Lords Sitting of 30 July 1919

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
THE LORD BISHOP OF RIPON.
Thomas Wortley, Lord Bishop of RIPON—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a.
SWINTON AND MEXBOROUGH GAS BOARD BILL.
Read 2a.
COMMONS REGULATION (COITY WALLIA) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendments made.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not know whether I might be allowed to put a question to the Government before we begin—a question affecting public business, which I ask for the convenience of the House. The Ministry of Ways and Communications Bill stands for Committee to-day, but rather low down upon the list, and it would be convenient to your Lordships if we knew what day the Committee will stand adjourned to in the event of our not finishing, or getting near finishing, the Committee stage this evening.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): Your Lordships will observe that we have a number of Orders on the Paper to-day, but I fancy some of them will not take very long. Two or three speeches, I understand, are to be delivered on the Finance Bill. The Committee stage of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Bill, which is in charge of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, is not to be taken to-day. The Report stage of the Local Elections (Proportional Representation) Bill will, I gather, be very short.
LORD PARMOOR: Quite formal.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Then we come to the Ministry of Ways and Communications Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There are three Motions on the Paper as well.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I do not think Lord Stanhope's Motion is likely to take very long, and in any event we have to face the fact that we have to begin the Ministry of Ways and Com-
4
munications Bill, and I hope that we shall sit reasonably late to make as much progress as possible. With regard to a second day, I suggest that the Bill be put down to-morrow. To-morrow we shall have the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Bill carried over from today; the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Bill, in the name of the Lord Chancellor, which I do not think is likely to run very long; the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Bill, in Committee, and the National Health Insurance Bill, in Committee, neither of which Bills raise matters of acute contention. Lord Weardale has his Checkweighing in Various Industries Bill, which will be very short and formal, and the Land Settlement (Facilities) Bill, which is down for Second Reading, will perhaps excite a certain amount of discussion. After that, I propose that we shall continue to-morrow evening with the Amendments on the Ministry of Ways and Communications Bill. I do not think I can express any opinion as to the day next week, should it be necessary, on which that Bill will be put down.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Will the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Bill keep its place to-morrow?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It takes its place in the Paper to-morrow.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Are you going to sit after dinner?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes tonight, and to-morrow I think.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is the noble Earl aware that at the end of business yesterday Lord Selborne asked the Leader of the House if the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Bill would be taken to-day, and he said "Yes"?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If that is correct—and I have no doubt that the noble Marquess is right—I am afraid Lord Curzon did not appreciate the point. I do not know whether Lord Selborne is coming down this afternoon on the understanding that the Bill is to be taken.
LORD STRACHIE: I heard distinctly the statement which the noble Marquess has alluded to, that the Acquisition of Land Bill was going to be taken to-day, and that is why I am here.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Then I apologise to your Lordships for having to announce that it is not to be taken to-day.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is the circumstance that the Leader of the House told us that the Acquisition of Land Bill was to be taken to-day which has naturally misled the House.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It will be a matter of great regret to the Leader of the House, as it is to myself, that any inconvenience should have been caused to your Lordships.

THE CASE OF MISS DOUGLAS-PENNANT.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE rose to move—
"That whereas His Majesty's Government have refused to grant a judicial inquiry, this House do appoint a Select Committee to examine the circumstances connected with the dismissal of Miss Violet Douglas-Pennant from the Women's Royal Air Force, and that the said Committee have power to call witnesses, to take evidence on oath, and to ask for the production of documents."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the case of Miss Douglas-Pennant was debated at considerable length in your Lordships' House just two months ago. 'Therefore I do not propose to weary your Lordships by recapitulating the arguments then put forward, but I will state as briefly as I can the salient facts in this case. Then it will be my duty to lay before your Lordships some additional information which you did not have on the last occasion, and also to ask the noble Lord, Lord Weir, who is present in the House to-day, certain definite questions of which I have given him private notice. Yesterday the Leader of your Lordships' House lectured your Lordships somewhat severely upon the respect due from one House to another. The last occasion on which this subject was discussed in your Lordships' House you decided by a majority of more than three to one that a judicial Inquiry should be held. And what was the result of your Lordships' decision? The Government merely announced in reply to the question of a private member in another place that they did not intend to hold this inquiry. Obviously I should be neglecting my duty to your Lordships' House, and stultifying the decision that you came to, if I did not give
6
your Lordships an opportunity of taking such action as lay in your power. It is for that amongst other reasons—much more serious reasons—that I have again put the Motion on the Paper to-day.
I will draw your Lordships' attention to a second White Paper containing correspondence in regard to this case, and to a somewhat curious coincidence. The first White Paper was placed in your Lordships' hands on the morning of the debate in this House on the last occasion, May 29th, and the second White Paper was issued to your Lordships on the morning on which this Motion originally was to have come on, July 14. What is the reason? Why should those two Papers have been issued on the morning on which this question was to be debated in your Lordships' House? I think that if your Lordships will examine the Papers you will see the reason. If you examine them cursorily they appear to be a somewhat strong indictment against Miss Pennant, but the more you examine them the more you realise that they bear out her case and make it stronger than it was before; and I am bound to add it is somewhat hard on one of the ladies mentioned in this case, Miss Leonard, who claims to have reorganised the office of the Air Force and to have practically completed her work in April, for not a single one of the letters issued before Miss Pennant became Commandant has been signed. It may be that the office is not so well organised as Miss Leonard imagines, and therefore no signatures were put to these letters. It may also be that those signatures may be extremely inconvenient. I will tell your Lordships why. The Selection Board which chose candidates was composed amongst others of Mrs. Beatty, Miss Pratt and Miss Andrew. Those are the three women officers who resigned on July 1st. As your Lordships know I stated on the last occasion, and it appears to be fairly clear from a study of this White Paper, that the real reason why they resigned was because Miss Pennant refused to appoint five ladies to very important positions for which she thought they had not sufficient experience. Your Lordships will see that the dates in the case tally.
I turn to the bare outline of this case. On August 7 of last year the Under-Secretary of State for the Air Force, in reply to a question in another place, said—
"The Air Council have every confidence in Miss Pennant's ability and discretion.… She

7
was appointed to her present position (Commandant of the Women's Royal Air Force) because her experience and qualifications render her, in the view of the Air Council, the most suitable person available to carry out the duties attaching to it."
Quite obviously that statement must have been issued with the authority of Lord Weir. On August 16 Miss Pennant tendered her resignation as Commandant of the Royal Air Force, and the reasons she gave for her resignation were almost identical with those given by Miss Pratt (49A of the second White Paper). Miss Pennant's resignation was refused, and Colonel Bersey, who was the chief stumbling block to progress, was relieved of his appointment. On August 28, only eleven days after Miss Pennant's resignation had been refused, Miss Pennant was summarily dismissed.
I asked the noble Lord, Lord Weir, what it was that caused him to change his views from those stated on August 7 in another place—only three weeks before—and what it was that caused him to refuse her resignation on August 17, and to have her summarily dismissed on August 28, eleven days after? Had he changed his mind because an adverse report in writing had been made on Miss Pennant by General Paine or General Brancker, the only two officers under whose direction she served? We know there was no adverse report. In the letter of General Seely to Miss Pennant on February 11 (No. 26 first White Paper) General Seely writes—
"No written reports were made. Lord Weir satisfied himself as the result of very careful inquiry that you were not so well suited to carry out the duties of the appointment as other candidates who had more experience of that class of work."
Yet only three weeks before August 7 Lord Weir stated—or it was stated on behalf of Lord Weir—that Miss Pennant was appointed for those very reasons. What caused him to change his mind?
Let me read to your Lordships a paragraph in the King's Regulations for the Royal Air Force—paragraph 133. It is laid down there that an adverse report will be made out in the first instance by the C.O. or other immediate superior of the officer reported upon, and will be communicated to the officer concerned who will initial the report at the place assigned to him for the purpose to show that he has
8
seen it. Why was that policy not carried out in regard to Miss Pennant? There was no report to show and no report to initial. Then on whose report was she dismissed? What were the reasons for her dismissal? Three reasons were given, the first by General Brancker. He told her, "You are dismissed not because you are inefficient—you are very efficient—but because you are so grossly unpopular with all who come in contact with you that no one can work with you." I will have something to say with regard to the question of popularity presently.
The second reason is that given by the noble Lord, Lord Weir, himself in the letter to Miss Pennant of September 6, in which he writes—
"I had definitely come to the conclusion that you would not be successful in solving the difficulties which confronted you … and in particular in obtaining the sympathetic co-operation of the other women's organisations."
The chief obstacle and the chief difficulty with which Miss Pennant had to contend in order to make satisfactory progress was the blocking of Colonel Bersey, and Lord Weir appears to agree with that, because he approved of Colonel Bersey being replaced by another officer. He gave Miss Pennant exactly eleven days to get Colonel Bersey's successor instructed in his work, and to see whether she was found capable of solving these difficulties or not. Obviously the real reason is the second part of Lord Weir's statement that Miss Pennant was unable to gain the sympathetic cooperation of the other women's organisations. Did he ask Miss Pennant whether that was the case? What evidence did he take? Miss Pennant was never asked by Lord Weir, or as far as I can find out by anyone else, whether she had got on satisfactorily with the other organisations or not.
Now I come to the third reason. It is contained in Lady Rhondda's report (72a of the second White Paper). It is a remarkable document. In the first place she makes a comparison between the Women's Royal Naval Service and the Women's Royal Air Force. It was Lady Rhondda's duty to know, and undoubtedly Lord Weir also must have known, that no possible comparison could be made between those two Forces, and for this reason. The Women's Royal Naval Service started from small beginnings and gradually grew. It always had its proper complement of

9
officers, and therefore the organisation was comparatively easy. The Women's Royal Air Force started in this way. Fourteen thousand women and 53 women officers were transferred from Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps, and 2,000 women and 20 officers were transferred from the Women's Royal Naval Service. When Miss Pennant was appointed Commandant she found 16,000 women and only 73 women officers. I ask you how any comparison can be made between the Force which gradually grew, and one which started under such conditions.
The point which Lady Rhondda makes is this. She says there is a paucity of women officers; Miss Pennant complained of exactly the same thing. As Lord Weir knows, it was by her personal efforts that she succeeded in obtaining accommodation from the London County Council to be able to train women officers in batches of 200 at a time. That was not due to other people in the Office, who apparently thought that accommodation for 25 officers was sufficient. Miss Pennant realised the necessity and arranged accommodation for the 200.
What is the third reason in Lady Rhondda's Report? The foundation of her charge is really this, that Miss Pennant refused or had failed to appoint senior women officers. Those of your Lordships who have seen something of the organisation of the Army and of other military forces in this war will realise what a proposal that was to make. What would you do if you were appointed as a Major-General to command several thousand men scattered about over a very wide area, without a single regimental officer or noncommissioned officer to assist you? What in the world would you do, and what would be the use of you if you were so appointed? The first thing quite obviously is to appoint women to each unit, and when you have got those women officers appointed to each unit, then, and only then, can you appoint senior officers to supervise and help them in their work. But to reverse the position is merely a question of making jobs, and not helping the organisation of the Force.
I turn to the question of the dismissal itself. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack when this case came before your Lordships on the last occasion stated that this was not an individual case, and he gave your Lordships to understand that if you agreed to an Inquiry in this case you
10
would be flooded with a multiplicity of other cases. It is news to me that justice should be refused to any individual, or a large number of individuals, because the cases are numerous. I do not know whether the Lord Chancellor is now going to advise His Majesty's Judges to shorten their hours of labour and demand increased salaries, or refuse to take any cases at all because they are too numerous, but I should be surprised if he said that was so.
But, as a matter of fact, these cases are not numerous. The noble and learned Lord did not give any very great proof of his knowledge of military law and military customs when he visited the Expeditionary Force during the war, and I am not sure whether he can tell me what are the Regulations under which an officer can be dismissed from the Army. I have had considerable experience of the Army and I will tell you, and I am reinforced in my opinion by replies which were given in another place on July 15. No officer can be dismissed from the Army or the Air Force under any section of the Army Act except by sentence of a general Court-Martial. Miss Pennant was not given a Court-Martial. But officers may be asked to resign or to retire under several sections of the Pay Warrant and under one section of the Pay Warrant they may be dismissed from the Army. The wording of that one section, No. 525, is this—
"An officer shall be liable to be removed from Our Army at any time for misconduct."
Miss Pennant was not called upon to resign her commission. She was dismissed, and therefore, as the direct and, as I submit, as the natural result of Lord Weir's action in dismissing Miss Pennant from the Air Force, a stigma attached to her name, and every sort of scandal as regards her personal character was spread. Any officer who is dismissed from the Service in that way is invariably turned out of any club to which he belongs. He must have done some disgraceful act. It was quite natural that those who heard Miss Pennant had been dismissed from the Air Force should conclude that she too had done a disgraceful act. She has been described as the mistress of various people, and every sort of charge of the worst description has been made against her personal character. But I am quite prepared to grant that the Air Council and Lord Weir himself stated that there was no charge against Miss Pennant's personal character. If that be the case,

11
how was it that she was dismissed from the Army for misconduct? Quite obviously, the noble Lord set aside the King's Regulations, and disregarded the law.
There is one other argument that might be put forward, that Miss Pennant was not an officer in the Air Force, and therefore she would not come under any of the Regulations of that Force. I put it to the Government—can they produce a single other case of an individual who is not an officer being ordered to wear the uniform of that Force? Only this year His Majesty's Government passed a clause in the Army Annual Act enabling them to prosecute individuals for selling even articles of equipment to those who were not entitled to wear them. If you prosecute individuals, men in the street, for wearing uniform when they are not entitled to it, why was Miss Pennant not Court-martialled for wearing uniform when she was not entitled to it? And why was not General Paine, who ordered her to wear it, not Court-martialied? And why are the Air Ministry, who advanced the money to buy that uniform, not dealt with for expenditure which obviously was illegal? Whichever way you like to take it, if Miss Pennant was an officer of the Air Force then she was dismissed contrary to Regulations; if she was not an officer of the Air Force what right had she to wear uniform, and why did His Majesty's Government permit it? They prosecute the individual in the street; they are not prepared to take action with regard to themselves when they break the law.
Miss Pennant, although she had been injured in this way, does not demand reparation. What she asks is that an Inquiry should be made and His Majesty's Government have refused to grant that Inquiry. May I read to you a passage out of Magna Charta, which appears to me absolutely to meet the case—
"No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or be disseised of his freehold or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled, or any otherwise damaged, nor will we pass upon him nor send upon him, but by lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land."
Does any noble Lord contend that Miss Pennant has not been "otherwise damaged," and contrary to the law of the land? How was this great Charter obtained? We read that "the oppressions of a tyrannical Sovereign compelled a confederation of the Barons to take up
12
arms for the redress of grievances." His Majesty's Government have refused an Inquiry. The House of Commons—the elected House—is totally uninterested in safeguarding the rights of people to a trial; it is left to the Peers of this Realm to take action against oppressions, this time of a tyrannical bureaucracy, in order that they should insist on a right of trial.
Why does His Majesty's Government refuse an Inquiry? One reason put forward is the score of expense—expense from the most profligate Government this country has ever had. The second reason is that Miss Pennant occupies an influential position. You cannot do sixteen years in the public service without getting an influential position. I have here a few quotations from a very large number of letters which have been received—I am flooded with letters even here. I should like to read you to start with one telegram that I received as I came to this House which was sent to me by Commissioner Lamb of the Salvation Army. He says—
"Elementary justice and need for sustaining organised discipline in national life in these days of unrest call for compliance in Miss Douglas-Pennant's request. God speed."
I have also resolutions passed by the Court of Governors of the University College of South Wales and Monmouthshire, from the City Council of Bangor, from a meeting representing 3,000 members of Anglesea workers, from the Bangor Trades and Labour Council, from the Holyhead Trades and Labour Council, and from the Association of Women Clerks and Secretaries in London. Here is a letter from a person who says—
"I have worked on many committees with Miss Douglas-Pennant and was much impressed by her wise judgment., and high sense of public duty."
Here is another written by one who in 1914–1915 had the privilege of working on a committee under Miss Douglas-Pennant and who "appreciated her wonderfully clear brain, reasoning powers, sympathy, and tact." Truly reasons why she should not be appointed Commandant of the Women's Royal Air Force! The last quotation with which I will trouble your Lordships is from the North Wales Quarrymen's Union—
"From our knowledge of Miss Pennant, and our experience of her work as Insurance Commissioner, we can assure you that all societies in North Wales have the highest regard for her administrative capacity, fair dealing, and her efficiency as a public official."

