Lords Sitting of 21 July 1919

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LLANELLY RURAL DISTRICT WATER BILL.
Read 3a with the Amendments and passed, and returned to the Commons.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION (RATES) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BOLAND'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendment made (Clause 6 deleted).

FORESTRY BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
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 five year, and the term of office of an unpaid Commissioner shall be live 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 BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), after "one," to insert "shall be a recognised authority on scientific research as applied to forestry, and one." The noble Lord said: I desire to move this Amend
802
ment with the object of securing that one of these Forestry Commissioners shall be a recognised authority on scientific research as applied to forestry.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): May I ask my noble friend where he proposes to make the Amendment? I cannot find it on Page 1, line 3.
LORD BLEDISLOE: It conies in line 8. The "3" on the Amendment Paper is a mistake. I do not know if the noble Earl sees how the subsection will read. Perhaps lie will allow me to quote it as it will read with my Amendment included—
"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 shall be a recognised authority on scientific research as applied to forestry, and one, to be appointed by His Majesty, shall be Chairman."
I do not think the Amendment requires much explanation. In submitting it, on behalf of the British Science Guild, I should like to point cut that these Commissioners have not the task of delegating to others the work of scientific investigation and research. If your Lordships will turn to Clause 3, subsection (3), paragraph (h), you will see that they have the task thrown upon them of making or aiding in making such inquiries, experiments and research as they may think important for promoting forestry and the teaching of forestry.
In this connection I may remind your Lordships that there is a vast field of research which so far as this country is concerned has yet to be undertaken in the matter, amongst other things, of those pests which are injurious to various trees in this country. For instance, we have derived our information with regard to fungoid and insect pests of foreign timber almost exclusively, if not exclusively, from Germany and other Continental countries, and it was assumed that the facts therefrom derived necessarily applied to the conditions prevailing here; but it is found by experience that they do not. It is important, in order that time and money should not be wasted, that thorough research should be made into this and other forestry problems, and, if the Commissioners are going to carry them out, it is not unreasonable to ask that at least one of them shall be a person who has some scientific knowledge of research as applied

803
to forestry. I do not think I need say any more in commending this Amendment to your notice, except that the war, I am sure you will agree, if it has taught us nothing else, has taught us the sad lesson that we have suffered very materially in the military and civilian sense in the past from the lack of application of scientific principles to our various activities, and if we are going to turn over a new leaf in this country we should take the first move in our reconstruction Bills.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, after ("one") insert ("shall be a recognised authority on scientific research as applied to forestry and one").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I have the greatest sympathy with Lord Bledisloe's plea that a great deal of research has to be done by the Forest Authority. I agree with everything he said. He argued that it is desirable that one Commissioner should have a knowledge of research in regard to forestry. Well, I hope that all the Commissioners will have a general scientific knowledge of this subject. But I would ask the noble Lord whether it is desirable to define at the outset the qualifications of the Commissioners. I am inclined to think not. We want the Commissioners to be men of general knowledge and experience of sylvicultural matters. I do not think we want to choose our Commissioners, with the exception of the two reservations I made last week, for their connection with any particular branch of sylvicultural pursuits. If you say one of the Commissioners is to be a recognised authority on scientific research, by which I presume Lord Bledisloe means forestry pests—
LORD BLEDISLOE: Very largely.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD:—you are going to limit yourselves, I was going to say to one or two persons, certainly to not more than two or three. If you take the European standard of comparison I do not think we have any one who will be called an "acknowledged authority" on forest entomology. I suggest that it would be better to assume that the Forest Authority is going to secure the roost efficient subordinate officers it can for carrying out scientific research under this clause, and not to state on the Statute that one of them is always to be an acknowledged authority on scientific research. The
804
words are limiting. I do not think if they are put in they will really make it easier for the Forestry Authority to carry out the work which both Lord Bledisloe and I think is essential.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I agree with the noble Earl to this extent, that I think if Lord Bledisloe's Amendment were inserted it would not do enough to transform the character of the Commissioners. At the same time it is very useful, because it insists on what I am sure is going to drop out of sight in this Bill. The Government have never realised the magnitude of the scientific and administrative problem with which they are face to face in dealing with forestry. There are comparatively few outside the scientific world who really know what is meant by the absence of knowledge here, contrasted with the presence of knowledge in such countries as France and Germany. The Amendment is intended to insist upon the Commissioners having, as far as possible within the limits of the principle of this Bill, the character of that knowledge.
I protested strongly on the Second Reading—I am not going to raise the point again now, although it is very relevant to the Amendment—that what those of us who wanted a really good forestry organisation sought for was that research, knowledge, and light should be the foundation of the whole matter, and that these should be centred, as is proper, in the metropolis, where they can be most easily accumulated, the work of that research and knowledge being done co-operatively from the various parts of the United Kingdom We wanted to see administration separated from that and devolved. That has been denied to us, and we entertain gloomy anticipations as to the future of the baby that will be born as the result of the Government's efforts.
Here is an opportunity of asserting What has been left to drift out of sight—the absolute necessity that this Commission should be a very different one from the kind of Commission now contemplated. I knew the noble Earl would say that they intended to put on the Commission the most eminent people, but the definition of "eminent people" is the whole matter in question. What you want is scientific knowledge and the driving power that comes from science and knowledge. What you do not want is to get a lot of gentlemen who

805
have done admirably in managing their own estates, are excellent citizens, but who are unconscious of the vastness of the field with which they have to deal. I shall support the Amendment of the noble Lord.
LORD LOVAT: I think it would be unfortunate if the Muse divided on this question. I am sure that all who have taken any part in the discussions of this Bill have never forgotten for a moment the necessity for having the scientific side of forestry fully and aedquately represented on the Commission. I am sure that if Lord Bledisloe had taken part in all the discussions he would have been reassured that there is going to be any continuity of the policy which exists at present, and continuity between the existing authority and the authority which is eventually going to deal with this subject, and that he need have no anxiety on that point.
If Lord Bledisloe presses his Amendment to a Division he would only serve the purpose of the noble Viscount and those who have opposed the Bill, and would put the Government in the very awkward position of haying, apparently, to refuse to make this body scientific while their very object is to make it thoroughly scientific. They do not wish the limiting Amendment which the noble Lord has put forward. The noble Viscount has strayed away into a general attack on the Bill. Might I follow him on one statement? I trust, although the future authority may not have many children, yet translated by trees, that they will be much more numerous and come to more fruition than in the case of those bodies who have not planted any trees at all.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I do not feel justified, after the sympathetic way in which the Amendment has been received, in pressing it further. Might I ask whether there is any prospect of appointing a scientist as one of the Commissioners?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I had been anxious to state to your Lordships to-day the general proposals as to who the Commissioners should be, but I am sorry I am not in a postion to do so. It is possible that I may be able to make the announcement on the Third Reading, and I think it would disperse some of the anxieties which some of your Lordships entertain.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
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 utilise 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 hr 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 replanting) 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:

807

(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:

(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 t lie 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.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, after "insects or pests destructive," in subsection (2), to insert "only"; and after "to forest trees and timber," to insert "but so far as they relate to other insects or pests destructive or injurious alike to fruit trees or farm crops and to forest trees and timber, the Commissioners shall exercise such powers in consultation with the said Departments."
The noble Lord said: The object of these two Amendments is to prevent overlapping as between the Forestry Commissioners and the existing Departments of Agriculture in relation to pests which are common to timber and farm crops, and fruit trees. Your Lordships are no doubt aware that the powers under the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts are very drastic, and are sometimes drastically exercised in respect of gooseberry mildew. As the result of
808
these pests a large number of fruit trees are compulsorily destroyed over a large area. Such an operation, if it were carried on under the initiative of the Forestry Department, might cause serious interference with the operations of cultivators of farm and garden crops, unless they were acting in close co-operation with the Department of Agriculture which now exercises powers under these Acts.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 7, after ("destructive") insert ("only")
Page 3, line 8, after ("timber") insert ("but so far as they relate to other insects or pests destructive or injurious alike to fruit trees or farm crops and to forest trees and timber, the Commissioners shall exercise such powers in consultation with the said Departments").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I have no objection to accepting these Amendments, but I have been puzzling my mind as to what pests the noble Lord refers to. There is the rabbit, there is the wireworm, and our old friend daddy-long-legs. Apart from them it is difficult to think of pests equally injurious to conifers and turnips or grain. We wish to prevent overlapping if we can, but do not let us be frightened into making it a fetish. I do not think the Amendment will do any good, but I do not think it will do any harm, and therefore I will not oppose it.
LORD BLEDISLOE: There are certain districts where forest trees are grown where there are also orchards, and there are a considerable number of pests, including the barbed beetle and the pine weevil, which attack both forest trees and orchard trees.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I will accept the Amendment. In Scotland the pine weevil does not attack our orchard trees. He is much too well behaved there.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (3) (c), after "them" to insert "or subject to such terms as may be mutually agreed, to a private owner." The noble Lord said: I lay some stress upon this Amendment. The subsection provides for the Commissioners having power to purchase or acquire standing timber, or sell or otherwise dispose of any timber belonging to them, and I desire to add words which

809
will empower them to do the same with regard to the timber of a private owner after agreement between the Commissioners and such owner. In districts where there is a large amount of private timber, and where Crown timber is also grown, the Crown is often such a competitor as to render the timber of the private owner practically a drug in the market. It is desirable where there are large contracts to be fulfilled that the Commissioners should be able to enter into amicable arrangements with the local owners, in order to be able to dispose of the timber in one commercial transaction. As I have told your Lordships before, I live on the edge of the only economic publicly owned forest in England, and we feel great difficulty in such a district, where the Crown becomes such a competitor as to take away all stimulus for private owners.
Amendment moved
Page 3, line 30, after ("them") insert ("or subject to such terms as may be mutually agreed, to a private owner").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am very ready to accept the Amendment. Of course it is quite clear, from its terms, that this can only be done by mutual agreement.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE had on the Paper an Amendment in subsection (3) (e), after "upon" where that word secondly occurs, to insert "or give direction or advice in relation to the planting or management." The noble Lord said: This subsection set out the power given to the Commissioners to undertake the management or supervision, upon such terms and subject to such conditions as may be agreed upon, of privately-owned woods or forests, and also woods or forests in the hands of Commissioners, and I ask your Lordships to insert words which will empower the Commissioners not only to manage and supervise but also to give assistance or advice in relation to the planting or management of such privately owned woods.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Amendment says "give direction or advice."
LORD BLEDISLOE: That is not the Amendment which I put down. The word "direction" should be "assistance." The ideal I had in my mind was this. There are a great number of people quite in
810
sufficiently acquainted with the modern-day scientific system of management of woods, who may resent having them managed by a public authority, but who will warmly welcome the sort of advice which it is hoped, as a result of the Bill, the public authority will be able to give to enable them to manage woodland on their estates in the most up-to-date and economical manner.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 41, after ("upon") insert ("or give assistance or advice in relation to the planting or management").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am most anxious to accept this Amendment, but I wish to make a reservation. I should like to consult your Lordships whether it would not have been better had this been put in rather higher up in the subsection.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I rather doubt it.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It makes it rather a long and complicated sentence as it stands. All I want to say is that it is desired by the authority to give the maximum of assistance to all those who desire to enlist their expert help. I think there must be some limitation. Anybody who has got a few trees cannot be allowed to call upon the services of a rather expensive officer to come down and give advice. In the original Amendment it said "free assistance or advice."
LORD BLEDISLOE: That is a mistake.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: In this Amendment it simply says "assistance or advice," and under those conditions I take it the authority will be at least entitled to charge the man's expenses and a modest fee for technical advice which he is to give, and for drawing up a forest plan or making a statistical estimate of yields. As the words stand I am prepared to accept the Amendment; but though I am no draftsman I should have thought it might have come in at a better place, and I suggest that notice can be given on the Third Reading if the draftsman can suggest a better place.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Take it where it stands now, and, if necessary, alter the place on Third Reading.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, at the end of paragraph (f) of subsection (3), to insert "but not so as to compete unduly with or damage or destroy such industries already being carried on efficiently by private enterprise." The noble Lord said: This relates, of course, to the establishment of woodland industries. I foresee here a great danger of what I am sure is not really intended, and that is a semi-nationalisation of a large number of very important woodland industries, some of them of great importance to agriculture, as a result of Government competition; such industries, for instance, as the making of hurdles or gates, axe handles, clogs and toys, and what is known as the destructive distillation of timber. There have been in many districts in days gone by, before German competition killed them, very thriving industries of a kind generally described as the destructive distillation of timber. Nearly all those industries have been killed during the last thirty years, and it is desirable in the national interest that some of them should be revived; but there will be no stimulus to do so if the State is to be the only manufacturer of these woodland products, whether for profit or otherwise, to the detriment of those who are either carrying on some of them or are prepared to do so in the future.
Perhaps I may just refer to the question of acetone, which is an important one. Fortunately we had established before the war in the Forest of Dean an acetone factory. Acetone being the chief raw material of cordite, this was one of the most valuable assets to us during the period of the war. Unfortunately at the present time the Government have decided to abandon these works. But there are private companies who probably would be willing to take over the acetone factory could they be assured that if they did so the Government would not again in the national interest set up an acetone factory to compete with the private ones. For that reason I ask that the Government should not unfairly and unduly compete with private enterprise in these matters.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 4, after ("industries") insert ("but not so as to compete unduly with or damage or destroy such industries already being carried on efficiently by private enterprise").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD LOVAT: I would point out that the Forestry Authority will be so hard at
812
work in developing and looking after its forestry—the planting of trees, the codification of rules, etc.—and that there would not be much opportunity for starting any enterprise on a very large scale. I would advise the Government, if I may do so, that there would be no risk in accepting this Amendment. Certainly the experience in France would bear that out. In France, where they have their various Codes, which have now been added to over a period of 100 years, practical experience shows—and to a great extent it is so in Germany also—that the rural industries undertaken are not those which are going to compete with private enterprise, but they are of the character of acetone factories, etc. Those are things winch can only be run by a central authority. I do not think that His Majesty's Government would be disadvantaged by accepting the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am inclined to think that we had better not accept this amendment now. It is quite obvious to all of your Lordships that if this Bill passes this year then in three or five years time new light will have been thrown upon the problem, and an Amending Bill will then have to be presented. I think, therefore, in regard to this Amendment—and one or two that come later on—that we should do well not to put any rather contentious and certainly rather litigious phrases in the Act of Parliament until we know whether they are really necessary.
I do not know what "undue competition" means; no more does anybody excepting the House of Lords in its judicial capacity. I do not know what "efficient conduct of private enterprise" is either. I do not know what "damaging" an enterprise means. In some ways competition means damage, and destruction means bankruptcy I presume. There are a variety of extremely difficult points of analysis and definition here which I confess I am rather afraid of. It does not say when the competition is to arise. The State may establish an industry to-day which may not compete for 10 years. As the Amendment stands, I think that if competition is anticipated the private owner would be entitled to intervene.
I would suggest to Lord Bledisloe that this is a matter which for the next few years at any rate had better be controlled as Lord Lovat suggests. In the first

