farms, however, it is a serious matter. Apparently there is nothing under this Bill to prevent the Commissioners acquiring any portion of a bill farm, planting the lower ground with trees, and practically making", that hill farm useless except for sporting purposes, because if the lower part is taken away it would be impossible to maintain permanent stock on the farm. It is most undesirable that there should be any conflict between agriculture and forestry, and I hope that my noble friend will accept this Amendment as one which is fair and reasonable. Unless this Amendment is put into the Bill there are great dangers of abuse and of great injury to agriculture, and especially to sheep farming and sheep breeding.
Amendment moved—
In the Schedule, page 10, lines 24 to 29, leave out paragraph (b).—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: This raises a very wide and very controversial issue as to worsement and betterment, and I am afraid that I do not see my way to say anything further to the noble Duke than I have already pointed out to one or two of my noble friends, that I am reluctant to change the existing code of law in respect of afforestation alone if we have to change it let us change it in respect of all the different branches and objects for which land is compulsorily acquired. I suggest that this point of worsement should be discussed on the Land Acquisition Bill which the learned Clerk at the Table informs me is already in possession of your Lordships. I think that is a much more fitting and convenient opportunity.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: May I point out that this particular question
558
affects the Forestry Bill, and does not affect any other Bill. There is no possibility of the particular land that I referred to being taken except for afforestation. As I have pointed out if you take the lower ground of a bill farm and plant it the rest of the ground will have to be turned into what is called waste ground which may be some use for grouse shooting but will be of no use for anything else. Therefore this particular matter applies specially to this Bill.
EARL STANHOPE: There is another point of view. If you start planting trees you may seriously deterioriate the value of property by cutting oft the view from a house, and if you I ask advantage of any benefit which may accrue you should also pay for any detriment.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: There is a great deal to be said for what the noble Earl states. I have only argued the question not on merits but on procedure. It would be much more convenient to discuss it on the Land Acquisition Bill.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: If the noble Earl wishes, I will bring it up again on Report.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think that will be preferable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved, after (2) (d), to insert the following new paragraph:
"(e) The owner, lessee or occupier of any mines or minerals lying under any land purchased or within such a lateral distance therefrom that the liberties hereby granted can be made available for the working thereof shall for the purpose of working the same be entitled to enter on any land so purchased and there to use any existing and to sink, erect, make and use any new shafts, machinery and other works, and for that purpose, if necessary, to remove any timber or other trees or any other things growing or being thereon and to lay and use light rails over the land so purchased and to do all such other things thereon or therein as if such land had not been purchased but so that in exercising such liberties no more damage than is reasonably necessary be done to such land, trees, or things, and that reasonable compensation be made for any damage actually caused, and if any question stall arise in respect thereof the same shall be determined by the arbitrator."
The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment in order that when land is compulsorily taken for afforestation full power over the surface shall remain for the development of minerals. Unless that is done that, will cease in those areas. Some of the most likely land which the Commissioners will take for afforestation will be hill or mountain and heather lands, such as is met with in the coal areas of South Wales, Staffordshire. &c. The area taken for planting will probably be very large, as no doubt it will thus be more economical to work, and I wish the Commissioners all success in doing it. But, in doing it, we do not want to stop the development of the minerals. It may be necessary to sink a shaft or make a tramline or put up a spoil heap on the land compulsorily taken, and I do not think this reservation which I propose would very much affect the Commissioners in their work, for it would not entail a very large acreage. I know that only a few acres are needed for this purpose.
I have only mentioned coal, but my new clause covers all minerals, such as ironstone, tin, and lead. Some of the areas taken by the Commissioners may be over leased coal or over undeveloped coal, and it is most necessary to reserve full powers for the working and getting away of the minerals. If a shaft is sunk in the future in a wood belonging to the Commissioners either the owner of the minerals or the lessee would have to pay for the destroyed trees and other damage done. Although it is rather hard to put an extra burden upon them, I think it is inevitable, and this is covered by my new clause. I hope the Government will see their way to accept what I think is a very important addition to the Bill.
Amendment moved—
In the Schedule, page 10, after line 39, insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Dynevor.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: As soon as this appeared on the Paper this afternoon I thought it was an extremely technical matter, and I should very much prefer to have an opportunity of discussing it with those who advise me. I rather think that the case is already met. I cannot conceive that there should be an oversight, that nobody should have drawn attention to such a matter for the last ten years, and that an owner should reserve the mineral rights of land compulsorily taken
560
and yet not have power of access or development for those rights. It would surprise me very much to learn that this was not already provided for somehow. I trust, however, that. Lord Dynevor will consent to repeat his Amendment on the Report stage, and I should then be able to give him a considered reply.
LORD DYNEVOR: Of course, I shall fall in with the wishes of my noble friend. But I may point out that I have taken very eminent counsel's opinion on the point, and he informed me that it was necessary to reserve the rights.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I have also taken the opinion of a very eminent counsel, and he cannot make out what Lord Dynevor means.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out subsection (4) from "An order" down to "otherwise." The noble Duke said: I do not wish to press this Amendment, although I think the provisions of the subsection are very objectionable and absolutely unnecessary from the forestry point of view. I think, however, that my noble friend might give some explanation of why this subsection has been inserted.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The reason is simply that we are re-producing verbatim from the Statute ten years old. I cannot charge my memory why it was put in in 1909 or 1908, but that is the reason why it is here.
Schedule agreed to.

EDINBURGH AND LEITH CORPORATION GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

SMALL HOLDING COLONIES.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE rose to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture why the Annual Report of Proceedings under the Small Holding Colonies Act, 1916, for the year 1918, has been issued only to members of the House of Commons.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this omission seems all the more remarkable seeing that a provision was put into the Statute requiring the Proceedings to be

561
laid before both Houses. It seems that there must be some neglect in the matter.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD ERNLE): My Lords, I can only say that I believe the fault lies with me. I was really unaware till this afternoon that I was responsible. When a matter is laid before the House, pursuant to an Act of Parliament, I understand that I ought myself to put a Minute upon it as a reminder to the Department that it ought to be printed and circulated. I regret to say I was unaware of it, that I did not put a Minute on the Order and that I believe an Order is on the Minutes of the House asking that it should be at once printed and circulated. I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for calling my attention to it. I am afraid it was my omission.

TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Orders.
ACQUISITION OF LAND (ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION) BILL.
  MINISTRY OF WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
  PRIVATE BILLS.
  [From Minutes of July 10]
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
FYLDE WATER BOARD BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

PEMBROKE GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past eight o'clock.