Lords Sitting of 24 July 1919

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

BEDWELLTY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
WORKINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTINC PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Read 2a.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That Standing Orders No. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being suspended for this day's sitting, so that the Treaty of Peace Bill and the Anglo-French Treaty (Defence of France) Bill may have precedence of the other Notices and Orders of the Day, and that it may be possible to pass them through all stages.—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TREATY OF PEACE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, this Bill, to which I have the honour to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading, is not, for the reasons which I explained the other day, a Bill ratifying the Treaty of Peace that has been concluded between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany, but it is a Bill giving power for the execution of the Treaty in certain respects for which Parliamentary sanction is required. They are defined in the clauses of the Bill. There is practically only one substantial clause, with three subsections. The first of those subsections gives power to His Majesty to make appointments, to
1008
establish offices, and to issue Orders in Council for carrying out the provisions of the Treaty. The second subsection provides that the Orders in Council may impose penalties, and shall be laid, according to the ordinary practice, before Parliament. The third subsection provides that any expenses incurred in carrying out the Treaty shall be placed on the Parliamentary Votes in the usual manner. Any explanation that your Lordships may desire on any of these points I shall be willing to give. I do not think that it is any part of my province to-day to enlarge upon the Peace Treaty itself. I am afraid that I consumed a very great and perhaps almost unreasonable space of your Lordships' time ten days ago in attempting an analysis and a summary of the provisions of the Treaty. I certainly have no intention of repeating that this afternoon, but will hold myself ready to answer any questions that any noble Lord may think it desirable to put. With this brief explanation I now move the Second Reading of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, the Motion made by the noble Earl for the consent of Parliament to action by the Crown in carrying into effect the provisions of the Treaty of Peace raises the whole question of the Treaty, and gives us an opportunity of entering into an enormous and boundless field of comment and discussion. Into that field I shall not enter. A famous line of poetry says—
"Not Heaven itself upon the past has power."
Parliament cannot alter what is past. We are presented with a Treaty which has taken a long time to discuss and settle. It has been the result of immensely complicated negotiations, and I do not see how we can reopen it now. Had we known more of what was passing while those negotiations were going on, Parliament might perhaps have profitably, at some stages of the discussions, said something which would have been of value to the negotiators. Of course, I should be the last person to suggest that negotiations can be conducted in public. Those of us who have had any experience of diplomatic discussions know how impossible that is. But I may ask, I think with. propriety, what information is going to be given to us as to the means and methods which guided, and

1009
the considerations which influenced, the Powers in coming to the conclusions that are embodied in this Treaty.
I have had on the Paper for some time, having postponed it from time to time at the request of His Majesty's Government, a Question which appears on the Paper to-day, which perhaps I may put to the noble Earl now as it is undoubtedly germane to the purpose of our discussion this afternoon. It is this—
To ask His Majesty's Government in what form it is proposed to present to Parliament an account of the negotiations which have led to the settlement of the terms of peace proposed to Germany and Austria, and to the conclusion of whatever peace may be ultimately signed with the latter State?
Your Lordships will remember what happened at the time of the conclusion of the Treaty of Berlin. There was presented to Parliament an immensely long Despatch enclosing a report of the discussions of the Congress of Berlin. It was, I think, a report of 180 folio pages. It gave us a very full account of what passed at the different sittings of the Conference presided over by Prince Bismarck. I do not, of course, know what the methods followed at the Berlin Congress were, but probably they were entirely different from those followed at the Paris Conference, and I do not suggest that an equally full narrative is possible now (if rumour be true as to the way the discussions were conducted). Still, in some form or other, I think we I may take it that His Majesty's Government will wish to present to us a report explaining the methods by which the conclusions embodied in the Treaty were reached. Therefore I ask the noble Earl, when he replies, if he will be good enough to answer the Question which is on the. Paper, and which it might be convenient to dispose of at once.
I pass away free that and the contents of the Treaty altogether, except in so far as the Treaty embodies the League of Nations. I shall have a few observations to make presently upon the League of Nations, and they will, I take it, be in order, as the Covenant of the League of Nations is part of this Treaty. I will only say that while there are many things to rejoice us in the Treaty, there are also some things to regret. I am sorely
1010
tempted to comment upon one of those things—namely, the case of Shantung. But I suppose I had better refrain from raising that question at this moment.
And I will not use more than a few sentences about a question which, though not of permanent and intrinsic importance, has provoked a. large amount of debate and discussion -the question of whether it is desirable to indict and try the German Emperor, and, if so where and how he shall be tried. Just one remark I will make upon that which seems to me to go to the kernel of the matter. There are two aspects of the proposal to have, such a trial. One relates to ourselves and the other Allies, and the other relates to the neutral countries and the countries recently at war with us. So far as the question relates to ourselves, we have already completely formed a judgment that nothing is likely to alter. A more grass violation of international morality as well as of treaties, and one which was fraught with more terrible consequences than the invasion of Belgium and the detestable treatment of non-combatants which followed upon that both in Belgium and Northern France, it is impossible to imagine. There has hardly been a greater crime recorded in history. We, therefore, are completely convinced of the greatness of the crime, and I think we are convinced of the responsibility not of one person alone—the nominal head of the State—but of all those who surrounded him and in whose hands he was. We have full evidence of their responsibility, and history has already ample materials for forming a judgment upon the matter.
But if we turn to the effect to be produced upon neutral countries and upon the countries which have recently been at war with us, the matter assumes a somewhat different aspect. It may be asked, in the first place, what precedent there is for any such trial. What precedent is there for the trial of the head of a State? A good many instances have been cited, but curiously enough the only instance. I have been able to think of which is parallel to this is an instance very far back in history—the instance of the judicial murder of Conradin, King of Sicily, by Charles of Anjou in 1268; and that was considered at the time such an atrocious act that no one would think of citing it as a precedent. Further, what precedent is there for trying an offence committed in another country over which we and the

1011
Allies have no jurisdiction? What precedent is there for holding a trial of this kind in the country which has been at war with the country of the person who is to be tried, and what effect will be produced by the trial of an offender of this eminence by his enemies? All these are questions of some importance. What is said to be desired is that this trial shall be a vindication of international morality, standing as a monument for the future, and influencing the opinion of the world now. But so far as we are concerned, it does not seem to be needed; and so far as neutral countries and the enemy countries are concerned may it not rather tend to make the culprit who is arraigned an object of commiseration and sympathy, and in that way produce a different effect from that which its advocates desire?
I pass away from that—I mentioned it merely in order that I may not appear to ignore a matter that has aroused so much public interest—and I turn to the future. There are, I think, very few people in England or in the countries associated with us who realise the vastness of the task to which the Conference had to address itself in Paris. If we go back to all the great European settlements of the last 300 years; if we compare the problems that lay before the Conference at Paris with those that occupied the people who negotiated the Peace of Westphalia in the middle of the seventeenth century or with those dealt with in the Peace of Utrecht, or with those of the European settlement made at the Congress of Vienna, or with those in our own memory which arose at the Congress of Berlin where a sort of settlement was made—then we feel that none of those are in any way comparable to the magnitude of the task which has been carried on and is being carried on in Paris.
Neither is it yet generally understood how much remains to be done and how comparatively small a part of the re-settlement of the territories of the world has been completed by the Treaty which is now before your Lordships. There are three groups of countries remaining in which difficulties of the utmost intricacy and complication arise, which it will need all the energy and all the wisdom that the most skilled and best-informed men possess to solve. And the Treaty of Berlin in that respect is a warning to us. It left many injustices and many dangers existing, and they proved a constant danger to the peace of Europe.
1012
And its provisions were never fairly carried out. More than thirty years of unrest and suffering were caused to the. Balkan peninsula—and I might add in Western Asia also—be the settlement which was attempted to be made in the Treaty of Berlin. It is not too much to say that the Failure of the Treaty of Berlin to settle the question of time Balkans was one of the causes which brought about the present war. It is surely incumbent upon us to try to be warned by that disastrous precedent. Of course, I am not saving this by way of recrimination or condemnation of those who negotiated the Treaty of Berlin. They had great difficulties to face, and if there is any blame it is to be divided in many quarters. I am merely pointing out what was the result of leaving these questions ill adjusted. Let us try, therefore, to avoid leaving unsettled questions which give no peace to nations, both in the remaining treaties which have to be concluded—with Austria, Turkey, and Bulgaria—and also in carrying out the provisions of this Treaty with Germany.
I venture respectfully to suggest to your Lordships and to His Majesty's Government two methods in which these difficulties may be dealt with and the dangers incident to the conditions of the groups of countries still remaining to be handled may be avoided. One of them is to appoint, where there are grave difficulties and disputes regarding frontiers and regarding the rights of the nationalities which inhabit those countries, impartial Commissions to make an investigation upon the spot, where necessary, and to report to the Conference upon the facts which they have ascertained. Hasty and ill-informed decisions arrived at by the Conference may be fatal to future peace A Commission has already been sent out to Syria which, I believe, is engaged in making inquiries there, and I suggest the Balkan countries and the Baltic countries also require similar treatment. There are many controversies there of the greatest possible difficulty, and an impartial report made by competent men, who lay down the lines which ought to be followed, having respect to the principle of nationality, and to the Principle of self-determination, would be of the greatest possible value to the negotiators when they are completing their task.
The other suggestion is that, wherever possible, there should be taken a popular vote, or what is called a plébiscite, of the

1013
population concerned in order to ascertain their wishes. That is already provided for by the Treaty before us as regards a certain part of East Prussia which is inhabited partly by a Polish (i.e. Slavonic) and partly by a Teutonic, population, and also as regards the part of Schleswig which is inhabited partly by Danes and partly by Germans; and these provisions seem to have been very carefully considered, and may, I think, be carried out with perfect fairness under the supervision of the League of Nations.
It is true that there are many questions of this kind where it is impossible to arrive at a satisfactory solution, sometimes because the two races are inextricably intermingled and almost equal in number, and sometimes because there are considerations of commerce, or possibly even of strategy, which may affect the decision. All I would represent to your Lordships is that as far as possible we ought to follow the principle of nationality, because it is the principle which is likely to give the maximum of contentment and of ac-quiescence in the settlement arrived at.
No such gross violation of the principle should be sanctioned as that which has been asked in respect of the German-speaking part of Tyrol. There you have more than 200,000 people who speak German, who have always spoken German, who have never been under the Government of any Italian Sovereign, who belong to the ancient County of Tyrol, which had nothing whatever to do with the Italian Bishopric of Trentino, and it is now proposed to hand over these people to an alien Government to which they are extremely unwilling to submit. And although I gather from the answer which was given to me the other day that some sort of acquiescence was given to this by His Majesty's Government five tears ago, it must be remembered that circumstances were then entirely different. Italy was then confronted by the great Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, one of the great military monarchies of the world. She will now be confronted to the North by a petty State with only about 7,000,000 people, perfectly unable to cope with a nation of 36,000,000.
I believe it has been suggested, in answer to the demand for a plébiscite, that if yon took a plébiscite of the whole of the Tyrol south of the Brenner (and in that case why not take it for all Tyrol north
1014
as well as south of the Brenner?) but if you took a plébiscite for Tyrol south of the Brenner, you would probably have an Italian majority. That is true. The population of the Italian Bishopric of Trentino is much larger than the population of Central Tyrol, the district which is proposed to be annexed to Italy. You might as well suggest that, for determining the future of Lithuania, you should take a plébiscite of the whole of Russia, or to bring it a little nearer to our own experience—you might as well suggest that You should solve the question of Ulster, or of the four or six north-eastern counties of Ulster, by taking a plébiscite of the whole of Ira land. Clearly no one in Ulster will acquiesce in taking a plébiscite which covered, not only the people affected, but a very large population outside. And it would be just as absurd to settle the Irish question by taking a plébiscite of all Ireland and saying that that was giving effect to the wishes of the people of Ulster as it would be to take a plébiscite of all Tyrol south of the Brenner and to say that that represents the wishes of the population which is affected in this particular case. However, I pass by that, having merely mentioned it because it is an illustration of the principle that ought to be followed in taking plébiscite s to ascertain the wishes of the population concerned.
There are three cases in which very great difficulties arise with regard to the determination of boundaries, and where the principle of nationalities requires to be considered. One of those is the Baltic region Esthonia Lithuania, Lett-land, and the. Ukraine. Upon this I will say nothing, bacause it is very hard, even with the aid of a map, to remember where the nationalities are and what they are. But there are also the Balkans, with which, of course, your Lordships are much more familiar. There are two countries or rather two peoples—there which present particular difficulties. There is the, Albanian population and there is the Bulgarian population. The Albanian population is mixed on the North with the Slavonic population and on the South with the Greek population, and it would be a matter of very great, difficulty to settle where the lines ought to be drawn to give to the Albanians a certain part of what they claim which would recognise the claims of the Albanian people themselves to have their wishes respected. I