813
place there will be no extravagance especially on woodland industries, and, secondly, by the ordinary Parliamentary methods of Question, if anything untoward occurs in any of these particular areas the matter can be ventilated. Though I have nothing really to say against the sentiment underlying the Amendment, I am averse to acquiescing in what Lord Bledisloe asks.
LORD BLEDISLOE: The noble Earl has been so generous in his acceptance of my previous Amendments that I do not press this one. I know that the assurance he now gives will be acted upon by the Commissioners when they come to be appointed.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, at the end of paragraph (h) of subsection (3), to insert "and publish or otherwise take steps to make known the results of such inquiries, experiments or research, and to disseminate such information." The noble Lord said I desire that further powers should be given to publish or otherwise make known the results of inquiries, experiments or research. I need hardly tell your Lordships that it seems somewhat futile that research work should be carried on at great expense to the State and that the results of that research should not be known to those whom it may concern, and who could best make use of it. I may mention that at a very interesting Imperial education conference which took place about a month ago, when the question of research was discussed, it was pointed. out that in various parts of the Empire, both in relation to agriculture and indeed to forestry, a large amount of valuable research had been carried out, and that the results of that research were hidden away in various scientific journals and bulletins of learned societies, and had not in fact been made available to other parts of the Empire than those in which the research had been conducted. I think your Lordships will agree that the Commissioners should be enabled, at, the expense if necessary of public funds, to make known to the public the results of the research for which they are responsible.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 13, after ("forestry") insert ("and publish or otherwise take steps to make known
814
the results of such inquiries, experiments or research and to disseminate such information").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The object of this research, inquiry, and experiment is to promote forestry and its teaching. I should have thought that publication would follow as a matter of course, but I am ready to put in these words. Though I do not object to the words I make this reservation. Lord Bledisloe said just now that there was a large amount of valuable research hidden assay in bulletins and journals. Of course there is, but that is the proper place for it. You do not want it in the Daily Telegraph newspaper. And in regard to the noble Lord's use of the words "to disseminate such information," the Forest Authority, I think, would be quite justified in ensuring that it was put into the scientific periodicals with the certain knowledge that through that agency it will reach all those who are directly concerned in sylviculture.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Could it not also be published in the Journal of the Board of Agriculture?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Certainly, if they will take it.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Could not the Forest Authority have a journal of their own?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think they probably will. We have extremely good sylviculture journals in this country, and certainly there is a first-class one in Scotland; and I hope that the result of the awakening of the State to this matter will mean that the journal will be much more frequently published.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved to omit from the proviso at the end of subsection (3) the words "which may be attributable to," and to insert "as represents the monetary equivalent of." The noble lord said: I move this Amendment with some hesitation, because the proviso was the subject-matter of a considerable amount of discussion on the Report stage of the Bill. This only amounts to a suggestion as to how, in my opinion, the difficulty may be met.
Your Lordships will remember that the proviso at the end of this subsection states 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 of Forestry and restored to the Forestry Fund. The words "attributable to" are very vague. It is difficult to interpret them, as I think your Lordships agree. If what is really meant is that the amount to be returned to the Forestry Fund shall, in fact, be, where there is a profit, the actual monetary equivalent of the amount advanced, it seems to me that no hardship will be done on either side, and this Amendment will make perfectly clear what is now extremely vague.
If I may illustrate what I mean, I understand that the sort of grant which it is intended to make will amount possibly to £2 or £3 per acre. It is quite conceivable that no profit may arise. On the other hand, there may ultimately be a profit. The exact amount expended on that particular area will be registered and known, and that amount and the profit, when it is ultimately obtained, can be taken and returned to the Forestry Fund. It is not quite a loan; it is in a sense an additional loan dependent on the profit actually being made.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 21, leave out ("which may be attributable to") and insert ("as represents the monetary equivalent of").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: I confess I am very much disappointed that nothing has been done by the Government to amend this proviso, after the criticisms which were passed upon it on the last occasion. And I certainly thought, after the expectation which was raised, that the Government would reconsider it. I appeal once again to all lawyers and all business men to consider the unworkable nature of this proviso. Who is to pay to the Government that sum which is supposed to be profit? If it is the original recipient of the grant it is easy enough, but, except in the rarest cases, it will not be the original recipient. In the case of very quick-growing timber, such as larch and possibly beech, if a man plants young and lives to be old and does not sell he may be the man who ultimately reaps the profit; but in nine cases out of ten he will either have died and disposed of his property by his
816
will, or it will have gone to his heirs, or he will have sold the property before the profit is reaped. I appeal to any lawyer to say whether the prima facie reading of this is not that the original man should pay, or the executors or administrators. But what an extraordinary proviso that will be. A will have received the grant, B. will be reaping the profit, and C., who is A.'s executor, will have to pay. Who can leave an estate in such conditions, with such a burden to his executor? He will be required to keep a fund ready for all time to have means to meet this claim.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It happens in many forms already, I think.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I doubt it, but it is an extremely inconvenient course. I certainly doubt it. Many public loans run with the land, but that is another matter altogether. If it is intended that this shall run with the land, and that the owner of the land at the time when the profit is reaped should pay, it is an intelligible proviso. It makes a burden that runs with the land, it makes another incumbrance for conveyancers to deal with, but it is intelligible. But I venture to think that is not the effect of the language as it stands.
It may be supposed that the Government intimate to the owner of the forest who is not the original recipient, "Well, now, if you cut down this forest we shall take the profit." In that case why should the man take the trouble to cut down the forest at all? If he is not going to get anything for it he had better leave it, and get the amenities from it. I cannot help thinking that what happened with regard to this proviso was this. Somebody suggested a grant, and then somebody else arose and said, "Oh, it will never do to make a present to landowners." And then the Treasury draftsman was set in a hurry to sketch out a proviso of this kind. I am very much disappointed that this has not been reconsidered by the Government and its advisers, since the last criticisms were passed upon it.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I quite agree with what Lord Phillimore says. I think those who were present when this point was raised in Committee certainly understood that the Government were going to consider the point and put down some words that an ordinary layman

817
would be able to understand. Apparently even those who are accustomed to deal with these questions professionally are just as badly off as the layman. The intention probably is that nobody should ever get the profit. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill was quite unable to explain what these words meant, and we expected to see him put down an Amendment. Whether the Amendment proposed by my noble friend will effect the desired object I do not know.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I think this Amendment is, at any rate, a little better than the original wording of the Bill. It makes the individual as it were, the mortgagee, to get his money back in the event of the speculation turning out a success, instead of making the Government a partner. But I should like to know what is the "monetary equivalent" Suppose the Government advances £2 an acre now. The "monetary equivalent" will be £2 reinvested at compound interest at 5 per cent, in eighty years. If so, it will probably swallow up the whole value of the crop, to say nothing of profit. I still feel that this was put in to pacify those who are afraid of the private owner getting any profit out of Government finance. It will really tend to prevent any landowner who desires to plant being bothered with any Government advance at all.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Who is going to decide whether there is any profit at all? Will the Government tell us that?
THE EARL OF POWIS: I moved an Amendment to this Clause in Committee, and I certainly understood from the noble Earl that he would have some alteration made. I suppose I misunderstood him, but I have referred to the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I see that he said
"I will make it my business to see that the expert draftsman examines the problem."
It seems to me that whether the expert draftsman has examined the problem or not there is no result from it. The Amendment moved by the noble Lord seems certainly better than the original drafting of the Bill, but my own opinion is still that the whole thing would have been much better left out. If it is a grant, let it be a grant. The grant was recommended in the Forestry Report, and it was first of all put into the Bill. It is in the Bill in a previous clause as a grant, now in this proviso you turn it into a loan.
LORD LOVAT: May I suggest that an Amendment might be put forward to define what is actually meant by "profit"? I think one might fairly say, in a risky undertaking like forestry, that it is only fair that the individual who plants the ground should have not less return that 4 per cent. on his money, and that after all is considerably less than the interest which would be required in any other form of commercial enterprise; and the 4 per cent. should go to the individual or corporation who planted the land. This 4 per cent, would, of course, run at compound interest and the annual cost of the plantation would also run at compound interest. The annual cost would be, of course, the rent of the land, the taxation, and the repairs and fencing from time to time.
With your Lordships' permission I will read what I am afraid is a very long Amendment, but it is one which I think brings out what appeared to be the feeling of the House when this matter was discussed in Committee. The Amendment I suggest is as follows—
"Provided that where an advance by way of grant or by way of loan has been made to an owner for planting and it is shown that at the end of a rotation which may be agreed upon, a profit accrues to the owner on the estimated yield of the crop after allowing for a return to him of 4 per cent. compound interest on the costs incurred by him in producing the crop, then that part of the profit which represents the proportion of the total costs of producing the crop which has been advanced shall be repaid to the Forestry Fund up to an amount not exceeding the vlaue of the grant or loan accumulated at 4 per cent. compound interest. Any dispute which may arise between the Forestry Commission and the owner with regard to any agreement giving effect to, this proviso shall be decided, in default of agreement, by a person nominated by the President of the Surveyors' Institution."
I am afraid it is rather complicated, but it means broadly that the first 4 per cent. goes to the owner, and that out of the remainder the State is repaid at 4 per cent. compound interest for whatever sum the Commissioners fix to be advanced. They will get the advantage of having a definite loan, a loan of which individual planters and corporations may take advantage, and which is comparatively speaking simple. One can only say "comparatively speaking simple," because the cost per acre per-annum for upkeep and so on will have to be defined in each case. It will be impossible to imply what the annual cost, rent, taxation, and the charges for cleaning, etc., would be in each case. It would therefore

819
be necessary for investigation to be made and a definition and agreement arrived at. I would like to submit this as an Amendment to Lord Bledisloe's Amendment.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: May I suggest that the Amendment should not be moved for the moment? The reason is that I must plead guilty to what the noble and learned Lord said. It is not true that this matter has not been considered and reconsidered; I have devoted a great deal of time and attention to it; but I must frankly confess to your Lordships that there has been a little disorganisation since Friday last. The post has gone wrong; I have not received communications, and communications sent by me have not been received by the intended recipients, as I had hoped. Accordingly I am in the difficulty of not being able to state very clearly what I had hoped to be able to announce to-day. But let me remind my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch that I did not promise to amend this clause in the least. I still think that it is a good clause. I am advised that Lord Bledisloe's words remove one element of ambiguity, and I am also advised that the last words of Lord Lovat's proposed new clause provide a tribunal which would settle a variety of points of dispute which might and perhaps would arise.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Has the noble Earl been advised as to whether this creates a personal liability on the original recipient of the advance or a liability on the person who actually makes a profit by cutting down the trees; and which is it his intention should be liable?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The noble and learned Lord asked me who was to repay this money?
LORD PHILLIMORE: Yes.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am advised that clearly it will not be the man unless there is an extraordinarily quick growth—unless he begins to plant while he is a minor. But one assumes it would be the man's grandson—two or three generations later—who would be the successor of the man who originally obtained the State grant.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: He might have sold it.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If he sells the property with a liability on it he must either clear off the liability at the moment of sale or pass on that liability to his successor in title. That is a common proceeding, notably in the case of drainage in the Fen country.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I do not think there is any personal liability then. I think it is a liability on the land. What I want to know definitely is whether it is a liability on the land or on the person and his estate?
LORD DYNEVOR: Suppose the land is sold; how are you to arrive at the profit which is likely to accrue in sixty years time?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Let me start at the beginning. When a grant is made it would be made subject to the terms of an agreement between the owner of land who means to plant and the Forest Authority. The Forest Authority cannot force anyone to take a grant. No land-owner has any right to demand a grant from the Forest Authority. The initial proceedings, therefore, are perfectly free; and during those initial proceedings steps will have to be taken by the two authorities concerned—the private planter on the one side and the Forest Authority on the other—as to the method of determining those problems.
I am informed that, though not easy, it is perfectly practicable for skilled surveyors and actuaries, subject to reservations to draw up a. scheme by which profit can be ultimately assessed fifty, seventy, or eighty years later. There remain a variety if incalculable circumstances—frost, fire, snowbreak, and so on—in all forestry work, and those will have to be provided for (if provided for) by some system of insurance. That being so, it will be the duty of the two authorities concerned at the outset to settle how the property in woods which have not reached maturity is to be passed from one owner to the other in the event of sale. I am told that is a perfectly feasible proposition when the lawyers and surveyors put their heads together. It will vary in different countries according to the different climates and the different soils, all of which factors govern differences of rotation. Lord Lovat has pointed out what I understand to be a mistake in the Bill—namely, that no

821
authority is provided to determine profits at issue. He has given me a copy of his Amendment, and he suggests that the President of the Surveyor's Institution for the time being should nominate a suitable man.
As I have said, I have to plead guilty to not being as well prepared on this matter as I expected to be, owing to the recent festivities. I would suggest that Lord Bledisloe's Amendment should be accepted, and that Lord Lovat's Amendment should be put on the Paper. This latter Amendment is rather a long one for your Lordships to accept off-hand, not having seen it in print; and if it can be put on the Paper for the Third Reading we shall have a very much better opportunity of assessing its merits, and by that time I hope I can show your Lordships that I shall be in a position to answer some of the conundrums which Lord Phillimore and some others have put.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble. Earl has explained to us the, circumstances in which his correspondence has been interfered with. He still does what I think is almost unnecessary in the circumstances; he still attempts to defend the proviso. I admire his great loyalty to his Bill, but I really think that the proviso is universally condemned as it stands.
In the first place, a grant which is repayable is not a grant really; it is a loan. It is a misnomer from the beginning of the first line of the proviso. Then there is the word "attributable" which the noble Earl on the last occasion admitted he could not explain. He said it was vague, and it remains vague; it has not changed its vagueness between the Committee stage and the Report. Then the noble Earl said that all these matters as to what a property is worth and how it is to be calculated are matters which can be arranged by lawyers and surveyors in different cases according to the different circumstances. There is no such power at all. If the noble Earl has said that according to some scheme this property is to be paid for—a scheme to be determined by so and so—then his argument would be apt. The words here lay down in terms a certain provision of an Act of Parliament, and no variations which the lawyers and the surveyors might afterwards want to make would be legal; it
822
would have to be what the Judge who ultimately had the honour of interpreting these words thought they meant; and all the arrangements which the noble Earl thinks might be made would be so much waste paper unless they happened to coincide with that.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The noble Marquess must remember that these grants under subsection (b) are made by the Forestry Authority on such estimates and subject to such conditions as they think fit.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Provided a certain thing is sold. The proviso is express.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That gives them a right of variation according to different conditions.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But, always subject to this proviso. It is not to be varied; it is to be expressed, and has to be the same in every case. It does not say it is to be subject to any conditions; it is an absolute proviso. It is vague in its terms, but absolute in its character, which combination is the worse kind of legislation you can possibly have. Therefore I am sure that the noble Earl when he looks at it, as I am sure he will do between this and the Third Reading, will sec that the proviso requires to be altered.
I listened as well as I could to the Amendment suggested by my noble friend Lord Lo-vat. That appeared at any rate to cover the ground. It was rather complicated, and I expect ire shall be better able to judge of it when we have seen it on paper. It seems at any rate to provide sufficient machinery for the purpose. I am sure the House will not be satisfied unless the proviso is re-cast between this stage and the Third Reading.
On Question, Amendment 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 steps as aforesaid as in the opinion of the

823
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 BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, at the commencement of subsection (1), after "satisfied that the trees or," to insert "tree." The noble Lord said: My object is to make it perfectly clear that the plants which are here referred to are not, as humorously indicated during the Committee stage, carnations or lobelias or cabbages, but are in fact tree plants. I hope the noble Lord will accept this as making it the more clear.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 38, after ("or") insert ("tree").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), after "rabbits" where that word first occurs, to insert "hares." The noble Lord said: I quite admit that rabbits are undoubtedly a pest, but there are certain areas in which I venture to think that hares are no less a nuisance and do no less damage, at any rate to young plants. I think it was the rhymning husbandman Tusser who in 1573 said where the cattle and the coney may enter to crop the young oak you are in danger of losing your crop. I do not know whether Tusser was acquainted with hares as well as rabbits, but I know of no animal more capable of removing the crops of hardwood trees than the hare if he is given an opportunity of doing so. In the South of England where hares are very numerous and cover more ground than rabbits, and therefore are not so much under the control of a single owner, I am sure that young hardwood trees stand a great chance
824
of suffering considerably unless hares are treated in a similar fashion to that in which rabbits are treated. I do not want to enter for the moment on the more difficult question as to what other animals should be dealt with; but I suggest that if you are treating rabbits as vermin ad hoc you ought, where you are expending a large amount of public money on re-afforestation, to treat hares in a similar manner.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 39, after ("rabbits") insert ("hares").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My recollection is that this clause is taken verbatim from existing Statutes which do not include the word "hares." My desire, I confess, is to include hares. They cut straight through a plantation doing horrible damage all the way through, and they are pests. It is, however, not so easy a problem to deal with them as with rabbits. The hare is more difficult to control. His range of feeding is far more extended, and, though ready to put in the hare, I express the view that protection will have to be achieved at the feeding ground itself rather than at the breeding and lying ground of the hare. In spite of that difficulty, however, I think "hares" ought to go in, and accordingly I propose to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), after "vermin," to insert "as hereinafter defined." The noble Lord said: I rather hesitate to suggest that we should re-discuss a matter which was threshed out at some length on the Committee stage, but in moving this Amendment I would submit to the noble Earl that there ought to be some indication given in this Bill, or, failing the Bill, in Regulations made under the Bill, as to what is meant by the term "vermin." The only indication we have on the face of the Bill is that "vermin," whatever else it may or may not mean, means squirrels. Personally I think that is a blot upon the Bill; but however that may be, we are given no indication as to what animals beyond squirrels are included. It is quite obvious that the ordinary sense of the word as applied to animals that are destructive of game is not intended here. Let me give a very good illustration of what I mean. The noble Earl very naturally