13
That is the sort of influence Miss Douglas-Pennant exercises, and that is put forward as a reason why she should not have an Inquiry.
Now, what is the real reason? The real reason—I say it with a full realisation of the charge I am about to make—is because His Majesty's Government fear the scandals which will come to light when this Inquiry is held. I will give your Lordships only one instance, but it happens to be an instance of which I have seen almost the whole of the evidence and several of the witnesses. I am convinced in my own mind that their statements are true. Grave scandals began to occur in a large Royal Air Force depôt near London. The lady in charge of the women's hostel wrote several letters to the Air Ministry complaining of the situation, but not one of those letters was delivered to Miss Pennant. Eventually, however, rumours reached Miss Pennant's ears; she sent for the officer and had an interview with her. She then found out that the colonel in charge of that camp was giving all-night leave to the girls who were training as motor drivers at that depôt; that they were constantly returning from London, very often drunk, at four o'clock in the morning in Government motor-cars. She found that there were grave scandals in regard to that officer, this colonel, and two women officers in the camp. What did Miss Pennant do? She decided at once to remove those two women officers—about whom at that time there was nothing more than scandal—to two separate camps well away from where they were before. She decided to replace the lady who was in charge of the hostel—whose health threatened to break down, and who obviously needed an urgent rest—by some one who was in a better state of health to undertake so heavy a task. Further, she reported the matter to her superior.
Then Miss Douglas-Pennant was dismissed. What happened? Miss Pennant's successor, I imagine, was kept in the dark in the same way as had been Miss Pennant; she knew nothing of what had gone on before. The colonel in charge of that camp was not court-martialled, but a system of "general post" in regard to commanders of various depôts took place for his benefit. First of all he was sent down to a depôt some distance from London, and then he was moved back again to a depôt near London—the very
14
depot at which one of the women, about whom there had been these previous scandals, was quartered. This colonel and this woman occupied the same house, and, finally, they were discovered by their landlady in the same room, in flagrante delicto, at three o'clock in the morning. That is the sort of thing that was going on, and that is the sort of thing which the Government fear will come out at this Inquiry.
I would remind your Lordships that it is not Miss Pennant who is refusing this Inquiry; it is His Majesty's Government; and, in the words of Robert Burns—
"There's none ever feared that the truth should
be heard
Save those whom the truth would indict."
I do not ask your Lordships to say when you vote whether you consider that Miss Douglas-Pennant was a good or bad commandant of the Women's Royal Air Force. That is not the question before the House. All I ask is that your Lordships should feel that this is a case in which an Inquiry should be held.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
EARL STANHOPE: I press it far less on the ground that justice should be done to Miss Pennant than I do on wider grounds. I ask those of your Lordships who desire to uphold the purity of the public service, or those of you who are not content that a Minister should set himself above the Regulations, or those of you who still uphold the rights of every freeman of this country to a trial—those of you who support one or all of those great principles should vote for my Motion; and I ask still further that those of your Lordships who disapprove of those principles will vote against it. This is not a case where any noble Lord can say, "I do not know, and therefore I cannot vote." The issue is quite clear—an Inquiry should be held or should not be held; and that issue is in your Lordships' hands. I beg to move.
Moved, That whereas His Majesty's Government have refused to grant a judicial inquiry, this House do appoint a Select-Committee to examine the circumstances connected with the dismissal of Miss Violet Douglas-Pennant from the Women's Royal Air Force, and that the said Committee have power to call witnesses, to take evidence on oath, and to ask for the production of documents.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD WEIR: My Lords, in the first place I am fully conscious of the necessity for expressing my deep and sincere regret at my inability until now to appear in this House for the purpose of amplifying the explanations contained in my correspondence with the Prime Minister and with the Secretary of State for Air in regard to this case of Miss Douglas-Pennant. My inability to be present at the first debate in this House was due to my absence in France. My absence on May 29 was due to the fact that I had arranged to sail from Liverpool to New York on May 28, and, although at the last moment this sailing was postponed to May 31, I was personally unable to take advantage of the postponement at very short notice due to my being in Scotland. Accordingly, I venture to ask your Lordships to absolve me from any charge of either lack of sense of duty or of courtesy. At the same time, may I say that my regret in this matter is a very genuine one, as I feel that my absence has contributed somewhat to the atmosphere of mystery, suspicion, and complexity which has come to surround this case quite unnecessarily, as I hope to show to your Lordships' satisfaction.
I propose to come at once to the three points in the case which appear to me really fundamental. These points are, first, Did I act within my powers in terminating Miss Douglas-Pennant's service in the Women's Royal Air Force? Secondly, What caused me to give the order for the termination of that service, and whether my decision was genuinely my own or was arrived at as a result of influence or pressure of others either outside the Air Ministry or in it? Thirdly, What caused me to recommend the Prime Minister to refuse an Inquiry after he had received Mr. Harmsworth's Report? These three points appear to me fundamental. I desire, first, to make quite clear that I claim no special consideration in this matter on account of my inexperience of She functions of a Secretary of State, or of Government Departments, or of their administration. I have a clear conviction that I arrived at my decision in the best interests of the Service and in the fulfilment of my duty and of my responsibility.
Dealing with the first point on which the noble Earl who opened the debate has laid so much stress, he says, in effect, that Miss Douglas-Pennant was arbitrarily dismissed from the service in defiance of King's Regulations and without regard to the procedure
16
laid down for cases of dismissal, and that my action really implied misconduct on Miss Douglas-Pennant's part. My answer to that is that I was competently advised that Miss Douglas-Pennant was not an enrolled member of the Women's Royal Air Force, that she was not paid from Air Force funds, and that I was acting entirely within my rights. In effect, Miss Douglas-Pennant was temporarily loaned from another Department, and the result of my decision was to cause her re-transfer to that Department, and no reflection whatever on her personal character was either implied or suggested.
Dealing now with the factors which, taken together, caused me to arrive at the conclusion that Miss Douglas-Pennant was not the right woman to solve the difficult problems of putting the Womens Royal Air Force on a proper basis, I will recite them as definitely and clearly as I can, while asking you to appreciate the difficulty of re-creating the atmosphere and circumstances surrounding a decision of eleven months ago. The two White Papers which have been published make clear the conditions on which the Welsh Insurance Commission put the services of Miss Douglas-Pennant at the disposal of the Air Council. The Papers indicate also that my policy was to give her full support in the task entrusted to her, and that this policy was continued up to a date towards the end of August last year.
I must now refer to certain incidents recorded in the published correspondence. First there was the resignation of three senior officers serving under Miss DouglasPennant—Miss Pratt, Mrs. Beatty, and Miss Andrew. The correspondence shows, and Miss Douglas-Pennant agrees, that I supported her unqualifiedly in that particular instance. I regretted, however, the loss of these officers at a time when capable senior officers were very badly needed, and the incident undoubtedly slightly weakened my confidence in Miss Douglas-Pennant. I saw Miss Andrew personally, and her criticism of the organisation caused me to have some misgivings. The next incident to which I refer was the communication to me by General Paine of his conclusion that Colonel Bersey must be superseded, and that Miss Douglas-Pennant and the officer appointed to replace Colonel Bersey should be tried for a month and, if matters were not put right, whoever was to blame must go. This incident further

17
increased my misgivings. General Paine was the member of the Air Council responsible to me for the personnel of the Royal Air Force and for the organisation and running of the Women's Royal Air Force. General Paine consistently supported Miss Douglas-Pennant, but at the same time he never failed to tell me that things were not going well or that the difficulties appeared to increase, and he always left me with the definite impression that he had some doubt as to whether Miss Douglas-Pennant was going to be able to pull the Department round successfully. Further, he referred on several occasions to difficulties in cooperation with other women's organisations. My position, accordingly, towards the end of August was that I had supported Miss Douglas-Pennant and, through General Paine, had given her every chance; but I was conscious of a feeling of distinct uneasiness.
At this stage I must explain the state of the Royal Air Force in regard to manpower at the particular time in question. At this time we had in hand an enormous programme of expansion involving a very serious demand on the War Cabinet for additional man-power, and it is no secret that there was a very strong disinclination to grant us what was required. Briefly, we were told to make better use of the men we had and to use more women. In this situation I received a letter from the Ministry of National Service covering the Report of Lady Rhondda which is published in the White Paper, and if had an intimation that the Ministry of National Service could no longer undertake the responsibility of allocating women to the Royal Air Force unless radical improvements were effected. The authority of the Ministry of National Service to speak in this matter was fully dealt with by the noble Marquess, the Finance Member of the Air Council, on May 29.
In the presence of this intimation I felt that the position in regard to the Force was much more critical than General Paine had represented it to be and that immediate remedies must be found. As I have explained, I had misgivings about the Commandant, and I now found the situation to be more exacting and difficult than I had supposed. At about the same time I had decided that it would be in the interests of the Air Force to make use of General Paine's peculiarly suitable qualities in the important post, the newly-created
18
post, of Inspector-General of the Royal Air Force, and to appoint General Brawler to succeed him as Master-General of Personnel. Accordingly, I considered the situation as a whole and I came to the definite conclusion that what had to be done was to give the new Master-General of Personnel a fresh start as regards the control of what was one of his most difficult Departments—the Women's Royal Air Force. This involved the return of Miss Pennant to her duties in the Department which had placed her services at the disposal of the Air Council and where, I understand, she had rendered distinguished service and would be welcome. All that Miss Pennant had to do was to resume her work in the Department which had lent her and that point was made quite clear to her at the time, as may be seen by the letter of September 2 on pages 5 and 6 of the first White Paper.
Summing up at this stage, the broad reason I give for the termination of Miss Pennant's services was that I felt she was not the right woman for the job. The Force was not going well. My faith in her was shaken. We were at a critical period in regard to the whole Air Force. I made my decision. I acted on that decision. I appointed a successor. Matters improved, and I am personally convinced that I did the right thing. I have done my best to discover why the bona fides of my action have been questioned. Perhaps something of this may be due to the fact that, as a rule, a Minister does not act by himself. Generally, the executive head of the Department concerned seeks the Minister's approval for his proposed action. In the case we are discussing the executive head of the Department, General Paine, had himself been transferred to another position, added to which he was overseas and his successor did not know the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, under these conditions and in the atmosphere which I have attempted to define to you, I acted myself and the whole responsibility is mine. It may be alleged that I should have instituted some special Inquiry before acting in that manner. I can only say that that is foreign to my methods of working. Such an investigation would have taken a long time and I preferred the course of appointing a. new Commandant, trusting her to find out what the difficulties were and to put those difficulties right; and, fortunately, such was the course of events.

19
In regard to outside influence, I wish to deny as explicitly as I am able that my decision was influenced by pressure of any individual, or group of individuals, outside or inside of the Air Ministry, other than the part played by the recruiting difficulty of the Ministry of National Service. As to the existence of any intrigue or conspiracy in the Air Ministry itself, or outside of it, I wish to make it clear that I was never told by General Paine of the existence, or of any rumour of the existence, of any such intrigue or conspiracy against Miss Pennant. Nor did General Paine ever tell me of Miss Pennant herself having brought forward any such allegation; nor did Miss Pennant herself indicate in any way to me, prior to her supersession, the existence of any conspiracy. At this stage I wish to clear up a matter which would appear to show a degree of inconsistency on my part. On August 7, in the House of Commons, Major Baird, the Under-Secretary for Air, stated that the Air Council had every confidence in Miss Pennant's ability and discretion. I wish to say that at that date I had not communicated to Major Baird the misgivings which I felt about Miss Pennant. As it happened, I was out of London when the statement was made in the House, and I was not personally consulted in regard to it.
Coming to my third fundamental question—my recommendation to the Prime Minister to refuse an Inquiry—while Mr. Harmsworth was conducting his investigation with a view to advising the Prime Minister, I saw Mr. Harmsworth on several occasions, and after he had made his Report he told me of his recommendation that an Inquiry should be held. We spoke together quite frankly of the whole matter, and he informed me that his reason was that the best and easiest course was to have an Inquiry as he saw no other means of satisfying Miss Pennant. We discussed together the nature of any such Inquiry and the possible form it might take, without either of us seeing any sound, practicable or useful course of action. Together we went to see the Prime Minister and I explained that I had no personal objections whatever to the Inquiry being held, but I failed to see the existence of any genuine basis for it, or any definite scheme under which the Inquiry could be conducted, or, finally, any real good which could eventuate from that Inquiry. At this time and with the whole circumstances fairly fresh in my mind, the view of an Inquiry which I ex-
20
pressed to the Prime Minister and to Mr. Harmsworth was that it would last ten minutes and that I would be the only witness. As neither the Prime Minister nor Mr. Harmsworth nor myself could satisfy himself on those points which I have mentioned, the matter was left with the Prime Minister to settle, after he had received a letter which I promised to send him and which is contained in the first Paper, dated December 4.
There is one statement made by Miss Douglas-Pennant to which I wish to make specific reference. It is to the effect that the termination of her services was the result of an intrigue which had as its object the appointment of Mrs. Chalmers Watson to succeed her; in other words, it is a charge of jobbery. I wish to make it quite clear that I dealt with the question of Miss Douglas-Pennant's successor to a very large extent personally. As a matter of fact it was my personal desire to have as her successor a lady whose name has not even been mentioned by Miss Pennant, and without any disrespect to the present admirable Commandant of the Women's Royal Air Force I feel that the Force would have been in very good hands if I had been able to induce this particular lady to accept the position.
As it was, this lady could not be induced to come to the Force, and at my request a list of I believe six names was put before me. I put my pen at once through three of the names. Mrs. Chalmers Watson, who was one of three remaining names, was not offered the position, and I understood at the time that Mrs. Chalmers Watson could not have accepted the position even if it had been offered to her. Miss Rachel Crowdy was offered the position, but the authorities would not release her, and Mrs. Gwynne Vaughan was asked and accepted. The position with regard to Dame Katherine Furse is, that I personally sounded her in regard to the post but she felt that she preferred to remain with the Admiralty, and in any case the Admiralty would not release her. I fail to trace any exercise of influence, or any basis whatever on which to found a charge of jobbery in connection with that appointment.
Miss Douglas-Pennant's case, as your Lordships will have seen from the White Paper, has undergone a striking modification since it was first made. The essence of it now is that she was prevented from succeeding in her work by the activities

21
of a clique inside and outside the Air Ministry conspiring and intriguing to prevent her introducing the much-needed reforms, which no one queries or questions, into the organisation of the Women's Royal Air Force. I am not in a position to state whether or not such a conspiracy existed. I can only express my profound disbelief with the existence of such a tremendously far-reaching scheme as she has portrayed, but I do wish to point out that practically none of the persons charged by Miss Douglas-Pennant in this connection had any sort or part whatever in leading me to arrive at the decision to terminate her services, the actual grounds of which I have already covered and explained.
If intrigue did exist it is a matter of surprise to me that Miss Douglas-Pennant, who had direct access by my own original orders to the Master-General of Personnel—there was only General Paine between Miss Douglas Pennant and myself—did not reveal its existence through him to me, provided always that she could not crush it herself. What, in fact, we required in the "Women's Royal Air Force at that time was a Commandant who could clear difficulties even of that character out of the way, and by the action we took we succeeded in obtaining one.
I have given your Lordships the factors and the elements which caused me to make the decision which has brought about this controversy. I know of no other factor which weighed with me, and on reflection I am convinced that I would take the same course to-morrow under the same circumstances. I would ask you to believe that the interest of the Service was the sole factor which weighed with me; the need for an efficient women's service was very great indeed; the war situation was very exacting, and promptness in action counted for a very great deal.
There is one matter as to which I feel a real and genuine regret. It is that to which I have referred in my letter to the Prime Minister. I am conscious of a hick of consideration shown to Miss Douglas-Pennant in connection with the full month's trial promised by General Paine. As a reason for that I can only plead forgetfulness at the moment. I also feel that I might have been rather more definite and clear with Miss Douglas-Pennant, and have put it to her quite frankly that in my opinion she had not been successful in her work,
22
instead of telling her that I did not think she was going to be successful quick enough. That is the difference.
Your Lordships will probably desire that I should reply definitely to the questions put to me by the noble Earl, other than those which I have covered in my explanation. He asks, if I was informed on August 17 that Miss Douglas-Pennant had tendered her resignation, and why I refused to accept the resignation? My answer is that General Paine informed me of his action in refusing to accept Miss Douglas-Pennant's resignation, and his decision released Colonel Bersey from those duties. The two things were concurrent. At that time I had not come to my decision in regard to a change of Commandant. I am asked, if any report was made in writing or verbally by General Paine or General Brancker recommending that Miss Douglas-Pennant be dismissed. The answer is in the negative. In regard to the question as to the specific reasons for the supersession, I have done my best to give your Lordships the reasons contributing to my decision. The noble Earl also in his note to me inquires if I have already apologised. I presume he refers to my admitted lack of consideration in connection with the month's notice. I have expressed my regret for this in my letter to the Prime Minister; that expression of regret has been conveyed to Miss Douglas-Pennant, but if any further apology is thought necessary by the noble Earl I now, and here, tender that apology.
In all these circumstances your Lordships will appreciate that, although I have not the slightest personal objection to the holding of an Inquiry, I am still unable to understand what possible good could come from it. As I see it, no Inquiry and no possible findings could substantially improve Miss Douglas-Pennant's position. None of the official Statements with which I have been connected contained any personal reflection upon Miss Douglas-Pennant's character. In effect I have said that she is a capable and efficient woman, but in my opinion she was not suitable for pulling the particular job round quick enough. I ask your Lordships to believe in the possibility of a lady being a wholly admirable Welsh Insurance Commissioner and yet being unable rapidly to achieve good results as Commandant of the Women's Royal Air Force. A Committee of Inquiry might