1015
believe there is some danger that the two neighbour States may get more of Albania than they ought to have. The only fair way to deal with this will be to have an impartial examination on the spot.
The other question is that of the Bulgarian population in Southern Macedonia and South-Eastern Thrace. There, of course, we have a population which is different in race, speech and feeling from either the Serb population or the Greek population, and it would be a very great danger to future peace in the Balkans, indeed to the future peace of Europe, if a part of that population were assigned to the government of States between whom and that population there had already existed feelings of bitterness, which have become still more bitter owing to the strife that has unhappily prevailed in those countries during the last ten to fifteen years. To hand over populations to the rule of a Government to which they do not desire to be subjected would be only to create more unrest and more discontent and to sow the seeds of future wars. I do not know how these matters can be dealt with except by having a very careful public Inquiry- held, to be laid before the Conference when it comes to settle these questions.
Similar questions arise in Western Asia. There is not only the question as to the Turks and how much the Turkish Government should retain. I do not think, if I may say so, that even those who are most anxious to champion the rights of the Christian nationalities would be justified in objecting to the constitution of a Turkish Sultanate which was ruling over a Mahomedan population; and if there is any uneasiness with regard to the feelings of Mahomedans elsewhere I take it that those feelings would be satisfied by having a Turkish Sultanate with its capital at Brusa or Konia, so that there would still be a. Sultan who might be a Caliph if the Mahomedan world pleased. Therefore we need not suppose there is any inconsistency in allowing a Turkish Sultanate of that kind to survive. There is also the question in which the noble Earl takes a particular interest—namely, the extremely difficult question of the peoples who inhabit Trans-Caucasia, where a problem exists as difficult as any of the others.
May I add to what I have said by saying that it is not only important to avoid creating any fresh grievances but it is
1016
also imperative to give the world, and especially the populations concerned, the sense that justice has been done. It has been well said that Courts of Justice exist not only to do justice but to assure the world that justice has been done. That maxim applies here. We want not only to arrive at a just settlement but to let the nationalities concerned feel that their eases have been properly stated and heard, that each has had every opportunity of putting its ease, and that the settlement arrived at has been reached after an impartial consideration. I would like to add also that we ought not to start the League of Nations with a heavy load of evils and discontents already made for it. I hear it said in some quarters. "It does not much matter, the League of Nations will set it all right.'' I remember having heard it said in an inferior Court of Justice when a wrong decision was given that it mattered little what the Judge decided because the Court of Appeal would set him right. 'We do not want to hand these things over to the League of Nations as a Court of Appeal. We want to start the League of Nations with a clean slate and let it go upon its beneficent work without having difficulties ready made for it.
This leads me to say a few words about the League of Nations itself. It is the one great achievement which can cheer the world after the sufferings of this war, and after the display of wickedness and brutality which this war has brought to our knowledge. It is the one great ray of hope for the future; and I think that our thanks are justly due not only to the President of the United States and his colleagues who brought forward and urged that proposition in Paris but also to His Majesty's Government and Lord Robert Cecil for the cordial and consistent support they have given to the idea, doing all they can to turn what was a distant aspiration into an accomplished fact. Therefore, if I may presume to do so on behalf of those who have been working for this idea ever since the beginning of the war. I would say that we appreciate, and I am sure that in the United States there will be warm appreciation for, the part that His Majesty's Government have played in bringing this result about. We have gone as far as it is possible safely new to go in the constitution of the Covenant of the League of Nations. There have been some sanguine spirits who have talked about creating a sort of super-State, or

1017
what used lo be called "a Parliament of the world." But the world is not ripe for anything of that kind. National feelings and jealousy are far too strong to allow any project of that kind to succeed; and it seems to most of us who have considered the matter that the Covenant embodied in this Treaty goes as far as would be useful in the direction of creating an authority charged with the preservation of peace. The nations, in fact, have to be educated up to this idea; it is still above them, and it has not been fully comprehended.
I do not want for a moment and I do not think anybody who has studied the matter would wish—to underrate the difficulties which attend this matter. We feel them, perhaps, more strongly than the cynics who in clubs and newspapers deride the whole project. We know that the difficulties will require the utmost wisdom and care if the. League is to succeed. But after all, it is a great, departure towards good. It is a recognition of the unity of mankind; it is a recognition of the duty which peoples Owe to other peoples. It is the one attempt that has ever been made in the world, with any prospect of success, to make a permanent provision against the recurrence of calamities which would destroy civilisation itself. We feel that strongly with regard to the provision for the mandates in the case of backward races. If there were nothing but that in the Covenant of the League of Nations we might be glad to have it. The treatment of the backward races of mankind, ever since the Spanish Conquest of South America and the days of the slave trade, has been the greatest blot upon Christian nations, or shall I say upon so-called Christian nations who have never tried to apply Christian principles? But the work is by no means put through by the creation of this mandate. The greatest possible watchfulness will be required on the part of those who have to superintend the execution of the mandate by the Powers to whom the mandate has been committed. Things will be quite safe where this country has to carry out a mandate, as far as British administrators are concerned, because we all know that we have set an excellent example in doing the most that humane official administrators can do to protect native races. It is against exploiters and selfish adventurers that precautions have to be taken.
1018
There are now one or two suggestions would venture to make with regard to the League of Nations. In the first place, there is a matter which hits engaged great attention in the United States, amid which has been particularly dwelt upon by two statesmen there who have been doing their utmost to promote the acceptance of the League of Nations—namely, ex-President Taft and Mr. Elihu Root—I refer to the importance of using the League of Nations in order to create a better system of Inter-national Law. That is scarcely mentioned in the Covenant, and yet it is of the utmost importance. One of the first duties of the League will be to set a Commission to work to endeavour to codify and amend International Law—that is the medley of rules almost destroyed by the war, that used to be called International Law. In the second place, there is the immediate constitution of an International Court of Justice. That is only foreshadowed in the Covenant, but it is really one of the most important things to be dealt with. It is mach better, instead of trusting to parties to choose their Courts from time to time, to have a permanent Court constituted of the very, best men in the world who can be found to undertake the duties, and to give them time to create by their decisions a sort of international jurisprudence based upon the precedents set by their decisions.
Further, it seems important that the proceedings of the League of Nations authorities, not only of the General Assembly but also of the Council, should as far as possible receive publicity. What we want to do is to form a public opinion in the world. It is very undesirable that the League of Nations should rely upon force, if force can be avoided. It is very undesirable that it should even have recourse to the weapon, powerful as that weapon is, of commercial boycot. It is very much better that the League of Nations should act by appealing to the conscience of the world, and it can only do so if it gives as much publicity as possible to its proceedings and to the information upon which its proceedings are grounded. When, for instance, it has to undertake tile work of reconciliation, the work of endeavouring to solve difficulties that are arising between two countries and to find a proper compromise between their respective claims, the public opinion of the world would be greatly helped if

1019
there were an Inquiry which ascertained all the facts, which summarised and stated all the arguments, and which also set out the conclusions to which those arguments led and in that way gave public opinion the opportunity of throwing its weight upon the side to which justice seemed to belong. Therefore although there must be parts of the business of the League of Nations which can only be done in private, the more its business can be done in such a way to carry the public opinion of the world with it, the stronger will the League be and the more rapid will be the education of public opinion itself.
What is wanted, my Lords, is to give the League of Nations a moral authority which every one will recognise because it is based upon the opinion of many nations and not only of the two nations immediately concerned—a moral authority which will check attempts at rapacity or outbursts of race hatred. The world needs appeasement. We have in the League of Nations, if it succeeds the means of appeasing those hatreds that have hitherto created strife and the means of creating an atmosphere of good will and a sense of solidarity. We have made war during these five years on behalf of great ideals of ideals of right, of justice, and of compassion, and the victory that we have won has been above all things a victory for those ideals. We are bound to adhere to them and to pursue them in peace. We believe that the British people and the American people are united in their loyalty to these ideals, and that they will support their governments in carrying out the principles of the League of Nations if they are properly instructed and appealed to. The League of Nations rests upon the feeling that the world has now become one one in a new sense never dreamed of before; that the fortunes of each people affect those of all other peoples, and that the well-being of each makes for the well-being of all. The League of Nations if it has any truth, or reality, or force, rests on the belief that the community of the world requires that a new spirit should prevail in international relations—a spirit which seeks to substitute friendship for enmity. Each of the European countries, our own included, emerged from the sanguinary welter of the Middle Ages by realising in its own domestic affairs that order and peace and respect by each individual for the rights and feelings of every other individual were better for all than ferocious strife. All the nations now have to do the
1020
same thing; they have to try to apply, far as is possible, Christian principles to international relations—to work for reconciliation, and to make even the peoples that have been alienated feel that they are members of one great community in peace and good will. That will do more for the happiness of each and of all than strife has given or ever will give to even the strongest.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, there are only a few words that I desire to say, but I should be glad of your permission to add those few. In the first place, I think that every one who is considering this Treaty ought to bear in mind what was placed before us by the noble Earl the Leader of the House when he first explained the terms of Peace to your Lordships. We ought to realise the difficulties that the representatives of this country had to face in securing those terms, not only the difficulties that are plain and easily seen by all of us, but the difficulties which are probably more grave—the hidden difficulties—about which we can only guess, and of which we have no real knowledge at all. I felt that, when the noble Earl asked us to express some measure of gratitude to those who have been engaged in completing this work on our behalf, that expression ought not to be mitigated or withheld by any one who was of opinion, as I am, that the Treaty falls far short of what they hoped it would provide. In one respect (to which the noble Viscount has referred) the Treaty, although it has not realised the hopes of all of us, has at least achieved a very notable success; and when speaking, as I know I do, not only for myself but for many who were during the last three Years associated with me in an effort to make popular the idea of the League of Nations, I should like, on their behalf, to express our sense of obligation and gratitude to Lord Robert Cecil for the work he did in Paris.
NOBLE LORDS; Hear, hear.
LORD BUCKMASTER: We feel that we owe much to his courage, and that we owe still more to the high principle with which he has attempted to inspire his public utterances and our public life upon this question. I feel, with the noble Viscount who has just sat down, that, though the League of Nations is newly

1021
born and though it is in many respects imperfect, Yet in its development and in its future work lies the only hope of rest and repose for this troubled and tormented world.
The only other matter upon which I wish to speak is that connected with the part of the Treaty that deals with the trial of the late Emperor of Germany. I desire to ask your patience while I lay before you reasons which are, to my mind, convincing why the Government ought not to pursue that project any further. I think it is important to consider how it was that this demand for trial arose in the first place. It suddenly came to life at the time of the Election and the demand then was not for the trial of the Kaiser; the demand was for the punishment of the Kaiser, and the trial was a mere needless and tiresome preliminary to what they hoped to secure. The gusts of passion that were fierce at that time are, I believe, beginning to die down upon these great events. We are, at any rate, now face to face with the question as to whether it is in the best interests, not only of this country but of justice and of the future security of nations, that this project should be further pursued. I believe it is not.
It is important, I think, in considering that question to divest it from the other question with which it is too often associated, and that is the idea that people who, like myself, deprecate this proceeding are seeking to shelter a criminal because of his rank. That certainly has no part whatever in fashioning the views I hold. There have been grave, indisputable crimes committed in this war—crimes which it is impossible either to expiate or to redeem; crimes such as those associated with the sinking of vessels in open sea without giving the men upon them the barest chance of escape; crimes like the murder of unoffending civilian people; crimes like cruelty to captive prisoners; crimes which one could multiply in catalogues like that indefinitely. They are grave, indisputable crimes against well-known and well-established law, and, if you can find that any man is guilty of any of these crimes, I would say let the law take its course and let hint be punished, whoever he may be. But it is not for those crimes that this trial is to take place.
The ex-Kaiser is to be tried for crimes against international morality and breach of Treaty. But, as the noble Viscount
1022
said, has any one lit history ever heard of such a charge? It may be said that now is the time when you should create your new rules. Well and good. What is the international morality which it is said has been broken? If it be a breach of Treaty it is perfectly plain that there is no need to try any one about that, because the Treaty is broken and nobody doubts it. There is nothing to try. There is no issue. If you are going to try whether, according to the Constitution of Germany, the Kaiser was responsible for the breach, you are going to embark on an elaborate inquiry which it may take months and months to settle. And how are you going to settle it? You will be entitled—in fact, you will be bound—to summon all the witnesses, not merely from Germany but from any other of the Chancelleries of Europe, that the Kaiser desires to call in order to prove that, in fact, according to the Constitution of Germany he wins not responsible at all. It is quite plain that, according to laws which we well know, it is not enough to show that a man speaks in the name of a nation. You must how that the act is his and not the act of the people behind him.
I should be glad to know what evidence there is before the Government at the moment to lead them to believe that such all inquiry would come to the only. conclusion which could be regarded as successful—a conclusion which will condemn the man who is tried. For let there be no mistake—if this trial is to end in acquittal, though justice may be satisfied, the offence that will be caused to the people of this country will be something beyond belief.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD BUCKMASTER: And now, if this trial is to take place, how is it to be conducted and who are to constitute the Tribunal? It seems to be assumed in the newspapers that it will be the easiest thing in the world to appoint an English Judge to take part in this trial. I have already said in public, and I repeat, that this is no part of the duty of an English Judge. The names of two most eminent Judges have been mentioned in connection with the matter. People who have mentioned them do not seem to consider that both these eminent men have been associated, in one way or the other, with the Government during the prosecution of