825
desires to see war made upon rabbits as the animals chiefly destructive of timber, but stoats and weasels are the chief enemies of the rabbit., and, if they are the vermin you have in mind, you are in fact going to destroy the very animals which are the chief enemies of the greatest pest against which you desire to direct your hostilities.
It is only fair to ask those in charge of the Bill to give some idea of what vermin what vermin ad hoc (if I may use the term) are intended by the Bill. We are told that squirrels are destructive. Of course they are destructive, but. I should be sorry to see them exterminated in this country. I see that the noble Lord said during the Committee stage that it would be difficult to exterminate squirrels. I can conceive of few animals which it would be easier to exterminate. Any one with a shot gun, however bad a shot. he is, can probably bring down a squirrel off a tree as long as he can keep the squirrel in sight; but, however that may be, there are other animals as, for instance, roedeer or even black game which do, in my judgment, infinitely greater harm to timber than even the squirrel. For the moment, all I want to suggest is that we should get some definition of the term "vermin," which, in this case, is ambiguous. If the House is not prepared to accept the consequential words—"such animals or birds as the Commissioners may from time to time determine"—I think I am at least justified in asking the noble Lord to give us some idea of what is intended by that vague expression "vermin."
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 39, after ("vermin") insert ("as hereinafter defined").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: This Amendment would obviously be of great convenience to the Forest Authority. Under it they would be free to do whatever they pleased and to destroy any bird, any quadruped, any insect of any description which they thought fit to destroy. My inclination would be to accept the words because that would save the Forest Authority so much trouble, by giving them unrestricted freedom. But I am afraid that if we accepted these words and gave complete and unfettered freedom to the Authority we should produce a difficulty in the other direction amongst persons who are a little distrustful of public authorities being invested with complete discretion. I
826
have a perfectly open mind about roedeer or black game or anything else, but I must remind your Lordships that dangerous as the roedeer is, you cannot isolate him like you can the rabbit. He may travel for miles and miles. Black game will certainly travel for many miles, and it is impossible to treat black game as one proposes under the Bill to treat rabbits or coleoptera. My impression is that the safeguarding must take place actually at the feeding ground rather than on the breeding or lying ground. In Germany, course, the roedeer are turned into the forest—fenced into the forest and not fenced out of the forest.
LORD BLEDISLOE: In what forests?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: In all forests. I do not think I am in a position to accept Lord Bledisloe's Amendment. I think it would produce a contentious state of affairs and I should not like the Forestry Authority to embark upon its activities by incurring it. One noble Lord asked me to define "vermin." I think probably noble Lords of legal experience will tell me there never has been a comprehensive definition of the term. I cannot recall it. Broadly speaking, I think we are pretty well acquainted with the fauna which are injurious to forest life, but I certainly fear I am not in a position to give any clear definition of the point which, of course, is one of very great complexity.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I hope sincerely that the murderous activities of this new Department will be confined within as narrow limits as possible. I trust it may yet be possible to reprieve the squirrel, but, if that be impossible, the idea of giving this Department power to determine as they please what animals or birds are to be destroyed on other people's land on the terms that, after they are destroyed, the person on whose land they have been killed should have the pleasure of paying for their destruction is, I submit respectfully, to ask the House to go much farther than your Lordships ever desired to go. If the proposed Amendment were added, it would enable the Commissioners to direct a man to go and shoot black game or any other game on a person's land and, when he had had a pleasant afternoon's sport, to send the bill to the owner on whose land the birds had been destroyed. It is no use saying that a Government Department will not

827
do it. When once you have given the power how are you going to know that the power is not going to be exercised? It is of the utmost importance that the power should be kept as narrow as it possibly can be. I regard with nothing short of horror the prospect of a country in which we are no longer to see our deer in the fern or black game in the trees or squirrels or any of those things which have made the country beautiful, but, in their place, we are to have utilitarian forests. I should think this would add to the migration from the country.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am not entitled to speak again, but, if I were, I would protest with all the vigour in my power against the idea that the forest is an ugly thing. The forest is the most beautiful thing in the world, and we are going to grow some under this Bill.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I do not desire to press this Amendment.
Amendment; by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEFFIELD: There is a consequential Amendment in line 41 on Page 4. Having put in "hares" after "rabbits" in line 39, we must also put in that word in line 41.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for drawing attention to it, and I will move that.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 41, after ("rabbits") insert ("hares").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE: The next Amendment is also consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 1, after ("rabbits") insert ("hares").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), after "authorise in writing any," to insert "competent." The noble Lord said: I lay stress on this Amendment. This subsection authorises the Commissioners to employ any person to enter on the land and kill and take rabbits, hares, or vermin thereon. May I point out that the man who shoots badly is
828
capable of inflicting a considerable amount of cruelty, and the man who traps unskilfully is capable of inflicting a great deal more. Presumably there will not be shooting parties in order to keep down game on private estates and the work would be done by gins and wires. In thick woods wires would not be effective and gins would have to be set. Many gins would be unskilfully set, and it would be no uncommon sight to see deer, or domestic farm animals, going about without a foot. In any case we know what an infinite amount of cruelty an incompetent trapper can inflict, and for that reason I ask that the Bill shall ensure that a competent, and only a competent, person shall be employed in this way. In answer to Lord Strachie the noble Earl in the Committee stage said that the Commissioners would probably choose the nearest man they could find who was competent to destroy rabbits.
It will be difficult in many localities to find a really competent man. If you rule out of court your keepers, and trappers, and the most expert of your poachers—I do not know whether they should be left out—I do not know where you are going to look for really expert men unless the Commissioners are prepared to give them proper training and employ them. As regards the expert poacher I am doubtful indeed as to whether this person ought to be encouraged for this purpose, because I am rather afraid he will take advantage of the knowledge he derives as a result of this Government employment to extend his unofficial labours on his own account. I am sure the noble Earl is not going to find the sort of person he wants simply by looking round and picking him up.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 3, after ("any") insert ("competent").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: This means that in carrying out this work the Forestry Commissioners are to employ people who are competent to do the work. I do not think there is any objection to that. I should assume, prima facie, that they would not employ any but competent men. The adjective is rather vague, and any man who is employed will by Statute be able to state that he is authorised as it competent person. If it is a safeguard I will certainly put it in.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE: The word "hares" should again be inserted after the word "rabbits" in line 4. It is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 4, after ("rabbits") insert ("hares").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved to omit from subsection (1) "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." The noble Duke said: I do not intend to press this Amendment. I have put it down in order that your Lordships may realise what this Clause does. It authorises the Commissioners to send trapping or shooting parties over any estate and to make the person on whose land they go pay the expenses. Personally I agree with the proposal to keep down hares and rabbits in order to prevent the destruction of forest plants and also of agricultural crops, which is a great deal more important, but at the same time I think this clause requires some further safeguard; and I hope the Government will look into the question and see if words cannot be inserted which will prevent any abuse of these great powers which, are, given to the Forestry Commissioners which, quite possibly, may be abused. We have had examples during the war of what Government Departments may do, and we have seen their powers grossly abused on many occasions. During the war that was all very well, but this is to be permanent.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 4, leave out, front ("thereon") to the and of subsection (1).—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
LORD SHEFFIELD: I think we ought to have some explanation if the Amendment is not pressed. We are told that the Commissioners can appoint a competent person, some man who will be paid a wage say of 10 s. a day or £3 a week. He sallies forth in pursuit of squirrels. If he happens to shoot one squirrel during the day has the farmer on whose land the squirrel is shot to pay the whole of his wages. If he shoots three squirrels, on three different farms, are his wages to be paid proportionately by the three? It is a duty which, I think, is quite unreasonably put upon the farmer. The man also has power to go anywhere, on any land. This
830
proposal, which enables the Commissioners to employ a competent man, and send him forth over the length and breadth of the country to kill animals which are considered injurious, and levy his costs on those on whose land he operates, is a most impracticable one.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The noble Duke said he was anxious to prevent the abuse of these powers; and Lord Sheffield said the same thing. The Forestry Authority, of all things in the world, desire to work with harmony and without friction, and you may depend upon it that their desire and determination will be to avoid friction. If there is friction and disagreement they will lose the assistance upon which they count for getting forestry work done. Really noble Lords have gone a little far in denouncing this clause. Lord Sheffield, for instance. It is on the Statute Book to-day, has been for several years, and it is only put into this Act in order to transfer to one Department duties which are now done by another Department.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEITCH: That is the Corn Production Act.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes.
Several NOBLE LORDS: A temporary Act—a war measure.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Do noble Lords imagine that the Corn Production Act ends with the Declaration of Peace. It was a war measure, but I hope it is going to be a peace measure too. It is because of the lessons we learned during the war that it is to be one of the permanent statutes of the realm.
LORD STRACHIE: That Act is limited to five years.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes.
LORD SHEFFIELD: This is not.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Noble Lords will forgive me, but for the period of the Corn Production Act these powers already exist, and I think Lord Sheffield must have forgotten that.
LORD SHEFFIELD: Yes, there were lots of things done during the war which we shall be glad to forget for ever.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: There is going to be no abuse of these powers. Your Lordships have put in the word "competent," which assures that the man who is employed to destroy vermin is efficient in his business. That will prevent him taking a large day's wage for the duty of killing a single squirrel, which Lord Sheffield fears. The real remedy is with the occupier of the land and the owner of the vermin. One noble Lord said that there would be shooting parties over the land where rabbits are in excess. If those rabbits are doing damage to forests they should be killed, and the occupier himself should hold a shooting party. If he does not, is it not unreasonable to deny that the nuisance must be abated and that somebody must be sent to do the work for him? That being so, which I think ought to be conceded, and which as I have said is already the law of the land, it is not unreasonable that the Commissioners should recover the cost, and I hope your Lordships will not exclude the last three lines of the subsection.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I think the Government are over-rating the importance of this clause. Does anybody suppose that in these days, when rabbits are at a high cost, anybody will refrain from killing rabbits if he can manage to do so. If the Commissioners really find rabbits are in such numbers as to do serious damage, and they have to send a person to kill them, it will be a poor day's operation which does not pay the expenses of a competent person. Therefore I think the Government are over-estimating the necessity of framing a charge. Of course if you send some person to a place where he is not required, and he tries for several days without result, it would be very hard to put the cost upon the occupier.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (2), before "exercise," to insert "due." The noble Lord said: I understand that the noble Earl is prepared to accept this Amendment. It is consequential upon the "competency" of the person, and it is only in the course of the "due" exercise of his powers that subsection (2) will operate.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 11, after ("the") insert ("due").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If it is considered to be a safeguard—the distinction between "exercise" and "due exercise"—I will accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 14, after ("rabbits") insert ("hares").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Consultative Committees for England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales.
6.—(1) It shall be lawful for His Majesty, by Order in Council, to establish consultative committees for England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales respectively, for giving to the Commissioners in accordance with the provisions of the Order advice and assistance with respect to the exercise and performance by the Commissioners of their powers and duties under this Act.
(2) The constitution of each consultative committee shall be such as may be determined by the Order, so, however, that the Order shall, as far as practicable, provide for the inclusion among the members of the committee of—

(a) persons having practical experience of matters relating to forestry;

(b) representatives of labour;

(c) representatives of county councils and any other local bodies interested in forestry;

(d) representatives of any societies existing for the promotion of afforestation;

(e) representatives of woodland owners.

LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (2) (a), after "forestry" to insert. "woodcraft and woodland industries." The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will see that this clause provides for the setting up of Consultative Committees for giving to the Commissioners advice and assistance in respect of the performance and exercise of their powers and duties. Provision is made in paragraph (a) for the Committees to include "persons having practical experience of matters relating to forestry," and there it stops. I suggest that you want not only persons who may claim to be well acquainted with forestry as the result of taking a University degree, but others who have actually done manual work in the forests or woods, and who realise the difficulties; and also if the Commissioners are themselves to develop these woodland industries, surely you should have on your Advisory Committees, amongst others, persons who know something about woodland industries. For that reason I move my Amendment, in

833
order to make this paragraph comprehensive.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 43, after ("forestry") insert ("woodcraft and woodland industries").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am most anxious to meet the noble Lord, and unless your Lordships take serious objection to what is proposed I suggest putting in the Amendment, but I defy anybody to discover what "woodcraft" is in the legal sense of the word. I read it quite differently from what was explained by the noble Lord. I considered myself that anybody engaged in the conversion of timber would come under the definition, but the noble Lord seems to think that it applies to men engaged in cutting down trees.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I include in the term "woodcraft" anybody who understands how to put timber to economic uses as the result of manual labour. However, it does not really matter—it is a much wider term than "sylviculture" or "forestry," which standing by themselves may mean only a scientific or technical knowledge, and I want to include somebody who understands the practical work.
On Question, Amendment 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
834
unless and until it is confirmed by Parliament, except where the order provides for giving in exchange fur 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, 1866 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 Amendment which I move is one which I moved on the Committee Stage of the Bill, its object being that the land owner should not be compulsorily deprived of his land without having an opportunity of appealing to an independent authority as to whether the lend should be taken or not. The noble in charge of the Bill opposed the Amendment en several grounds. In the first place he did not approve of the machinery which I proposed to set up in the Schedule, by which I suggested that a Judge of the High Court should decide whether the land should be taken. I should have been perfectly prepared to defend that suggestion if I had moved that Amendment, because the noble Earl said it seemed to him undesirable that a Judge should be taken away from his duties. It appears to me he might be more suitably employed in deciding this question, than for many of the other purposes for which judges are being employed at the present time; for instance, such controversial and political questions as whether coal should or should not be nationalised; but as I do not proceed with that Amendment I will say nothing more about the matter. After all it is a question of machinery, and does not touch the principle, which is not to decide who shall be the person who shall determine whether land is to be compulsorily taken or not, but whether it shall be taken arbitrarily,