23
say I was wrong in coming to that opinion, and that I did not give her a long enough trial. After all that would only mean a difference of opinion between the Committee and myself. An Inquiry might establish the existence in the Department of a great deal of petty intrigue, but I utterly fail to understand how such a finding could do any more than disclose the admitted difficulties with which Miss Douglas-Pennant had to contend in her Department.
I appreciate the point of view of many of your Lordships, who would support the holding of an Inquiry in order to give an opportunity of being heard to the large number of people against whom Miss Douglas-Pennant has now made charges and allegations, but I consider that this would not warrant the waste of public money and the loss of time involved in such an Inquiry, which could disclose nothing of any real value to the country. Surely the important principle involved far outweighs such considerations. By the concession of an Inquiry an extremely dangerous precedent would be created, having grave reaction on the exercise by Ministers of the Crown of the discretion necessarily vested in them in the interests of the country. Your Lordships will appreciate the importance of that factor, and realise the duty which rests upon a Minister to do the best he can for the State, to make the best possible arrangements, to choose the right people, and not to hesitate to change people, even if it gives pain to them and raises difficulties for himself. Nothing matters except, in this case, the welfare of the service; and at that time nothing much mattered but the prosecution of the war. It is a hard burden laid upon a Minister, to have to decide in cases like this. If he shirks that burden he fails in his duty. I have stated to your Lordships as clearly and shortly as I am able the grounds for my action, in pursuance of that responsibility and of that duty.
LORD PONTYPRIDD: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the speech of the noble Lord who has just addressed the House, and I had hoped that he would have said something which would have given us a reason for not pressing this Motion. I cannot conceive it possible to make a stronger case in favour of an Inquiry than was the speech which Lord Weir has
24
just addressed to us. He spoke of the conduct and ability of Miss Douglas-Pennant, and he said he regretted that she was not more successful in her work. I would ask how she could possibly be successful in the circumstances of which we have already heard? Whether the noble Lord believes in a conspiracy or not a good many people do believe in it, and they believe that everything possible was done so that this lady should not be successful. I say that after his speech an Inquiry is demanded. When he brings up the work and the character of so many officials we want to know something more about those officials. Of course it is impossible to go through a great war without a great many mistakes being made, and we have heard of some in the speech of the noble Lord. People are very anxious to find out why it is that this Inquiry has not been granted. Lord Weir said that he personally had no objection to an Inquiry, but he thought no good could come from it. I think a great deal of good could come from it. It would at any rate stop a great deal of the nonsense of which we have heard so much, both inside and outside this House. I had intended to say something of a more formal character. I will not refer to my personal observations of Miss Douglas-Pennant's work as a commissioner at Cardiff, my native place. I happened to ask a leading citizen there, who was well acquainted with her and her work, what he thought of her, and the reply was, "She is a most gracious lady." That testimony not only comes from one man but it is endorsed by every one who has been associated with her. Her unassuming demeanour and kindness of heart and her desire for the social welfare of the people have won for her unbounded esteem and confidence. I will say no more. We have had several debates on this question and I trust that we are going to make a good job of it on this occasion. I think it is time to end this question and see what there is in it, anyhow. It is a question which appeals to our chivalry, and I believe it shall not appeal in vain.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I cannot help feeling, in spite of the speech made by Lord Weir in defence of himself and his Department, that it is quite essential that this Inquiry should be held. I think the thing has gone far beyond the personal claims or grievances of Miss

25
Douglas-Pennant. The question, it now seems to me, is not whether the noble Lord at the head of the Department may have made mistakes, though he acted for the best in the emergency of the moment. If that is so, let us concede it, and if this Inquiry were being asked for in the height of the war your Lordships might well say that you must not disturb the work of the Department, even though some injustice might be inflicted upon some individual. We are now in times of peace and able at leisure to overhaul the way that Department was conducted.
I am rather surprised that the noble Lord, in his carefully prepared defence, did not touch upon the very serious allegation made by the noble Earl who brought forward this Motion. He may say that he had not notice of it. Perhaps he had not, but the allegation is—I am talking with reference to the Colonel and those women going out all night with permits from him and returning early in the morning in Government lorries. Either that matter came before the noble Lord or it did not, and if it did not it means that very important and serious charges were being made against high persons in his Department of which he knew nothing. If it is so, that rather points to grave mismanagement and neglect, and I might almost say connivance, on the part of somebody with the persons accused to keep the noble Lord uninformed. If the noble Lord did know of this, I am surprised that he did not touch upon it to-day.
We are not asked to-day to decide whether this lady was justly or unjustly dismissed. What we are asked to do is to appoint a Committee to inquire whether it was so or not. We are not now trying the issue; we are merely asked to say whether there is any suit to be tried. The noble Lord in his defence seemed to say that there might have been intrigue, there might have been manœuvres, and there might have been jealousies, but that they did not come to his knowledge and they did not influence his action. But in a great Department, if there were not only intrigues and jealousies, but if there was, as is alleged, grave misconduct, and if that misconduct was hushed up by the colonel who was put to another place and presently was brought back and enabled to be in close touch with one of these women against whom grave misconduct was alleged, then I say the efficiency of the Department was
26
in danger, and it is essential that the whole thing should be gone into. The suggestion is that there was an Augean stable. If there was one it should be cleansed. If there was not one, then the person against whom there was suspicion ought to be cleared of the suspicion.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, I oppose this Motion on the broad ground that if you grant this Inquiry you will open the door to scores of persons with grievances just as acute as those under which Miss Douglas-Pennant is labouring, and they will ask you to give them the same tribunal. And how can you? Surely if Miss Douglas-Pennant wishes to have mole light thrown on her case she has only to publish some of those accusations and statements that we see in the White Paper, and if they have not sufficient bite in them, I suggest that she should supply a little more ginger to bring them up to the requisite standard of libel. Moreover, I am not satisfied that this case would ever have reached the prominence it has, had not Miss Douglas-Pennant been the happy possessor of very good friends. I quite recognise that her extraordinary pluck and moral courage, shown in the way that she has fought this case, has helped her, but I wonder whether if Miss Brown of Putney, or Miss Jones of Cricklewood had lost their positions—positions perhaps not so great, but of just as much importance to them—they would manage to have their case pushed and boosted in both Houses of Parliament as this has been. I doubt it.
May I put this view of the case to your Lordships. In an attack, after the men have gone over the top, if a man is killed nobody thinks of waiting to hold art inquest over him. I think we should regard Miss Douglas-Pennant as a casualty on the civil side of the war. She was one of those splendid women who were fighting the Germans just as much as the soldiers were, and she became a casualty. It is true that she was knocked over by, so to speak, her own artillery, but nevertheless she became a casualty. Are we, when the civil side of the war is not yet over, when there are so many great questions still to be settled, to hold and wait for an Inquiry as to how, when, and where Miss Douglas-Pennant received this injury?
I do not pretend to be an authority on public affairs. I have been in the Army

27
half my life, and naturally I do not know so much about public affairs, but I have stated how this matter strikes me. I can imagine in the years to come, if you grant this Inquiry, the offspring of one of the noble Lords who has the misfortune to be put on this Committee asking his father this question, "What did you do in the great War?" And the answer would be, "My son, I spent hours and hours, and days and days, considering whether Miss Douglas - Pennant was efficient or inefficient."
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will permit me to make a few observations, and to reply to some of the points that have been raised in the course of the debate. First of all, I have to express to your Lordships, on behalf of the Leader of the House, his very great regret that he himself was not able to come down and personally deal with this case as he had intended. Unfortunately he was seized with a very sudden indisposition this morning, and is confined to his bed, and therefore he is unable to be here, but he asked me to express as strongly as I could on his behalf his regret that he cannot himself come down and speak.
I cannot help thinking that my noble friend Lord Stanhope really pitched the case on a wrong note. From the speech of my noble friend he would seem to suggest that certain things connected with the character and the capacity of this lady were on trial, or had been reflected upon by what has happened in the Royal Air Force. I should like to set those matters aside altogether. There is first of all, as my noble friend Lord Weir has stated, no suggestion and no reflection of any kind—no shadow of a suggestion of any kind—about the character of this lady. It would be an impertinence even to make such a suggestion. Her character is unassailed and unassailable. It stands far above any detraction that any man could ever suggest or bring against her, and I hope therefore that your Lordships will dismiss such a matter entirely from your minds. It is even an insult to the lady to suggest that such a matter could be discussed.
The other point on which my noble friend discussed the matter rests I think on an entirely false basis. He seemed to suggest that there was some reflection on the ability of the lady in question. There
28
was no suggestion or reflection whatever on her ability. I am very glad that my noble friend behind me paid a tribute to her abilities. No one has ever heard—certainly I have never heard—anything but praise of the way in which she discharged her duties on the Welsh Insurance Commission. But we have all got very different capacities and abilities. I could select two or three of the ablest men in this House and set them to tasks which, I am quite sure, they would not perform at all well, and yet they would be tasks which might be performed by persons of much humbler capacities than those possessed by the noble Lords I could select. We are not all fit for the same jobs. And to say, because one individual man or woman is not equal to discharging a particular task, that that is a reflection on his or her general ability and capacity to discharge other tasks is really one of the most preposterous suggestions I have ever heard advanced.
May I make this observation. I am bound to say that it sometimes has struck me what a narrow kind of ability in some ways a particular faculty of organisation is, and very often how difficult it is to discover from your previous knowledge of a person whether that person had organising abilities. It is in some ways rather a narrow capacity, and all that we can say is that this lady, with her ability, with her character, and with all those qualities to which strong tribute has been paid, did not, as it turned out, succeed in the particular work of organising which she was set to do at the Royal Air Force. Surely these things are no reflection on her character or on her capacity.
I do not think that my noble friend Lord Stanhope appealed to Magna Charta in his speech to-day, but I saw a letter of his in The Times in which he appealed to Magna Charta, and appealed to your Lordships as the Barons of Runnymede, and declared that this was a question of justice, and that you must not deny justice to the humblest of His Majesty's subjects. It has nothing to do with the question of justice at all. In a question of justice you have to be charged with certain definite crimes, and for those you can be tried; they are set out in the Statute Book, and if you are found guilty you are punished, and rightly punished, for those crimes.
My noble friend takes an analogy from the Army. A more misleading analogy I never heard. He tells us that in the

29
King's Regulations you may not be dismissed from the Army without a sentence of Court-Martial, and he really tried to make your Lordships believe that this was a parallel to that case. I am sorry to say that in the course of my duties every day it is my business, as one of the Army Council, to cause officers to resign their commissions and leave the Army, and why? Not because there is any charge against them, because, if there was a definite charge against them, or a crime, they would be Court-Martialled; but because in the opinion of their Commanding Officers, backed up by their Brigadiers and Divisional Generals, they are not efficient for that particular duty of commanding men. That is not a slur on a man's character; it is simply that he is not capable of that particular duty.
I do not wish to press the Army analogy very far. Because, as a matter of fact, there are great distinctions to be drawn. But this question itself is not merely a matter of whether, in the opinion of the Minister concerned, somebody, man or woman, is capable or incapable of discharging the duties, but of whether somebody else in a great crisis is more capable of discharging those duties—at any cost, it may be, to the feelings of individuals, and at any pain that may be inflicted. That really is the whole matter.
My noble friend Lord Weir has made a very careful statement about the reasons and the motives that led him to deal with the case as he has done. I do not know what effect that statement may have bad upon your Lordships, or what you may have thought of his judgment in the case; but it seems to me incredible that any one after listening to that statement, can have suggested or supposed that he was led by any motive but that of State necessity to take the action which he did take. And really that is the whole case.
May I go through two or three of the points with which he dealt? First of all we see that while Miss Douglas-Pennant held this particular position she was not only treated with every consideration by her chiefs, but her advice was accepted and also acted upon, and acted upon in very grave matters. We have heard the case of the five ladies whom she objected to as holding too high positions and who were placed in less well-paid (I believe) and inferior positions. We have heard the case of other three ladies who were
30
actually dismissed from their posts on the representation of Miss Douglas-Pennant. Again, what she recommended was accepted. All through the first month of her occupation of the post, therefore, it is quite clear that she was fully supported by her chief.
Now what goes on, after all, in the mind of the chief? It is the business of a chief of a great Department to be constantly weighing up and appraising the capacities of those who are the Heads of the Departments under him. That is one of his chief businesses—to see that he is admirably served. And Lord Weir has told us of the process in his mind by which he became gradually more and more convinced that this lady was not the right woman for this particular job, and that his confidence was gradually shaken. Then you come to the final bombshell, as I may call it, when this letter comes from Sir Auckland Geddes—and there has been no suggestion, I suppose, that Sir Auckland Geddes was animated by any feeling of dislike, or jealousy, or anything of the kind. There comes this letter from Sir Auckland Geddes, in which he says that owing to the condition of affairs in that Force it will be impossible for him as the chief of National Service to go on supplying women badly needed for the Royal Air Force unless changes are made and the Air Force is better conducted. Then my noble friend Lord Weir had to take cognisance of the whole matter.
I pass by the question of the Under-Secretary's statement in the House of Commons; that has been dealt with. And I need not, I think, deal with the fortnight or the month's leave; my noble friend has deliberately done with that. Bat he has told us that, after having supported Miss Douglas-Pennant through all these difficult months, he was gradually coming to an opinion as to her suitability for the post, and that then he had to take a decision when he found that all these representations outside were so strong that actually the Force was going to lose its women unless he made some improvement in it. I cannot conceive that in a situation of that kind there is any of your Lordships who would not have acted in a similar way. And you must remember, that it was not in time of peace but in time of war when these decisions were taken and acted upon.
Then I think I ought to deal with the question of dismissal. I do not wish in a matter of this kind to deal with any tech-

31
nical points, but, as a matter of fact, the lady was not dismissed. She had been lent, as many officials are lent, from one Department to another. She was lent from the Welsh Commission, and continued to be paid by the Welsh Commission whilst discharging these duties; and all that was done was that a letter was written to the Welsh Commission that her services, owing to certain changes, were no longer required. In fact, I think, if you look through the correspondence, the utmost trouble was taken all through by my noble friend to preserve the dignity of the lady and do as little as possible to interfere in any way with her future career.
Perhaps I ought to say one word about what is known, I think, as the Harmsworth incident. My noble friend has dealt with it at some length, and I think the only point he has not dealt with is the request that the report of Mr. Harmsworth should be published as a State paper. This report of Mr. Harmsworth is merely a document drawn up as private secretary to the Prime Minister, in order to help him to form his opinion upon a particular case; and if we were to be obliged to publish as State documents all the statements and documents drawn up by our private secretaries there would obviously be an end to those secrecies and privileges which now obtain.
Then I come to the charge that my noble friend was influenced in his selection by partiality for different ladies or different influences. He has dealt so fully and so clearly with that that I think I need hardly add a word to what he has said. As to the two ladies whose names were mentioned—Mrs. Chalmers Watson and Dame Katherine Furse—the latter preferred to remain at the Admiralty, and the other lady had no desire to take up that particular post. So that that part of the case of the influence of those ladies entirely fails.
Then when this action has been taken and this lady has left the office, another lady is appointed, and you get, by the testimony of Lord Weir himself, the fact that all goes well in the office and the business is properly done. So far you would have thought the matter might have closed. But then there are various charges brought against individuals by the lady in question. She presses for an Inquiry, and she is told that, if a prima facie case of malice
32
or corruption is made out against any individual, an Inquiry would be held to deal with that case. No such prima facie case was made out. The matter was examined carefully by the present Secretary of State for War and he came to the clear conclusion that such prima facie case had not been established. Now, I am bound to notice, as my noble friend did, that these questions of intrigue and suggestions of evil influence were not brought to my noble friend's notice until a late date; they were not brought to his notice at all, I think, until September 2. Then, as he has said, as the case has gone on, the charges have altered. The charges, I may say, have expanded a good deal. We get a remarkable instance of that even in this debate. Wholly fresh charges, of which no one has heard a word up to the present time—grave charges of the most disagreeable kind—have been suddenly produced by my noble friend, acting as a spokesman, and flung down without an atom of truth on the floor of this House—although the noble Earl declares that he believes in the truth of these charges. I imagine, therefore, that if we have another debate on this subject we shall hear still more charges.
The question which has been raised by one or two speakers is, Are you to have an Inquiry in order to look into some of the charges which have been brought against inidviduals at the Royal Air Force in connection with this case? I think that I ought to point out to your Lordships that such a matter does not really fall within the terms of this Motion; because what some of your Lordships are now asking for is a totally different thing from an Inquiry into questions connected with the dismissal of Miss Douglas-Pennant. What is asked for is an Inquiry into the whole administration of the Air Force. You are asking for the circumstances connected with the dismissal of Miss Douglas-Pennant to be inquired into. Those circumstances have been fully gone into and clearly put before you by Lord Weir, and he has told us the exact process, stage by stage, by which his mind was formed and by which he came to his decision. Therefore, if you carry this Motion to-night, you are carrying a matter totally different from that which is being pressed by your Lordships; you are asking for an Inquiry into the general administration of the Royal Air Force and not into the circumstances which attended the removal of Miss Douglas-Pennant.