1023
the war. You do not think you can get what will be regarded by neutral nations as an independent trial if you put one of the people who have been associated with the Government itself as one of the Judges; nor can you expect that other Judges will undertake this business gladly.
They may undertake it as they have, during the last few years, undertaken many distasteful and alien tasks, because they regard it as part of their duty to do what they can to help the Government of this country in a difficulty, but this work is not part of the work of an English Judge. The more the work of the English Bench is dissociated from active executive government the better. It is a great danger when you have Judges performing the work of the Government in any capacity except that in which they sit upon the Bench. It was a great Judge who said that an English Judge upon the Bench should neither court the smiles nor fear the frowns of any Government, and directly you associate them with the work of a Government and enable them to be thanked by a Government for what they have done, or to fear the Government's displeasure if they had not properly discharged the duty, you weaken the administration of justice in this country.
This is a moment above all others when it is of the utmost importance that the English Bench should stand perfectly free from the Government of the country. We are, as we all know, nearing a moment which may be very critical in the history of this country. There are great storms sweeping over Europe, and under the flood we may be submerged, but if you will leave the English Bench alone there is one thing which will remain steady and clear to time last—the light of English justice. I am anxious beyond all things that nothing should be done now by which that light may be dimmed; and to ask an English Judge to sit and administer a law he does not know, by a procedure which is not defined, in a Court where he has no control, and to inflict a punishment which is anticipated by everybody as the result of his labours, is to ask him to do a work which in my humble judgment he is unfitted to discharge. If this trial is to be a reality, acquittal ought to be regarded just as possible as conviction. You cannot make the Court into an ante-chamber, a waiting room, for the prison or the scaffold. It
1024
must be a place which one may have the prospect of leaving a, free man. I ask the Government, Is that what they contemplate as the result of this trial?
Finally, I wonder if the Government have considered what the effect of this is going to be on neutral nations and on our history. What is the position of this man at, the present moment? From the height of his, painted glory he has fallen to the lowest estate man ever occupied; and there in exile and loneliness, in dishonour, he can watch the ruin and the overthrow of the nation whose aggrandisement was the first care of iris life. It is not surprising that many people think that in the judgment which he is now working out they can trace the handiwork of something greater than man, and that they should fear lest man's interference should mar the august sublimity of that divine decree.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I suppose that I should be lacking in respect both to your Lordships' House and to those noble Lords who have addressed you if I did not attempt something in the nature of a reply to the observations to which we have just listened. Tire discussion was opened by the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce. The House listened to him, not merely with attention, but with that respect which his great authority demands. He is, if I may say so, almost if not actually the doyen of our Elder Statesmen, and from him on occasions of this sort we expect, and undoubtedly receive, words of moderation, of wisdom, and of prudent advice. There was, I think, hardly a word in his remarks with which I personally did not find myself in agreement.
I will, it I may, follow him in tile observations which he addressed to your Lordships and in the questions which he put. The first question was one which appears in a separate form upon the Paper, in which he asks in what form it is proposed to present to Parliament an account of the negotiations which have led to the settlement of the terms of peace proposed to Germany and Austria, and to the conclusion of whatever peace may be ultimately signed with the latter State. With the negotiations leading up to the peace with Austria, which is not yet concluded, I am, of course, unable to deal at the present moment; but the two cases are on the

1025
same footing, and what I say with regard to one no doubt will apply to the other.
In the speech that I made the other day I did give an indication to your Lordships of the Papers which we propose to lay. A good many of those have already been placed on the Table and circulated. As regards the remainder, it is a little difficult at this stage to pick out, in the enormous mass of type-written material (a great deal had not yet been printed)—involving discussions, reports of Commissions, and so on—the particular papers which it will be desirable to lay. A good many of them have not yet been translated. Some of them are necessarily of the most private and confidential character. The Government hope at no distant date to present to Parliament a compendium of such literature on the subject as it is possible to lay, and, agreeing as I do with the noble Viscount's general advocacy of publicity where it can reasonably be done, he can rely upon my seeing that it is made as comprehensive as possible. The noble Viscount will realise that it is not a matter which lies within the competence of the Foreign Office in Downing-street; it concerns statesmen in Paris, and publication can only take place by common agreement there.
The noble Viscount went on to make certain suggestions as regards methods for securing, as far as may be, in the future the success of the contemplated arrangements with regard to the League of Nations, and in the two concrete suggestions that he submitted I, for one, heartily concur. Be laid great stress—and here he was speaking not only from political but from great geographical experience—on the importance of Commissions for determining disputed frontiers in many parts of the world. It is quite clear not only that decisions arrived at in Paris will in many cases be hasty and provisional, but must in some cases be wrong, and will require not only revision but very likely drastic alteration. Circumstances connected with nationality, with local interests, with passing political views, will arise which may entirely transform the considerations that led to a particular issue this year before than decision has been effectively carried out, and I think he was quite right in saying that one of the sequels to the proceedings at Paris will have to be the institution of Boundary Commissions on rather a large scale to go to the disputed areas, and, by means of
1026
expert examination, to advise as to the proper solution.
The noble Viscount did, indeed, instance one case in which that is already being done—namely, the dispatch of a Commission to Syria. I am sorry, for my part., that once the policy of a Commission was decided upon, its tripartite character—French, British, and American—was not, for reasons with which the noble Viscount; is perfectly familiar, persisted in, and that the only Commission which has gone out to this country is the American Commission. There is another case in which, perhaps unknown to him, we are already utilising that method of investigation and determination, and that is the case of Smyrna. An acute situation has arisen there owing to the landing of Greek troops in that part of Asia Minor—a situation which is acute not merely because a great contest has already been provoked between Greeks and Turks, but because of similar competition, and in some cases collision, between the Greeks and the Italians. The only way to compose a matter of that sort is obviously by sending a Commission to inquire on the spot, and the Great Powers at Paris are at the moment deputing representatives to go out to that country with that object.
The second suggestion of the noble Viscount in this context; was a strong recommendation of the plan of a popular vote, or plébiscite, in order to determine the views of the inhabitants of an area affected. He named two cases in which that principle is being applied—namely, Schleswig and Eastern Prussia. There are two smaller cases that he will find in the Peace Treaty which he did not happen to mention. One is the future destination of the little district of Malmédy, on the frontiers of Belgium and Germany, the inhabitants of which will be given after the lapse of a certain time an opportunity of determining by vote their own future. The other is the case, also known to him, of the future of the Saar Valley, at the end of the fifteen years postulated in the Treaty. In none of these matters can one really lay down hard and fast principles. We, in the West, are so familiar with the custom of going into the polling booth and deciding every doubt by the narrowest majority of votes, that we are apt to think that the same principle is not only intelligible, but acceptable, to all the peoples of the world. Of course, that is not the case. Nobody

1027
knows better than the noble Viscount that a plébiscite in Eastern countries, more especially backward Eastern countries, so far from being a suitable means of deciding popular opinion, would in all probability be an opportunity for a row. Therefore there are many cases in which a plébiscite would be the very last solution we would attempt to apply.
The noble Viscount argues, I think fairly, that the right basis upon which so far as possible we should proceed in all these new arrangements is that of nationality, and it is in pursuance of that principle that the particular arrangements, complicated and open to criticism as in some respects they are, with regard to Danzig and the Polish Corridor, have been decided or attempted to be decided. Here, again, you cannot always lay down a principle. You find cross-currents—one principle being cut into by another principle. You find cases in which what principle suggests expediency condemns, and therefore you have every moment to adjust your principle, in no time-serving spirit but in the light of expediency, to the circumstances with which you have to deal.
Take Armenia, as affected by the two principles which the noble Viscount has discussed. If you decide the Armenian problem on the principle of nationality, you do your best to constitute or reconstitute an Armenian State. On the other band, if you decide upon the principle of population, those wretched people have been so oppressed, so dissipated and massacred, that if you go to the areas in which you want to set up a State and have a plébiscite, the last thing you would find, in all probability, would be an Armenian majority. I only quote this as a case in which we hare to be, careful that a rigid application of principle does not lead us wrong.
The noble Viscount went on to say, and here he was concurred in by Lord Buckmaster, who followed him—that he looked upon the one great achievement of the Paris proceedings as the constitution of the League of Nations. I was very glad to hear both these noble Lords once more pay a tribute of what I doubt not was absolutely sincere congratulation to my noble friend Lord Robert Cecil for the part he played in negotiating that instrument. Not only by common consent are the services he rendered in this respect at Paris conspicuous, but anybody who
1028
has read his speeches since he returned to this country, notably the speech he delivered across the way two nights ago, will find in them a combination of high idealism on the one hand and of practical common sense on the other, which is rare even in our foremost statesmen, and affords the best guarantee we can have of the success of the experiment with which he is so closely associated.
I do not know, when these two noble Lords thank His Majesty's Government, that we deserve as much credit as our spokesman on that occasion did. But both of them are right in saying that His Majesty's Government entered into this matter with the firm intention of making that part of the programme a reality, and when I look back on the debate we had last year, in which I think I was on the part of the Government the first to express general sympathy with the scheme and theory of the League of Nations, and when I remember that I was chided by an eminent member of the Episcopal Bench who is not now present, for not being sufficiently fervid on that occasion, I am glad to think that the lines on which the settlement has so far proceeded—which the noble Viscount has told us has gone as far as he thinks in the circumstances is possible or desirable—were almost identical with those which I ventured to sketch on that occasion.
I was rather glad to hear my noble friend Lord Bryce say a word about the new principle of Mandates, because that really, although it may be said to be involved in the larger issue of the League of Nations, is one of the great concrete constructive creations of the Paris Conference. The idea is not wholly new. It is true, as the noble Viscount said, that this is really a translation into international practice of a principle which we for very many years past have done our best to realise; but here for the first time you take the practice of one nation and find it invested with international sanction as the duty of all. I truly believe that when the history of this time is written, and whether the League of Nations does or does not fulfil all our expectations, the new system thus created for the government of backward countries and peoples hitherto too much neglected and oppressed will be regarded as one of the great triumphs of the twentieth century.

1029
My Lords, the noble Viscount also alluded, and with satisfaction to the creation by this instrument of a Permanent International Court of Justice, and I think he was right in saying that the main sanction of such a body will not be force—for many years it. will be difficult to exercise force—and that it need not even be commercial boycott, but may be public opinion; and that the way to consolidate public opinion on your side is to give as much publicity as possible to the proceedings of the League of Nations. That consideration is in the minds of those responsible for it, and I am sure that every attempt will be made to follow that general suggestion. Of course, the real tiling is, as the noble Viscount said, that the League of Nations is a recognition of a new spirit in the conduct of affairs in the world. It is the recognition of what we sometimes call the international spirit, the kind of idea that the future unit is not to be the race, the community, the small group, but is to be the great world of mankind, and that in that area you try and induce a common feeling, you try and produce co-operation which will be a better solvent of international difficulties than all the old and discredited methods of the past.
I have dealt with most of the subjects to which the noble Viscount alluded, with one exception—the topic upon which much grater and more solemn stress was laid by the noble and learned Lord who has just resumed his seat. I respect the reasoning, although I dissent from the results of the reasoning, which he placed before your Lordships. I am alluding, of course, to the observations that he made about the trial of the Kaiser. Both noble Lords commenced their remarks in this context by saying that, they condemned the heinous and abominable nature of the crimes of which the German nation and their Sovereign, as their representative, have been guilty, but both of them went on to impugn, as I understood, the policy of the trial. They drew a picture—the noble and learned Lord in particular drew a picture—of the German Emperor living in exile out of his country in loneliness and dishonour, an outcast not only from his own people but from the respect of mankind. And their argument was that you might just as well leave this man in the inglorious obscurity to which he had retreated, and that to take him out of it by any great public act of trial and of condemnation
1030
might be, as the noble Viscount said, to make him an object of commiseration and sympathy rather than of contempt in the world. I have seen it also argued that you might, by trying the Emperor, make him again a conspicuous figure and increase his chances of restoration to some active part in the government of his own country. I do not think that I agree with either of those criticisms.
I confess that the German Emperor does not appear to me to be in exile a figure at all comparable with those of the famous condemned Sovereigns or exiles of the past. After all, there was something picturesque and graceful in Charles I which has always enshrined him in the rather affectionate memory of large sections of his countrymen. There was something grand and almost heroic in the intellectual scope and imagination of Napoleon. Those are the two cases which are commonly quoted as justifying the belief that if you treat an individual with severity you not only make him a martyr but you create a legend. I confess I do not myself see in the German Emperor the stuff out of which a legendary hero can be made. The man who was not only pay of the atrocities to which reference has been made, but who ignominiously ran away from his country as soon as it was in a difficult place, is a man whom one cannot imagine either as a hero or treat as a martyr. I do not think my noble and learned friend opposite was correct when he suggested that the idea of the trial of the German Emperor was first heard of at the General Election; in fact, he treated the whole matter as if it were rather an electioneering cry invented by the Prime Minister and all the sinister persons associated with him. That is not my recollection of the case. It certainly was many weeks—I would even say months—before the General Election that the matter was under discussion between the Powers, and I myself on one occasion was deputed to discuss it with ref representatives of our Allies in Paris; and although it assumed a prominent place on the electoral platform, the decision had been arrived at long before, not only in this country but in France and elsewhere, and, if the noble Lord will allow me to assure him so, arrived at wholly independent of the baser considerations to which he referred.
Again, the noble Lord went on to say that in his view what our people wanted was punishment and not trial. Surely that