835
without the decision of an independent person.
The next point which my noble friend made against my Amendment was that it was already the law of the land in the Development Act of 1909. It is quite true that it appears in that Act, but it is an Act of much more limited character than the present one. In addition it is very much safeguarded. There is subsection (3) of Clause 5 which says that the Commissioners, in making an Order for compulsory purchase of land, shall have regard to the extent of land held by any owner. There are also provisions in the Schedule which, I think, safeguard the owner very greatly. The noble Earl also referred me to the Acquisition of Land Bill, and stated that he thought that that would be a very suitable Bill in which to insert a provision of this kind. With due respect to the noble Earl I am afraid that I cannot agree, because, as I read the title of that Bill which is now before your Lordships, it is as follows: "An Act to amend the law as t o the Assessement of Compensation in respect of Land acquired compulsorily for public purposes and the costs in proceedings thereon." But the Bill says nothing as to whether the land shall be compulsorily taken or not. It only deals with the tribunal which has to be set up to decide as to the compensation which has to be granted, and also the principle on which that compensation is to be assessed; whereas the Bill before us is one which distinctly goes into the question of whether land shall be taken or not, and excludes certain lands specifically in the seventh clause. That clause excludes certain lands which cannot, under any circumstances, be acquired compulsorily by the Development Commissioners. For instance, it says, "no land which forms part of any park, garden or pleasure ground can be acquired." Various other kinds of land are excluded.
What I want to insert in the Bill is that, where other land is taken, at any rate the owner shall have an opportunity of appealing to an independent authority. The noble Earl said that he believed that the Commissioners themselves would give an opportunity for an owner to appear before them, and argue as to whether it was desirable his land should be taken. I do not think that would be satisfactory, because after all they are the people who wish to purchase the land, and there is not
836
much good in going before people who have the power to decide as judges when they are also in the position of being, so to speak, the petitioners.
My noble friend Lord Salisbury pointed out that there was an appeal because the appeal was from the Commissioners themselves to the Development Commissioners, but as far as I read this Bill it appears to me that the duty of the Development Commissioners is merely to see whether they think fit to recommend the advance of money necessary for the purchase, and it is no part of their duty to protect the owner who is having land taken from him, as he thinks unnecessarily. My noble friend Lord Midleton referred to the case of Ireland, and pointed out that there we had not that absolute confidence in the Commissioners which the noble Earl seemed to expect us to have. Very little land is left to landowners in Ireland. Let us take an instance of what might happen there. The Commissioners may find that besides the demesne which is left to the landowner there is a considerable amount of what they would consider waste land—bog land which would be suitable for planting. They might, under the powers of this Act, acquire this compulsorily, and having so acquired it they might plant trees. The local poacher might be given a roving commission to wander over adjoining land in search of squirrels and other vermin, and the landowner would have no opportunity of pointing out, as he would wish to do, that the bog land is really reserved for the purpose of fuel, and that it is necessary for him to retain it in order to provide his own house and the houses of his dependants with fuel. This is only one instance showing that land may be taken by people who do not know very much about it, without an opportunity being given to the owner of pointing out that a grievous wrong is being done to him in the land being taken from him compulsorily in this manner.
I think that a very serious principle is at stake, and that this power ought not to be given to any Government Department without some appeal to a tribunal. The tribunal that I ask for now is a very simple one, that of an arbitrator who would only take a very short time to decide. As I pointed out to your Lordships when I moved this Amendment that in regard to delay the trees take at least twenty years to mature, and it cannot therefore be

837
urged that the delay will be very serious. I hope that the noble Earl on reconsideration will be able to adopt this Amendment; if not I feel so strongly on the subject that I shall feel bound to take your Lordships' opinion upon it.
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.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The terms of Clause 7 are the existing Statute of the Realm. That is understood.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: Subject to the third subsection.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Which is equally a Statute of the Realm now. If the Commissioners can come to an agreement with the loan whose land they want they do so, and no further dispute can arise. If they fail to come to an agreement, then the case with which Lord Oranmore and Browne is concerned arises. But I gather that that case is already provided for under the Statute as it now exists. If the noble Lord will read the third line of the Clause onwards he will see that if they cannot come to an agreement they may apply to the Development Commissioners for authority empowering them to secure land compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule of this Act, and that the Development Commissioners can make an Order accordingly. Lord Oranmore and Browne says that where the owner of the land objects to the Order—in other words where an agreement cannot be come to—the question of compulsory acquisition shall be reserved for decision as outlined in the Schedule of this Act. There is no more to be discussed, it is already covered by these words.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I have an Amendment to the Schedule.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Which Amendment is the noble Lord referring to?
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: The Amendment on page 10, line 16, after "question" insert "as to whether such land shall be compulsorily acquired and." I raise the question in this place so that it
838
might come into the body of the Bill. I thought it more respectful to the House to raise it at this juncture.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That is already provided for m the Bill.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: Not as to whether land shall be compulsorily acquired. It is only the question of compensation.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The powers to acquire land compulsorily already exist, and it is only put into this Bill in order to transfer that power from one authority to another. The question which Lord Oranmore and Browne has foreseen of dispute and difficulty between the public authority on the one side and the landlord on the other, are duly provided for under Clause 7 and the Schedule of the Bill. The only outstanding points on which the law is going to be amended are the questions of compensation, and later on, when we come to the Duke of Buccleuch's Amendment, for instance, and others of that character dealing with compensation, I shall ask your Lordships to defer the matter until we come to the Acquisition of Land Bill. But, so far as Lord Oranmore's difficulty is concerned, it is already provided for in the Statute.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I do not think the noble Earl can dismiss the matter quite so summarily. It is quite true that the power to take land in the manner proposed by the Bill does already exist, but it was never proposed in a previous Bill that land should be taken on this scale and under these circumstances. Under the Development Act the idea was that it would be necessary to cut a road, perhaps, through property at some particular point. I remember very well explanations being given on that Bill, and it was never supposed under that Bill that immense tracts of country would be taken. That is really the point, and what the noble Earl proposes, having got the power on a minor question, is to apply it on this large scale, and to cases where surely great injustice may be done.
The noble Earl's view is no doubt very much in consonance with what the Government have stated throughout, that there are large vacant tracts in Scotland and in some other parts of Great Britain. But he is going to apply it to Ireland, where the

839
great mass of the land is in the hands of tenants, on whom it is almost impossible for the Commissioners to make this demand. In view of the amount of land which may be taken it is really a case where it is most desirable that the landlord should be heard, not merely as to the price to be received but as to whether he should be forced to part with it at all. I really think that the matter of planting trees, which is only a question of a few weeks' delay, will not make so great a difference as to make it reasonable that the Government should insist that the Commissioners, having set their eyes on some land, and having said that in that part of the country there should be a portion afforested, should say, "We wish for 200 acres," though it is pointed out to them that to take 200 acres there will absolutely ruin the residential value of the land. But there is to be no appeal. The single Commissioner in Ireland has only to state the fact that he has made up his mind, and all that remains is to assess the value. That is carrying too far a good policy—the policy of avoiding delay and of avoiding any undue interference with the public interest. I hope that my noble friend will press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My noble friend says that the original Statute embodying these terms was never meant effectively to apply to afforestation, that it was meant for roads or wayleaves or something of that kind. My memory traverses that view. Many of your Lordships will remember ten years ago, when the Development Act was being passed, that afforestation was one of the biggest achievements which was then looked for, and it was distinctly in reference to afforesting—not 100 acres or 200 acres, for it is not in peddling quantities like that that the Forestry Authority will work—
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Will the noble Earl state how much land has been taken?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Practically nothing.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: There has been no experience.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No, I am afraid the authority has done nothing. That is the reason why a Forestry Authority is going to be set up.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My point is that, although that power may have been taken, it has not been used because it
840
would have been too serious to use it for these large projects.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The only point at issue was whether the original powers were conferred with a view to afforestation. Lord Midleton says they were only conferred with a view to cutting roads, and for wayleaves, and so on. I say that, on the contrary, when the Act was passed, afforestation was going to be one of the big things as the outcome of that Act. It is quite true that nothing has been done, but I am none the less justified in saying that this Statute was passed long before the war with a view to afforestation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand, though I did not hear all the speech of the noble Earl opposite, that he founded part of his case in opposition to this Amendment upon the near approach of a larger measure dealing with this whole subject—
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl did use that phrase in Committee. It may be quite true that there is a larger Bill coming, and no doubt, when that Bill comes before your Lordships, we shall have the opportunity of considering this subject afresh and in full detail, and also its bearing, not only upon this particular subject but upon all matters upon which the compulsory acquisition of land is desirable. As far as I am concerned, when that moment comes, I shall approach the whole subject with an open mind in trying to arrive at an adequate decision as to the policy which this country should pursue upon this question. There is no doubt that the matter has to be dealt with, or ought to be dealt with, and we shall be very glad to consider this Bill. But in this particular case we have to consider it in the light of the legislation which already exists, and I think it would be the wiser course, therefore, to add here to the broad lines of past experience rather than to strike out something fresh at this moment before the bigger Bill comes.
Now what is the present condition of things? Broadly, it is that land is not compulsorily acquired, except after an opportunity of appeal by the owner, to be heard before a competent and impartial tribunal, as to whether the land ought to be acquired compulsorily or not. My noble friend opposite says, "But there is the Development Act." I am afraid that my

841
memory is not good enough to record in detail all these provisions of the Development Act, but this is certainly true that there has not been, since that Act was passed, any large experience of the compulsory acquisition of land without this precaution which my noble friend on the Cross Benches desires to insert. We had a great deal of discussion, I remember, at that time over the land on either side of a road which might be acquired by the Commissioners because of its enhanced value in consequence of the making of the road. My noble friend says we also anticipated great forestry development. That, may have been, but I do not think that could have been anything on the scale which is now contemplated, because the money available for the purpose was really trifling under that Act.
So that we are really dealing with a much bigger subject in this Bill than was contemplated in the Development Act. In these circumstances the best plan is to go according to the old rule of not allowing land to be compulsorily acquired without the matter being properly tried before an impartial tribunal until we have to deal with the Acquisition of Land Bill. Indeed I should use the Acquisition of Land Act argument in precisely a contrary way from what was indicated by my noble friend. Until we had to try the big case it is better to go on the old lines. Then, when we have to try the big case, which deals with the whole subject,
we approach it from the new point of view. I shall support the Amendment of my noble friend if it goes to a Division.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I hope that the Government will adhere to what they have in the Bill. I shall certainly strongly support them, if they do. The very purpose that they have in view will be defeated if this matter has to go before an outside tribunal. The only justification, the only reason, for obtaining this land, the only ground for which they want it, is for the introduction of a new system of afforestation. The Commissioners must be the judges of what land is wanted for that purpose and of what the policy is which requires it. You cannot leave that to an outside tribunal without stultifying yourselves; and therefore very properly they have left the Commissioners to come to a decision on the general principle and the tribunal to work it out. When the Acquisition of Land Bill comes before this House we can see what terms there ought to be for the exercise of such powers; but it is a matter of principle on the part of the Government to adhere to the clause as it stands, and I trust that they will not be shaken in their determination.
On Question, whether the words proposed shall be here inserted—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 38.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Onslow, E.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Northumberland, D.

Stanhope, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Wellington, D.

Waldegrave, E.

Oranmore and Browne, L. [Teller.]

Camden, M.

Esher, V.

Rathmore, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Aldenham, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Salisbury, M.

Balfour, L.

Saltoun, L.

Abingdon, E.

Barrymore, L. (V. Midleton.)

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

Albemarle, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton)

Brassey, E.

Dynevor, L.

Strachie, L.

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

Erskine, L.

Sydenham, L. [Teller.]

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Templemore, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Annesley, L.

Lovat, L.

Armaghdale, L.

Phillimore, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Bledisloe, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Bradford, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Eldon, E.

Denman, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Howe, E.

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

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Jersey, E.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Lytton, E.

Emmott, L.

Sudeley, L.

Powis, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Tenterden, L.

Yarborough, E.

Harris, L.

Terrington, L.

Hylton, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Haldane, V.

Islington, L.

Wittenham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I agree to the next Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 16, after ("park") insert ("demesne").—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule:
(1) Where the Commissioners propose to purchase land compulsorily under this Act, they may submit to the Development Commissioners a draft order putting in force, as respects the lands specified in the order, the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts with respect to the purchase and taking of land of otherwise than by agreement.
(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:

(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 shah 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.

(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 ease, 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 sustained by the owners thereof or other parties interested therein by severance or otherwise.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLBUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLBUCH moved, in (2) (c), after "benefited," to insert "or depreciated." The noble Duke said: I put this Amendment down on the Committee stage, and in explaining it now I will endeavour to be as brief as I can. The noble Earl has already said that he will ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment on the ground that it will be dealt with by the Acquisition of Land Bill. If the Acquisition of Land Bill supersedes the provisions of this Bill for acquiring land, surely there can be no harm in putting in this Amendment. On the other hand, it is possible, I suppose, if not probable, that the Acquisition of Land Bill either may not pass or may be altered. Therefore I think it is reasonable to ask that this Amendment should be accepted.
The noble Earl stated that all these powers would be in the Act when the Development Commissioners were created, but it was never contemplated at the time that the Development Commissioners would deal with these lands. They have certain powers, but it is absurd to say that it was ever contemplated they would deal with any areas to any great extent. Under the Forestry Bill probably, eventually, if its proceedings are successful, there will be something like 3,000,000, or possibly 5,000,000 acres of land which may be taken, and it is a totally different question from the question of land required for other purposes, such as housing, railways, and so forth. Under those circumstances, I think it is only reasonable that if any benefits are to be considered in calculating the price, equally the depreciation should be allowed for. In forestry on a large scale it is far more likely that there will be depreciation than benefit to the surrounding land. In any case it is somewhat difficult to tell until the trees have grown.
There is another point which I particularly wish to draw your Lordships' attention to—that is, the agricultural question. One of the criticisms of this Bill, and the constitution of this Authority, has been that the agricultural question has not been sufficiently considered. I think any of your Lordships who are acquainted with hill farms, either in the south of Scotland or in the north of England, will know that practically every sheep farm can be planted on the lower portions. If those lower portions are planted, it would practically destroy the rest of the farm for any agricultural purpose or for raising stock. It may, of course, if it is heather-rowing, be devoted to grouse, but from an agricultural point of view it is most serious.
As far as I can understand, under this Bill the lower portions of the farm might be taken compulsorily and no compensation paid for depreciation of the land that is left. On the other hand, it is said, I know, that it is never likely that any of these lands which produce large numbers of lambs are likely to be taken for afforestation; but that, we know, is not the case. I am aware of an instance myself where the. Board of Agriculture in Scotland have been more or less in negotiation for five or six years for the acquisition of low-lying farms which carry good sheep stock, which they contemplated planting. I believe the negotiations only await the decision of the Development Commissioners. This shows that there is a great possibility of low-lying lands being taken, and I do not think that any one can deny the statement I made, that if you take the lower portion of the hill farms the remainder of the farm would be useless for agricultural purposes or for the raising of stock, although it might possibly be useful from the shooting point of view.
I therefore hope that your Lordships will see your way to support this Amendment, because although it is obvious how the owner of the land may suffer depreciation which is not allowed for, it is still more important, I think, to consider how the sheep-raising industry in the south of Scotland may be in danger of having damage done to it if the Bill is allowed to proceed in its present form.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 35, after ("benefited") insert ("or depreciated").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I have already pointed out to your Lordships that the question of compensation can be dealt with on the Land Acquisition Bill, which deals with the whole subject of land acquired for public purposes and not merely, as now, with land acquired for one single purpose. But, apart from that, depreciation is already provided for in the Lands Clauses Act. There is nothing new in the claim put forward by the noble Duke, and the Lards Clauses Act exists in the Schedule to this Bill. It is not a whole code; it is merely an Amendment. Depreciation is claimed, and, in point of fact, is being awarded by arbitrators almost every day in the week. That right is there; that right is indefeasible in the man whose property is injured. I really do not think, therefore, there is any occasion to add to the corpus of the Statute, which already provides for depreciation in the eases which are mentioned.
LORD DYNEVOR: It seems to me, if you put into the Bill the question of betterment, in justice and fairness you ought to put in at the same time worsement. I do not see why you want to put in the one and writ the other. I sincerely hope, therefore, that my noble friend the noble Duke will insist on the Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I entirely sympathise with the object which the noble Duke has in view. Perhaps it is hardly right for nut to speak, not being a lawyer, but I believe an explanation of the difficulty raised does exist. The Land Clauses Acts which are incorporated, with certain exceptions, for the purposes of this afforestation, contain provisions enabling the owner to receive compensation for depreciation. Therefore that need not be provided for. They do not, however, contain any provision for enabling a setoff against any benefit to the owner.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: The object of my Amendment is to ensure that the ownership of minerals in land acquired shall remain the property of the former owner. I am not quite clear whether this is already the case under the Bill as it stands. I have been told that the second clause of the Schedule provides for