33
If a Minister thinks that one of the heads of his Departments is not doing the work as efficiently as it could be done, and if he thinks that some other head of Department ought to be substituted, are your Lordships to order an Inquiry into the reason why the Minister arrived at that decision? As Lord Dufferin has said, if that were done there would be no end to these Inquiries. I am familiar with a considerable number of cases where able officials have been removed from their posts, and others substituted, because those others were more capable of doing that particular duty. But further than that, if you are not only going to have an Inquiry into why an official is removed, but to have all this sort of floating scandal and stories connected with it also inquired into, there again you will have no end to Inquiries of that sort. I do not suppose that any of your Lordships have had the misfortune to be removed from a post you have occupied; but we know very well that if any of us are removed we can never believe that we are removed through any defect in ourselves or our capacity. We always assume—perhaps justly—that our removal is due to malevolence, to ill-will, to scandal or stories that have been set about with regard to us by someone else; and. as we do not imagine that one individual is powerful enough to remove us, we are rather apt to think that there is a conspiracy by people to do it, people who by their powerful and combined efforts are able to push us out of the post we held.
I submit very respectfully to your Lordships that this case has been unduly magnified; that it has been distorted out of all likeness to the original picture and the original facts; that stories of injustice and of scandals have been brought up when really the simple fact is that a particular official has been removed from a. post which she occupied. Therefore I submit that this is not a case of injustice to an individual; it is a case of the supersession of an individual by another competent official. I submit, further, that my noble friend Lord Weir through the whole of this matter has done his best—as others have done their best—to shield the dignity of this lady, and to make that passage and that transference as easy as it was possible to make it. I ask your Lordships to consider most seriously what constitutional precedent you are setting up. I refer to the fact only in passing because
34
this matter was discussed in the other House and the supporters of this lady were not able to challenge a Division there. I mention, also merely in passing (as it were), that the question of a prima facie case was placed before the Secretary of State for War, and, after carefully going into the matter, he also was of opinion that there was no case on which an Inquiry could be founded.
Consequently I submit to your Lordships that where we are dealing—as we are in a case of this kind—merely with the supersession of an individual official, we should be setting up a very dangerous and bad constitutional precedent it your Lordships were to go to the expense, perhaps of £20,000 or £30,000, in order to inquire into the matter. I ask further, How would you set bound or limit to farther inquiries? Do not imagine that this a will not set a precedent, or that this case will not be very closely watched by others. How will you—having granted this Inquiry (if you do grant it)—be able to refuse an Enquiry to those many persons who in the future will come before you with stories, I dare say as strong or as strongly supported as the case of Miss Douglas-Pennant? You will have imposed upon this House, and possibly on the other House also, a series of Inquiries which certainly will not conduce to the dignity of the State or to the method by which constitutional administration should be carried on.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not be bluffed by the very eloquent and charming verbiage to which we have just listened from the representative of His Majesty's Government. We had exactly what we anticipated. All those who are familiar with the tricks of Parliamentary debate and Parliamentary procedure knew exactly what would proceed from that Bench. I myself could have written the noble Viscount's speech. After all, it is nothing more than a very complete rechauffée of everything that has been said in this place and in another place by a number of people on his same case and every word of it is a palpable evasion of the real issue.
Let me deal first of all with the last, point raised by the noble Viscount. In solemn and warning tones he told you that you are going to set up a dangerous precedent. Let us dispose of that idea at once. You cannot set up a precedent by institut-

35
ing this Inquiry, because there is no similar case. We have that fully admitted. Nobody in His Majesty's Forces has been dismissed without trial or inquiry. Therefore there is no other case for which a similar Inquiry could be demanded. Let us return to the point. It cannot be too often repeated—because three speakers have very cleverly endeavoured to evade the point—that we are not out to obtain personal reparation for Miss Douglas-Pennant. That is not our object, and that is not her object. Our object is to call attention to the violation of a fundamental principle of all our liberties.
The noble Viscount made fun of the fact that my noble friend Lord Stanhope appealed to Magna Charta. That is no laughing matter. My noble friend was absolutely justified in pointing out that the very bed-rock of our liberties is that no free-born citizen of this country may be punished unless he has been tried and condemned. What has happened in this case is that an officer has been arbitrarily dismissed without trial and without condemnation. It is deplorable to see how not only Lord Weir but also the noble Viscount who speaks for the Government keep on reiterating the word "supersession." The use of that word is false; it is not honest. Miss Pennant was dismissed, and dismissed in a manner in which none of your Lordships would dismiss a scullery-maid or any other servant or dependant you may have. That is not supersession. Lord Weir, not content with the use of the word "supersession," tried to lead you on to another track by saying that Miss Pennant was really transferred to another Department. I can only appeal to your Lordships' common sense. If you are going to transfer an official to another Department you do not do it in quite the way in which it was done in the case of Miss Douglas-Pennant. There is no excuse whatever, not even the pressure of war time and the emergencies of a critical situation, which can justify the dismissal of anybody in the particular manner in which this lady was dismissed.
Let us now go on to some other points which have been made by the noble Viscount. He referred to the letter of Sir Auckland Geddes as a justification for his action. On this point, though I speak subject to correction. I think I am right in saying that Sir Auckland Geddes, as Minister for National Service, had nothing
36
whatever to do with the matter. The women of the Women's Royal Air Force were recruited direct and were not supplied by the Ministry of National Service. Again, he referred to the Report of Mr. Cecil Harmsworth, which has unaccountably been suppressed, and he described it as a document written by a private secretary for the information of his chief. That is most inaccurate. Mr. Cecil Harmsworth held a prolonged inquiry in which he examined witnesses, and I am told that he promised representatives of the Press that that Report of his should be published. One of our objects in asking for an Inquiry is that that Report, which is not a private and confidential document, should be published.
The noble Viscount asked what effect Lord Weir's long and laboured explanation had upon us. I can only speak for myself, and I say that so far from having altered the case for Inquiry it has, I agree with my noble friend opposite, considerably strengthened it. Lord Weir made an admission virtually of irregular action in this matter. That disposes once and for all of all the subtleties and evasions and equivocations and misrepresentations of the case which have been made by the spokesmen of the Government from time to time. It wipes out all those miserable quibbles by which it has been sought to evade the real issue and to escape inquiry. It disposes for ever of the suggestion that Miss Pennant was superseded and transferred and not dismissed, even though Lord Weir himself, in singular self-contradiction, used both those terms.
As we anticipated, the spokesmen of the Government said. "What is there to inquire into?" What we want to inquire into is stated on the Notice Paper—namely, the circumstances connected with the dismissal of Miss Violet Douglas-Pennant. Not whether she was justly or unjustly dismissed, but the circumstances in which this arbitrary dismissal took place. The dismissal was an altogether unprecedented act, and an act of so unusual, so arbitrary, a nature that it can only have been conceived in a very unwholesome atmosphere. It was this incident of Miss Pennant's dismissal which gave rise to very strong suspicion that everything was not going on well at the Air Ministry. It is idle to pretend that an act of that kind was merely an error of judgment on the part of the Minister. The principle that nobody may

37
be punished unless first tried and condemned is known to every man, woman, and child in this country. Any child could have set Lord Weir right on that point.
What we want to know, therefore, is what motives were at work—for motives, and strong motives, there must have been—which actuated Lord Weir to risk taking such very unusual action. What were the motives? What were the circumstances existing at the Air Ministry in which those motives were begotten? That is what we want to know. Nothing that has been said here this afternoon goes any way to satisfy the demand for inquiry If everything had been straight and above board, and simple and innocent, as you might have been led to believe by the speech to which we listened from the cross-benches, then what in Heaven's name has there been all this secrecy, mystery, evasion, and equivocation about all this time? I beg you to ask yourselves that question, as I am sure that you will see that there is a strong case for Inquiry.
If that is not enough, let me remind your Lordships that on four separate occasions four promises have been made by His Majesty's Government, in language as definite and explicit as anything could be in the English language. I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time by reading those promises, but they were absolutely definite promises that if a prima facie case were made out an Inquiry would be held, and that every possible facility would be given. Nothing whatever was said about the objection as to expense or anything of that kind. A prima facie case was made out, and the noble Viscount opposite asks why those allegations have been repeatedly altered. They were altered to satisfy the Secretary of State for War. The Secretary of State for War, as again was anticipated by all those who know the ways of Parliamentarians, had determined from the outset that he would not recognise any allegations as a prima facie case, and on each successive occasion—that is, four times over—he asked that the case should be strengthened. That was accordingly done, and that is why the charges and allegations have been expanded. I will not take up your time any longer, but I do beg your Lordships to remember that this case does not compare with that of any officer in the Navy, the Army, or the Air Force who may have been superseded, and that it is
38
not a case of asking for reparation of a personal kind, or of any kind, for Miss Douglas-Pennant.
What we want to inquire into is why an absolutely unprecedented and arbitrary act was committed by the Air Minister and what were the motives and the circumstances which led to that act. We do so in the interests of the general public, because if an act of that kind in one of the great Departments of State can be passed over unnoticed, without the actual facts being established, there is no security that in the future development of bureaucracy we shall not have further arbitrary and tyrannical actions.
LORD JOICEY: My Lords, I am somewhat surprised to hear the very strong speech which has been made by the noble Lord who has just sat down. I have listened to the whole of the debate and I confess that, so far as I have been able to gather, Lord Weir made a very excellent defence indeed to the charge made against him. He showed perfectly clearly that he was under no influence whatever, except the interests of the country and the good service of the Air Department, when he decided to change the Commandant of the Women's Air Force. I must say that I think he made out a good case. I came to listen to this debate knowing nothing whatever of the case, and, judging from the whole of the discussion, I think that the case which has been made out is certainly against an Inquiry such as has been demanded.
To me it seems a very extraordinary thing that a Minister who is at the head of a great Department and has such important services to render to the country cannot, if necessary, discharge any member of that Department without having such a thing as an Inquiry. In my judgment there is too little change made by the heads of Departments and there are too many people kept in connection with our Departments who are of very little service but are of great cost to the country. I am looking forward to the time when a Minister will have full powers to get rid of people who are incompetent or are not suitable for the particular service for which they are paid.
So far as Miss Douglas-Pennant is concerned she is evidently a very competent lady, and I am surprised that she should take the line she has taken, because,

39
clearly there is nothing whatever against her character or against her general efficiency. But the Minister in charge of the Department says distinctly that he did not consider her a proper person to take charge of the Women's Air Service in the difficult circumstances which existed during the war. I cannot understand why the Minister should be interfered with in such a question as that. Surely, if there is any question which a Minister ought to be in the position to decide, it is such a question as that.
In all our great industries throughout the country, if such a charge as that were brought, it would be dealt with immediately by the manager at the head of the department, and I cannot see why such a thing should not be brought up in the Department itself. There have been serious charges made against certain members of the Department—so serious, I think, that if an ordinary employer were satisfied that such charges were true, instant dismissal would take place. I cannot see why the head of the Department, General Paine or whoever he is, should not make special inquiries into those particular cases which were mentioned by Lord Stanhope. I do beg your Lordships not to interfere with the responsibility of the Minister in this case. If you do it will create a precedent which will make Ministers hesitate before they take action which they think is necessary for the good of the country. So far as I am concerned I shall certainly vote against an Inquiry being held, in the hope that a Departmental Inquiry will be held into the particular cases mentioned by the noble Earl.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I feel great difficulty in addressing myself to this case. I may say—I believe in harmony with the view of a great number of your Lordships—that I detest these personal questions. The difficulties which presented themselves in respect of it have been largely mitigated on the present occasion by the speech of the noble Lord who was Secretary of State, and I think I may say that most of your Lordships were very agreeably impressed with that speech. It was a speech of great candour, in which the noble Lord dealt with the subject in a manner which recommended itself to our judgment. I should like to go further and say that I entirely agree with the noble Lord who has just
40
sat down, and with the Under-Secretary who spoke a few minutes ago, that it would be very objectionable indeed if the responsibility of a Minister in changing those who work under him, whether they be military or civil servants in their capacity, was interfered with by Parliament or by Parliamentary Inquiry. All those things I feel very strongly.
When we discussed the matter on a previous occasion we were under great difficulties owing to the absence, which he has explained to-day, of the noble Lord, and also, of course, there were circumstances connected with the dismissal of Miss Douglas-Pennant which were very difficult to explain. For example, there was the fact that the Under-Secretary of State, in another place, announced that she was thoroughly efficient and that when she came to be dismissed she was not, dismissed in favour of somebody more efficient; for, as the noble Lord has told us so frankly to-day, they were unable to find the person they wanted to succeed her except after several trials of different individuals. So that, apparently, although she was, in the view of the Under-Secretary, highly efficient, yet she was dismissed without there being anybody in prospect to fill her place. These are the kind of difficulties presented to us on the last occasion.
There are, of course, other difficulties. There are all sorts of charges which have been made—charges which have been made in the correspondence, charges which have been made outside the House, and charges which have been made in your Lordships' House this evening. These charges are very serious, very grave. I confess, if they can be in any way sustained, that I do not see how it is possible to escape an Inquiry of some kind. It may be thought that it was a mistake to have brought those charges. I have nothing to do with them, and I hope your Lordships will net think for a moment that I wish to endorse them, because I know nothing about them and I would not desire to be in the least responsible for them. But these charges have been made. Charges of pecuniary corruption I believe have been made, if not in your Lordships' House, outside; charges of immorality, inside.
I would like to put a question to the Government. We are not here, of course, to discuss these matters with any heat. I ventured to say to your Lordships very respectfully on a previous occasion that we

41
are, more or less, in a judicial capacity when these questions come before us. We discuss them without heat and with impartiality. I would put it to the Government, whether they think that these charges, of corruption in the one case and immorality in the other, can be passed over absolutely in silence. I do not think they can be. I hope they may be disposed of absolutely; I mean that they may be proved to be unfounded; but they cannot be passed over, and I would say this to the Government. These charges, of course, will penetrate to all parts of the country, and there is a large feeling of suspicion abroad—a suspicion of which we are always conscious and which we have discussed on several occasions in your Lordships' House. That feeling of unrest is very much increased by changes such as these, and they cannot be passed over in silence if there is any foundation whatever for them. I respectfully put to the Government this question—whether they propose to take any action in respect to the charges of pecuniary corruption and the charges of immorality which have been made inside and outside your Lordships' House?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, the further debate which we have had on this subject has been noted for the speech of Lord Weir, which I feel sure has shown to your Lordships the case we have endeavoured to make out on two previous occasions. The noble Marquess has asked the Government specificially whether, if these charges are made, an Inquiry will be granted to discover if they are correct or not. It is not for me to go into the history of the case again. In your Lordships' hands already are two White Papers in which the various charges have been made specifically, and I venture to say that there is nothing in either of these White Papers which can under any circumstances whatever support; the contention of the noble Marquess when he says that any charge of corruption or charge of immorality has been brought to light, or that that corruption and immorality have been tolerated by people in responsible positions.
This has been a most regrettable case in many ways. I have felt that on previous occasions your Lordships have not really, if I may be allowed to say so, appreciated the actual point which was at issue. The point which was deliberately at issue was the questioning of the jurisdiction of
42
the Secretary of State. Another point which was brought forward was that Miss Douglas-Pennant, being in an influential position, had more opportunity of bringing her case before the notice of the public than other people who had exactly the same grievance, or exactly the same sense of grievance. If your Lordships, in your judicial capacity, think that a Court of Inquiry should be set up you are really laying down a precedent which will operate in a multitude of cases at the present moment. If you set up a Court of Inquiry it naturally means that every person who considers that they labour under a grievance will feel that their case should be brought forward, the same procedure gone through, and the same expenditure incurred.
These are important points. The case has assumed an importance which, I feel, is regrettable. In the minds of a great many people in this country the facts have become so distorted that it is our duty in this House to bring them back to the normal on this case, of which there are countless parallels at the present moment. I shall not venture to recapitulate the speech of Lord Weir but I feel, and I hope your Lordships will agree with me, that he has laid down the case, the position and responsibility attaching to the Secretary of State, and has shown that he had no alternative than to take the line he did. I do not feel that I should be entitled to trespass on your Lordships' attention at this moment. Everything that ought to be said has been said already, and I only appeal to your Lordships to consider this case on its merits.
All personal cases, as the noble Marquess said, are difficult, and our sympathies are always with the individual who stands by herself or himself; we are anxious to support them to the fullest; possible extent we can. But this is a public case, and in that connection I feel sure we should consider it on its judicial merits. I have already said on two occasion on behalf of the Government that if any real charge of corruption or immorality is brought forward, or charges that corruption and immorality is tolerated by people in official positions, His Majesty's Government will go into the matter and probe it to the bottom, and bring forward information for your Lordships' satisfaction. In that connection may I say that there is a case at the present moment in which allegations of corruption have been brought forward by a lady who was one of Miss

43
Douglas-Pennant's subordinates, and the moment that charge was substantiated a formal Inquiry was set up and will assemble next week. The result will be made public and be available for your Lordships' consideration. I have said this because I want to show exactly what is in the mind of the Air Ministry.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I put a question to the noble Marquess. Do I understand him to say that a charge in respect of corruption in connection with the Air Ministry has been made by a lady, and that an Inquiry has already been ordered in respect of it?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: A formal Inquiry has been ordered, and will assemble next week, owing to these specific allegations having been made. The Inquiry has been called by the Government. Before your Lordships decide to have an Inquiry, I can only say that the Government feel that they cannot take any
part in it. If such an inquiry is held it must be held by your Lordships, but in doing so you will create a precedent which, I feel, cannot but be followed by very serious consequences.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I think it will interest you Lordships to know why the Air Ministry has set up this Inquiry. It is an Inquiry in regard to a clothing contract in the Air Force. Miss Douglas-Pennant has made some of these charges in the White Paper, and nothing was done. The Clothing Controller has repeated the charges. An inquiry was held which baulked the whole thing; but the lady was subsequently called before a Committee in another place which is inquiring into the waste of national expenditure, and it is as a result of that Inquiry that the Government are now setting up this Inquiry.
On Question—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-contents, 42.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Devonport, V.