1031
is a very strange way of representing the mentality of the Englishman. It is exactly what the Englishman does not want. The Englishman was, I think, keen for punishment in the case of the Kaiser, but punishment only as the result of trial, and it seems foreign to all our ideas of equity and indeed of jurisprudence that we should concentrate ourselves upon the punishment without providing for the trial by which that punishment is justified.
One other point in reference to the suggestion that the Emperor might safely be left in Holland. Is the Kaiser, living just across the German border, so safe and so harmless in Holland as noble Lords appear to imagine? Is there not a party in Germany already agitating for his return? Are there not many evidences that the military party in Germany still regard him as their hero; and is Europe, is the cause for which we have been fighting and which we have won, really safe as long as he remains in the geographical position which he at the present moment occupies? The noble and learned Lord has stated with great emphasis the views which he holds upon the matter. They are not the views which commend themselves not merely to this country but to the Allied Powers. In the whole of his remarks there was implied the suggestion that it was we in particular who held these views about the trial and judgment of the Kaiser. That is not the case. If the noble Viscount will look at the Peace Treaty he will find that the demand for these proceedings is a unanimous demand. It was not put forward by England. It was not accepted only by the great belligerent Powers. There are appended to this clause, in common with the whole Treaty, the signatures of five great Powers and of twenty-two minor Powers—of twenty-seven in all. And that demand was met and was accepted at Versailles by the representatives of the German Empire.
What is the real inner meaning of the whole thing? Do we, any of us, at the bottom of our hearts believe that the German Emperor more than any other individual man was responsible for the shocking breach of faith by which the war began; that more than any individual man he was responsible for the terrible crimes and atrocities by which the war was disfigured; that more than any individual man he has upon his shoulders for all time the burden of the appalling, the almost
1032
immeasurable calamities, by which the world in consequence of the war has been overwhelmed? He was all-powerful. He never ceased to tell us that he was supreme in war and in policy. It was difficult from the tenor of his speeches to determine whether he regarded himself as a special protégé of the Almighty, or whether he regarded the Almighty as being under his special patronage. And he used that power to foster a spirit, hopelessly inconsistent with the ideals which are now ruling the world, to forge a weapon against the liberties of the world, and to prosecute a war which has been stained with every variety of abomination and crime. Surely such a man ought, if the opportunity occurs, to be tried, to be judged, and, if he is found guilty, to be condemned.
LORD BUCKMASTER: May I ask if it is proposed to try him for the atrocities which were committed on the battlefield and on the seas?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: That is a perfectly fair question to put, and it brings me to the point of which I next took note in the speech of the noble and learned Lord. He said—and I think the noble Viscount said also—that this was an unprecedented procedure. Quite true. The case also is unprecedented, and I think the criminal, if one may so call him—the defendant—is also without precedent or parallel. But what is he to be tried for, and how is he to be tried? The noble and learned Lord, who is a great master of law, is perfectly entitled to point out that it is not proposed to try him under any recognised Code or Statute. So far as I know, there is no Code of law under which he is to be arraigned. The law by which he is being tried is the higher law—I think the noble and learned Viscount used a phrase "the higher law of international morality"—that is the basis of the entire new conceptions which are the result of this Peace Treaty and the League of Nations, and of which this is the first concrete exhibition.
Let me read the terms of the reply that was made by the Allied Powers at Paris to the protest of the German Government on this point—
"Finally, they wish to make it clear that the public arraignment under Article 227 framed against the German ex-Emperor has not a juridical character as regards its substance but only in its form. The ex-Emperor is arraigned

1033
as a matter of high international polity, as the minimum of what is demanded for a supreme offence against international morality, the sanctity of treaties, and the essential rules of justice. The Allied and Associated Powers have desired that judicial forms, a judicial procedure, and a regularly constituted tribunal should be set up in order to assure to the accused full rights and liberties in regard to his defence, and in order that the judgment should be of the most solemn judicial character."
Is it not clear under those terms that there can be brought up in the arraignment of the ex-Kaiser all the matters to which the noble and learned Lord referred? I, at any rate, assume that this is the case, and shall be very much surprised if it not.
The noble and learned Lord went on to mention, and, if I may say so, to magnify, the difficulties and delays that are likely to be caused by the summoning of witnesses and by the length of time that may be consumed in this procedure. I confess I think those fears are exaggerated. But what did surprise me even more was when the noble Lord came to the question of the tribunal itself, and when he argued to your Lordships that as this tribunal ought to be an impartial one it was not right that any British Judge should be asked to take a seat upon it, because he would be doing the work of the Government. I most utterly and emphatically repudiate that suggestion. It is not the work of the Government, it is the interpretation of the International Code of Morals laid down in Paris. That Code the Judge will be invited to interpret along with his colleagues from the other great Powers. The noble and learned Lord talked as if some invidious and impossible duty was being imposed upon an English Judge alone. He says, "You are always taking English Judges from their work and making them do all sorts of things. Why do you make him do this." He is to sit there with Judges from the other great Powers. He will be one of four or five (I forget what the total is); and, believing as I do just as emphatically as the noble and learned Lord, in what he called "the light of English justice" I see nothing whatever to dim that light in the selection of any member of the English Bench to sit upon this tribunal; indeed, the selection of England for the place where the trial is to take place largely rested upon the belief that from the English Bench you would be able to secure one Judge, at any rate, not only as impartial as, but, if possible, more impartial than, you would secure in any of
1034
the other countries affected. I can well understand that there may be differences of opinion as to the question of where the trial is to be held. It may very likely be that it will not be held in London. There is great force in that consideration—
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Not converting this into a spectacular show, and not producing a situation in which public opinion will manifest itself on one side or another, and not interrupting the daily threat of our national life, but allowing us to resume our own business without any distracting associations of that description. Those considerations I think are patent, and, as your Lordships' cheer shows, important. No final decision has been arrived at on that point, and when the trial takes place, if it takes place within these shores, it by no means follows that London will be the place selected for the holding of the tribunal.
I think I have now dealt with the whole of the remarks which were made by my noble friends, and I would only say one thing further. One of the strongest points of this Treaty, to which they did not allude, was this—that whereas all preceding Treaties have been regarded by their authors as sacrosanct, as instruments which it was impossible to revise until they were revised by the progress of events and very likely thrown into the limbo of obscurity, special provisions are made in this Treaty by which it can be revised and by which the League of Nations will have an opportunity from time to time, not merely to administer and interpret it, but to review and, if necessary, to alter its provisions. That, I think, is one of the most important provisions which it contains.
It only remains for me, in conclusion, to say that I think this debate has shown, as the debates in the other House of Parliament have shown, that although there are points in this Treaty which admit of very justifiable criticism, no substantial injury or wrong has been done to any interests or to any people. On the contrary, considering the great and complex field over which it wanders, it has been received with an almost unanimous endorsement, for which all the Powers are extremely grateful, and for which, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, I cannot but express my recognition this afternoon.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Then (Standing Order No. X XXIX having been suspended). Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of KINTORE in the CHAIR.]
Clause 1:
Power of His Majesty to give effect to Peace Treaty.
1.—(1) His Majesty may make such appointments, establish such offices, make such Orders in Council, and do such things as appear to him to be necessary for carrying out the said Treaty, and for giving effect to any of the provisions of the said Treaty.
(2) Any Order in Council made under this Act may provide for the imposition by summary process or otherwise of penalties in respect of breaches of the provisions thereof, and shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it it made and shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, but may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council and shall not be deemed to be a statutory rule within the meaning of section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893.
(3) Any expenses incurred in carrying out the said Treaty shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: When this Bill was in another place a question was raised about the Orders in Council which under the Bill will be required for carrying out is provisions, and the case was raised of an Order in Council which it might be the duty of the Government to issue when Parliament was not sitting. The question was asked, therefore, whether Parliament would have any opportunity, in its inability to deal with the matter at the time of its issue, to express an opinion, whether favourable or the reverse, at a later date. The Prime Minister promised to meet this point, and to introduce an Amendment enabling either House to present an Address against any Order which had been laid, with a view of, if necessary, expressing their dissent from it and censure of the conduct the Government had pursued. It is in pursuance of this pledge that I ask your Lordships' consent to this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 24, at the end insert ("Provided that if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next twenty-one days on which that House has sat after any Order in Council made under this Act has been laid before it praying that the order or any part thereof may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Order or such part of it and it shall forth be void, but
1036
without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder").—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed, and Amendment reported.
Bill read 3a and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ANGLO-FRENCH TREATY (DEFENCE OF FRANCE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, very few words will be needed from me to ask your Lordships' acceptance of this Bill, and to invite you to pass it through all its stages this afternoon. I explained and defended in my speech the other day the policy upon which this Bill, giving a guarantee from the Governments of this country and of America to France in the event of any unprovoked aggression, was based. In Article IV of the Treaty, which is printed as a Schedule to the present Bill, you will find it laid down by agreement in Paris, that the Treaty, before ratification by the Sovereign, should be submitted to Parliament for approval. The same will happen in Paris, and that is why I am asking your consent to the acceptance of the Bill this afternoon.
The case for the Bill can be stated in a sentence. France has had not only a bitter experience in this war but on more than one occasion during the past century. Her frontiers in the East are singularly defenceless, and she has seen them without provocation and almost without notice over-run by the military forces of a powerful enemy. In the future the League of Nations will be, as we hope, her protection against any such outrage; but for the moment the League of Nations is, I will not say in embryo, but at any rate not yet finally and firmly constituted. She desires, against any repetition of the kind of outrage of which I am speaking, the protect ion which this guarantee affords. Later she will turn to the League of Nations to give it; and that no disparagement or affront is offered to the League of Nations by this

1037
provision now is, I think, evident from Article III of the Treaty, which runs as follows—
"The present Treaty must be submitted to the Council of the League of Nations and must be recognised by the Council, acting if need be by a majority, as an engagement which is consistent with the Covenant of the League; it will continue in force until, on the application of one of the Parties to it, the Council, acting if need be by a majority, agrees that the League itself affords sufficient protection."
The idea, therefore, that the acceptance of this Treaty is in any degree a reflection upon the League of Nations may, I think, be dismissed.
The real test is, of course, is a Bill of this description—is the guarantee which we, and, I hope, the United States, are about to give, on the whole an instrument that will lead to the peace of the Continent of Europe and of the world? I do not think that any one can hesitate to answer that question in the affirmative. And I have not only been pleased—I have been almost surprised—at the absolute unanimity with which the undertaking of this pledge by ourselves—no mean undertaking; a very great thing in history—has been accepted by every body and section of public opinion in this country.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment.
Bill read 3a and passed.

RAT DESTRUCTION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ABERCONWAY: My Lords, this Bill may seem a trivial matter compared with the momentous questions with which the House has just dealt, but if an authority is required for its introduction it is that it is part of that very important movement for sanitation and for the reconstruction of our country and our social life which is now occupying the attention of the public, and which I believe the Government are thoroughly in earnest in assisting.
1038
There is no doubt that the plague of rats is a matter that must be dealt with by legislation. The circumstances of the war have, I am afraid, unfortunately helped to develop the numbers of these vermin, and the time seems to me more than opportune for dealing with the whole matter from a national point of view. The amount of damage that is done to property by rats is notorious and known to everybody. No doubt noble Lords will remember that a few years ago it was clearly established that the rat was a carrier of the plague bacillus, and that when there was an outbreak of plague in this country a very strong effort was made by municipal and other public bodies to exterminate as far as possible these plague-carriers in their own localities, when very huge numbers of rats were destroyed at the public expense. The rat, however, cannot be wholly exterminated, and I venture to suggest that their numbers to-day are probably greater than they were at the period to which I refer. At that time a Committee was formed of very eminent scientists, bacteriologists, and other men interested in the question. They suggested to me that a Bill might be brought into the House of Commons. I prepared a Bill and introduced it in the House of Commons; but, of course, as a private member's Bill it stood no chance of passing into law, The Bill excited the greatest interest in the country. I received letters from all kinds of agricultural societies, farmers, and scientific persons giving me information and urging that something. Ought to be done to carry that Bill into law.
As your Lordships are interested in agriculture perhaps even more than the House of Commons, you will realise how important this matter is to the agricultural interest. Even since this Bill was introduced numerous letters have reached me from persons interested in the matter. This Bill has really been prepared by a new association which has been formed of eminent scientific persons and men of public note for the purpose of carrying into legislative effect the Orders in Council which were issued under the Defence of the Realm Act during the last two or three years but which have not been very vigorously acted upon. It is hoped that this Bill, will interest public opinion and help the Government. I see Lord Ernle is present to-day. I understand he intends to introduce a Bill on behalf of the Board of Agriculture, and I. hope the interest this Bill