847
this; and if the noble Earl assures me that is the case, I shall be content. I want, however, to be quite clear about the matter, because if the House does decide that land can be acquired compulsorily without the landowner having any power to appeal against the land being so taken, and if that power to acquire land compulsorily carries with it the right to acquire the minerals, I want to guard against that by inserting this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, after line 39, insert the following new paragraph:
"(e) The acquisition of the land shall not affect the ownership of the minerals subjacent thereto."—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I have gone into this Amendment and that of Lord Dynevor with care, and I think—I hope I shall be able to show—that they are based on a misapprehension, and, indeed, that both Lord Dynevor and Lord Oranmore and Browne are already met by the powers of agreement which exist and which are inherent in the landowner. It is obvious, I think, that the Commissioners cannot be precluded by Act of Parliament from acquiring minerals when they acquire land. It would be unreasonable to say that in buying land they shall never be allowed to buy the minerals. If, on the other hand, the minerals are reserved to the owner, the agreement must ipso facto contain provisions allowing that owner access to his minerals. I think it is a point most clearly brought out in Lord Dynevor's Amendment, though it is, to some extent I think, covered by Lord Oranmore's intentions. If the owner is going to keep his minerals, if he wishes to keep his minerals, or if the Authority say that they do not want to buy the minerals but mean to have the land, an agreement has to be drawn up according to this elaborate system outlined in the Schedule. I do not know, but I cannot imagine that the Development Commissioners or any other Authority could leave a matter like that vague—that the Forestry Commission should acquire land and that the owner of the minerals should have no access to his minerals, no right of way or light railway or way-leave. If nothing of that kind were done the Forestry Authority would have to pay enormously and unduly
848
high for surface land. I am advised that the agreement which has got to take place in all these cases of compulsory purchase will be adequate to meet the cases of both Lord Dynevor and of Lord Oranmore and Browne. The Amendments, therefore, are unnecessary.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: The noble Earl has not made the matter perfectly clear, and I desire therefore to ask a question. It is clear in the case where there is an agreement come to between the Commissioners and the owner, but suppose the land is acquired compulsorily. In that case do the minerals remain the property of the owner from whom the land is taken, or does the fact that the Commissioners acquire the land compulsorily give them the right also to the minerals?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No. There are two subjects which can be acquired. One is the land and the other is the minerals. If the Forestry Authority like to have them both, they can have both and pay for both. If they only take the surface they will either have to compensate the mineral owner or else provide him with facilities for working that mineral in due time.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved to add to (2) 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 avilable 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

849
actually caused, and if any question shall arise in respect thereof the same shall be determined by the arbitrator."
The noble Lord said: My Amendment is quite different from the one just moved by my noble friend Lord Oranmore and Browne, because it deals only with the question of the surface of the land. Therefore, it seems to me (and I think my noble friend in charge of the Bill has acknowledged) that certainly there ought to be a full reservation over the surface for getting at the minerals. Your Lordships will no doubt have noticed that under the Railway Act, 1845, which is referred to in Clause 1 of the Schedule, the owner or the lessee of the minerals cannot enter on the surface acquired by the railway. There, however, usually only a narrow strip is purchased. It is very different in this case, where we are dealing with perhaps 2,000 or 3,000 acres. Access over the surface is absolutely necessary to the owner or lessee. Even if the Commissioners do not, under this Railway Act, buy the minerals—which I rather doubt their doing, because it will be a very great expense to acquire the minerals under a very large area—it will still be necessary to reserve the rights over the surface and to get to the adjacent minerals. There may be minerals lying beyond this area and the Commissioners may have acquired land which lies between the further minerals and the railway to which you want to get them. It seems to me most essential to have the wording suggested in the new clause to make it absolutely clear that there shall be no cessation of the development of minerals in the area compulsorily taken by the Forestry Commissioners. I hope your Lordships will agree with me that it is most essential to get these words into the Bill now. Otherwise, we do not really know where we shall be under the Land Acquisition Bill. As a matter of fact, I have looked at that Bill and there is a very vague reference there to minerals. The Railway Act, under which the Commissioners are going to take the land and possibly the minerals, is not referred to in that Bill. Here it is definitely said that under the Railway Act, 1845, the Forestry Commissioners do take their land. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will support me and get this Amendment inserted in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 10 after line 39, insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Dynevor.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I can only repeat what I said to Lord Oranmore and Browne. My remarks applied equally to his and to Lord Dynevor's Amendment. When land is acquired an instrument has got to be drawn up. It may be drawn up by voluntary agreement between the Forestry Authority and the landlord, or it may go to arbitration and be drawn up by the Development Commissioners or some other authority; but, whoever draws it up, must insert a clause relating to minerals. The fact of compulsion being used does not mean that there shall be no agreement or group of clauses governing the transaction. The Forestry Authority, prima facie, is not likely to want minerals and, prima facie, Forestry Authority will let the landlord reserve those minerals for himself and in doing so a money consideration will no doubt pass. I gather that all Lord Dynevor wants is that where the minerals belong to the landlord and the surface to the State, the State in due time shall give facilities to the landlord to develop those minerals. I am informed that those clauses must be in the agreement. They cannot be excluded from the agreement and it is inconceivable that minerals shall be left in the property of a private individual wish no right of access to them.
LORD DYNEVOR: I am afraid I did not make myself clear. May I point out that this land is acquired under the Railways Act, 1845.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: And other Acts.
LORD DYNEVOR: But under that Act the owner of the mineral may not enter on the surface acquired by the railway. Put the Forestry Commissioners in the place of the railway and the owner of a mineral cannot enter on the surface of the land acquired by the Forestry Authority.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It is quite true that the Railway Clauses Acts are referred to, but the Land Clauses Act and every other Act which entitles the Government to purchase compulsorily is equally incorporated here.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: It is obvious that what the noble Earl has said is quite true. Supposing the Commissioners want to take the surface without the minerals,

851
they will either have to give full facilities to the mineral owner to work his minerals or else they will have to pay as if they had taken the whole of the minerals which they have deprived him of the right to get. The instrument which settles the matter must contain provisions, or else the mineral owner must be paid the full value of what he cannot work and win. It is quite true that the Railway Clauses Act has been grouped, but it contains certain provisions which are very difficult to apply to minerals. The Land Clauses Act provides a much wider power of dealing with these matters, and under the provisions of the Land Clauses Act it is obvious that, if the mineral owner is deprived of his right of access, he will have to be compensated for his loss in the fullest fashion. The result will be that the Commissioners, in order to get the advantage of purchasing the surface, will always provide for that access which the owner requires to work and win what is under ground.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The noble Earl has not answered one of the points of my noble friend. He asked two questions, one was about the minerals under the land, the surface rights of which were sold; and the other as to minerals which lay beyond that land, but which could not be got to the railway except through land purchase. That point was not touched upon by the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It is very common in mining circles. It is the problem of wayleaves.
On Question, Amendment negatived.

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND (POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 2:
Establishment of an Ecclesiastical Committee of the Privy Council.
2.—(1) There shall be a Committee of His Majesty's Privy Council styled "The Ecclesiastical Committee of the Privy Council."
(2) The Ecclesiastical Committee shall consist of such members of the Privy Council, not exceeding twenty-five in all, as His Majesty from time to time may think fit to appoint in that behalf.
(3) The powers and duties of the Ecclesiastical Committee may be exercised and discharged by any twelve members thereof.
VISCOUNT ESHER VISCOUNT ESHER moved to add to subsection (2) of Clause 2 "the tenure of the office to be for ten years."
The noble Viscount said: As the Bill stands the members appointed to the Ecclesiastical Committee will be, presumably, appointed for life. There are obvious objections to that with which I need not trouble your Lordships. I agree with what fell from the Marquess of Salisbury the other night, that the Prime Minister of the day can be trusted to make these appointments, but even he cannot ensure that after several years they may not become out of touch when dealing with matters of high moment. It is partially with a view of meeting that difficulty that I move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 28, after ("behalf") insert ("the tenure of the office to be for ten years").—(Viscount Esher.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The Amendment is, I think an improvement, and I am quite prepared to accept it.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: May I draw attention to one point. I wonder why it is thought that these appointments will be for life? The Ecclesiastical Committee is to consist of such members of the Privy Council, not exceeding twenty-five in all, as His Majesty from time to time may think fit to appoint. What His Majesty may do His Majesty may undo; and he could take people off the Ecclesiastical Committee. They hold their tenure of office at the will of the Sovereign. Now my noble friend proposes that they should hold office for ten years, and you may get an Ecclesiastical Committee of the Privy Council who are wholly at variance with the policy of the Government of the day. There might be a strong Non-conformist Committee, and the

853
noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, might succeed to Government in which he would have to exercise functions subject to the interference of that Non-Conformist Committee of the Privy Council. I should think, on the whole, it is much better the Amendment was not pressed.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I agree with what the noble and learned Viscount has said. I thought the object of this Bill was that this Committee were appointed from time to time by the Rime Minister, and that they represented the Ministry. I hope this clause, which is introduced with a view of shortening that tenure but which has the effect, of giving them a lengthened tenure, will not be adopted. I think the Bill much better as it stands.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I expressed great doubts from the first as to the. desirability of this Committee at ail, but I am afraid unless something is done it will get into a slate like the Canadian Senate (in which tile appointments are made actually for life) and the practice will grow up that these appointments will be practically for life because it will always be an ungracious proceeding for any Minister to advise the removal of any Privy Councillor. We shall be faced with the same evil which you have in Canada, that when a Ministry has been in office for a long tine and there conies a change of Ministry you find the Committee, or Senate as it may be, composed in such a way as to be in almost permanent disagreement with the representative Ministry of the day. Perhaps ten years is too long, and it may possibly be better to insert such words as "who shall hold office during pleasure."
LORD WITTENHAM: At an early stage I ventured to argue that it would have been better to have had the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. However, that idea did not go far, and we have now to consider the Bill as it is. For my part I. think it would be much better to leave it as it is, because, as the noble and learned Lord has just pointed out, under the clause as it stands there is the power to appoint from time to time. These words are so wide that I should have thought that on each occasion it would have been open to His Majesty in Council, on the advice of Ministers, to appoint such Privy Councillors as shall be thought fit. I do not suppose there will be a flood of cases
854
coming forward, and is it not much better that Privy Councillors should be summoned according to the virtue or necessity of the particular case; but here, if the Amendment is accepted, you are going to have a cast-iron Committee for ten years. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out circumstances and policy may change, and the Committee ought to be sufficiently elastic to conform itself to the feelings of the day.
VISCOUNT ESHER: May I ask whether it- is perfectly clear that, under the Bill as it stands, any member of the Ecclesiastical Committee may be removed by His Majesty from that Committee without removing him from the Privy Council altogether.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I have not the smallest doubt about it. This is a mere Committee of the Privy Council. There are numbers of Committees of the Privy Council appointed from time to time. The Sovereign has power to nominate any member of the Privy Council, and they hold office during pleasure.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: In the debates on the Second Reading, and in Committee, a great variety of views were expressed as to the Ecclesiastical Committee of the Privy Council. Some noble Lords did not hold the view just expressed by the noble and learned Viscount. They said that, the effect of the clause as it stood was to make a member of the Privy Council who was a member of this Committee a member of it for life. The exactly contrary view was expressed by other noble Lords, who said that it would be in the power of the Prime Minister to nominate a different, Committee for every measure that came up for consideration, or that it would be in the power of a Prime Minister who held the views of the noble and learned Lord behind me, to remove all the members of the Committee and put in a Committee such as he could entirely trust; or that if Lord Salisbury came into office next year he might repeat the same process. It was because this conflict, of criticism disturbed the mind of the noble Lord that he put down this Amendment. The first Ecclesiastical Committee will be appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Prime Minister for the time being. Every member would be appointed for ten years Members of the

855
Privy Council are not immortal, and vacancies will occur from time to time. Each vacancy will be filled up on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, but no man will hold office for more than ten years.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

MINISTRY OF WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The EARL OF LYTTON): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of a Bill which has been introduced by the Government in fulfilment of a definite pledge made to the electors during the last General Election. On several occasions in November and December last the Prime Minister stated that the improvement of our transport services, which he described as "an essential part of the problem of increased production," would be undertaken by the Government. In a general statement of policy which he made at the beginning of his election campaign in the Central Hall, Westminster, in November the Prime Minister included the subject which is
On Question, whether the words "the tenure of office to be for ten years" shall be here inserted—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 25.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Howe, E.

Glenconner, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. President.)

Powis, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Selborne, E. [Teller.]

Islington, L.

Yarborough, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Argyll, D.

Lovat, L.

Northumberland, D.

Chaplin, V.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Wellington, D.

Devonport, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Esher, V. [Teller.]

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Camden, M.

Newton, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Liverpool, L. Bp.

Lincolnshire, M.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Annesley, L.

Shut, L.(V. Barrington.)

Salisbury, M.

Balfour, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Barrymore, L.

Sudeley, L.

Abingdon, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Sydenham, L.

Albemarle, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Terrington, L.

Brassey, E.

Erskine, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bradford, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

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

Colebrooke, L.

Rathmore, L.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Eldon, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.) [Teller.]

Somerleyton, L.

Strafford, E.

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

Haldane, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Stanmore, L.

Armaghdale, L.

Farrer, L.

Tenterden, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Phillimore, L.

Weardale, L.

Atkinson, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Wittenham, L.

dealt with in this Bill among the questions "so much at the root of our national wellbeing and prosperity which we must face like patriots and not like partizans." I hope to show your Lordships this afternoon that in that spirit the Government have attempted to fulfil the pledge which was given at that time. The question of distribution is inseparably bound up with all the problems of reconstruction which face the country at the present moment. It has been placed in the forefront of the Government programme because without efficient transport none of the other items in our programme can be made successful.
I imagine that your Lordships will agree that the only thing which can save this country from the dangers that lie ahead of us—literally the only thing—is greatly increased production. I imagine that we shall all be agreed about that. But it is impossible to obtain full advantage of increased production unless you have efficient distribution at the same time. We have had a most dramatic object lesson in the last few years of the disaster which can overtake a country through the

857
failure of its distributing system. In Russia we have seen defeat at the hands of the enemy, revolution at home, and civil war, and all the chaos, confusion and anarchy which exist in that country to-day largely as the result of this particular failure. In all the other countries that have taken part in the war the distributing system has been strained to its utmost limit, and we have only escaped disasters similar to those which have overtaken Russia by the very narrowest margin. We are all suffering to-day from the effects of that strain, and I think it is true to say that the country which can first put its transport system in order and can do it most effectively will be the first country to recover from the war. Upon the success or failure of the policy which is embodied in this Bill depend the success of all our other schemes, the development of our trade and commerce, and the contentment and well-being of our people. The importance therefore of this Bill cannot well be exaggerated.
I would now ask your Lordships to consider for a moment the position of all these services upon which so much depends at the present moment. With regard to railways and canals, they both are dependent on State subsidies. As your Lordships are aware, the railway companies have been guaranteed by the Government their receipts of the year 1913. That guarantee has to be continued for two years. The State contribution which is involved in this guarantee is estimated in this year's Budget at £60,000,000. This deficit can only be made up by increase of rate charges and economies in working, but neither of these remedies is available to the companies under their existing powers to-day. Take the question of the raising of rates. Under normal procedure it would only be possible for the railway companies to obtain powers to increase their rates by the end of next year, and I am told that it would be five or six years before these increased rates would become finally operative. Your Lordships will notice that one of the clauses of this Bill—Clause 3, subsection (1), sub-clause (e) on page 5—deals with the question of the raising of rates. A provision is made that increase under the provisions of this Act shall continue in force for a period of eighteen months after the two years to which that power is limited. That is put in because the railway companies know that it will take them that
858
time to obtain the authority from Parliament to raise the rates themselves.
I might give your Lordships another illustration of the slowness of existing procedure on this point at the present time. In spite of special facilities which were introduced in a short Act passed at the beginning of 1913, an Act which removed some of the obstacles to obtaining Parliamentary powers to increase rates, a 4 per cent. increase imposed by the railway companies in that year is not at this moment fully operative. There are still many disputes not settled, still large sums outstanding. And it is the same thing with regard to economy. Nothing on a really large scale, nothing which could in any way place the railway companies once more on a paying footing could be undertaken without the powers given in this Bill.
Canals are in much the same position. The net receipts of railway-owned canals are, of course, guaranteed under the arrangement made with the railway companies, but in the case of other independent canals under the control of the Canal Control Committee the increased cost of all transport services in the last two years and at the same time the maintenance by the railway companies of their pre-war rates produced early in the year 1917 so serious a crisis that the Government found itself compelled to guarantee the 1913 receipts to those canal companies as well. That meant a subsidy of £410,558 in 1917. That amount was increased in 1918 to £676,014, a sum which was actually greater than the total net income of all these canals in the year 1905. And the estimate for this year of what is to be paid by way of compensation to canals and canal carriers amounts to £950,000, or just short of a million.
Docks and roads are not much better. Fifty per cent. of the existing docks are owned by railway companies, and these therefore also come under the arrangement made with the railway companies whereby their net receipts of 1913 are guaranteed. Of the remainder some have been authorised during the war to levy charges in excess of their maximum. But these powers will lapse with the Defence of the Realm Act. Others are at this moment obtaining, or have obtained from Parliament, powers to increase their charges, but this does not apply to some, including, for instance, the Port of London. And of all those dock