Islington, L.

Bedford, D.

Hood, V.

Lambourne, L.

Northumberland, D.

Knutsford, V.

Middleton, L.

Monson, L.

Camden, M.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Crewe, M.

Aldenham, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Lincolnshire, M.

Ampthill, L. [Teller.]

O'Hagan, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Ashbourne, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Normanby, M.

Askwith, L.

Parmoor, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Balfour, L.

Pontypridd, L.

Craven, E.

Basing, L.

Raglan, L.

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

Belper, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Blyth, L.

Rotherham, L.

Eldon, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Roundway, L.

Grey, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Sackville, L.

Lindsey, E.

Clwyd, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Mayo, E.

Colwyn, L.

Southwark, L.

Morton, E.

Ebury, L.

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

Mount Edgeumbe, E.

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

Northbrook, E.

Strachie, L.

Stanhope, E. [Teller.]

Erskine, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Strafford, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Sudeley, L.

Wicklow, E.

Forester, L.

Swaythling, L.

Gainford, L.

Sydenham, L.

Bryce, V.

Inchiquin, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Milner, V.

Joicey, L.

Peel, V.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Bath, M.

Newton, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Ripon, L. Bp.

Nunburnholme, L.

Bradford, E.

Annesley, L.

Phillimore, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Jersey, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Redesdale, L.

Leicester, E.

Clinton, L.

Shandon, L.

Lytton, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Reading, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Sterndale, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Emmott, L.

Sumner, L.

Gisborough, L.

Weir, L.

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Hindlip, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Hothfield, L.

Wittenham, L.

Goschen, V.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion

agreed to accordingly.

DESTITUTION IN EUROPE AND NEAR EAST.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it was possible to make public any official information which has been obtained as to the condition of destitution, and even famine, which is said to prevail in some parts of Europe and the Near East.
The most rev. Primate said: My Lords, I shall not detain you for many minutes with this Question. We have heard with regret that the noble Earl who leads the House is unable to be here to-night, but I understand that it is not contrary to his wish, or the wish of those associated with him in responsibility for these matters, that I should put the Question and receive an answer to-night. I feel that the country at this moment fails; to realise the gravity of the famine conditions which are prevailing, as we are informed, in a great many parts of Europe. We have grown so accustomed during the last few years to reading of horrors and sorrows and trials of all kinds that we do not adequately measure the gravity of the statements which are made about distress such as is now prevalent.
In addition, what we are puzzled by is how to discriminate between exaggerated statements which are made on one side or the other, or the truth which may lie half way between. Therefore it is of the highest importance that we should obtain such official information as is possible. Just a month ago the noble Earl the Leader of the House wrote as follows on the subject—
"It is difficult for our people to realise the extent of suffering which still prevails in those countries" [in the Central parts of Europe] "even at the present time, more than six months after the Armistice.… In many cases, and especially in the large towns, the distress is appalling; not only grown-up men and women, but hundreds and thousands of small children are in daily want of many of the necessities of life. The effects of such a state of affairs are visible in a scale of mortality that can hardly be measured, in a shocking increase of crime, and in the progressive enfeeblement and deterioration of those who ought to provide the population of the future.… It is no exaggeration then to say that the Western world is faced in the present with destitution, disease, and despair, to a degree unprecedented in modern times, and in the future with a prospect of the full consequences of these misfortunes—namely, physical inefficiency, paralysis in national life, social, political, and industrial unrest, and all the evils that cannot fail to flow therefrom."
46
In view of these very grave statements in a letter from the noble Earl, Lord Curzon, the Church of England—and I have no doubt; other denominations too—have been doing what is possible to raise funds for the alleviation of that distress in different parts of the world.
But I have been met several times with the statement., "You are speaking in-generalities. What we want is some specific, knowledge of where it is that the need is so formidable. What investigations have been made into it, and what are the statistical or official facts which can be put before us?" It is with a view to understanding whether any inquiry has been made by His Majesty's Government into the matter or rather—because I know official inquiry has been made—to ascertain whether or not the results of that inquiry are capable now of being made public, that I ask the Question. I believe that the vast mass of the people of this country are most anxious to be helpful where help is most needed, but they are at present in ignorance of the detailed facts, or even the general facts, as to the character, the incidence, and the topographical region wherein the need is greatest. It is because I hope that with these facts before us we may evoke from the people of this country really substantial aid to meeting the appalling distress which, as the noble Earl has told us, is at present prevailing that I venture to ask the Question, and to hope that the answer may be such as to give us the sort of information which will relieve the perplexities that at the present time prevail.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, I desire to add a few words in support of the appeal which has been made by the most rev. Primate, especially dealing with one part of the wide region included in his Question, and that is the Asiatic Near East. There is, I can assure your Lordships—and His Majesty's Government know it already—the greatest possible distress in many parts of the interior of what is or was the Turkish Empire, particularly in the eastern parts from Syria northwards. In one spot there are from 300,000 to 350,000 refugees starving and suffering from disease. They are together upon the borders of what were the Russian dominions—Russian Trans-Caucasia and Russian Armenia. These people fled from before the Turks at the time of massacres. They have been living or dying, supported by charity, ever since in great numbers, and now they are crowded

47
along the frontier all the way eastward from the Black Sea to the Caspian, endeavouring to return to their homes where they would again begin to till the soil, and where they might hope to reap a harvest next year if it were not for the threatening masses of Turks who are gathered there, and in the face of whom it would be dangerous for them to enter their own country. This is one of the places where the need is greatest.
The need is partly met by subscriptions from this country, and on a still larger scale by the enormous Relief Commission sent out from the United States, which took relief there to the extent of something like £5,000,000 or £6,000,000. The greatest possible help was given to this Commission by His Majesty's Government, As I have frequently heard from the members of this Commission their desire that an acknowledgment should be made of that, I venture to make it to your Lordships on behalf of the members of this Relief Commission, who say that all that could have been done was done by those who represented His Majesty's Government in the Black Sea, and along the railway which runs inland from Batum to Tiflis and the Caspian. The need there is very great not only of food but still more of protection. These unfortunate refugees might avert famine for next year if they could get back to their own fields, but they are prevented from doing so by the menaces of Turkish forces. I hear from the best possible source—that of a very eminent man who has made a long journey through Anatolia and Armenia—that the Turks are at present being stirred up in the interior by the remnant of the Young Turkish Party, the infamous Committee of Union and Progress, which still holds a great many adherents in the country, and which unfortunately has been stimulated to further action, and has found material ready to be stimulated, by the conflict which has recently arisen at Smyrna between the Greek troops and the Moslem population there. In these circumstances, if relief is to be given and if those sufferings to which the most rev. Primate has referred are to be reduced, it is essential not only that relief should be sent out, but that protection should be given to the people in order that the relief may reach them and in order that they may be able to return to their homes.
I would therefore seriously appeal to His Majesty's Government not to withdraw
48
any troops from these regions. There has been a rumour that British troops were going to be withdrawn. I earnestly hope that is not the case. Of course I will not press the Government to make any disclosure of their intentions beyond what they may desire to do, but I do express with some confidence, based on the information that I have received, that nothing would be more unfortunate than that the British Forces should be reduced there, because without them you could not get the relief to the people suffering, and because the likelihood of further massacres would be still greater. There is, I am afraid, very serious reason to fear further massacres. The legal Turkish authorities, who take their orders from Constantinople—and of course Constantinople is now under our influence—are, I am told, unable to maintain order. The Armenians and the Young Turk ruffians who desolated the country before with their massacres are still powerful, and they are more powerful in many places than the constituted legal authority, so nothing can prevent further disturbance and further massacre except the action of European troops.
I venture, therefore, respectfully to press upon His Majesty's Government the very great need that exists for providing all the protection and safety that can be ensured to the Christian population there, and I believe that that will not only be the best thing for the general welfare of the country, but it is the only means by which the urgent and pressing dangers of famine can be averted.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to say a word upon this question of famine and destitution, and particularly to express my agreement with what was said by the most rev. Primate—that it is of extreme importance that we should have careful statistics, and that there should be no exaggeration of what is undoubtedly a very difficult situation.
Only two days ago I saw a series of letters from Vienna written by persons who were quite detached from political bias of any kind, drawing in very dark terms indeed a picture of the conditions of distress which exist in that city at the present time. But, apart from private letters of that kind, I think it is of importance that we should bear in mind what has been said on this very serious question by members of the Government

49
who have had special opportunities of obtaining the true facts. No one, probably, has had, bad a better opportunity than Lord Robert Cecil, whose work at Paris has gained the respect and approval of every thoughtful person. Speaking the other day he made this statement—
"In large parts of Central Europe, including some parts of Germany, the babies are dying for want of food and clothing."
I should like to ask Lord Newton, if he is going to reply, whether, according to the information he has got, that is accurate or not. Then, let me quote again what was said by General Smuts, also a member of the Supreme Economic Council, and also a statesman who has had special opportunities of ascertaining the conditions. He said—
"We witnessed the collapse of the whole political and economic fabric of Central and Eastern Europe. Unemployment, starvation, anarchy, war, disease, despair stalked through the land. Unless the victors can effectively extend a helping hand to the defeated and broken peoples a large part of Europe is threatened with exhaustion and decay."
I should like to ask His Majesty's Government whether they concur in that statement made by General Smuts, which, if true, is one of the most serious statements -that could possibly be made.
The most rev. Primate, when he was addressing your Lordships, referred to what was said by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, whose absence we all regret this evening. Let me add one or two quotations from what Lord Curzon himself has said. He appealed in one of his letters or speeches (I forget which) to the philanthropy of civilised and Christian mankind—an appeal, he said, which was essential in order to deal with the terrible conditions which exist. And then he is reported to have said this—
"He estimated that the post-war conditions in Germany and in Austria are in some cases even more terrible than those of war itself."
According to private information which I have obtained from persons in the district that statement of the noble Earl is in no sense exaggerated. Of course, it is not likely to be exaggerated, coming from a person in his position, and with his knowledge. But, at the same time, the statement is so serious that one would like to know what the Government have to say upon it, in order that the people of this country may really know what the conditions are.
50
May I make a further quotation front the National Food Journal, which is an official organ of the Government Every one must know that Mr. Roberts, the Food Minister, has made very strong statements indeed as regards the conditions of starvation and destitution. He has used the word "appalling" more than once. He has pointed out that the raising of the blockade is in itself by no means sufficient to deal with the terrible conditions which prevail in Central Europe at the present time. Now let me read what is said by the National Food Journal—
"The mere lifting of the blockade will not save Europe. If Europe is to is be saved from Bolshevism and anarchy far more than a mere negative act will be necessary. As Lord Hubert Cecil pointed out in his speech in the House of Commons, a supreme effort will be needed on the part of the Allies, and it is useless to suppose that anything worth having can be accomplished except by sacrifice."
I should like to know again whether His Majesty's Government concur in the two views first, as regards the appalling conditions which exist, and secondly in the statement, "it is useless to suppose that anything worth having can be accomplished except by sacrifice"; and to ask another question, namely, whether the Government have any policy or settled plan by which, even if sacrifice is necessary, the situation may be saved.
I have before me also private letters written by persons who are now in Vienna, and who have gone there with the sanction and approval of His Majesty's Government. I can only say that the statements in those letters are truly terrible—tuberculosis, starved children dying of rickets, new forms of disease coming to the front, similar to those which were known in the East in times of famine; and there is a general statement that unless something is done, however bad the conditions are now, they will probably be much worse ("ten times worse" is the statement of an impartial person), particularly, as far ahead as next March, that is to say, when the poor harvest (because it is a poor harvest) will have been exhausted. No doubt the Government are perfectly well aware of the Report made by a Commission of neutral doctors. They were perfectly impartial. They approached the matter, as I think it ought to be approached, from the medical standpoint. They pointed out, in words which engraved themselves on the heart, I think, of every one who read them, how terrible the conditions were.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: In Austria?
LORD PARMOOR: Yes, in Austria. The conditions are bad in many parts of Central Europe and in Armenia, as was pointed out by the noble Viscount Lord Bryce. But I believe that the conditions in Austria are more threatening than in any other part of the Continent. I have been told that they are nearly as bad in parts of Poland and some parts of Macedonia. Speaking from the information I have obtained, connected with the Council winch desired to obtain accurate information on points of this kind, those are the most threatening places, but the worst is Austria. In fact, some people have gone so far as to say that, unless very drastic steps can be taken, the whole future of the manhood of Austria is at stake.
It is not my purpose to attempt to paint things of this kind in dark colours. Judging by statements made by members of the Government, these reports must be accepted. I am not now throwing the blame on anyone, except to say that the conditions are the result of the prolonged war conditions. I do not say that they were our fault: they were the fault of the war conditions. The blame is primarily upon those who brought about these terrible war conditions on the Continent. But there is an enormous responsibility upon civilised Europe. We cannot stand still and allow these babies to perish of hunger. We cannot stand by and allow Austria (taking that as the worst part) to be practically decimated and to have the whole manhood of its population lowered. And therefore I hope that His Majesty's Government, being aware, as I am sure they are, of the conditions to which I have referred, will be able to indicate some possible method of alleviating this great danger.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I much regret that, as has already been explained, my noble friend Lord Curzon has been prevented by sudden indisposition from answering this very important Question, and I am afraid that the reply that I am instructed to make will be considered one of a somewhat inadequate nature. The most rev. Primate will readily admit I hat it would be a difficult task in any circumstances to review, in answer to a simple question, the activities of the various Associations which have been set
52
up by the Allies since the Armistice in order to avert famine and to alleviate the distress which was bound to follow the cessation of hostilities.
Perhaps for the moment it will be sufficient to say that Europe as a whole has been saved from starvation; and this, we must admit, is largely due to the money and the supplies provided by the United States Government, and to the energy and ability shown by Mr. Hoover, the Director-General of Relief. At the same time, I think it will not be assumed that the whole of the credit of this relief is to be attributed to the United States; because, as far as our resources are concerned, impaired as they were by four and a-half years of warfare, His Majesty's Government and the Dominions have taken their full share; and I think that Mr. Hoover would probably be the first to admit the invaluable nature of the work which has been performed by British relief organisations and by British missions. I am speaking off-hand, but I am under the impression that a sum of well over £12,000,000 has already been expended by this country in providing foodstuffs. There has been the closest co-operation as regards finance, shipping and administration between ourselves and the United States Government as well as with France and with Italy, with the result that there is no immediate danger of starvation anywhere at the present moment, except, unfortunately, as regards Armenia. With regard to the matter mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce, I am afraid that I am not in a position to state what the policy of His Majesty's. Government is with regard to the retention or the retirement of our troops at present in that neighbourhood.
It is unfortunately the case that while this immense system of relief—which in its magnitude almost corresponds with the war itself—has averted actual starvation in Europe, it has not eliminated privation. It must also be admitted that it has naturally failed to eradicate another evil resulting from the war—namely, the disease which especially attacks growing children, many of whom it is to be feared will never recover from the effects of three years constant under-feeding. Looking generally at the South and South-Eastern Districts of Europe as a whole, and not differentiating for economic purposes between neutral and ex-enemy countries,

53
I think it must be evident that no measures of simple relief will solve the problem. Relief is merely a temporary solution, and it must be patent to everyone by this time that a permanent solution can be found only by reconstructing the trade of these countries not only with ourselves but with our Allies; and with this object in view the British representatives on the Supreme Economic Council are exerting every possible effort. I have nothing more to add except that I cannot help thinking that the most rev. Primate is mistaken in his view that the country does not realise the importance of this question, and I have to inform him that a Report on the position in Europe and the work which has been conducted by British Missions is now in course of preparation and will shortly be published.