1039
has aroused will assist him not only in carrying it through both Houses of Parliament but in inducing public bodies cordially to co-operate in carrying out its provisions. Though I ask the House to read this Bill a second time, I should not proceed with the further stages if I had the assurance that the Government are prepared to deal with the matter themselves.
The public imagine that rats are creatures which infest granaries, hay-lofts, rubbish-heaps, and so forth; but they little know the amount of damage the rat does to growing crops and to agriculture generally. It is not merely in stack-yards and in barns that the farmer suffers from their depredations. If you take counties where there is a light soil, such as Norfolk, Suffolk, and Hampshire, you will find the rat there in countless millions. If you go there in December or January when the winter wheat has been put in, in a big field of 100 acres you see straight roads, hard beaten tracks, terminating in central stations—roads that remind one of Roman roads with a castrum in the middle, and all round the field you see the ground torn up in innumerable little heaps of soil. That means that the rat has been digging up and eating the seed corn. You do not see rats in the daytime, but if you go along the hedgerows you hear them squealing at every step. That is the conversation of the rat. It feeds at night. In those counties the rats burrow very easily. There is plenty of cover in the hedgerows, and they never get drowned out. The population is so scanty comparatively that you do not even get the odd rat-hunt with terriers, ferrets, and boys with sticks that you get in more populous regions.
Where you have large towns you have a constant feeder for the rat population. You may clear out a particular farm-yard, but a rat will travel a very long distance, and one farm cleared of rats will probably be re-stocked in a very short time by rats coming from other infested districts. I think farmers are often very much to blame. They leave stacks of unthreshed corn on the ground far too long; they do not put the stacks on proper protective supports. If you had stringent regulations which could be enforced by the local authority you would not only stimulate the farmer to do his best to stop the rat plague, but you would be conferring a favour on him, which I am sure he would appreciate. He would be quite willing, I am sure, to pay
1040
his small quota towards the expense of local rates if he knew that there was a scientific organisation to help him to clear his stack-yard.
It is not my province here to say how rats should be killed. I believe there are all kinds of expedients. I have received letters from all kinds of persons advocating particular poisons or particular sorts of traps, and I have no doubt whatever that the county councils or the district councils will be able to settle the right course of dealing with them. The Bill that I have introduced contains powers for the local authority to appoint special officers technically qualified to deal with the matter, something like health officers. They will have the right to go about and inspect all premises where they have reason to suspect rats are too abundant, and to call upon the owner of those premises to abate the nuisance. If he fails to do so, then the County Authority or the District Council will have power themselves to deal with the matter at the expense of the delinquent, charging him with the cost of destruction.
Noble Lords will be surprised to hear how many rats are being killed under the present ineffective system. I had a letter from a gentleman in Hampshire who told me that over 10,000 rats had been killed to his knowledge on his own estate in two years, in addition to large numbers which were poisoned and not counted. In Leicestershire this year we have killed 65,000 rats In Anglesey I believe 19,000 have been killed, and in one small area in Suffolk no less than 12,000 were killed. I am also informed on credible authority that in Sussex on one estate a few years ago 27,000 rats were killed in one season. We know that in India there are enormous attacks on rats. I believe in the Deccan 12,000,000 rats were killed in one Government campaign. These numbers show the value of the foodstuffs that must be consumed in this country to enable those creatures to live at all.
These are only a few isolated instances, representative probably of thousands of similar cases, where the rats are allowed to breed with impunity. They not only eat the seed corn and the roots lying out in the field in the winter, but they will attack newly-farrowed pigs, and young chickens. They are also very fond of ducklings, squab pigeons, and newly-born kids; in fact, there is hardly anything they will not attack. Young game birds are

1041
killed by them; eggs of all kinds are eaten, and silk, leather, grain, and woodwork are destroyed. They even cut lead pipes. There are many cases were gas explosions have taken place by lead pipes being cut through by rats.
In these circumstances I think that the time has come when the thing must be taken up as a whole and not merely left to be dealt with by amateur efforts. The expenses, whatever they may be under the provisions of this Bill, would be quite trifling compared to the money that has been spent in other directions in view of the sanitary requirements. When we are told that the foodstuffs polluted by rats every year amounts to something between £15,000,000 and £40,000,000 it is quite obvious that a very considerable expenditure in destroying them would be more than justified by the result.
Rats are extraordinarily prolific. The female will litter when four months old and she breeds two or three litters every year. Therefore, it is pretty clear that you must make a thorough and drastic attack; otherwise, you really leave the matter very much as it was before. I do not think there is any justification for delay. I am quite sure the public is prepared for action and the public would welcome strong measures instead of leaving the matter to be dealt with as it is at present. Money is offered by public authorities for so many rats' tail. Many people think that is a great mistake. It encourages boys to breed rats for the purpose of bringing their tails and getting one penny or twopence each for them. I have a clause in the Bill which prohibits that.
The authorities in this country which have the carrying out of this war upon rats are, in the first place, the county councils, the Mayor, Aldermen and Common Council of the City of London, the councils of county boroughs and port sanitary authorities, and in Scotland county councils, town councils and port local authorities. They are enjoined in Clause 3 to have regard to any recommendation that may be made to them in England and Wales by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries or the War Agricultural Executive Committee acting in the area of the local authority, with similar provisions as to Scotland. They have powers to prosecute and, if the local authority neglects its duty, power is given for the Ministry of Health to take measures to call attention to its neglect
1042
and to compel it to carry out the provisions of the Bill. I submit that this is a matter which can easily be carried into law during the present session, and I ask your Lordships to express your sense of the importance of the mater by giving this Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now react 2a.—(Lord Aberconway.)
LORD LAMBOURNE: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the noble Lord who has brought forward this Bill. It is a subject in which I have always been interested and I have taken a humble part in trying to arrive at some conclusions on the matter. I understand from the noble Lord who brought in the Bill that should the Government bring in a measure of their own dealing conclusively with the matter, he will not press his. In conjunction with the noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin, I wrote a letter some time ago to the public Press drawing attention to the damage done by rats and asking for co-operation on the part of the public in dealing with them. I received a great many answers, as also did Viscount Chaplin, but the whole crux of the matter is that, though we succeeded in securing individual co-operation, we did not get very much further.
At the present moment, although there are some counties which are taking a considerable interest and doing a good deal in the matter, there are other counties—very much like my own county of Essex I am afraid—which have done little or nothing in the matter. In the same way, in a parish you often get an individual farmer who will make every effort to keep down these destructive rodents while his neighbours take no trouble at-all, so that all his work is thrown away. As regards the damage done by the animal there can be no doubt at all, and I often think when farmers grumble—and very fairly grumble—about the harm done by rabbits, that that is a small item compared with the damage down to crops, both growing and otherwise, by the rats, to destroy which they really do not take any trouble.
We know that in Germany, Denmark, and other countries the whole country has combined to carry out a crusade against the rat and the consequence has been extremely good, especially in Denmark. In Germany considerable strides have

1043
been made, and what I hope the noble Lord below me (Lord Ernle) will inform us is that he is going to use compulsory methods on the county councils, and generally throughout the country, to carry out laws which will not only be destructive of the rat but will assist the sanitary authorities, because this undermining of building and eating into drains is undoing the work which has often been carried out at great expense. I do not wish to detain your Lordships upon a comparatively trivial subject, but it is one which affects us in rural districts very much indeed. Rats are very migratory. They travel many miles; and if one county does its work while the next county does not, the work of the county that does it at considerable expense is undone and has to be done all over again. I am very glad that the noble Lord has brought the matter forward.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Aberconway, who has introduced this subject, has conferred a great service not only upon agriculturists but also upon the general public. This is a serious matter and it has become a very become a very urgent one also. Although I find it a little difficult to believe that the somewhat mild procedure by which my noble friend hopes to exterminate the large rat population of this country will be really successful in effecting his object, I feel that some legislation is urgently necessary, and I hope that the President of the Board of Agriculture will put in hand at once a measure of a more drastic character, and, if possible, pass it through the two Houses of Parliament during the current session. I was surprised to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Aberconway, that the damage which he estimates is done to food by rats can be put, so high as £30,000,000 or£40,000,000. I know that before the war the official estimate of damage done by rats to firm products was in. the region of £2.000,000 and I was going to venture to suggest, but for the much larger figure he has put to the House, that possibly the damage to-day might be in the region of £9,000,000 or £10,000,000. In any case, it is very large and it is increasing in proportion with the increase in the rat population.
My noble friend who has just spoken has reminded us that the rat is not only a predatory animal but also a migratory-animal and, because he is a migratory
1044
animal, it is quite impossible for the individual, however active he may be, to exterminate the rats in the area in which he lives. There is no doubt whatever that this nomadic animal, when he reaches the numbers that he has reached to-day, can only be effectively dealt with as the result of county or other organisations under not merely recommendations, as my noble friend suggests in this Bill, but under explicit and drastic directions from a Government Department. It is suggested that, there are various methods now in use for the extermination of the rat. Personally, I view with some doubt the efficiency of a good many of these so-called rat poisons, although during the last few weeks, as Chairman of the Royal Commission on the Sugar Supply, I have been asked to give up a considerable quantity of sugar for the manufacture of rat poison as I was told that no rat poison is effective unless it contains sugar. Personally, I should have thought that a good cat was better than any poison. It is necessary not only to kill rats but to persuade people to adopt certain methods, particularly in the matter of feeding their stock, which will prevent an increase of the rat population. I was interested to hear when I was in Belgium before the war that they were teaching in all the schools that if you want to avoid an increase of rats, pigs and poultry should be fed not on the ground but on a hard surface; if the food gets trodden into the ground it is a great encouragement to the rats to develop and increase.
I hope that the President of the Board of Agriculture is about to tell us that he is prepared at once to introduce a Bill more drastic in its character, and that he will also give us an assurance it will be carried through during the present Session On that footing I suggest to the noble Lord he should give place to the Government Bill so as to enable it to be carried into law with the full authority of the Government in the shortest possible time.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD ERNLE): My Lords, I agree with all the three noble Lords who have spoken as to the importance of this -particular measure and also as to the impossibility of adequately coping with the rat plague unless it is done simultaneously over a considerable area at once. The three Departments who are interested in agriculture in England, Scotland and Ireland, are fully aware of the

1045
importance of dealing with this question. Up to the time when the Order, which in largely incorporated in the noble Lord's Bill, was passed in 1918 the Board of Agriculture had no powers of dealing with rats, and their powers under the Order are certainly not sufficiently effective to carry out a very strong campaign. Meanwhile, however, a very great deal has been done, as the noble Lord admitted, to deal with the plague of rats.
I am very much obliged to him for bringing forward his Bill. It assists us very largely in creating a proper public atmosphere which will enable the Government to pass its own Bill rapidly through Parliament. I certainly hope that the House will read this Bill a Second time on the understanding that as soon as the Government Bill is brought forward it shall take precedence over the present measure. Our own Bill, which is in draft and which I had hoped to have laid before the House before now, is held up by the difficulty of getting the other Boards of Agriculture to give their opinion upon it. That is the only reason which up to the present moment has prevented us from placing the Bill before you. I can assure Lord Bledisloe that it is more drastic in character than the Bill now brought forward. I suggest that this Bill should be read a second time and then suspended for the consideration of the Government measure.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WOMEN'S EMANCIPATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I need only detain you a few moments as this Bill was entirely discussed last Wednesday when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack introducing his own Bill mentioned mine, and purred it very intuit to pieces. He, however, suggested that there should be some kind of amalgamation of the two Bills. I have consulted my friends who piloted this measure successfully through another place, and they prefer that I should present it to your Lordship's House for Second Reading.
In his speech the noble and learned Lord rightly took objection to the first clause, but if you read the Bill a second time the clause can be amended in Com
1046
mittee. He also remarked—if I am incorrect he will correct me—that the Bill which was passed during the last Parliament enabling a women to have a vote was the result of a Conference, of which the Speaker was Chairman, and that it was there decided that women should have votes only after the age of thirty. This Bill is merely the corollary and the logical consequence of that measure. The Speaker's Conference was the result of what took place in the last Parliament. The arrangement made was carried out by the last Parliament. That Parliament is dead, and the Conference is dead. There is a new electorate. I think there is an argument in favour of your Lordships voting as you please on this question. It is impossible to argue against giving women the vote.
I have been told that if the Bill is passed we shall have more women on the register than men. I cannot help that; neither can you. If you are to have real democracy then you cannot help women being in the majority. I am not one of those who is the least bit afraid of that. If you refuse it will only be because you are afraid you will be swamped by women. I think my Bill is a better solution of the problem than the Government measure. This Bill gives a Peeress in her own right the right to sit in this House. In the Government Bill it gives some future gentleman who may be made a Peer the option of having it put in his Patent that if he has no male heirs it may go in the female line, and she may be allowed to sit in the House of Lords. I think that is not fair. I hope I have quite convinced your Lordships not to be afraid of the women. Let them have the vote. You have taken one bite at the cherry; why not take the other. You will have to do it sooner or later.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I had hoped that before I intervened we might have had the guidance of some other members of your Lordships' House who have given consideration to this matter since I moved the Second Reading of the Government Bill a few days ago. In asking that a Second Reading should be given to that Bill I made a suggestion to the noble Earl, which I confess seemed to me a reasonable and convenient one, and one which I am very