859
undertakings I think it is true to say that they must either obtain from Parliament a power to increase their rates, or they must look to the State for some assistance. And half of them, as I have already mentioned, are already subsidised.
The roads are in a somewhat different position, not being revenue earning, but, so far as their condition is concerned, they are no better. The roads have necessarily been starved during the war. No sums of money have been advanced for their improvement. Even at pre-war figures the maintenance of our roads in this country cost £20,000,000 a year out of rates and taxes. Owing to the starving of the roads during the war much larger sums will have to be spent in the next few years. A sum of £10,000,000 has been set aside in the Budget this Year, and many other large sums will have to be spent in order that the roads may be able to take their share in meeting the transport needs of the country.
Then, lastly, there is the very important coastwise service which has been absolutely destroyed during the war by the maintenance of the pre-war rates upon the railways. That traffic to-day is practically dead. This has created great congestion at our ports, enormously increased the transport difficulties generally, and produced the crisis with which the Government is trying to deal at the present time.
The position then is this, that at a time when quick, efficient methods of distribution are more necessary than they ever were in the history of the country, none of our existing transport services is able to give us what we require. All these services, as I have pointed out, are suffering from the war. The position really could not be worse than it is just now: At a time when energy and courage and enterprise are specially required, the existence of this State subsidy, this State guarantee, has removed all incentive to the exercise of those particular qualities. The crying need of this moment is for quick delivery of new plant, but the continuance of the State guarantee has acted as an inducement to the railway companies not to incur expense at this moment when prices are high, but to wait until the time when the period of the Government control is approaching its end and they have reasonable expectation that prices will have fallen.
I do not think it is possible to exaggerate the disastrous effect of this State subsidy on an undertaking like the railways, but the evil effect of it is remarkably illustrated by the attitude of the railway companies at this particular moment. It is admitted by everyone that the railway companies are unable to deal with anything like the traffic which they are called upon to handle at this moment. They are short of wagons. Sir Eric Geddes when he was speaking on the Third Reading of this Bill in the House of Commons estimated the shortage at 75,000. But, anyhow, there are 30,000 wagons which have been sent to France and have not returned. They are handicapped again by the absence of skilled men. Fifty per cent. of the railwaymen who enlisted are still with the Colours. Their rolling stock is below what it should be, and in consequence of all this traffic is congested. But because of the existence of this subsidy, instead of clamouring to the Board of Trade to give new plant, to provide them with the latest pattern of locomotives, the railway companies are more disposed at this moment to seek a way out of their difficulties by restricting traffic.
Now, that is the situation with which the Government is faced at the present moment This guarantee has to be continued. It is a legacy from the past which would fall upon any Government in power at this moment. What, then, are the alternatives? There really are only three possible alternatives: to continue the guarantee and do nothing, to continue to pour out public funds without getting any return in the way of increased efficiency; to nationalise the railways, and to start immediately a system of direct State control—a course which has been urged upon us from many quarters; and (the only other alternative) to set up some machinery of co-ordination and unified control such as is provided in this Bill—to take power, that is to say, to ensure the co-operation of all the services engaged in transport, in eliminating waste, improving their plant, and securing economy. The Government have chosen the third alternative; and I think it is incumbent upon any any who think we have made an unwise choice, who think that we should have acted differently, to show what they would have done in the situation which I have placed before your Lordships. You will see, therefore, that some measure on the lines of this Bill—I do not say this Bill in

861
all its clauses—was absolutely necessary. The situation with which we have to deal is of such gravity that it will not admit of any delay.
Let me now shortly run through the clauses of the Bill and explain to your Lordships what the Bill proposes to do to meet the situation. It establishes a Ministry to supervise all existing transport services and to work out a transport policy for the country as a whole. The Bill gives to this Ministry certain powers, some of which are of a temporary character lasting for only two years, and some of them are permanent; and in reading the Bill I would ask you to keep before you the distinction between those powers which are temporary and those which are permanent. Clause 1 establishes the Ministry, and. Clause 2 transfers to it all the powers of existing Government Departments in respect of the services set forth in pragraphs (a) to (f) on page 1. I have seen it stated, that this transfer of powers includes any temporary emergency powers which may be exercised by a Government Department under the Defence of the Realm Act. That is true only during the period under which the Defence of the Realm Act operates; but it is, of course, untrue that any power under the Defence of the Realm Act which may be transferred under this clause will continue after the Defence of the Realm Act has lapsed.
Clause 3 is the most important clause which deals with the temporary powers of the Ministry. It is a long clause, subdivided into a great many subsections, but the effect of it is to define the powers which will be exercised by the Ministry during the next two years. Paragraph (a), on page 3 of the Bill, continues the control at present exercised by the Board of Trade through the Railway Executive, without the necessity of renewing a Warrant from the Secretary of State every week. Paragraph (b) gives power to the Ministry after one month's notice to establish control, or in the words used in the Bill, to "take possession" of any of the other railways not at present controlled—light railways, tramways not opened by local authorities, canals, and docks. The words "take possession" are adopted from the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871, which is the Act under which the railways have been controlled during the war. It does not, of course, give to the Ministry any right to take physical possession. What it gives
862
to the Ministry is a right to take control and to exercise that control in the same way that the Government has taken control and exercised it over the railways during the war.
I would also point out to your Lordships that this clause makes no reference to roads. I doubt if that is fully understood. Roads come in only under Clause 2, which transfers to the Ministry all powers exercised by other Government Departments. I have here a circular which has been sent to me—I presume it has been sent also to other noble Lords—from the Automobile Association which makes certain very extraordinary statements with regard to the powers of this Bill in respect of roads. I find these two things stated. First—
"The Bill contains no definitions; therefore it remains within the power of the Ministry of Transport to control even the private gig, carriage, or motor-car. For example, the Minister will possess the power to control the transport of goods between certain points or in a certain district by railway or canal or road, thus making it a misdemeanour for the private motorist to carry or convey goods on his own vehicle."
Second, with regard to local authorities—
"It is necessary to paint out that local authorities will only retain control over such roads as the Ministry allocates them. They will be deprived of the administrative powers they have possessed for ages over all the highways inside their boundaries, and they will only deal with the Road Department on the question of the amount of the Government grant for which they may apply in relief of the rates or for special road improvement."
I can only say that from beginning to end there is not a clause in this Bill which justifies either of those two statements. The only way in which this Bill affects the roads in this country is to transfer to the Ministry, under Clause 2, the powers at present exercised by the Board of Trade and the Road Board, without alteration and without addition.
To continue my remarks on Clause 3. Paragraph. (c) gives a list of the kind of Orders which the Minister may exercise during the period of temporary occupation; they include all the powers that are referred to in sub-paragraphs (i) to (viii). All these are new powers not at present possessed by any Government Department, and they are all temporary—to be exercised for the period of only two years. The other clauses which confer powers upon the Ministry are Clauses 9, 12, and 16, and all these create permanent powers. Clause 9

863
authorises the Minister to establish and work new transport services by land or water, if he is satisfied that they cannot be worked by existing authorities, and subject to conditions. First, that Treasury sanction must be obtained to an estimate of the capital expenditure required to complete the whole undertaking; second, that the authority of Parliament must be obtained for a total capital expenditure exceeding £500,000 on any one service; and also to the acquisition of land compulsorily, or the breaking up of roads. Although that is in the nature of a permanent power, it is governed by subsection (4) which says that no new works may be commenecd after the period of two years without further sanction by Parliament.
Clause 12 gives power to the Minister to purchase privately-owned wagons on railways, the terms of the purchase to be submitted in a draft Order and approved by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Clause 16 gives power to the Minister to make grants or loans, with Treasury approval, for the construction, improvement, or maintenance of transport services covered by the Bill; and no advance exceeding £1,000,000 is to be made without the authority of the House of Commons. Those are the powers which are given in the Bill.
Let me say one word about the limitations, the safeguards, and modifications of those powers which are contained in other clauses. First let me draw your Lordships' attention to three Advisory Committees which are set up in the Bill. The first is an Advisory Committee on rates, which is provided for in subsection (3) paragraph (a) on page 6. This Committee is to consist of five persons—a lawyer, who will be the Chairman of the Committee, appointed by the Lord Chancellor; two representatives of the trading interest, to be appointed by the Board of Trade; one representative of transportation interests, to be appointed by the Minister; and one representative of labour interests to be appointed by the Minister of Labour—with an additional member, if necessary, to be nominated by the Minister. This Committee is to consider all questions dealing with alterations in rates, tolls, or charges. Before any alteration of that kind is made the Minister has to consult the Committee, and they must hold an inquiry and take evidence from any persons likely to be affected by such alterations—
864
that is to say, if the alteration is in the nature of an increase.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does the Bill say "must"?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The Minister has to consult the Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is the Committee compelled to take evidence?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The Committee, before reporting or advising shall, unless they in their discretion consider it unnecessary, enquire into the matter, and any persons affected may make representations to the Committee. If there is to be an increase of rates, before that increase takes place there must be an inquiry, when anybody affected by it may give evidence of the manlier in which they will be affected. Clause 20 sets up a Committee to advise in matters connected with roads. There are to be five representatives of highway authorities and five representatives of road users, who will give advice to the Minister generally upon all matters connected with roads. In Clause 21 there is a general Advisory Panel of experts representing all the services that will be affected by this Bill—trading and labour interests and local authorities. The Minister is to consult a Committee of this Panel before exercising any of the powers conferred upon him by Clause 3 (1) (b)—that is to say, before taking possession of any undertaking against the will of the owners of the undertaking, or before starting any new transport services himself. So much, my Lords, for those three Committees.
Then I would like to call your Lordships' attention to Clause 4, which provides a safeguard for statutory harbour and dock companies. This clause says that the Minister shall not take possession, without their consent, of any of these statutory undertakings; but he may give orders to them for improvements and extensions to their docks which he considers to be in the national interest. The owners of the undertaking, however, if they consider that such orders are seriously injurious to their interests, may appeal, in the case of England and Ireland, to the Lord Chief Justice, and in the case of Scotland to the Lord President of the Court of Session. If the Lord Chief Justice or the Lord President

865
considers they have made out a prima facie case of serious injury, he may appoint an arbitrator to go into the matter to decide between them and the Minister.
Lastly, I want to say one word about Clause 8, which is a compensation clause. This clause provides for a revision at the end of the period of two years of all the undertakings on the basis of their revenue-earning capacity. If at the time this revision is made it is found that their, value on this basis has either increased or diminished by the action of the Minister, by the exercising of powers given to him in this Bill during the two years—then the owners are either to pay for the increased value so created, or will be compensated for the diminished value by such sum as the Railway and Canal Commissioners may determine.
Without going into details which can be better dealt with in Committee, such are the main provisions of the Bill. The fundamental principle running through the whole Bill, the principle which I ask your Lordships to accept to-day, is the necessity for the establishment of co-ordination and unified control, not merely of competing systems in one service, but of all the services engaged in transport matters in the country generally, so that during the next two years one aim, and one aim only, will be pursued by the Ministry—namely, the improvement of every branch of transport so as to secure the carrying of all goods from their source to their destination by the most direct, the most economical, and the most efficient means. This purpose can only be carried out if all the powers asked for in this Bill remain intact.
I have seen it argued in the Press that these powers are too wide—that they place too great a responsibility upon one Department. "Let the Minister confine himself to the railways," we are told. "He is a railway expert. Let him see what he can do with railways, about which he knows something, and then, if he is successful, it will be time enough for him to come to Parliament and ask for power to control other undertakings as well." That is the nature of the argument, and I have no doubt it will be made to your Lordships in this House. That argument, however, ignores the whole point and purpose of the Bill, which is not to improve the railway system, but to improve the whole transport system of the country. Not only can that purpose
866
not be carried out without the powers we ask for, but even the limited object of the improvement of the railways, with which our critics appear to be satisfied, cannot be carried out if the Minister is confined to the railways alone.
Let me explain how inter-dependent these various services are one upon the other, and what waste of energy and money occurs at the present moment by the competition which exists between them. Take first the case of railways and docks. More than half the total traffic of the railways of this country passes through a port either by way of export or import. Sixty-one per cent. of the total freight traffic consists of coal, and one-third of this coal traffic passes through a port to be shipped either coastwise or to some foreign country. It will be seen how important is the provision at the docks of the latest and most up-to-date appliances for dealing with railway wagons, and also how important it is for smooth working to ensure the closest possible co-operation between the railways and the dock companies. That co-operation to-day only exists in docks which are railway-owned. Where the docks and the railways are under separate management it is impossible for the dock companies to know all that is necessary in order to deal with this shipment traffic. But in the non-railway-owned docks the appliances in general use can only deal with comparatively small wagons—wagons, that is to say, carrying from 8 tons to 12 tons of coal. There would be a great advantage and a great economy if the size of the wagons could be increased. Using the same wheel base there would be a great improvement in the paying load. But to improve the appliances is not to the direct advantage of the dock companies, and, therefore, the improved appliances are not provided and the wasteful system continues. I could multiply instances to show how inter-dependent the various services are on each other and how impossible it is to secure economy or improvement without co-operation between them, but I do not want to waste the time of the House by giving further illustrations. All I want to emphasise at this moment is that the policy of the Government is not to improve any one particular service, but to provide that each form of transportation secures, and is able to deal with, the traffic best suited for its particular equipment.