FINANCE BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, as your Lordships know, it has never been the custom in this House that the Finance Bill when introduced here should be accompanied by a speech on the part of the mover; therefore I beg formally to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hylton.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, we are all well aware of the strict limitations by which this House is confined, if not in discussing, at any rate in dealing with questions of finance; therefore I have no intention of going into the provisions of this Finance Bill at length. On the other hand, it has been an almost invariable practice for many years past for the formal Motion for the Second Reading to be followed by a speech from this Bench. On some occasions when, as I well remember, that speech was made by so skilled a master of finance as Lord St. Aldwyn, the House obtained great advantage from the practice.
But to-night I will endeavour to mention only a few considerations which occur to me in relation to this Bill. It would be natural and tempting on this particular occasion to enter upon the whole subject for national expenditure and the methods by which that expenditure is to be met;
54
but I am relieved from undertaking any such task to-night because of the masterly survey which my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster made only a few days ago on the subject of national expenditure, fortifying his statement by an enumeration of facts and figures which, as he has since reminded the House, have not been contradicted by any speaker on behalf of His Majesty's Government.
There are one or two features, however, in the general subject to which I should desire to draw attention. In the first place, I understand that it is still the practice, as it has been since the war began to draw to an evident close, that the realisation of national assets—amounting in some cases to a very large figure—should be treated as part of the national income and not devoted to the reduction of the Debt. That is a proceeding which it is not easy to reconcile with any sound canons of finance; and, if the practice is to obtain permanently until the whole of these stores and other assets have been liquidated, it will have to be borne in mind that our financial position is even worse than the ordinary bare figures of income and expenditure would lead us to suppose.
We know that the Income Tax remains at the high figure of 6s., and that the Super-Tax persists on its previous graduated scale. Some income Tax remissions are made in respect of small incomes, which I am certain will be welcomed both by your Lordships and by the country generally. In view, however, of the figures which were quoted by Lord Buckmaster the other night, it is impossible for us not to ask ourselves whether in the future the Income Tax or Super-Tax may not have to undergo a still further increase. If the uncontradicted figure of £800,000,000 which my noble and learned friend suggested as the necessary expenditure of the future is correct, or anything like correct, it is difficult to see how the expenditure of the year can be met by any means except by an increase of direct taxation. What effect such an increase would have on the reproductive energies of the country, I confess I hesitate to consider.
Even as it is, the scale of direct taxation is bound to affect those energies adversely; so much so that one asks one self whether, with such a scale of enforced national expenditure, the past industrial supremacy of this country can by any possibility be maintained. That supremacy is menaced

55
as we now stand both by high prices and also—it is impossible to deny it—by high wages. After all, it is not in the natural order of things that we should possess or retain an industrial supremacy in Europe. It is due to a variety of causes which it would be useless to attempt to discuss to-night. It is due to some extent to our insular position; to our being placed on the western border of Europe in a position which makes us the natural entrepôt of Europe, and indeed of the world; to our great natural mineral wealth, and also to the peculiar circumstance that our climate is especially suited to the cotton industry.
I cannot, however, help saying that, so far as I am able to form an opinion on the subject, I anticipate something of a decline in our relative industrial position as compared with some of the other great countries of the world. It is by no means impossible that such a decline might be accompanied by a no little general prosperity among all classes in the country, by a greater diffusion of wealth, by a higher standard of living among the workers generally, even though the national wealth tends to diminish, as I fear it will. In any case I fear we may feel that what was almost the easy supremacy of the past has gone for ever, and that it will be a hard struggle to maintain. I will not say supremacy, but anything like economic and industrial equality with some other countries in the world. Nobody can say that the future prospects of the coal industry are rosy. Would anybody venture to foretell that an output of coal sufficient to produce an export of coal such as that which could be quoted, say, for the years 1912 and 1913, is likely to appear in the near future? I confess that all the signs seem to be adverse to such a conclusion.
What, is the outlook in the cotton trade? We all know that India, one of the great markets for cotton, claims an increased, or indeed a full measure of fiscal independence. Whatever arrangements may be made in favour of this country by India as part of a system of Preference, it may be relied upon that manufactured cotton goods will not go into the Peninsula at the low rate at which they now enter. Our trade in other parts of the world may undergo similar difficulties; and I fear that there, too, our amazing supremacy in that particular trade may be heavily threatened in the future. When we consider that in the
56
year 1913 the exports of cotton goods amounted to one-third of the total exports of this country, one sees that any change there must affect our national wealth with certainty and promptness which would hardly apply in the case of any other product—except, indeed, coal. The shipping industry must also have a hard fight before it. It will be no easy matter for us to recapture that absolute predominance in the mercantile marine of the world which we possessed up to a few years ago. We have here advantages of practice and, I venture to think, a special talent which no other country may possess, but it will be a bitter struggle for us to return to anything like our position in this respect, too.
Those are general considerations, but there are one or two particular matters arising out of the Budget on which I wish to say a word. Clause 8 of this Bill introduces into our national economics the principle of Imperial Preference. I have no intention of arguing the pros and cons of Imperial Preference, but this I do say—that if the principle was to be introduced into our national system, it should have been introduced by the direct consent and action of Parliament and not as the fruit of a discussion round a table with some distinguished colleagues hailing from the different Dominions. It is impossible, as I think, not to regard this as one instance of the ignoring of Parliament which has, I fear, done something to depreciate the House of Commons in the public estimation. The subjects of preference are few and, among the figures with which the nation now has to deal, the amounts involved appear trivial. I do not think as we stand that it is altogether trivial to have to incur a loss, which at present amounts to two and a-half millions and in a full yea; will amount to three and a-third millions, for the sake of establishing a principle, popular no doubt with many of our friends and brethren in the great Dominions, but not in itself on a scale sufficient to be satisfactory to them.
We always have to remember that the grant to us by the Dominions of a preference is a distinct, feature in the protective systems which they—as they are, of course, fully entitled to do—prefer to adopt. We have no such ground as matters stand for a similar grant, because, with certain normal exceptions, we still, generally speaking, are living under a Free Trade system; and it is very difficult for an

57
unrepentant Free Trader like myself not to suppose that this particular grant of preference must be designed as the portico of introduction to a general tariff, especially bearing in mind that the great majority of His Majesty's present Administration are, and have been long, in favour of what has been called Tariff Reform. It is very difficult to suppose that a system of Imperial Preference can be sustained without, being enlarged. It can only be enlarged in the direction of placing some taxes on food, with a preference to the Empire, and when some taxes are placed upon food it will obviously be exceedingly difficult, in the interests of equal dealing, to abstain from a certain taxation of raw materials.
We are told, of course, that we are uttering the ancient shibboleths of the Free Trader. That may be so, but they are neither more ancient—if they are, indeed, as ancient—nor more familiar than the shibboleths of the Protectionist. The principle which we hold is an exceedingly simple one—namely, that tire national system should be one of free exchange and of duties for revenue only, subject to such exceptions as may be shown by definite proof to be necessary and advantageous. Every exception, in fact, has to be definitely justified. The opposite view, which as we know is held by many thoughtful people, is that the general and normal rule should be the encouragement of production in this country itself, and that every departure from the encouragement of production by permitting free imports is in turn to be the subject of special justification. That applies also to the further point in this Budget of the retention of certain special duties on articles of luxury, which were imposed during the war for particular reasons—motor cars, clocks and watches, cinema films, and I think one or two others. Those duties, by their maintenance when we are no longer living under general laws, can only be regarded as in their essence protective; and here again, it is difficult not to regard them as the approach to a general tariff upon manufactured goods.
I have no desire to labour these points. I know very well that, if the House were full those who agree with we would form a very small minority of your Lordships' House. Some of us on these benches, however, consider that even if there was no other reason whatever for maintaining
58
the separate existence of the Liberal Party this question of free exchange would, of itself, justify our existence. We know very well that the point of view of the Labour Party, who might be considered to march under the same standard, is somewhat different. So far as the taxation of food is concerned and the cheapening of the necessaries of life, we should find the Labour and Liberal opinion, I have no doubt, identical. But it is quite impossible for Liberals to deny that one objection in this matter of tariffs which we entertain—the kind of objection which we entertain on the grounds of undue State interference—will not appeal with the same force to many of those who belong to the Labour Party.
The fact is that devotion to State interference and State control is apt to bring the Socialist very near to the Protectionist's lines. That was pointed out long ago by the French Free Trade economist, M. Bastiat, who said, "After all is said and done, a Protectionist is nothing but a Socialist with an income of 50,000 franes a year." While fully admitting that a great many of the early Free Traders carried individualism to a point of almost ridiculous extremity in their dread of State interference on every or any subject, we do maintain that we occupy a special position of guardianship in this matter, which, as we believe, will prove to be of particular value to the country. Consequently, my Lords, although no action, as we know, is possible to any of us on this Bill I have thought it right, even at the risk of wearying the House, to register this definite protest against some of its provisions.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I venture to hope that no apology is necessary for intervening in this debate even at this war of the evening. I have always felt that your Lordships' House should discuss every matter of importance which is before the country, and it is quite evident that the Finance Bill of the present year is one of extraordinary and unusual importance. The general condition of the country has been the subject of debate in your Lordships' House on more than one occasion. We have been told that it is partly due to the extravagance of His Majesty's Government, and it is now when the Bill is presented that we shall gradually get some idea how great that extravagance fans been. We hardly have a discussion without some Member on the Government bench telling

59
us how dismal is the outlook of this country, and how bad are its financial and general prospects. They do it with a kind of bland innocence as if they were in no way responsible for the condition of the country. I think if the condition was very different, and we were more prosperous, they would be among the very first to claim the credit for that prosperity; and it is impossible for them to entirely absolve themselves front some portion of the blame for the condition in which we are to-day.
I shall venture to deal particularly with a new subject which is introduced into this Finance Bill—and that is the question of Colonial Preference. It is interesting to me to find that these benches are empty of Tariff Reformers who, I should have thought, would have been anxious to acclaim the victory of their cause. I should have thought we might have had some expression of thanks from them to the Government for having at last put into practice some part of the great principles of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. I confess I am filled with despair when I find that those who support this policy of Colonial Preference have learnt nothing from the lessons of the war. They tell us exactly the same things as they used to tell us from the very beginning in 1903, and it seems that even now, after all that has happened, they use the very same arguments as they did before.
One of the first suggestions which Mr. Joseph Chamberlain made was that the Dominions should reserve certain trades and allow us to import those goods into their country. From that day to this there has not been the slightest inclination on the part of any one of our Dominions to fall in with that suggestion. There was also the suggestion, very familiar to us in phrase and catchword "Cash nexus." We were told that unless we introduced something of this kind the Dominions would cut the painter. There is an example of that in what was said by Mr. Garvin. It is a thoroughly typical quotation, and, he was speaking at that time on the question of preference being given to Australian foodstuffs over foodstuffs from the Argentine.
LORD SHEFFIELD: What was the date of that?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: About 1904, I think, and he used this phrase. He
60
asked, otherwise and unless we gave this preference—
"Upon what intelligible principle do we expect that Australia shall make special sacrifice to help us? For sentiment? Were the Colonies prepared to tax themselves for Imperial purposes, to fight under the Imperial flag for reasons no more urgent than those of sentiment, they would not be patriotic but insane."
My Lords, those of us who lived through those awful days, and renumber them clearly, of five years ago, I venture to think saw the first ray of hope come to us when those messages came from our Dominions, that they would help us and were with us in the struggle to the last penny and to the last man. On a hundred battlefields they have proved that they have kept their word, and have done it without that cash nexus which we were told it was so necessary they should have. I hope we shall find that that lesson has been learnt but there is this to be said on this question of taxes as introduced into this Budget, that they have a double aspect. On the one hand it is possible for those who support them to go to one section of their supporters and to say "See what an infinitely small matter this is. You may reserve your liberty of action for the future. It is true that we introduce a small measure of Preference, but there is nothing about which you need to be disturbed." On the other hand it is possible for them to go to another section of their supporters and say" It is true they mar seem a small matter, but this is the beginning of what will turn out to be a full measure of Imperial Preference and Protection." In that way they will secure support for the Bill front two totally different sections of opinion.
We may divide these special duties to which I venture to take exception into two classes. Firstly, into those duties on goods which were subject to a duty when Mr. McKenna introduced his Budget, and secondly, the preferential duties upon foodstuffs. With regard to the first lot it is interesting to realise that these Dominions and Colonies are given a preference upon a number of articles which they do not make and have no intention of making, but there is this curious point that embargoes exist upon a very large number of articles upon which preference is given—for instance motor cycles—and therefore a preference given in those matters upon which an embargo has been laid is not likely to be of any very real advantage. We were told at the time that these were only to be im-

61
posed for the period of the war. That was clearly stated more than once by those who are still Members of the Government, and I think we may regret the fact that those embargoes are being extended after the war period.
Then with reference to preference on food. Let us take first of all the duty on tea. Very nearly all the tea used in this country comes from within the Empire. Before the war I think 87 per cent. came from within the Empire, and now something like 97 per cent, conies from within the Empire, and on this there is to be a preferential duty. May I make a suggestion to the Government? At a time when there is so much unrest in the country and the cost of living is universally acknowledged to be the chief cause of that unrest, why not reduce the duty on tea to the extent of the preference? The Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated that the duty which he will lose by this preference will amount to £2,000,000 in the year. If he were to allow another£ 400,000 it would be, possible to sweep away 2d. of the duty upon tea, and to that extent he would be able to reduce the duty upon that important article of food.
Surely it would be well worth while for the Government to consider that point. After all who suffers in this matter? The people who suffer are the merchants in China. Generally the China tea trade is in the hands of young adventurous merchants who have gone out from this country and made a successful business in China. Very largely the people who will suffer are our kith and kin, and those who will gain are likely to be not the coolies or those who produce the tea, but the shareholders in the tea companies who live in this country. That seems to be an unsatisfactory result of the preferential duty on tea.
Then with regard to sugar. I suppose that in regard to sugar His Majesty's Government have been very largely influenced by the hopes of Mr. Hughes that he would be able to produce from Australia large quantities of sugar, but it is to be regretted that while over here in this country he did not warn us that in 1912 a Royal Commission on the sugar industry of Australia reported that—
"No substantial export trade of Australian sugar can be anticipated, at any rate for a long time to come. Such an export trade, in competition with colour-grown, sugar in Java
62
elsewhere, could only be maintained by the payment of an export bonus so large as to prove an intolerable burden."
And although it is possible we may get some sugar front the West Indies, if one may judge front items of information which appear in the newspapers that is likely to cause consternation in Canada.
The other matter to which I wish to allude is that of wines. It has to be remembered that where we give one set of people preference we do harm to another, and here we are proposing at this moment that our gallant Allies in France, who are suffering so much front the results of the war, shall be penalised to the extent of a preferential duty, in, order that we may give an advantage to our friends in Australia, who, it is true, deserve it as much as our French Alies. I venture to say that it is only in connection with this duty and its effect in Australia that I see any realisation of that spiritual recognition of spiritual unity spoken of by Mr. Bonar Law.
In this matter of Colonial Preference where we make considerable sacrifices we are entitled to know what the people in this country are to get. The noble Marquess referred to the India cotton duties, and I wish we could feel certain that in response to any preference which we are giving to India we could have some assurance that the cotton duties will be reduced in favour of our own cotton operatives in Lancashire. In other parts of the Empire we find a different state of things existing. So far from any sign appearing of our Dominions doing more to help us, I am afraid it looks as if the trend of their legislation would rather be in the opposite direction. It was only at the end of May that Lieutenant-Colonel Amery in another place spoke of sheep dip. I understand that the Australian Government have placed an embargo on that article, so as to prevent the manufacturers in this country front exporting into Australia any of their goods, and I think your Lordships should be made aware that there is an Australian Commission sitting with a view to the revision of the tariff in the autumn, that the starting of a number of new industries has already been recommended, and that the way proposed is by instituting a large measure of protection for various articles which they are anxious to make in Australia. That does not look as if the Colonial preference proposals of His

63
Majesty's Government have met with any great measure of gratitude on the part of the Australians.
I do not think it is far from the point to refer in this connection to the fact that Mr. Hughes, who was here so long and talked so much on the subject of British trade, is the one Prime Minister in the whole of the British Empire who has raised the duties upon British goods since the beginning of war. At the beginning of the war he raised the tariff in Australia upon British goods going into that country, and by an average of something like 2½ per cent. Mr. Hughes, who came and talked to as on the subject of how we should carry on our trade, has penalised British industry. I confess that when it comes to a matter connected with Mr. Hughes it is difficult to talk seriously. On matters of tariff policy he made two speeches just a year ago. One was in Glasgow on the Wednesday, and one was in Aberdeen the day after. Speaking in Glasgow on the Wednesday be said—
"In Britain before the war conditions were sordid and depressing. Millions were on the verge of starvation, living on the brink of a dreadful abyss."
Everything was not as we should like to see it, but I did not know it was as bad as that. At Aberdeen the next day he said—
"In Britain before the war the spark of divine fire had been clicked by the ashes of prosperity."
It really does not very much matter which state of things Mr. Hughes chooses to have to exist in this country, but it must have been one or the other, and it cannot have been both, and before we can pretend to argue with him he really must make up his mind as to what were the facts of the case.
Just one word on Canada. I will not detain your Lordships with a quotation from what Sir Robert Borden has said, but those of your Lordships who keep yourselves informed of what Sir Robert Borden has will know that he seems to look not so much to a preference on goods as to some preference in shipping rates and railway rates—a dangerous policy, because it is a game at which more than one person can play, and in which it is more than likely the United States of America might heat us when we begin to play. But in these matters we realise that we are not the large body of free traders that we were before the war. Some people who were opposed to Colonial preference have now seen their way to support the measures
64
proposed in the Finance Bill. Amongst others one of my own colleagues—my colleague in the treasurership of the Free Trade Union—has left us, and has found his way to support by speech and by vote in another place the proposals of the Finance Bill. It is a matter of very deep regret to me; so deep, my Lords, that my feelings can only find expression in the words, perhaps familiar to some of your Lordships, in a poem of Browning—
We that had loved him so, followed hint, honoured him,
Lived in his mild and magnificent eye,
Learned his great language, caught his clear accents,
Made him our pattern to live and to die.
Shakespeare was of us, Milton was for us,
Burns, Shelley were with us—they watch from their graves.
He alone breaks from the van and the freemen,
He alone sinks to time rear and the slaves!
The loss of old leaders and old colleagues is naturally a matter of deep regret, and I wish that it had been possible to have retained his services in the cause of free trade.
Let me venture to call your attention to the possibilities of what may follow front the initiation of this policy by His Majesty's Government. It is the very serious possibility of retaliation from the United States of America. It was only the other day that President. Wilson, addressing Congress, seemed to indicate that the United States did not mean to take the policy of His Majesty's Government lying down. Your Lordships know that our embargo policy has already aroused very strong feeling in that country. It is quite true that those who have been in favour of protection have always said that no country would or could object to our doing what we liked within our own Empire, and that there was no great danger of retaliation from the States, no, matter what sort of fiscal arrangement we might niche. This is what President Wilson said—
"Our tariff laws as they now stand provide no weapon of retaliation in case other Governments should enact legislation unequal in its bearing on our products as compared with the products of other countries. We must frankly face the fact that hostile legislation by other countries is not beyond the range of possibility, and that it may have to be met by counter legislation. I recommend that this please of the tariff question receive the early attention of the Congress."
I think with that in our minds it would be well if His Majesty's Government had walked somewhat more warily in this matter of Imperial preference.