1047
sorry he did not find it possible to adopt. I confess myself quite unable to conjecture the reason for the disinclination which he has shown to adopt that course, because the more I examine this Bill—and although he spoke of it as its father on the last occasion I may criticise the form of the Bill, because after all he is only its stepfather—the more I examine the form of it the more difficult I find it to understand the partiality which leads him to desire that his Bill should be afforded a Second Reading.
Let me say quite plainly what are the alternatives open to your Lordships in dealing with the noble Earl's Bill. Your Lordships may, in the first place—and this is the course which I should venture to recommend on the whole—decline to give it, in the circumstances of the case, a Second Reading; or if you think the course a useful one, the Bill may be given a Second Reading and then referred, together with the Government Bill, to a Committee to report upon the two Bills. I myself, I confess, am not specially prepossessed in favour of that course, because I cannot see any useful purpose which this will secure, and which cannot equally be secured, if it be your Lordships' pleasure, by making Amendments in my Bill; and, secondly, because the adoption of such a course, it seems to me, must inevitably lead to delay and must postpone the moment, already as many people think unduly late in the session, at which the more elementary and more universally admitted grievances of women can be dealt with. In order to test the feeling of your Lordships I shall take the course of moving that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Now, my Lords, I ask your indulgence if very shortly I try to explain, avoiding as far as I can repetition of the arguments which I used on the Second Reading of the Government's Bill, why it appears to me that the noble Earl is ill-advised in pressing for the Second Reading of his Bill, and why it may commend itself to you, as the most reasonable course, not to proceed with it further. The noble Earl's Bill consists of three clauses, and I shall not violate the convenient practice of discussing only Second Reading principles on the Second Reading if I say it is impossible to form any prospective estimate of the value of the noble Earl's
1048
Bill unless you see what each of the operative clauses specially contribute, and then see what is the aggregate result of those contributions. The first clause of the Bill is a very ambiguous clause. It ill becomes me to add anything to the criticisms which, as a lawyer, I ventured to direct against that clause on the Second Reading of the Government Bill—at its formlessness and pretentious futility—because the noble Earl has in the most magnanimous and candid manner admitted that those whom he has consulted told him that they were unable to make any suggestion as to its meaning, because it had none. That was a frank admission by one who accepts paternal responsibility for the Bill, and renders the task of further criticism unnecessary.
I pass to the second clause. I do not think that your Lordships will close your eyes to the fact that only a very few nights ago, and as I have already pointed out against not exactly a protest but against a suggestion which I made on behalf of the Government, your Lordships by a considerable majority reached the conclusion, on the Committee Stage of the Justices of the Peace (Women) Bill, that in order to bring that Bill into conformity with the Representation of the People Act you would impose an age limit, with the result that no woman however specially gifted—a Double First at Cambridge—and doubly recommended by the Lord Lieutenant and his Advisory Committee, and approved by the Lord Chancellor—your Lordships decided that even in such a contingency these gifted young women should not penetrate to the august judicial seat. It was put strongly in argument that having regard to the fact that the policy of Parliament was that women should not obtain the vote until they reached a certain age, it was not reasonable to give her judicial preferment until she had reached the age which qualified her to exercise the franchise.
The noble Earl did less than justice to the arrangement which was made on the Representation of the People Act. Constitutionally he was right in saying that it was an arrangement made by the last Parliament, that it could not bind succeeding Parliaments in perpetuity, and that it was open to Parliament and to your Lordships to reconsider the whole basis upon which that settlement rests. Technically and constitutionally he is entirely right,

1049
but I was unfortunate if I gave the impression that I was impeaching the legality of that. I was contending that politic considerations of the greatest importance arose if so soon after a conclusion was reached, and reached contrary to the expectation of all parties when that remarkable Conference addressed itself to its labours, an attempt should be made to revise the decision then come to upon a principle which those who were party to it looked upon as fundamental. It was upon purely politic grounds that I questioned the wisdon of such a revision. The noble Earl says this is a democratic Bill, but it adds 5,000,000 young women at this moment to the franchise. I cannot see the convenience of the course suggested by the noble Earl. If it is desired with the greater experience we shall have then to make this change—if it is desired at some later date before the Election to make a change—a very short Bill can do it. And the noble Earl can then introduce a new Bill which constitutionally would be very appropriate. But it is completely inappropriate that we should add 5,000,000 women at the present time when I believe no considerable body in the State desires that that addition should be followed, as it ought to be followed, by an appeal to the constituencies. So much for Clause 2 of the noble Lord's Bill.
If I am right or anything like right in the views that I have ventured to express about Clause 2, the only Clause on which the noble Earl can rely to persuade your Lordships to give a Second Reading at this stage is Clause 3 dealing with the admission of women to this House. I do not know how many of your Lordships were impressed by the argument on this subject that was addressed to the House, I thought with great force, by more than one speaker on the Second Reading of the Government Bill. In my view it would be foolish to choose this time of all others to introduce so great a breach of historical continuity in the history of this House. Your Lordships must reach a conclusion upon that matter, and it is a grave one which requires argument and decision, but the point is that, that conclusion is just as much open to your Lordships on the clause in the Government Bill as it is open to your Lordships in the further clause in the noble Earl's Bill. I pointed out to the noble Earl that he could amend the clause in the Government. Bill in order to press the view on this subject which is contained in his Bill, and which
1050
received some little degree of support in the course of the debate.
What is really important is that at an early date your Lordships should decide whether at this moment you are prepared to admit Peeresses as members of this House, or whether you are not. The other point is equally open to discussion, and is equally convenient for decision in the one way as the other. I have examined the noble Earl's Bill without hostility and partiality, and I would say to your Lordships that in my opinion no useful purpose could be served by reading it a second time, and I would ask you not to proceed further with it, but to let the noble Earl busily occupy himself in amending the Government. Bill.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the Bill is not a well-drawn Bill; in fact, to be quite frank with the noble Lord, I think it is a very badly-drawn Bill. I should have voted for him with considerable reluctance before the speech of the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down. I confess that reluctance has been very much increased by what the noble and learned Lord has said. I would submit to the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill that it surely is a fact that every object he desires can be attained by Amendments to the Bill before the House. I think, if I might say so, that tactically his position would be strengthened if he were not to take the course of forcing a decision upon this Bill, and personally I hope that he will not do so, although if he does I think I shall feel bound to support him. I feel, however, that everything can be done by Amendment of the Government's Bill and that this Bill, as drawn, is rather unfortunately phrased.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I wish to say one word in reply. I think the argument which was put forward last time when it was said that there was likely to be some reform of the House of Lords was disposed of by the announcement of Lord Curzon that the Government had not promised to deal with the question of the constitution of this House in the next Session of Parliament.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I explain that the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce, said in the course of a speech that there was an undertaking that in the next Session of Parliament that reform should be carried out. I confess that at

1051
the time I had no recollection of any such promise, but I knew that the noble Viscount is very careful in what he says, and therefore I did not intervene to correct him at the time. There was some discussion as to who had given the promise, and later I discussed the matter with the Leader of the House who made the statement to which reference has just been made.
On Question, Motion negatived.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR(who was indistinctly heard): My Lords, in asking the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill, those of your Lordships who are specially interested in Irish affairs will desire that I should give some explanation, which I fear must in the nature of the case be a little tedious, of the special points on which this Bill differs from the English Bill. I have been asked by more than one Irish Peer to make one or two points plain, and I will do it with as much brevity as the circumstances admit of. The clauses of this Bill are virtually copies of the clauses in the English Housing and Town Planning Bill, with such drafting modifications as are necessary in order to deal with the different conditions which prevail in the two countries. That I May make it plain how close is the resemblance between the Bill which has already met with your Lordships' approval and the present Bill, I may say that the English Bill as it left Your Lordships' House contained forty-seven clauses, and the Irish Bill contains thirty-four. Of the thirty-four Irish clauses, twenty-nine actually correspond to the clauses which have been already the subject of debate, and in most cases of approval, in this House.
The point on which it is desirable to say a word or two is as to the differences which affect those five clauses. The principal Act of 1890 applied to Ireland as well as to England, but later Acts—the Acts of 1900, 1903, 1909—did not apply to Ireland, although some of their clauses were extended to Ireland by the Housing of the. Working Classes (Ireland) Act, 1908, and power is taken under Clause 28 of this Bill to extend certain provisions of the Acts of 1903 and 1909 to Ireland ht Order of the
1052
Lord Lieutenant in Council—a provision which in practice ought to prove a useful one.
One observation must be made, and that is that the Trish Housing Code is largely an urban code. The local authorities for the purposes of Part 3 of the Act in Ireland are urban district councils, and the commissioners in rural districts. There are twenty-eight small towns or villages with populations varying from 5,000 to 1,000, and for the purposes of that Act they are technically defined as towns. The rural district council is a local authority for the purposes of Part 2 of the Act of 1890, but the county councils are not local authorities under the Irish code. These differences have led to some practical results which require a word. The explanation of them is that rural housing in Ireland has been dealt with separately by a series of Acts called the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, under which the rural district councils are empowered to provide cottages and plots of ground, not only for agricultural labourers proper but for all persons working for hire whose wages do not exceed 2s. 6d. a day. Liberal assistance is given to a rural district council under these Acts, by means of free grants and loans at low rates. Under that what is actually a revolution in rural housing has been brought about. No fewer than 50,000 houses, with suitable plots, have been provided under the terms of those Acts. The conditions, indeed, were pre-war but it is encouraging to know that under the greatly more favourable conditions such solid progress was achieved.
But when you come to the present conditions in this respect you find a gap between the labourers' code and the housing code. The explanation is that the class of labourers in the rural districts which earns wages above 2s. 6d. a day cannot, under the terms of the Labourers' Acts or the Housing Acts, be dealt with, and the Chief Secretary some time ago publicly promised to introduce a Bill to bridge over that gap. I ought to make it clear that certain clauses of this Bill apply to rural as well as to urban districts.
Those of your Lordships who come from Ireland are well aware that the urban housing problem in Ireland is a very serious one indeed. The conditions in Dublin to-day have been frequently described in such terms as it would be impossible to exaggerate, and it may be in the memory-of some that a special Committee of the

1053
Irish Convention estimated that the number of new working-class houses urgently required was not fewer than 67,000. That figure may be an over-estimate or not, but that the state of affairs is extremely grave is a matter of common knowledge.
I ought, I think, to add that in the House of Commons this Bill was welcomed by Irish Members of all Parties—a circumstance so singular that it justly attracted an unusual degree of attention. I am unaware that it was criticised in any quarter. There was little or no controversy as to any of the provisions, and the only serious adverse criticism was directed against the details of the scheme, for the subsidising of the local authority. These details did not appear in the Bill, but the scheme was stated by the Chief Secretary on the Second Reacting. The form of it was that, for every £1 of rent which was charged And collected for the houses built the Government was to contribute £1within the margin of loss, and it is no exaggeration to say that almost the whole of the time in the Committee of the House of Commons was occupied with debates on this proposal, and Irish Members of both Parties pressed for more liberal terms. The Chief Secretary proved unable to resist this demand in its entirety, but he compromised the matter and induced the Treasury to extend the terms and to agree that for every £1 rent collected by the local authority the State should provide 25 s., rising in exceptional cases to 27 s. 6d.
One of the noble Lords interested in this matter has asked me to make these figures clear. It really amounts to this, that for every £8 rent collected the State has undertaken if this Bill meets with the approval of this House, to provide a subsidy of £10, rising to £11 in very exceptional cases. These terms, though not received with particular gratitude, nevertheless were ultimately accepted, and the obvious merit of this scheme is that it will ensure automatically, or ought to ensure, some reasonable degree of economy on the part of the local authority.
There is only one other point. Financial matters played a conspicuous part in the debates, and they arose in the following way. Where the rateable value of an area exceeds £200,000 it was pointed out that it would be necessary for the local authority to borrow in the open market, instead of obtaining the loans from the Board of
1054
Works. It will be readily imagined that the areas where the rateable value exceeds £200,000 are not, even in these days of Irish material prosperity, to be found everywhere; in fact, the only places in Ireland whose rateable value exceeds that amount are Dublin and Belfast. And accordingly the representatives of those towns all contended that it would be impossible for them to obtain loans in the open market.
It was pointed out that, after all, the rule in question was to be applied throughout the United Kingdom, that its application had not been the subject of serious criticism in the debates on the English Bill, and there was no very apparent reason why Belfast and Dublin should be treated in a different way. There was considerable discussion upon that point, and it was left with an assurance from the representative of the Government that he would have a further consultation with the Treasury, and see whether an amendment was still possible. There are a number of points which I have every reason to suppose that some of your Lordships who are specially aware of the circumstances in Ireland would desire to bring forward. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I do not think anybody will complain about the principle which is contained in this Bill. It is a somewhat complicated measure, and there is a good deal of legislation by reference in the Bill. Perhaps that cannot be avoided, but it is rather difficult to interpret the Bill and have its provisions carried out when you are referred here and there and everywhere to other Bills. I have had some of the points, especially with regard to Clause 1, explained to me.
What the Lord Chancellor said about the slums in Dublin is quite correct. The working classes and the poor in that town live in the most wretched way. They live in houses which were built for gentlefolk in the eighteenth century. They are totally unsuitable, and the sanitary arrangements are practically nil. To speak quite frankly, I should like to say that I would much rather that the Government had brought in a Bill dealing with Dublin first, because the slums of Dublin are a disgrace to the United Kingdom. And when we