867
If any of your Lordships think that the pursuit of this policy, and the enforcement of it, will necessitate placing upon one Minister too large powers and that this Bill is unprecedented in that respect—and I have seen it stated in the Press, and, I believe, argued in the House of Commons, that in no country in the world are powers equal to these given in this Bill entrusted to any one Government Department—it may interest your Lordships to know that precisely the powers which are given to the new Ministry under the Bill are to-day being exercised by a Government Department in France. The Minister of Public Works in France is now also Minister for Transportation. This has taken place since the war and as a result of the same experience which faces us. To the Ministry of Public Works has been given the control of railways, docks, canals, roads and electricity. That Minister will have the same powers as are asked for in this Bill and he will pursue precisely the same policy. During the war we have learned much from France in the sphere of military operations. We have experienced the same difficulties. We have endeavoured to overcome them together. During the war we have watched each other, we have helped each other, we have learned from each other. Surely now that the war is over there is no less cause than there was then for each country to learn what it can from the other. We have the same difficulties to face. We have to deal with them in the same way and, if your Lordships feel that there is anything unprecedented in the demands we are making on Parliament, let me remind your Lordships that this Bill has its exact counterpart with our Allies in France to-day.
Now I come to the Motion which has been placed on the Order Paper by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Buckmaster). The noble and learned Lord asks your Lordships to make your acceptance of this Bill conditional upon three things—first, upon a statement by the Government of their policy with regard to the nationalisation of railways; secondly, upon our providing information with regard to the financial obligations imposed by the Bill; and, thirdly, upon an explanation of the measures proposed to meet those obligations. My answer to the first part of the noble and learned Lord's Motion is that the policy of the Government to-day is embodied in this Bill. I have already explained to your Lordships that the
868
present situation cannot continue. Efficient distribution is absolutely necessary, but neither increased production nor efficient reconstruction of industry is possible without the co-ordination of our distributing system. All the transport undertakings at the present time are unable to give the service which is required of them. They must be improved, but, without unification such as we ask for, this improvement cannot take place. The State is committed already to a subsidy of £60,000,000 to the railways for this year and the increase in the price of coal (which I understand will come into operation to-day) will add another £5,000,000 a year to the railway bill. In addition to that there is the subsidy to the canals and the cost of roads to which I have already alluded.
Many people argue—and this argument is constantly forced on the Government—that in order that the State may reap some advantage from this huge State contribution, we should nationalise these undertakings and institute direct State management. I believe there are also many who hold that to do that would certainly add to the expense of administration—that State administration would be much more expensive than company administration. Those who oppose the policy of nationalisation have not, so far as I can judge, put forward any other alternative which the Government could accept for dealing with the situation. The decision of the Government is to be found in the provisions of this Bill. In our opinion this Bill is an alternative to nationalisation, and, moreover, it is the only alternative to nationalisation at the present moment. This Bill does not seek to substitute State management for private management. We do not say that in our opinion the State can manage more efficiently or more economically a railway, or a canal, or a dock, than can a railway or a canal company. What we do say in this Bill is that the State requires, in return for the financial assistance which it gives to these undertakings, that the companies shall subordinate their private and local interests to the transport interests of the country generally. In the Bill we provide machinery to enable them to do this. We give power to secure co-operation and to effect economy in these various services.
Therefore, if the noble and learned Lord asks me what our policy is to-day in the matter of nationalising the railways, my answer is that our policy is contained in this Bill. If, however, he wants to know what

869
our policy on the question of nationalisation will be in two years' time, then I think he is making rather an unreasonable request. We hope in those two years, partly by an increase of rates and partly by economies in working, to place these services once more on a paying footing. I cannot say, no one can say, what the result of this experiment may be. It will be for the Government and for the Parliament of that time to determine what kind of arrangement shall permanently take the place of this temporary provision. All I can say, and this I do say to your Lordships, is that during the next two years the powers contained in this Bill, if your Lordships pass it into law, will be honestly and impartially exercised by the new Ministry fore the improvement of all services, and without any bias one way or the other in favour, or against, any future solution for the treatment of the question.
I come now to the other part of the noble and learned Lord's Motion—the financial obligations imposed by the Bill. The noble and learned Lord wants to know to what expenditure we shall be committed if we pass this Bill. In the first place, let me remind your Lordships that the Bill itself does not commit us to any expenditure beyond what Parliament may sanction in any year. It is obvious, of course, but I do not think it is always understood, that the cost of the administration of the Bill will be set forth in the annual Estimates. The cost of purchasing privately-owned railway wagons must be submitted to Parliament and provided by Parliament in a Resolution authorising the terms and conditions of purchase. Again, any new service which the Minister may start, or any advance which he may make to existing services, must obtain special Parliamentary authority if the expenditure exceeds £500,000 in one case, or £1,000,000 in the other. But all other expenditure, whether it is above or below these limits, which may be undertaken by the Ministry must be submitted to Parliament in the ordinary way in the annual Estimates, and receive Parliamentary sanction before the money can be spent. I think that is obvious, but it is not always remembered.
But apart from this fact the terms of the Motion implies, I think, a mistaken conception of the policy and objects of the Bill. It seems to me to suggest that this Bill is only a new form of Government extravagance, and asks for some estimate of the
870
amount which may be spent. If I thought that this Bill only afforded new opportunities for a Government Department to spend money, to dispense Government patronage, to undertake vast new services, however desirable or necessary, I should not be standing at this Table and recommending it to your Lordships. I do defend this Bill conscientiously and enthusiastically only because, in my opinion, the provisions of the Bill will not only enable the Minister to improve our services, but will enable him (and I can see no other way of doing it) to effect considerable economies in the working of these services to-day, and by that means to diminish very considerably the financial burden which otherwise must fall upon this country during the next two years, either as tax payers if the present system continues, or as traffic users if the whole cost of the present State subsidy were to be transferred on to traffic users in the way of increased rates and charges.
The opportunities for spending money in this Bill are apparent, but the opportunities for saving it are not quite so obvious, and therefore, very briefly, I would like to touch upon the economies which will become possible if the powers asked for in this Bill are retained intact. Take, first of all, the acquisition of privately-owned wagons. During the war the "common user." of wagons owned by different railway companies has already effected am enormous saving in empty wagon mileage. I am told that in the case of one company alone the saving has been 34 per cent. or 35 million of empty wagon miles. That is by instituting the "common user" of wagons owned by different companies. That will go on under this Bill, but the saving will be enormously increased if you can bring into that "common user" the wagons at present owned by private individuals. Privately-owned railway wagons are 50 per cent. of the total wagons in the country to-day, and if you can bring in that number it is estimated the saving will be £2,000,000 to £3,000,000 per year in shunting alone. There is also the question of the provision of larger wagons to which I have referred, and which can only be undertaken with the co-operation of the dock companies. That will increase the paying load of the trains and effect considerable economies in the length of sidings. There are the other possibilities of standardising plant and appliances, avoidance of delay and unnecessary detention of wagons, the climina

871
tion of useless competitive services. All these are economies, but they can only be effected if you have unified control.
Your Lordships perhaps may think that this is a mere idle dream, that we may hope to do these things, but even if we succeed the effect will be counter-balanced by the increased charges which the administration of the Bill will create. I would, therefore, like to defer your Lordships on this point to what was said in the House of Commons by General Sir Hunter Weston, who had experience of the effect of precisely this system when carried out by the same people in the sphere of our Armies in France. He said—
"One of the fears most generally expressed is that the Ministry of Ways and Communications will be very extravagant, and in support of this the statement is made that the administration of the Director-General of Transport in France had no thought of economy."
Then he said this, and these are the words to which I ask your attention—
"It is perhaps difficult for any one not conversant with the facts to appreciate the fallacy of this statement. It is true that the necessity for rapid action made a large immediate outlay necessary. But this outlay repaid itself even in pounds, shillings and pence before the end of the War, and the saving effected by it in men's lives was incalculable."
He goes on to give instances how those savings were effected. I will not read it, but your Lordships will find it in Hansard.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will the noble Earl give the date?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: On the Third Reading of the Bill, July 10. I quote these words to show that we are not basing these expectations on mere hopes, but that they are built on the sure foundation of actual experience of what was none under this system recently in France. I have only one word to say in conclusion with regard to another of my opponents who last week had a Motion on the Paper to reject this Bill. Lord Montague's Motion has disappeared from the Paper, and I understand he has now gone into partnership with the noble and learned Lord. But since his grounds of objection are different from those of Lord Buckmaster I would like to say one word about them. The noble Lord is interested in roads. He is a member of the Road Board, and I understand he objects to the transfer of the powers of that Board to the new Ministry. The noble Lord has expressed his views recently very freely
872
in the public Press, and therefore I am able to gather from his articles the nature of his objections. The burden of the noble Lord's argument in these articles is somewhat as follows: the roads and railways are necessarily competing services; the new Ministry will be dominated by a railway interest and therefore the interest of the road users must necessarily suffer; this Ministry will be under the control of a great super-Boss, whose lust for power will compel him to get the roads of this country into his clutches, and when he has got them there lie will strangle them in order that the railways may be made to pay. That is the burden of the articles which the noble Lord has contributed to the Press.
It is all very shocking to those who only know this Bill through the speeches or articles of the noble Lord, but I venture to say it is a most fantastic conception of the policy of the Government or the provisions of the Bill. I have already pointed out to your Lordships the kind of inaccuracies which have been stated, with regard to this Bill, about roads, and based upon such inaccurate statements the noble Lord has pleaded that the roads should be taken out of this Bill. He will no doubt urge the same course upon your Lordships this afternoon. If he is successful he will create exactly the sort of mischief which he fears at the present time. Just imagine what the position of the roads would be if they were left under the control of the Road Board, which has no Minister to represent it in Parliament, and all the other transport interests were placed under the control of this super-Boss. There would be a competition in which the roads would have no chance whatever.
For the purpose of argument I will assume for a monent that the picture which has drawn of the character and objects of the Minister is accurate. How would he act if the noble Lord secures what he wants?—if he is deprived of all responsibility in respect of the repair or upkeep of roads. If he finds, as he will at this moment, that his railway system is congested, he can authorise the companies to start a service of motor omnibuses to relieve it, he can use the roads as much as he pleases, and inflict any amount of damage upon them, and put the local authorities to enormous expense, and yet he would have no power to contribute anything towards the cost of repairs. My Lords, the position at this moment is not so much a question of putting fresh traffic upon the railways as of easing

873
the traffic and getting rid of the present congestion. What would be the position if the Minister were called upon, as probably he will be, by some public Department or local authority to give a new service—perhaps for the improvement of housing or of agriculture. The Minister might know that the service could best be rendered by making a new road. He might feel that the traffic was of a seasonal character, best dealt with by a road, but having no powers over roads at all he would be compelled to lay down a light railway, and thus be forced to an extravagant, unwise and uneconomical arrangement, because he has no power of dealing with the problem in the best way.
My Lords, this talk about roads and railways, about competing services and rival interests, is very small, very petty, when we consider the magnitude of the issues involved. We have been thinking for too long in terms of roads and railways, and it is that which has brought us to the present position. If we are to survive, and if we are to recover from the position in which we have been placed by the war, we must accustom ourselves to think in terms of movement. Everything that moves or can carry, either upon the roads, the rail or by water, must be brought in and made to contribute to the solution of the difficulty. The country is to-day exhausted after four years of war. What it needs is food. Not merely food to eat but food for manufactures in the nature of raw material, plant and labour. Again, the country is impoverished. What it wants is wealth. Wealth means the products of industries, and these in turn have got to be conveyed by the quickest way to all the markets of the world. All this -means movement, and that is the need of the moment—the most efficient., rapid and constant movement—and it is because this Bill will go a long way to supply that that I recommend it in all sincerity and with perfect confidence to the favourable consideration of your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
LORD BUCKMASTER had given notice, on the Order for the Second. Reading being read, to move to resolve—
That this House declines to proceed with the Second Reading of this Bill until the Government has stated its
874
policy with regard to the nationalisation of the railways, and has furnished further information with regard to the extent of the financial obligations imposed by the Bill and the measures it is proposed to adopt by which those obligations can be met.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, if the success of this measure depended solely upon the skill and lucidity with which the noble Earl has explained its terms, its popularity would be assured, but in fact there are difficult and ugly questions that lie behind this proposal which no amount of persuasion can take away. In truth the whole structure of this Bill rests upon disputed territory. It is an attempt to place not merely existing transport, but the entire development of the transport industry of this country, for a period of two years at least, under Government control. It is not merely that it is an attempt to enable the Government, by the further continuance of its control over the railways, to extricate itself from the loss and difficulties which that control has occasioned, but it is co enable the Govern-merit, and the Government alone, to direct during the continuance of this measure every additional means that may be devised for the purpose of improving the transport, of this country.
I think the fundamental fallacy that underlay the whole of the noble Earl's argument was this, that he assumed that unity of control was in itself a sufficient explanation and justification of this measure; but, my Lords, the whole thing depends upon by whom that unity of control is to be exercised. In fact, why I say this Bill rests upon disputed territory is that it is impossible to escape from the conclusion, that the passage of this measure is the concession of one of the most important outposts in the struggle that is bound to take place between private and national ownership of the means of wealth. 'That is a struggle upon which we have got to make up our minds, and the sooner we face it the better. I do not agree with the noble Earl when he says that during the limited period for which this Bill operates it does not provide for nationalisation. It provides for nationalisation in everything except in the one thing of paying for the undertakings which are taken over. What greater powers could be possessed, if these railways were absolutely owned by the State, than the power which is given by

875
Clause 3, subsection 1 (c), which enacts that "the directors and other persons concerned with the management, and officers and servants of any undertaking" are to obey "the directions of the Minister … in relation to any undertaking or part or plant thereof of which possession is re-tamed or taken" in certain respects which together cover the whole area of management. There will be nothing upon which independent action can be exercised, if this measure be passed, in connection with any one of the undertakings which the Government control. Apart from the mere question of the payment for the undertaking that is taken over during the period of this Bill, nationalisation is complete.
But it is not merely that. The Government have power to direct all further extensions, and they have power of the most extensive character to establish and work transport services by land and water, and acquire land, etc. I gather that that is the power which is not limited by the two years to which the noble Earl refers. The noble Earl pointed out that there were two parts of the Bill, one of which was temporary and the other permanent, but he did not explain, what I was anxious to hear, what the permanent part was. I imagine that it is under Section 9. The Government have established permanently transport services by land and water, and I imagine that they have established there for the purpose of knitting them into the whole system of railways which they are going to control. How, after the lapse of two years, are you going to disentangle them? How will it be possible for the Ministry to continue to work the transport services under Section 9 without also having the power of continuing to work the other transport services that they have obtained under the earlier section of the Bill?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: May I explain. Any service started during this two years will of course be continued after that period ceases, but there is provision that no new service may be commenced without the authority of Parliament after two years.
LORD BUCKMASTER: That is exactly what I am saying. It is the next two years when this development of the transport service is most essential, and you are going to introduce into what he says ought to be one whole and co-ordinated system of transport a series of new lines and new services which, at the expiration of the
876
two years, are permanently to remain in the hands of the Government for the Government to work, and it is assumed that you can hand over the balance back again to the individuals from whom they have been acquired. I submit it is impossible. I submit that this Bill in its effect and operation is a step along the road towards nationalisation of the whole of the transport services in this country. I cannot accept what the noble Earl says that the whole policy is contained in this Bill, and we must wait for two years to see what their policy will be. It is not I submit open to the Government to take that view, because a responsible Minister of the Crown at the time of the election said in plain language that the policy of the Government was to nationalise the railways, and although on a former debate I asked three times as to whether or not that statement was made with the authority of the Government, up to this time I have never received an answer. But the time has surely come when that answer has to be given, when we should know whether that statement was an utterly irresponsible one which had no authority whatever behind it, or whether it did in fact express the complete and considered policy of His Majesty's Government. This is to my mind the outpost in the whole controversy between nationalisation and individual ownership. It is a point upon which it is essential that we should make up our minds and act.
I saw in a paper yesterday that the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland, bad expressed himself in terms that he regarded this scheme of nationalisation as part of a class war. I trust the noble Duke will forgive me if I say that I regret the expression. To make such a statement is to my mind at once to confuse the real issue, and to taint the justice of the decision of this House. It is not a question as between class interest. It is a question which involves the clash of economic theories, and the question is whether the economic theory of individual ownership is to hold its ground against the theory of national ownership which is being so ardently urged. Both policies I believe seek the same end. I am opposed to nationalisation because I believe nationalisation will prove nothing but a curse to the poorer people of this country. I believe it will diminish the one thing that is essential if the condition of industrial people is to be maintained and even improved. It will diminish the production of the commodities

877
necessary for the support of life, on the abundant development of which alone we Call make the condition of the lot of the people of this country easier than it has been before.
Our objection as between individual and national ownership is upon these grounds: I and people who think with me believe that no success can be obtained in industries except by incessant and unsparing effort, and in order that it may be achieved men cannot work—I am not speaking of people engaged in industry; I mean the people at the head—limited hours, and they cannot be content with limited salaries. The real incentive to effort is the spur of ambition, the hope of reward, the fear of failure. And it is because these are lacking in Government control that sooner or later every Government Department that undertakes any great industry—though it be manned by men of great intelligence and Men whose integrity is higher than that of any civil servant in the world—becomes the home of waste and the grave of enterprise. Therefore I think we are entitled to know something more than the noble Earl has told us with regard to this question of nationalisation. We want to know whether the Government is at this time seriously contemplating that they are going to cut loose, at the end of this Bill, the new branches and services that they develop, and hand back the others to the people from whom they have taken them, and continue to work under Government control this mutilated and amputated fraction of a great whole?
That leads me—for I do not propose at this time to examine in detail the measures of this Bill—to the second question in the Motion that I have put down in my name. We surely ought to know to what it is that this Bill is going to commit us. It is going to commit this country to the expenditure that is required for such alteration and such extension as the head of this Department may believe to be necessary for the purpose of properly developing the transport industry. The limit of that no man can fix. I have seen it stated at £60,000,000. It is perfectly true that there are these limits imposed, that individual efforts cannot exceed £500,000 or £1,000,000 without the sanction of Parliament. But when that expenditure has been incurred and a Minister comes down to the House of Commons and says, "I have already begun this; it is absolutely
878
essential we must carry it on," he will use exactly the same argument that the noble Earl has been using here to-day, and saying that further money must be provided or the money already spent will be irretrievably lost. It is quite plain that the limit imposed will soon be exceeded, and that we shall find that we are face to face with an expenditure far greater than that which we contemplated.
The noble Earl has asked what is the alternative policy, and has said that we must produce one. I do not conceive that we are bound to produce any alternative policy at all, but I here is an alternative, and that is that tae Government should continue the control that already exists of the undertakings that are in their hands until they have cleared them up. And, when they say that in the course of that control we have incurred heavy liabilities, that in itself is no reason why they should have powers to obtain further control in order to minimise the loss which they have already incurred en those undertakings that are under their power.
The final part of the Motion which stanch, in my name is, I think, by far the most serious. I want to know if this measure is going to cost us £20,000,000, £30,000,000, £40,000,000 or £50,000,000, and—whatever it may be—how the Government proposes to raise the money. It is a matter of immense consequence, and I trust your Lordships will allow me to lay before you what appears to me at this time to be the true financial position of this country. There is no longer any reason why people should hesitate to speak about it. I have always thought that skeletons are only terrifying objects when you hide them in cupboards, and if you bring them out into the open day they cease to horrify. And if anything that I say is wrong no one would be better pleased than myself to have it corrected, but, if the view that I take of our present financial position be right, it is then incumbent upon the Government without delay to take steps to regulate our expenditure so that it does not exceed the amount that, with every reasonable and just expectation, we may hope to realise from the revenue of this country.
Let us deal for a moment with the expenditure to which we are bound—and I am only going to deal with main items and big things. There is no doubt that the interest on our Debt at the present moment,