65
The cognate matter of its effect upon the League of Nations has already been the subject of some little discussion in your Lordships' House, and I will therefore confine myself to saying on this occasion that it seems to me quite evident that the less we have of preference of this kind the more likely the League of Nations is to be successful in future. There is this point, too. We are always told that one of the advantages of adopting a protective system is our power of bargaining with other countries. That may or may not be so, but the more you grant preference the more difficult you make it to have an effective power of bargaining, because you are limited by the amount of preference which you are giving to your own Colonies or Dominions. At this time, when the cost of living is so large a part of the cause of the unrest which exists in this country, it seems to me that the really important steps which His Majesty's Government should take should rather be in the direction of reducing prices, and of doing all that they can to help the consumer. After all the nation is the consumer, and his is the first interest that we ought to consider. Tariffs are very little better in this connection than legalised profiteering. You must have profiteering the moment you begin to have this kind of 50 per cent. embargo upon imports coming into this country, and it is much more difficult to stop profiteering when you have protection and tariffs. His Majesty's Government with its tariffs and its preferences and its embargoes will, in the opinion of all free traders, raise the cost of living. There again is a lesson which one might have hoped the tariff reformers would have learned during the war. They used to tell us that cheapness was not everything; that cheapness was not a good thing; that there were great advantages in having high prices. We have had a lesson as to what high prices mean in this country, and I venture to say that, having had experience of it, the people of this country are less likely to wish for more of it in the future than they have had in the past. We object to the existence of these preferential proposals in the present Finance Bill not only on account of the proposals themselves, but also because in our opinion they must inevitably lead to protection in the future—the protection of greed masking as patriotism, which will only have the result of allowing a few selfish people, as always in case of protection, to advantage
66
themselves at the expense of the interests of the many.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT MILNER): My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down made some rather ironical reference to the fact that there were so few Tariff Reformers in the House to express their gratitude for the first Budget which has contained an affirmation of at least some of their principles. May I return the compliment, and condole with him upon the fact that his eloquent and impassioned re-statement of the most pure and unadulterated doctrine of free imports has had so few Free Traders to listen to and admire it?
The noble Earl rather surprised me by the statement that the most doleful pictures of the financial future of the country were always being presented from this side of the House, or, at any rate, from the Ministerial Bench. My recollection is quite the contrary. The last time I remember taking part in any financial discussion of importance in this House it was I and other speakers on the Ministerial side who, so far from being too doleful for the House, were reproached with levity for not taking a sufficiently doleful view of the situation. I have continually heard reproaches of the Government, either openly pronounced or hinted at, for not being sufficiently depressed, and for not taking a sufficiently gloomy view of the situation before us.
Honestly, my experience is that it is from the other side of the House that these gloomy vaticinations always come. And I think the debate to-night bears out that hitherto unbroken experience, because the noble Marquess who initiated it, though he certainly did not draw as black a picture of our possible future as I have often heard from some of his political associates, was, I think we may say, anything but cheerful as to our industrial and financial prospects.
May I say a few words, in the first instance, with regard to the speech of the noble Marquess? First of all, let me say that I am glad (though perhaps the hour was rather unfavourable for it) that he has revived and maintained the good practice by which the Finance Bill of the year, although no doubt your Lordships cannot affect its fate in any way by your action, is nevertheless made the subject

67
of a serious discussion in this House. Though we have no such great financial authorities in this House as some of those whom the noble Marquess and I both remember, yet the subject is one of such profound interest to the whole community that I think it would be regrettable from every point of view if the passing of the Finance Bill did not give rise to some discussion in this House.
And I must say that, late as the hour is, and unfavourable as the moment is for such discussion, I have followed with very great interest many of the noble Marquess's remarks, and I do not think it would be respectful to him, nor would it be consistent with my own feeling, if, even at this hour of the night, I did not make a few comments upon them. First of all just one word about this estimate of an expenditure of £800,000,000.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I was taking the figure of my noble friend Lord Buckmaster.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Yes, I know the history of that £800,000,000, and I want the House to be clear about this. An elaborate argument was addressed to the House by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, who is not present, to the effect that our future expenditure would amount to at least £800,000,000, and he drew some inferences from that as to the future amount of Income-tax. At a later stage of the debate it was claimed that, inasmuch as no Government speaker had risen to disprove his calculation of £800,000,000, it must be accepted as what you might call an authoritative figure; and I think the noble Marquess opposite rather started from that basis in his remarks to-night. I really must put in a caveat to this. I am not prepared to dispute the figure myself at this moment. I should not feel justified in attempting to do it without a great deal more study and close examination of the details than I have the time to give, or that anybody else is in a position to give, except the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but as long as that Member of the Government, or any Member of the Government who is specially responsible in a matter of this kind, does not endorse that calculation, I cannot allow it to be treated here as accepted by the Government, simply because no noble Lord on this Bench is prepared to get up and dispute it.
68
Personally, I am very much inclined to doubt whether the figure is correct. All I can say is that it would be most undesirable, and I think it would be most unfair, that, whenever a statement of that kind is seriously made by a speaker of authority, and supported by serious arguments, he is entitled to claim that a calculation of that kind is accepted by the Government unless it has been disproved in the same debate by a speaker on the other side. I have not had time to examine this figure myself. I do not know that there is any other Member of the Government in this House who has had the opportunity of examining it, and all I can say about it is this, that I enter a most formal protest against the assumption that the Government has admitted that an expenditure of £800,000,000 is the expenditure which we ought to look forward to in future years. It may or may not be right—I am not discussing the matter now—but I want to make it perfectly clear that it is an open question, and that no financial authority on the part of the Government has admitted it.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I interrupt? I think it is, perhaps, hardly fair to say that Lord Buckmaster, or anybody else on this Bench, maintained that the Government accepted that particular figure, at which he arrived by a series of additions of sums needed for the public Services, which he considered he had framed on a fairly conservative basis. Nobody supposed that His Majesty's Government accepted the actual figure of £800,000,000, but what, I think, my noble friend did claim was that, at any rate, nobody had at once jumped up, or taken the opportunity in the course of the debate of accusing him of exaggeration in the matter, and that therefore, without in any sense supposing that His Majesty's Government adopted the figure, yet at any rate it is not one which could be regarded as preposterous.
VISCOUNT MILNER: No, I never said it could be regarded as preposterous; it is not in any sense authoritative. As regards the general outlook of our national industry, to which the noble Marquess addressed some of his remarks, I may say that I agree with him to the extent that I think the result of the war has been to bring about more rapidly a position which in any case was bound to be brought about in

69
the course of a certain number of decades by the force of circumstances—namely, that of the industrial pre-eminence of the United States of America among all the nations of the world. It was bound to come; but it has come rather quicker than it would otherwise have done in consequence of the events of the last few years. But I think the remarks of the noble Marquess went further than that. He seemed to think that our position as an industrial country, in comparison with that of other great industrial countries, had been weakened by the war.
If take a different view. I am aware of the heavy burdens which the war has thrown upon our industry. If we were the only great industrial country with a heavy debt, the only great industrial country which had to look forward to an immensely increased burden of taxation, I should say that certainly our position in the competition of the world had been considerably worsened. But surely, heavy as our hardens are and serious as our financial position is, there is no other country except the United States which has anything like the same chance of a carrying its burdens successfully, without absolutely crushing taxation, as the United Kingdom has. Therefore one reason why I am guilty, I hope not of levity in this matter but of being rather more optimistic than some noble Lords with regard to the industrial future, especially from the point of view of competition with other nations, is the fact that, while they look at the matter simply from the point of view of our own country, I am rather more disposed to take the comparative view, to look at our position side by side with that of others who have fought and suffered in the war. I cannot help feeling that, looked at from that point of view, the prospect is far more favourable than it is commonly represented to be.
I should have liked, if I had had more time, to have followed the noble Marquess more particularly with regard to some of those great staple industries of which he spoke. I will mention only two—coal and cotton. As regards coal, we are undoubtedly looking forward to a decrease of output. I am sure that there is only one way out of the difficult position in which this country is going to find itself in regard to coal—that is the way along which I am hopeful we may travel; I believe we shall be forced to travel along the road by the
70
difficulties of our position—and that is the better use of the coal we produce. I call only repeat once more that, unless all the experts tell me on this subject and that I am able to read on it is absolutely misleading, the waste of coal in this country at present and the failure to get anything like the maximum energy out of the coal we produce is something phenomenal, and that under the pressure of necessity we are going to get much greater value out of the coal we produce. With regard to cotton, a somewhat similar reason for hopefulness exists. Again, I am not speaking of my own knowledge; I do not pretend, of course, to be an expert in the matter. Rut from what I was able to gather—I was specially anxious to make inquiries on this subject—from a visit I lately paid to Manchester, where I met all the leading business men, the position with regard to cotton is that we have got, and are likely to retain, the market in all the finer kinds; and undoubtedly, with the general progress of the world, the demand for the superior kinds of cotton is greatly on the increase. Therefore what I found in Manchester was that the best opinion there was rather favourable as regards the future prospects of the cotton trade.
I will not pursue these detailed subjects very much further, but I would like once more to repeat my profound conviction that, serious as the financial and industrial position of this country is, it is not a dangerous. position—provided that we, in the first place, remain a constitutionally-governed, progressive nation, and do not go down the terrible road which some of the countries of Continental Europe are at present treading; and, in the second place, that we make the maximum use of the great advantages we possess—and inadequately use—by the wonderful skill of our workpeople and the great and progressive scientific achievements of our chemists. I am convinced that the dangers. which threaten us are social and moral rather than material, and that given industry, given a reasonable degree of social peace—a certain amount of social disturbance is inevitable at all times in a democratic country—and the progressive use of all the resources of science in the improvement of our industrial machinery, we may hope to attain a yet higher degree of prosperity in the future than we have known in the past. We shall not attain, perhaps any comparatively higher degree of prosperity, because I do not suppose we shall ever be the first Indus-

71
trial nation in the world; but we shall attain to something positively higher than anything we have ever known.
In this connection I attach immense importance to the development of our Empire, not only to the growth which is going to be, I think, in the next twenty or thirty years something that will astonish you—the growth of our great self-governing Dominions and the development of our trade with them—but also the growth and greater prosperity of what. I may call the Dependent Empire. I have always been convinced, and I am convinced more than ever now that I have been a few months at the Colonial Office, that what a great predecessor of mine (Mr. Chamberlain) called a great undeveloped estate, really is a group of countries possessing an immense economic future. No doubt they are of great importance as sources of raw materials which will become more and more indispensable to the great industrial countries of the world, and especially, I may say, to America. When we ask ourselves how we are going to pay the United States for all that we may have to draw from them, I think a not unimportant element in the future economic situation will be the fact that the United States themselves will require to draw increasing supplies of raw materials from parts of the British Empire. We may thus indirectly through our possessions repay America for a great deal that we shall have to draw from her.
I have left myself very little time to deal with the attack which has been made, very moderately by the noble Marquess opposite, with more vigour by the noble Earl, against the policy of Preference to which expression has been given in the Budget before us. The noble Earl astonished me rather by the remark that Tariff Reformers seemed to have learned nothing from the war. It was carrying the war into the enemy's country. I have certainly been very strongly under the impression during the last few years that some of the extreme Free Traders have learned nothing from the events of the past few years. There is one particular point in the noble Earl's criticisms to which I should specially like to refer, and on which, if he will forgive my saying so, I should like to put him right—that is, about the position of the Tariff Reformers and what I may call the fundamental basis of their doctrine in this matter of Preference. The noble Earl says that we have dwelt
72
too much upon time cash nexus between ourselves and the Dominions, and that the splendid way in which the Dominions rallied to our support during the recent war disproves the contention that it was necessary or important to attach them to us by bonds of financial or commercial interest. I will admit at once that I think the argument in favour of Colonial Preference has sometimes been stated in a crude and misleading form. It is not in the least to buy the loyalty of the great Dominions of the Empire that I and many others have advocated for many years so strongly, almost passionately, the concession of these commercial advantages to them.
I have made many speeches on this subject. I am quite certain that I have never used the argument that it was necessary to offer them commercial or financial advantages of any kind to ensure their standing by us as they have stood by us in a great crisis and in the face of great danger. What I have said, and do say, is that inasmuch as these are our only sure and certain friends and that on them alone of all the nations can we absolutely count upon at all times to stand by us, their development is of such vital interest to us. It is for that reason also I want to use all our resources to help them to grow. I remember once before asking the question, "Has Argentina offered you a battleship?" That was at the time when the first battleship was given to us by the Dominions. Inasmuch as these are the nations upon whom we can alone rely with certainty and in every danger and in every trouble, it is of vital importance to us to give them everything we can in order to further their growth and their development. That is the real basis of Colonial Preference.
Let me say that I am a firm believer in the advantage of a tariff preference, but I do not regard that as anything more than a single application of a principle of far greater and wider import. As between this country and our great Dominions and other parts of the Empire I understand the principle of preference to be that while we have no hostility to. any nation —while we hold the doctrine that every nation is of advantage to every other nation—there is a special interest to us in the development of those great States of our own race and blood and traditions and ideas, upon which, as I have said, we

73
alone can rely in the great struggles of the world. Therefore, we should in all our dealings give them an advantage wherever we can; because their growth is our benefit and our advantage in a sense in which the growth of other countries never can be, little as we wish to prejudice those other countries.
For instance, take the question of emigration. We do not wish people to emigrate from this country, but if they have got to emigrate let them carry their brains and sinews to other countries of the Empire rather than to foreign countries. If we have got capital to invest—we have only got a limited amount for overseas development—let it go in the first instance and by preference, even if it goes for a slightly lower rate of interest or return, to build up some other part of the British Empire rather than to build up foreign countries. There is no hostility to foreign countries implied in that: it is only a preference to our own kith and kin. That really is the root idea of this policy of Imperial Preference. I beg most strongly to deprecate the idea, speaking for myself and I believe for the great body of Tariff Reformers and for the Government, that in pursuing this policy we have any other motive than that of doing everything which lies in our power to help the commercial and industrial development of those other parts of the British Empire to which we owe so much and whose growth in the future appears to us to be of such vital importance to this country itself.
I do not know whether at this late hour it would be right to develop in more detail the argument as regards Preference I would only like to say in conclusion that, though I may be regarded by some members of your Lordships' House and perhaps am regarded outside, as a very extreme Protectionist, I do not admit that the policy of Preference necessarily involves any departure from Free Trade, or rather free exchange, as it was stated by the noble Marquess opposite. Re said that he was a believer in free exchange subject only to such exceptions as might be shown to be necessary and advantageous. I accept, certainly for the Government and I think for myself, that principle. I do not think that Preference in itself, in the form in which it has been accorded by the Government, is any departure from the principle of tree exchange, but, if it is, I contend that
74
it is a departure which is justified by those high considerations of national policy which I have attempted, however inadequately, to put before your Lordships.
I am not aware that there is at present in existence in this country any infraction of the principle of free exchange which cannot be justified on the merits of the case or which is accounted for by any desire to impose restriction upon trade or to adopt Protection for the sake of Protection. Speaking for my own part I should be quite satisfied to deal with all these questions of tariff or no tariff absolutely on the merits of each particular case, apart entirely from any general or theoretical principle, and certainly apart from any bias in favour of tariff, or any other, restrictions on trade.
I am not very fond of labels. I do not know whether I am properly labelled a Protectionist or a Tariff Reformer or not, but if I am a Tariff Reformer, my conception of Tariff Reform has not been the desirability of imposing a tariff for the sake of a tariff, or trying to expand a tariff for its own sake. All that I have ever contended for—and I believe it is all that reasonable Tariff Reformers do contend for—is that they should not be barred from imposing duties unless they can prove in every case that they were purely revenue duties, and that no other considerations should be allowed to enter into the tariff. What I should like to see established is the principle that in all these discussions we should get away from generalities and sweeping doctrines and try to deal with the merits of each particular case. Looked at from the point of view of its merits, I am prepared most strongly to defend that modest measure of Preference which has been accorded to the other portions of the Empire in the Budget which is at present under your Lordships' consideration.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, although it is late I feel that I cannot pass over the important speech which has just been made on behalf of the Government without taking up some points in it. In the latter part of his speech the noble Lord said—and I think we shall all agree—that what we must look for in order to restore our prosperity and industrial activity is, above all things, a healthy spirit of justice and of industry among the working men, a recognition of constitutional progress, and an avoidance of revolution. While I think we shall all agree with that, it does