1055
consider that the rates in Dublin are 16 s. 11½d. in the£ it is surely time that the Government should come forward and see that the housing of the poor in that town is carried out. This Bill does something for that, and I am very much obliged to the Lord Chancellor for having explained the financial provisions of the Bill. I believe I am right in saying that when an important member of the Government—and a member of the Cabinet, and the Lord Chancellor—says that those financial schemes will be carried out, they will be carried out. I am fortified in that by Clause 5, which says—
"… the Board shall, if the scheme is carried out within such period after the passing of this Act, as may be specified by the Board, with the consent of the Treasury, pay, or undertake to pay …"
The word "shall" being put in the Bill, makes it clear to me that we shall have those financial arrangements carried out.
I should like to say something about the Bill. It is headed "As Amended by Standing Committee D." It gives, I must say, enormous powers to local authorities in an urban district; in fact, in a town they can do what they like and take what they like. When I say that, I must draw your attention to the fact that in the Labourers Acts, the Congested District Boards Acts, and other Acts, demesnes and home farms have been protected. It has been the policy of the English Government to protect the demesnes and home farms, but in this Bill that is not done. It is curious to note that in Committee D the Chief Secretary brought forward a new clause dealing with this matter. There was bitter opposition to it, though I do not know why, and it was dropped. He then said that he would bring in a Regulation. But what we who live in Ireland feel is that there may be great difficulties put in the way of owners of demesnes in protecting their demesnes. Suppose I had a demesne and a home farm close to a town and they said to me, "We want to build a number of houses. We think you are a disagreeable sort of person—(that happens very often in Ireland)—so we choose to put these houses and streets on your demesne and home farm." I think that is the most unreasonable thing that could occur under this Bill. I feel very strongly about this because, as I have said, it has been the policy of the Government always to protect the demesnes and home farms. We do not
1056
want to be so bullied that we shall have to leave the country. It is possible to find other land near towns, and it is hardly fair that the Government should go back on their policy with regard to or homes, our home farms, and our demesnes.
I desire to refer to Clause 22. That clause says—
"…If the owner of any house suitable for occupation by persons of the working classes fails to make and keep such house in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation then, without prejudice to any other powers, the local authority may serve a notice upon the owner of such house requiring him within a reasonable time." etc.
The local authority can practically make you do anything—pull down the house, or alter it in every possible way; and that clause could be used most oppressively. In England that sort of thing is not done, but I assure you that in Ireland that kind of oppression can be and is carried out. It will be necessary for us to move an Amendment on this clause in order to safeguard the interests of those owners of houses who are likely to be oppressively dealt with under this Clause. I feel that the Bill is necessary, and if the Government will listen to the Amendments that we shall propose, which will not be unreasonable Amendments—the chief of them I may frankly say is the one with regards to demesnes and home farms—I do not intend to offer any opposition whatever to the passing of the Bill. But, as I said before, Dublin is a place that must be dealt with by the Government. It is a town which is a disgrace, and if the Government do not see that it is properly dealt with will be a very serious matter. The people there live in a filthy state, and people who are badly housed are the prey of every sort of agitator, and of every kind of wickedness you can imagine connected with agitation. The other towns are not so bad, though they might be better. With these few words, and the notice I have given that certain Amendments will be moved, I have pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I wish to trouble the House as briefly as possible on this Bill, the more so as I personally welcome any effort which will give the working-classes in Ireland better housing than they have had up to the present. But while I am in the fullest sympathy with the object of the Bill, I

1057
think the lines of the English Bill have been followed much too closely in regard to an Irish measure. My noble friend who has just sat down has pointed out how badly the powers which have been in the hands of some of the biggest municipal authorities have been used in the past. No one who knows the state of Dublin can fail to realise that something has been lacking in the conduct of this business on the part of one of the most untrammelled municipal authorities in the world. Apart from that, however, the weak point of the measure—on which my noble friend has also put his finger—is that it has been assumed that some of the authorities in Ireland can be trusted to carry out these schemes which have not been particularly well carried out by some of the urban authorities. I challenge that conclusion. I am certain that, unless you put into the Bill considerable safeguards which are not there at present, you will have great corruption and a failure to carry out the objects which Parliament has in view.
I would call attention to one particular clause which deals with insanitary houses. It is there actually contemplated that the local authority—which as we all know in some of these smaller towns has had to have work taken out of its hands by the Local Government Board—can go to a landlord and say, "Some of your houses are insanitary," and they can give a notice, provided it is not less than three weeks, to put them right, and within that period, without appeal it is understood, they may take a month or two months and order the landlord to put a number of houses immediately into complete repair from top to bottom. Everybody knows that there is not at present either the staff or the material available. None the less, again without appeal, the local authority can proceed to put in their own men to do the work at whatever price they like and to charge it to the landlord.
I am sure that those who framed the Bill realise that this is not going to be a small question, because it is contemplated in the same clause that the local authority may have to give the landlord thirty years in which to pay the enormous sums they are going to spend on his property. Everybody must see that a provision of that kind is quite unfit to be put into the hands of some of these small rural authorities. There is no man alive who desires to see in-sanitary houses dealt with more severely
1058
than I do; but at the same time, to put into the hands of men who have failed in a great many instances in their most obvious duties such extreme powers, in a country where unfortunately political reasons more than any other govern appointments to those local bodies, is a thing I do not think your Lordships should do.
There are two further points which I should like to mention. My noble friend has pointed out that for the first time in an Irish Act protection has not been afforded to the demesne or farm or home park of a private inhabitant. It is absolutely necessary that you should have a different provision in Ireland from that which you have in Great Britain, when you consider than ninety-nine-hundredths of the land is in the hands of tenants who have got a tenant-right which is scarcely ever invaded by the local authorities. If you are going to levy your tolls of land for houses on such a very small section of the community you must have some safeguard that the power is fairly used. Beyond that we have had the rather elaborate system of finance described by the noble and learned Lord, on which I should like to say a few words and to ask for some explanation when we get into Committee. Not to trouble your Lordships further, what I would like to ask is that the noble Lord should give us some days, at all events, before putting the Bill down for Committee. We must introduce to the notice of the House certain Amendments, and I trust the noble Lord will not put the Bill down for Committee before say Wednesday or Thursday next.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I understood that an arrangement had been made with regard to the Committee stage. I gathered that it was to be put down for Thursday.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, ETC., BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that these Amendments be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It might not be inconvenient to your Lordships if I make a general statement as to the result of the consideration which has been given by the Commons to the Amendments of your Lordships. I think that we may properly congratulate ourselves that almost all the Amendments which were principally the subject of debate here have recommended themselves to the House of Commons, so that this House has made a real contribution to the Bill. The Amendments inserted here cover ten pages of print, and the Commons have accepted these Amendments without any alteration at all except in seven cases. Your Lordships made a great number of alterations in Clause 1, all of which have been accepted by the Commons. There is an important Amendment of the Marquess of Salisbury, a new subsection, and a further Amendment by the noble Marquess. All the Amendments in Clause 7 were accepted, and some of them were very important. An important Amendment to Clause 9 was accepted, also an Amendment to Clause 14. The Amendment to Clause 16 by Lord Muir Mackenzie was agreed to, and although the Commons did not accept Lord Stanhope's Amendment to Cause 22 relating to building societies, they dealt with it in an extremely sympathetic manner and I am sure he will have no complaint. The object of the noble Lord's Amendment was largely secured, having regard to the specific promise given that the whole subject should be explored. The Commons did not accept the Amendment inserted on the motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton; but it accepted Lord Downham's Amendment to Clause 23. Lord Bledisloe's Amendment in Clause 25 was accepted, and Lord Lincolnshire's Amendment extending the acreage from two to ten was also accepted. They accepted a new clause as to the land in the New Forest and Crown land in Bushey Park. Omitting several less important Amendments, the Commons accepted the Amendment of the Marquess of Salisbury to the schedule enabling the co-option of other members to serve, upon the Committees. I think I have said enough to show the very careful consideration that was given by the Commons to the matters which appeared to this House to be of considerable importance when the Bill was under consideration here.
[NOTE.—The references are to Bill (77) as first printed for the House of Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 20, page 15, line 27, after ("solely") insert ("may exceed two-thirds but")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:
Because it affects the powers of the Public Works Loans Commissioners to advance money; and the Commons consider that it is unnecessary on their part to offer any further reason, hoping that the above reason may be deemed sufficient.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In Clause 20, page 15, line 27, your Lordships made an Amendment, after "solely," by inserting "may exceed two-thirds but." On this the Commons said that they regarded it as a privilege Amendment. I think it is only due to Dr. Addison, who was in charge of the Bill, to say that he made a most gallant attempt to get the House to take a sane view, but Mr. Speaker gave a definite ruling upon the point. I do not know whether the noble Marquess will wish to carry the matter further. In order to afford him an opportunity of making such observations as occur to him, I move that the House should not insist upon this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think I was personally responsible for inducing your Lordships to insert this Amendment in the Bill, and I do not desire to be father to it now. I do not know enough about the merits of it to urge it upon your Lordships. With reference to what the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack has just said, I am very glad that the right hon. Dr. Addison did his best to prevent this excessive plea of privilege being used for the purpose of opposing an Amendment which went down to the House of Commons from this House. It does not appear to be necessary to discuss the matter any further on the present occasion, because I personally do not propose upon the substance of the matter to ask your Lordships to insist upon the Amendment. I do not know what other Lords may do.
But I am quite sure of this, that the time has gone by when the country will allow really good Amendments, sent from this

1061
House to the House of Commons, to be blocked merely on the ground of privilege. If the House of Commons do not agree with our Amendments it is very possible they are wiser than we are. On the merits they may be perfectly right and we may be perfectly wrong, and we should, of course, be only too glad then to accept their view, if we were convinced. But to be told that, although the Amendment may be good, yet, because it offends this obscure rule of privilege, the country is to lose the advantage of a good provision in the law—I am quite sure the time has gone by when the country will endure it. On the present occasion I have nothing to say on the merits of the question. I would not have said so ranch as I have but for the kind observations of the noble and learned Lord. I do not propose to carry the matter further, and I shall not resist the Motion that is made.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 21, page 16, line 3, after ("solely") insert ("shall, in the case of persons being members of a building society incorporated under the Building Societies Acts, 1874 to 1594, be advanced upon the most favourable terms the Treasury by regulation may permit, and in any case")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:
Because the Amendment would be ineffective without the addition of a new scheme of financial assistance.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these words were inserted in the Bill during the Report stage in this House. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment very candidly stated that it was incomplete in itself, and that other words would necessarily have to be added. Both the original scheme and the variant which, if my memory serves me rightly, was suggested by Lord Salisbury, would require a careful investigation, and I tried to point out that on the Report stage it was really hardly practicable that an adequate investigation of that kind could be made.
Everybody agrees—and I think everybody agreed who considered this question from the point of view of the House of Commons—that if a scheme could be devised for making fruitful use of the accumulated funds in the hands of the building societies without increasing the burden on the Exchequer, it would be a
1062
most admirable arrangement. I think acknowledgment is due to the noble Lord who made the suggestion, but I must say quite frankly that the particular schemes which have been suggested have not recommended themselves to the Treasury. In these circumstances the right hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill below did not ask the House of Commons to agree with the Amendment, though he dealt with it in an extremely sympathetic manner and promised that the whole subject should be carefully explored.
I hope that your Lordships will not think it necessary to insist upon the Amendment which, in fact, would be meaningless unless the Commons inserted some additional words such as those which the noble Earl suggested. For this reason, I beg to move that your Lordships do not insist upon this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL GREY: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stanhope moved this Amendment in my name in my enforced absence in Newcastle owing to the railway strike. I am very sorry I was not able to get back because, after putting down the Amendment, certain further knowledge bearing upon it did come to my notice which I should like to put before your Lordships. I recognise the truth of what the noble and learned Lord says, that it would be futile to ask your Lordships to re-insert the Amendment, because we are in the hands of another place and it is necessary that other words should be added. As they have said they are unwilling to add them at this stage there is nothing further to be done.
I welcome very much the words which fell from the noble Lord, in which he describes what Dr. Addison said as a specific promise that the whole subject should be looked into. The words which were actually used in another place, in recommending that this Amendment should be dropped, included the following—
"I am afraid it raises exceedingly difficult questions involving practically a subsidy to a private individual, and that is a very difficult matter, as the House knows."
I cannot help reminding your Lordships that the Amendment is to Clause 21, which is called "Loans to private persons," and it says that during a period of two years