879
as provided for by the Budget itself, is £376,000,000. I do not know whether that includes the interest on the loans which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has raised and proposes to raise during these twelve months, but I do not think I shall be exceeding the mark if I say that, when you have established a sinking fund and have raised the money that is necessary under this year's Budget, £400,000,000 a year will be the amount that we shall be compelled to provide in order to cover the interest and the sinking fund on the standing and irreducible charges to which we are committed.
Let us now turn to the next expenditure. I believe that every member of your Lordships' House will agree with me that next after that, and before anything else, comes the pensions which we have to provide for the wives and families of the men who have sacrificed themselves in our defence during the war. It is entered in the Budget at £70,000,000. I think myself that will prove to be inadequate. I do not believe that we shall be able to discharge the duty we owe for that sum. Because it is incumbent upon us to see that no man who has been crippled or suffered in this struggle can ever hereafter be brought before us a reproach owing to the neglect of the nation to secure him against the difficulties and disadvantages in which he will stand. I do not think £70,000,000 will be adequate, but I will take £70,000,000 as the figure.
There is, then, £35,000,000 for education, which cannot possibly be reduced. There follows on that £17,000,000 for old-age pensions, and £13,000,000 for industrial insurance—and no one of these figures can be reduced. I think your Lordships will find that this amounts to £143,000,000 on the Civil List. And I have hardly begun to touch expenditure yet. Added on to that you have to face this, that the Housing Bill, which provides for the erection of one million houses, must be considered as a Bill under which we shall incur an annual liability of not less than £20,000,000 a year. I have put it at the lowest figure, but I am quite satisfied that, taking them all round, each house that is built under this scheme will cost the State an annual expenditure of £20—that is, the difference bet weep the amount that you will have to pay on the money for building each house and the amount that you will be able to obtain from the person who occupies it. I
880
think that is an under-estimate. I say nothing about the essential need of it; it it absolutely essential that we should take steps without delay to re-house our people; but we are going to incur an expenditure of £20,000,000 a for the purpose. That makes £163,000,000 on your Civil List. The present loss on the railways, the noble Earl tells us, is £60,000,000 a year. It. may be more, but at any rate there is an obligation of £50,000,000 that we have got to meet. That would make roughly £210,000,000.
I have not touched the expenses of any single one of the innumerable Government Departments, except Education, and it is impossible to estimate what their expenses will run up to. They are all lumped together in the Budget under a lump sum. I suppose, if you take the total expenditure, knowing how these Ministries multiply and how difficult it is to get rid of the ones whose functions have been fulfilled, it would not be excessive to take £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 for that, thus making £250,000,000 as the amount of your Civil Estimates which are irreducible—that is to say, an estimate which is not merely with us to-day, not merely the temporary legacy of the war, but the permanent burden that we have to meet. That is £650,000,000.
And now there remains the Army, the Navy and the Air Service. I cannot credit the statement that has been made in the papers that an American general has assured a Committee of Congress of the United States that there has been an arrangement that we shall keep up our forces at four times the established strength that they were before the war. I cannot credit that; it seems to me to be beyond belief. It ought at least to be denied, for it has been made apparently with authority. I disregard it. Our expenditure on our Forces before the war altogether amounted' to very nearly £100,000,000. Will any one say that our irreducible minimum can be put at less than £150,000,000 when everything is cut down? £150,000,000 added to the figures I have given will make a total net immovable figure of £800,000,000 a year that we will have to face.
And how are we going to meet it? The indirect taxation at the present rate is £237,000,000 a year. I doubt if any one will think that you can increase that, because, if you add to the prices, you will reduce the returns, and £237,000 000 a

881
year may be regarded as the fixed figure. Then conies £12,000,000 or so for stamps. You may take the amount of the two at £250,000,000. That leaves £550,000,000 which has to be raised annually by direct taxation. I do not ere how you distribute it is between excess profits tax and super-tax and income-tax (probably the excess profits tax will go) £550,000,000 has got to be produced. At the present; time 1d. in the £ income-tax produces £5,000,000 a year, and you will therefore have to have an income-tax, to meet that figure or its equivalent., of 9s. 2d. in tire £.
And that assumes that our industries remain thriving and flourishing—that the returns will remain elastic and high. It is only on that basis that 1d. in the £ produces your £5,000,000, and I think a person would be sanguine who would suggest that in tire near future it is going to produce more. Therefore at the present time if our finance were on a sound footing that would be the amount that would have to be levied in some form or another on the income of this country to meet the expenditure which I have mentioned and which does not touch anything under this Bill, nor any of the undertakings to which the Government appears to be committed.
Then it may be said, "But this is a concern for which we shall have to borrow; capital expenditure is necessary, therefore it permissible to borrow it on capital account." Are you going to borrow the money? We have just had a very large Loan extensively advertised. I cannot say that the forms of the advertisements appealed to me. It did not seem to me that it was quite consistent with the dignity of this country to have placards on Government buildings, facing the members of the two Houses of 'Parliament, imploring to buy Victory Loan and "to follow Sam Butcher." It does not appear to me to show any great confidence in the resources of this country to advertise our loans with bands and banners, and all the, as I think, humiliating machinery of modern advertisement. But it was all used, and what is the result? £530,000,000 new money has been obtained, but that is £530,000,000 of the face value of the Loan subscribed for. If you reduce it by the 15 per cent. you will get £150,000,000. Of that it is easy to compute that the banks provided £100,000,000, and I have heard competent authorities say—though I myself do not profess to be able
882
to test this figure—that the loans made by banks to customers to enable them to subscribe amount to nearly £100,000,000. No man can call that new money; that is simply transferring a liability from one pocket to another.
That leaves £230,000,000, or whatever it may be, as the new money raised by this loan. Do you think that in those circumstances you are going to be able to avail yourselves of the great resources of this country whenever you need for the purpose of financing these schemes? What is the explanation of why more money was not provided? I think tire explanation is perfectly plain; it is t hat no one in industry knows where he stands. People in industry have no idea as to what the next step is that the Government will take; they do not know where they stand with regard to Labour; they do not know where they stand with regard to Government control. The consequence is that at a moment when above everything else we want boldness of decision and enterprise in industry, industry halts and hesitates because it is uncertain as to what may be the next blow which will be dealt it. The old system of Party Government had many defects, but it had the outstanding merit that from the moment a Government was sent into power people in industry knew where they were. They might not like the policy of the Government, but at least they knew what it was, and, within certain limits, what was going to be done and how to accommodate and to adjust themselves accordingly. But at the present time no one knows where he stands. The people never know what the next measure to going to be, and they never know the extent to which a measure like this is going to interrupt and to cut across the old paths of business along which their industry has been conducted.
I saw it stated the other day that the Prime Minister had said that this war had taught him that economic laws could be violated with impunity. I will suggest to your Lordships three economic laws which have been violated, and you will know whether or not they have been violated with impunity. The first great economic law is—it is very obvious—that if you inflate your currency you inflate prices; if you add to the burden of your debt you adversely affect foreign exchanges; and the result of these two operations is to produce social and industrial unrest. I would like to know which of those economic

883
laws has been falsified by the circumstances as we know them to-day. Social and industrial unrest is round us wherever we turn. One of the reasons I believe to be that, as the Government has not stated in plain and unmistakable language what its policy is with regard to the nationalisation of the railways and with regard to the nationalisation of the mines, people engaged in those industries—mistakenly as I think—believe that they can obtain their desire by continual agitation and disturbance. If the Government policy were once made plain, either on the one side or on the other, people would know where they stood, and we should be able to reason this matter out and see what was the right and just conclusion to which to come.
I must say that the prospect I see around me does not fill me with great confidence or pleasure. You have merely to look at the newspapers every day to see that old estates, associated with the same family sometimes for many many years and lit up with their own history, are being broken to pieces under the auctioneer's hammer. You find that personal heirlooms, which though they are private property none the less have always been regarded by us all with national pride, are filling the salerooms and freighting all vessels on their outward voyages. Sometimes one thinks that it is not merely that the old order is passing away, it seems that it has already passed and that we are moving in the vortex rings of a new world. I am often accused of pessimism, but I am no pessimist. I believe that, given courage and resolute economy and some chance of introducing into our industrial life some of the glorious comradeship which we all knew in the war, it might vet be possible to rebuild this broken world in a better form than the world that has passed away. The true pessimists are not people who, like myself, are anxious to know what are the true limits of our financial capacities and how we are going to meet the burdens that are being put upon us; they are the people who will mortgage the future without knowing how the debt is going to be redeemed, who think that economic laws can be violated with impunity, and who think that the difficulty of to-day may be avoided without regard to the question of how much greater the difficulty may be in a few days to come.
I believe that in regard to this Bill, and in regard to all Bills that come before your
884
Lordships involving public expenditure, a very solemn responsibility is placed upon this House. We no longer have the power to deal with the Budget, but it rests with us so far as is possible to keep public finance under control by considering the extent to which we are pledging, I beg your Lordships to understand, not ourselves, not the members of this House but the people of this country, by such obligations as are placed upon them by this Bill. The importance of discharging that duty cannot, I think, be too strongly emphasised; because, unless some step is taken quickly to reduce both public and private extravagance, bankruptcy lies before this country, and behind bankruptcy treads revolution with swift, impatient feet.
Moved to resolve, That this House declines to proceed with the Second Reading of this Bill until the Government has stated its policy with regard to the nationalisation of the railways, and has furnished further information with regard to the extent of the financial obligations imposed by the Bill and the measures it is proposed to adopt by which these obligations can be met.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I am prepared to agree to the adjournment of this debate until Wednesday. I should like to move that the adjourned debate be taken first on Wednesday, in order to enable us to pursue the discussion throughout the greater part of that day. As regards the progress of the Bill, I hope if we sit at three o'clock on Wednesday, assuming the Motion I have made to be carried, we should then resume this discussion at that hour, and that noble Lords would be able to give us the Second Reading of the Bill in the course of that afternoon. It is for them to say whether they prefer to give it to us before dinner or after dinner, but I hope it will be a general understanding that we obtain the Second Reading on that date. I shall then ask your Lordships to take the Committee stage on Monday.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, so far as the resumed debate on Wednesday is concerned, I share the hope that it may be found possible to conclude the debate on the Second Reading on that day,

885
although I think your Lordships would all agree that it is but a short time to give to the discussion of matters of vast importance such as those which have just been dwelt upon by my noble and learned friend behind me. If, however, it is the general sense of the House that the debate can be concluded then, I should not think of raising objections.
As regards the taking of the Committee on Monday next, I think the noble Earl will agree that this is rather a short interval between the Second Reading and the Committee for a measure of this great importance. I do riot know how far it is the desire of noble Lords in all parts of the House to put down Amendments upon this very large and complicated Bill, but it may be taken for granted that some Amendments of serious moment will be moved, assuming the Bill to be carried on Second Reading, and if noble Lords could be given a little more time it would probably be welcome to your Lordships generally. I am not, however, in a position to speak for anything like the whole House on this particular point of Amendments, and therefore, I can merely appeal to the noble Earl to give a day or two more if he can.
LORD STRACHIE: Before the Leader of the House replies, may I ask the noble Earl, as I have a Motion on Wednesday in which the agriculturists of this country take great interest, whether when he puts down the Transport Bill for Monday in Committee, he also means to move the suspension of the Standing Order so as to give precedence to the Committee stage as well, or shall I be able to have my Motion on that day as the first Order?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: It is a little difficult to answer that question across the floor of the House. I should have endeavoured to see my noble friend behind the Chair had I been fortunate enough to find him, to ask his courtesy in postponing his Motion on Wednesday. I only made my Motion just now, because it is the last moment at which it can be made. I should not like to answer definitely with regard to Monday, but I will endeavour to suit the convenience of the noble Lord to the best of my ability.
As regards the appeal made by the Leader of the Opposition, may I say that I should be only too glad to secure to your Lordships' House a longer interval between the Second Reading and the Committee.
886
But really is the matter of as much importance as the noble Marquess appears to argue? After all, the material point is not the date at which the Second Reading is given to a Bill; the material point is the date at which the Bill is in the possession of the House. It does not seem to me to matter very much whether the Second Reading is taken to-night, to-morrow, or Wednesday, providing there is an interval in which noble Lords can be making up their minds as to the Amendments they desire to move—that is, the period from when the Bill is put into their hands to the period at which they are to take the Committee stage. As the Bill has been in print a day or two, I think your Lordships will be able in the week between now and Monday next to make Your arrangements in order to commence the Committee stage on that date.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl has dealt with the matter with so much courtesy that I feel we ought to try to do what we can to support him. I am very glad that he consented to allow the debate to stand over from now until Wednesday. I think, speaking for myself, that the arrangement under which he proposes to conclude the discussion on Wednesday is not unreasonable in the circumstances of the case, although, as the noble Marquess behind me has said it, does not give very much time for the Second Reading of the biggest Bill of this session, and probably the biggest Bill of the last twenty or thirty years.
When, however, the Bill reaches the Committee stage all we can do is to see whether we can manage to comply with the wish of the Leader of the House. He says it does not very much matter when the Committee stage is fixed after the Second Reading. I suppose he suggests that if noble Lords have made up their minds early in the proceedings on the Second Reading they will not alter them at all afterwards. I think my noble friend does not give much weight to the discussions on Second Reading in your Lordships' House. He seems to think that Amendments moved in Committee will be just the same whatever the course of the Second Reading. The eloquence of my noble friend and his colleagues may be such as to induce his friends not to move Amendments, or to move them rather differently. It is not possible to consider what Amendments will be moved in Committee until the Second Reading is con

887
cluded. Those are reasons which make it less easy than it would otherwise be to comply with my noble friend's request. It may be possible to take the Committee stage on Monday, but I doubt whether your Lordships will find it convenient to deal with so important a measure in Committee so soon after the Second Reading. We will, however, do what we can.
On Question, debate adjourned until Wednesday, and to have precedence of the other Notices and Orders of the Day.

INTESTATE MOVEABLE SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to Order).
CITY OF LONDON POLICE BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of July 17.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
London County Council (Money).
Birmingham Corporation.
Also the Certificates that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders.
Commons Regulations (Coity Wallia) Provisional Order.
And also the Certificates that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders.
Gas and Water Provisional Order.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Report from the Committee of Selection, that the Lords following be proposed to the House as the panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act, viz.:

M. Linlithgow;

L. Kintore (E. Kintore);

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

BOURNEMOUTH GAS AND WATER BILL.
The Kings consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
BRITISH AND CONTINENTAL BANK BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
STRETFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
The CHAIRMAN Of COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on the 3rd instant and Tuesday last discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
WORKINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS.
Petition for Bill.
Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.