1063
money may be advanced to any private person for the purpose of constructing houses for the working classes. I was always given to understand that the greater included the less, and if this clause took power to grant loans to private persons to erect houses for the working classes, it would naturally cover anybody who wanted to advance loans for the erection of a single house for that purpose. Still I do welcome the promise that this matter shall be further looked into.
Whilst I was at Newcastle I had occasion to have a conversation with five secretaries of some of the leading building societies there. As your Lordships know, it is especially in the North of England that building societies are so strong. I discussed this particular scheme which, as I say, came to my notice quite by chance, and, to my surprise, I was informed that it had been discussed by the building societies and very favourably viewed by them no less than two years ago. Although the Government professed great interest and anxiety, I was informed that the scheme had been forwarded to the Government, but it had received no sympathy at all. In view of the really favourable reception it has received I regret that it was not looked into at the time when the Government had plenty of opportunity to examine it in detail. I also put the point direct to them whether it would be possible for the building societies to finance the Government portion of the money which would be required to build the houses in contemplation, and I was assured that there would not be the slightest, difficulty in financing those houses.
Therefore, had I been here last Thursday, I should have been able to assure your Lordships, on the authority of these very prominent members of the building societies themselves, that this provision, had it been accepted in another place, would have enabled a very large number of houses to be built without calling upon the Treasury to find any large capital sum but only the interest on the capital. In view of the fact that this is the only way in which private enterprise really can be assisted, and the high character of those who are members of building societies, I hope the Government will look into this question with a view of trying to work out some method which will enable them to utilise the funds at their disposal.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
"Purchase of building materials in possession of a Government Department.
"23. Any bricks or other building materials in the possession of a Government Department which are available for purchase by a local authority for the erection or improvement of houses under the Housing Acts shall also be available for purchase on not less favourable terms by any owner of a house or building or site who enters into an agreement, with such security as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Local Government Board, to use all building materials so purchased by him in the erection or improvement of houses for the working classes."
The Commons disagree to this Amendment, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof: After Clause 22, insert as a new clause:
" Provisions as to sale of building materials.
".Subject to any conditions prescribed by the Local Government Board with the consent of the Treasury, any bricks or other building materials which have been acquired by a Government Department for the purpose of the erection or improvement of houses for the working classes, and which are not for the time being required for that purpose by any local authority or Public Utility Society may during a period of two years from the passing of this Act be sold to any person who undertakes to use the same forthwith for the purpose of erecting or improving houses for the working classes and to comply with the said conditions at a price sufficient to cover the cost of replacement at the time of sale of the materials so sold."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is concerned with the proposed insertion of a new clause after Clause 22, which I think was moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton. The object of the noble Viscount was to secure that private purchasers of building materials should not be altogether excluded from some prospect of obtaining raw material by the operation of corporations in accumulating material. I took the view that the language suggested in the new clause was inapt to secure this purpose, and I pointed that out when the matter was under debate. The House of Commons, as your Lordships see, propose an Amendment in lieu of the noble Viscount's Amendment. Their Amendment undoubtedly is an attempt to secure the purpose of the noble Viscount. I understand that there has been some discussion between the noble Viscount and the draftsman, the result of which has been to suggest a further modification of the form of the new clause suggested by the Commons, which will at once satisfy the desire of the noble Viscount and not

1065
offend against the view taken in another place. I believe that effect can be given to that view by the Motion which I now make.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons Amendment, subject to the following Amendment—Leave out after the words ("working classes") where they first appear, the words ("and which are not for the time being required for that purpose by any local authority or Public Utility Society").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for having endeavoured to meet the strong feeling which was expressed. As he has made this concession and taken out these words, I think we could accept the Common's Amendment. There is one other Amendment I should wish to make, and that is that the word "two" should read "five." It is really unreasonable to suggest, if a building programme is completed in two years' time, that at that moment all supplies should be cut off. I would ask the noble and learned Lord to substitute the words "five years" for "two years."
Amendment moved—
To omit from the proposed new clause sent up by the Commons the word ("two") and insert ("five").—(Viscount Midleton.)
LORD SHEFFIELD: Before we pass away from this Amendment I should like to ask whether the condition at the end of the Common's Amendment, that these materials are to be sold at a price sufficient to cover the cost of replacement at the time of sale, is not really possible in any case. It is putting the private purchaser under it worse condition as to price than the local authority.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Do I understand that the Lord Chancellor is willing to accept the suggestion that the two years should become five? I think it is a most reasonable suggestion. These building operations are not going to be done as quickly as some sanguine people imagine, and the programme of the Government must last for a considerable number of years, during which they will practically absorb the vast mass of building material in the country. Private owners are to be called upon to replace and repair buildings under very heavy legal obligations, some of which are included in this Bill, and it
1066
really comes to this, that they must repair although there is no materials to repair with. I do not mean that my noble friend has solved the problem altogether. He has been very modest in his demand, and has confined it to a small compass. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept the suggestion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would remind your Lordships that the original proposal of the Bill was one year, and that it was only after discussion that the one year was increased to two years. I would also remind the House that the view of the authorities is that before the end of five years the building programmes will be completed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the building programme of the Government is finished in two years it would be no hardship for them to part with their building materials.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That, no doubt, is perfectly true, but it is a question whether at this stage it is worth while sending the matter again once more to the House of Commons to be considered. But holding the view that there is very reasonable prospect that this matter will be dealt with long before five years are past, I do not propose to divide the House upon it.
On Question, Amendment ageed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 23, page 17, line 20, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:
Because it makes expenditure by local authorities compulsory, and the Commons consider that it is unnecessary on their part to offer any further reason, hoping that the above reason may be deemed sufficient.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Speaker has ruled that this is a privilege Amendment, for reasons which are given. I am not prepared to debate the decision at which Mr. Speaker arrived, and I apprehend that your Lordships will be prepared to concur in the Motion which I now make.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 27, page 22, line 27, after ("habitation) insert:
("Provided that the owner may within twenty-one days after the receipt of such notice, by written notice to the local authority, declare his intention of closing the house for human habitation, and thereupon a closing order shall be deemed to have become operative in respect of such house.")
Clause 27, page 22, Line 31, after ("with") insert ("and if the owner has not given such notice as aforesaid")
The Commons disagree to these Amendments for the following reason:
Because, in view of the present shortage of housing accommodation, it is not desirable to allow owners of houses by closing their houses further to restrict the supply.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In regard to these Amendments I think it has been felt that there was a good deal to be said for the view taken by the Commons, but it was held by the noble Marquess that their apprehensions might be safeguarded while still carrying out his own purpose. I gather that there has been a discussion, and that the result of that discussion is the Motion which I now make and which I trust will not be unacceptable to the Commons.
Moved, That this House doth insist upon the said Amendments, but with the following Amendments—In line 1, after ("that"), insert ("if such house is not capable without reconstruction of being rendered fit for human habitation"); and at end insert: ("Any question arising under this proviso shall in case of difference between the owner and the local authority be determined by the Local Government Board").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SHEFFIELD: It is difficult to follow the Amendment as read, but, as I picked it up, the obligation to put the house in repair, no matter what it may cost, is to be enforced unless it is possible to show that it is not capable without reconstruction of being rendered fit for human habitation. There are many houses which, of course, if you spend enough money upon them you can put into repair. There are houses which the owner has kept standing because of the needs which have arisen during the war, though he would gladly have pulled them down. They are houses which no prudent owner would put into repair. Therefore I think it should be "where a reasonable owner can properly put them into repair." Otherwise you would be putting a very great obligation upon the owners.
LORD BLEDISLOE: As I was responsible for the Amendments and for the words which are now proposed to be inserted, I think I should say that in my opinion the House of Commons did not realise the exact point upon which we want to insist. In the case of ordinary repairs their objection would be unanswerable. If an owner can by ordinary repairs put a house in a state of repair fit for human habitation, it is only right that he should do so, but in the case of a good many old, picturesque houses the moment you touch them they, like a house of cards, collapse, and to put such houses into a habitable state would involve reconstruction. It would be obviously unfair, particularly to small owners—and it should be realised that two-thirds of these houses belong not to rich men but to very poor persons. It would cost four to five times the capital value of the house. Therefore this Amendment is proposed—namely, that where reconstruction is involved, as distinct from repairs, the owner is to be allowed to close the house rather than re-erect it. There are cases which have been already settled on this point, and I think there is little doubt that it would be possible to distinguish between one type of work and another. If, however, there is any doubt we ask that the Local Government Board shall decide.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I only want to say that I think the minimum of protection has been given by this Amendment, and I ask the noble and learned Lord to realise that when the measure with regard to Ireland is read a second time it will be impossible for us to rest content with such a minimum of protection. Some appeal on the facts it will be absolutely necessary for us to press for.
EARL STANHOPE: It is very difficult for anybody to construe what the Amendment really means, and I suggest that if possible in another place the Amendment should be altered so that it should say that where the repairs would exceed say five times the annual rent the owner should be entitled to close the house. I think you require some definite language in order to decide what is impossible repair.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very unwilling that further words should be added here, by way of explanation, but the suggestion made shall be considered, and I will ask the draftsman to do so.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 29, leave out Clause 41:
The Commons disagree to this Amendment, but propose to insert the following new clause in lieu of Clause 41:
"Preparation of town-planning schemes.
.—(1) The council of every borough or other urban district containing on the first day of January nineteen hundred and twenty-three a population according to the last census for the time being of more than, twenty thousand shall, within three years after that date, prepare and submit to the Local Government Board a town-planning scheme in respect of all land within, the borough or urban district in respect of which a town-planning scheme may be mode under the Act of 1909.
"(2) Without prejudice to the powers of the council under the et of 1909, every scheme to which this section applies shall deal with such matters as may be determined by regulations to be made by the Loral Government Board.
"(3) Every regulation so made shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an address is presented by either House within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such regulation, is laid before it, praying that the regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation, but without prejudice to the validity of anything preciously done thereunder."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: On this Amendment I think your Lordships will be able to reach a harmonious conclusion with the Commons. They attach very great importance to the provisions of this clause, and I think that very general disappointment was felt by all parties at its deletion by your Lordships. The new clause which the Commons propose is an improvement on the original, and I hope it will go some way to disarm opposition. The clause in its new form makes it clear that the intention is that the new code shall be determined by means of regulations to be made by the Local Government Board. Both Houses will have ample opportunity of criticising the conclusions, if they desire to do so. I hope that your Lordships will agree to the Motion which I make.
Moved, That this House doth agree wit h the Commons in the said Amendment. (The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD ISLINGTON: I think that the decision of your Lordships to omit this clause in its original form has enabled the House of Commons to improve it very considerably. It certainly now, as drafted in its amended form, substantially removes
1070
the extremely arbitrary nature of the power that was entrusted to the central authority over the local authority, and all the provisions by which regulations are to be drafted by the central authority are to be submitted and for a period of time to be laid upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament, thus giving an opportunity to those interested in the locality concerned to raise any objections that they may have to the regulations in so far as they may contravene local interests or present impracticable features in regard to local conditions. I think eat the clause as it now stands, and taken in conjunction with the Amendment that your Lordships inserted into the following clause, remove the main difficulties and the main objections that were in their original form. Speaking for myself, as one who opposed these clauses in their original form, I feel quite satisfied now that due and proper safeguards have been inserted to protect localities against any undue encroachment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am glad that the noble Lord has taken that view of this clause. There is no matter which is felt more strongly in the country, amongst those who are likely to feel the effects of legislation, than the desire to have an increased amount of town planning. And when you think that this town planning may deal with such subjects as the number of houses to be built to the acre, and whether there are to be open spaces or not, one cannot be surprised that the working classes feel very strongly that they ought to be protected from the mean streets without open spaces which have defaced our towns for so many years. I am glad that the Commons have added the later part of the clause, because, as the noble Lord has very properly said, we have an improved protection in control in case anything unreasonable is proposed. I am quite satisfied that the intention of the authorities is not to make unreasonable proposals, but to have reasonable ones, and no burden will be imposed greater than the necessities of the case really demand.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 42, page 30, line 15, after the second ("act") insert ("or in the case of a. borough the population of which is less than 10,000, or of an urban district the population of which is less than

1071
20,000, may, if the Board think fit, by order, empower the county council to act")
The Commons propose to amend this Amendment by leaving out ("the population of which is less than 10,000 or of an") and inserting ("or other")
VISCOUNT PEEL: I move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment in Clause 42, with this alteration—that after "20,000" the words "or of a rural district" be inserted. This is merely to make it clear that the county councils shall act in default.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment, with the further Amendment that after "20,000" there be inserted "or of a rural district."—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to

FINANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of July 23.]

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
To be read 2a to-morrow (The Lord Somerleyton).

COMMONS REGULATION (COITY WALLIA) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  Committee to meet on Tuesday next.

CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
SWINTON AND MEXBOROUGH GAS BOARD BILL.
LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

ARDROSSAN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order in relation to Ardrossan Harbour—Was presented by the Lord Stanmore; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, section 7), deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee.
House adjourned at five minutes before eight o'clock.