75
not exhaust the demands of our economic position. It is necessary also that there should be a far larger activity in production. The noble Lord then went on to say—I am not quoting his words, but I am expressing his meaning—that, in viewing the possibilities of the future, he was not so gloomy as some, because he looked to two sources of great industrial and commercial activity—first, to our great Dominions, of which he said (and I think most people who have seen their growth will agree with him) that their present growth is nothing to what we hope their future growth will be; and, secondly, to our Dependencies which are to be the source of such a large amount of valuable raw material.
I think we should probably agree with him, but where I should challenge hint is in this respect. Hitherto, our policy has been to trade with the world. One of the reasons why the United States are so prosperous is that, though they have a Protectionist policy to the world outside, with varied production and vast area, ranging almost from the Tropics to the Arctic regions, and with their great material resources and Free Trade throughout that great area, they have had many of the advantages which countries in Europe have not got, even though those countries had Free Trade with a comparatively small area of countries beyond Europe. Therefore I say, for the activity and prosperity of the country, I do not want to exchange the trade of the world for trade with any section of the world, no matter how large. That is to my mind the true economic policy, especially for a country like England with a dense population and not an immense amount of material resources on the land. Our interest is to trade with as wide a field as possible.
I come next to our Dependencies. The noble Viscount indicated that we must look to our Dependencies to meet the balance of trade or adverse trade in America.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Not entirely, but it is an important element.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I do not say it would exhaust it. I was sorry to hear the noble Viscount say so, because I believe his past record is one of great sympathy with the less forward races, and when he took the post of the Colonies I felt that we should have a man who would recognise,
76
what is now recognised by the League of Nations, that those who have to do with the less developed nations held them as trustees and not as people who were to be exploited. The noble Viscount knows quite well that there is a group of Tariff Reformers who rather advocate that we should use these great Dependencies of ours, not in the first place for the interest and welfare of the people themselves, but for the purpose of swelling our profits and trade. I do not say the noble Viscount holds that view, but I am not misrepresenting the views of that section.
There is at this moment a Question on the Paper regarding the import of nuts. During the war we have been interfering with the free export of their produce from the West African Colonies, and forcing them to send their produce to England. I do not say, as a war measure, that it was unnecessary, because some of these imports were going to Holland, and by the help of German capital were treated there. There was something to be said in not allowing these resources to go directly or indirectly to the enemy. I am not questioning that policy during the war, but it is high time that these countries should be restored to the utmost freedom of trade, and allowed to deliver their goods without our trying to limit their industries for our own profit.
Take the question of cocoa. There is no trade which has grown more rapidly in our West African Colony than the production of cocoa; I think they have taken the lead in world production in cocoa. But the moment you consider it is tolerable or advisable for this country to use its power of legislation over these countries to limit their freedom of exportation, even though it would help your balance of trade with America, it is a vicious and immoral policy. The Official section of the Gold Coast tried to force a duty upon the Colony, and were beaten by the non-official votes of the white people and native representatives; but I do not know that this policy is dropped. While I agree with the noble Viscount in looking to great developments in these tropical Dependencies, as well as in our Dominions, if we are going to use it as a source of advantage to us, as distinct from the advantage which we and all the rest of the world reap from the growth of these places, I say that we are embarking on a vicious policy.
The noble Viscount deals with the question of coal and cotton. We are all

77
agreed that a better use of coal would be economical; but that is not the problem we are up against in our national production. What we are up against is the increased cost as the result of the action in raising wages and shortening the hours of the miners. We might meet that in the Budget, as we did last year by a subsidy of £46,000,000 from the nation, but whether we meet it by raising the price to the consumer or by a subsidy you equally strike a deadly blow at our international trade. I will not labour that point. We cannot but consider the position of the coal trade as very serious for the whole commercial and industrial prosperity of the country.
As to cotton. We all know that for the last thirty or forty years it has been in the finer counts, producing a finer quality, rather than in producing a large quantity of raw material that the English cotton supremacy has been maintained. The United States might use a greater number of pounds of cotton than Lancashire, but in Lancashire our spindles are much more numerous than in the United States, and if only people will work and not raise the cost of production so as to exclude us from foreign markets, our cotton trade has a great future before it. But it is a trade which is cut very fine. We have to pay in the world market for our raw cotton, and we have to sell in the world market, and we should be sanguine if we thought that our cotton trade was going to pull us through our great industrial difficulties.
I agree with the noble Viscount that as an industrial country, barring the United States, we are even now in as good a position as any other great producing country. And why? The great producing countries are Germany, which is knocked out of time altogether; Belgium, which has been devastated and will therefore take a long time to recuperate; and France, which with the exception of a few specialities is hampered by her protectionist policy and does not come into world competition much. America will be the great competitor. I agree that it is not at all essential for us to be the paramount producing power. What is essential is, that we should be able to keep our people in a state of profitable activity by producing. If America, with twice the population and with three times our national resources, produces twice as much as we do it does not hurt us so long as we can produce.
78
I agree with the noble Viscount—and it was a pity he limited his liberal and large ideas by harking back to Colonial Preference—that the prosperity of every country in the world adds to the prosperity of all the others. We cannot be richer because other countries are poorer, and an illustration of that is to be found in the great volume of our trade with the United States, which is still highly Protectionist. Really the important thing is that we should look at the world as our market, as our customer, and as our supplier. The moment you take a narrow view you fall away from that world view of commerce and industry to which this country requires to hold.
The noble Viscount hesitated and did not want to be committed to recognising a possible expenditure of £800,000,000. I should be very glad if I thought that our expenditure next year would be kept within that figure. When you consider the large commitments in which we are involved, and of which there has been no estimate, the great housing question, the question of transport, the Army and Navy with increased pay and allowances—Mr. Winston Churchill said that he intended the future Army to be about the same in numbers as it was before the war, but it will cost, with increased pay, double the amount—the Navy and the Air Force, no one can imagine that you are going to keep your Budgets within the amount of the pre-war Budgets. Then education has gone up very much. There are also pensions, the administration of health, and the bread subsidy. All these items are most; enormous, and you have to face the situation.
You must recollect that your Budget this year is a £1,600,000,000 Budget, of which you have to borrow £250,000,000, and you also get £200,000,000 which is really out of capital, because you are selling stores which ought to be carried to capital account. Even if next year you make your Budget an £800,000,000 Budget, which I do not believe, you will still have to face a very heavy expenditure. Whether we are gloomy or not, or whether like the noble Lord we are cheerful or not, I think every one must agree that the situation is most serious. It is no use day by day embarking upon fresh items of expenditure, without caring where the money is to come from to pay for them. It is no good putting off by a sort of flabby conciliation the real

79
issues, but we should impress upon the working man the necessity of producing more.
On Question, Bill read 2a. Committee negatived.
[The sitting was suspended at a quarter to nine and resumed at half-past nine o'clock.]

CROFTER HOUSING.
LORD LOVAT LORD LOVAT rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the statements of the Secretary for Scotland on July 3 on the subject of the Government policy for crofter housing; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to ask the Question which stands in my name on the subject of the policy of the Government towards crofter housing, I need not call your Lordships' attention to the importance of the matter. As far as one can read in the Bill which was published yesterday—the Scottish Housing and Town Planning Bill—and as far as one can gather from the statement of the Secretary for Scotland, the question of crofter housing has not been faced in any way in the Bill. Those of your Lordships who are interested in Scotland will ask, as Scotland, especially the Highlands, are asking to-day, "What is the reason for this omission?" We know that on the West Coast of the Highlands, especially in the Island of Lewis and some of the outer Islands, a condition of housing exists which is unparallelled in Western Europe. We also know that the number of crofters and small holders, according to the Parliamentary Return of four or five years ago, was something like 51,000 crofts, and as the crofters are a prolific race, putting the number at between four and five per house, and adding the squatters and cotters, we get since the Return was made something over a quarter of a million people who are affected by this omission.
The omission we believe is founded, firstly, on the alleged adherence of the Scottish Bill to the English Bill, and secondly because those members of Parliament who represent the crafting district have for the most part very slight connections with or interest in the Highlands, and are almost to a man amen with places in His Majesty's Government. There was only one individual representing the crafting
80
districts who was able to speak his mind on the subject. Furthermore, and perhaps this is the most important of all, the crofters in being are a matter of no political interest. The small holder in England, I think, is in the same category. Once you have made your small holder you do not care anything about him. Likewise in Scotland it is only when the cry of landlordism and deer forests is raised that the crofter becomes of supreme interest to all Parties.
To-night I wish to confine attention to the housing of the existing crofters. Very cleverly as a rule, when these debates are raised, the interest is taken away from the question of the benefit of the existing crofter and centred on what crofters are going to be and are going to have. That is not the answer that I should like the Government to give me. This question of crofter housing is not included in the Bill which is going to be brought in on Monday, and unless it is brought up at the present time it cannot be debated with effect at that later date. I therefore make no excuse for taking up your Lordships' time, notwithstanding the fact of the pressing business you have got before you, as I think we owe something to these men who, after all, form the backbone of the 9th, 15th, and 51st Divisions who went to the front and who are at present left out of the benefits which are going to accrue to the rest of Scotland.
The question of crofter housing by the 1911 Act is purely a matter as between the Government and the people themselves. By the 1911 Act the responsibility of crofter housing was taken over by the Government, and under that Act a sufficient grant was made to enable aid to be given by the Government. Therefore it is not a question of any grant to landlords, or of bolstering up any estate; it is a question of the Government taking up a responsibility which, I submit—and I hope to prove—it has not yet fulfilled. And by their action in not facing the crofter housing question to-day they are taking a further step in not fulfilling the obligation which they definitely shouldered only eight years ago.
This question cannot be said to have been neglected owing to lack of interest on the part of those who have close connections with crofting and small holding portions of Scotland. As soon as a Bill was introduced this question was at once raised. It was, raised by the Highland Reconstruction

81
Committee, which is a body that represents every interest, including crofters, returned soldiers, landowners, and manufacturers, such as there are in the northern parts of Scotland. It was raised also by the Land Federation, and was finally debated at a conference in Edinburgh which was summoned by the Secretary for Scotland, and which included the representatives of county councils, district councils, and all the agricultural and small holding bodies, as well as the crofters themselves, so that this question ruts been amply debated, and repeated notice has been given to His Majesty's Government that the crofters question has not been faced.
The Questions of which I have given private notice to His Majesty's Government, and which I now wish to ask, are—
(1) Are you going to bring crofter housing into this Bill which is to be read a second time on Monday, and, if so, what are the steps which you propose to take to make such introduction of the crofter housing question effective?
(2) If you are not going to bring crofter housing into this how are you going to tax the crofters for the housing of their rich neighbours?
(3) Is the £15,000 grant, promised by the Secretary for Scotland for departmental grants or loans from the Board of Agriculture for housing, to represent the last word of the Government in facing this very important question?
(4) Why are the highland crofters and the Scottish crofters and small-holders to be treated on lines entirely different from those on which the corresponding individuals have been treated in Ireland?
I want to bring out one or two points on those four questions in the briefest way possible. I want to point out that, if you bring those crofters and small-holders into the Bill, you will have to make considerable changes in the measure. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who I understand has charge of this measure, has knowledge of the various Small Holdings Acts, and so on, which will enable him between now and Monday to draft Amendments which will make this possible. I must point out to him, in case he has that intention, that he will have to face the question of giving triple tenure of land. We all know the difficulties of dual tenure, but the question
82
of the triple tenure of land by which if the crofters are brought into the Bill they will hold their land from one person, and have fixity of tenure over a certain portion from one body, and hold the houses built for them under an entirely separate method of holding. There will lave to be an amendment of the methods of rating, and the whole questions of fixity of tenure, stocktaking, way-going, and so on, will have to be gone into within a very few days. I myself believe that drafting Amendments are possible to meet this, but I am certain it will be difficult; and the fact that His Majesty's Government have faced this matter in a half-hearted way does not look as if they really meant to put through this work.
I do not think that Mr. Munro's statement in the House of Commons on July 3 gives much hope for Amendments of this kind. In the remarks he made on the subject of crofter housing he talked of the possibility of this and that scheme, eventually without having any fixed line of policy which it is certain will have to be adopted in connection with housing under the Bill as it stands. If you do not face crofter housing under the Housing and Town Planning Bill, you will have to face it by means of Departmental grants or loans; and in that case the question will at once be raised of how you are going to tax the crofters—admittedly not the most opulent people but who are the most numerous in the rural districts of the North of Scotland—in order to pay for the houses of their richer neighbours? I would like the noble Lord who represents the Government to put himself in the position of the average local authority in a Northern district. How is he going to advocate that houses are to be built in the villages for the richer people, for farm servants, for employers, and for others—that this is going to be done by local taxation, admittedly at present only 1d. in the £—while the individuals who pay not a large amount it is true but a certain proportion of the rates, who are the most numerous, and who have the worst houses, are going to be entirely left out of the scheme? I hope the noble Lord will be able to answer exactly how this matter is to be faced.
Then I come to the third point—the question of the £15,000 grant. That sum is by way of grant or loan. To make it a grant you will have to alter the existing 1911 Act. This £15,000 is for something like 51,000 small holders—that is to say,

83
at a rate of rather under 6s. 8d. per house. On the West Coast of Scotland, at the present moment, with the Government here the land owners, there exists a state of housing which can only be called appalling. In no less than 700 houses in Skye, on the Government's own property, cattle and men are housed under the same roof. It is five years since I saw it, but I have myself seen on the Government property crofter houses in which the cattle and men entered by the same door, and in which there was only a sheet or a bit of wood between where the cattle lived the whole year and where the men lived. That was on Government property for which we had paid and which was administered by our servants, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland.
In the Island of Lewis the conditions are even more appalling. There Dr. Murray, who represents the outer islands, was the only Crofter Member who seems to speak with directness and to the point on the terrible state of affairs. He stated there were not less than 5,000 houses in the long island which would require repair. Of those houses something like 1,000 are what they call the old black houses—that is to say, houses in which the cattle go in at the same door as time humans, and cattle dung remains in the cattle end of the shed or house until the spring of the year when it is cleared out. These are a state of things which certainly do not exist anywhere else in Western Europe, and these are a state of things which you have to face under the Bill, and for which you are giving a miserly loan or grant of £15,000. I hope that His Majesty's Government, having these things pointed out to them, will see fit to consider seriously this matter.
The fourth question that I am asking the noble Lord opposite is why the Scottish small-holders and crofters should be treated entirely differently from the Irish smallholders. I listened the other day to the debate (um the question of the Irish Housing Bill. I heard there again that statement which we continually heard on the Housing Commission on which I had the honour to sit for four years in Scotland. That statement was with regard to the 40,000 houses which were built in Ireland for agricultural labourers and those earning, I think, under 2s. 6d. per day. We have 50,000 crofters in Scotland, and the average rent of the crofter is £4 7s. I would like to ask the noble Lord opposite why these men should
84
be treated on entirely different lines from what has happened in Ireland. Have they not volunteered in the Great War I think the battalions which came from those Northern parts certainly fulfilled their duty. I do not believe there is any body of men who volunteered in larger numbers. They were not exempted, or only exempted in rare cases for agricultural reasons, but they have an infinitely higher proportion of men who served than come from the farm servants or farmers of any part of the British Isles. For what reason is it that not only do they not have their houses built for them entirely, but that they are actually excluded from the Housing Bill and only a beggarly grant of £15,000 is offered for them?
In conclusion, I would like to say that this matter is a matter for which the Government is very seriously criticised in Scotland and especially in the northern portion of Scotland, and the criticism does not come from one side only; it comes, so far as one can see, universally. The criticism is that in this matter the Government have not faced what is their obvious duty to a body of men who deserve well of the country and who suffer from a state of housing which needs certain redress. I would ask the noble Lord to confine himself in his reply, if he will do me that honour, to the question of the existing crofter. We are very shortly, we hope, to have legislation over the question of extending the number of crofts and small holdings in the Highland, for which no doubt special grants and loans have already been made; but I wish to-day to consider the existing crofter and how he is to be affected by this, because I know from experience in the Highlands, as well as from four years on the Housing Commission, that the difficulty of crofter housing on the small crofts has led to greater rural depopulation than anything else for thirty years. This depopulation is going on from rural districts and among small holders owing to the fact that the cost of building materials has doubled and trebled in the last few years. I beg to move for Papers.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Stanmore, through indisposition, I will reply to Lord Lovat's Questions. I should like, in the first place, to point out that the Government are not animated, as Lord Lovat almost indicated, by any lack of regard for the splendid services rendered

85
by those to whom he has referred during the recent war. I imagine that everybody realises the incalculable value of the military services rendered by crofters, and sons and nephews of crofters, and it is not necessary, I hope, in dealing with the housing question, to assess it according to their merits as compared with those of other sections of the population.
As to Lord Lovat's Question about the contrast between the effort made by the State on behalf of these men and that made for persons of corresponding position in Ireland, I can only say this that for five and twenty years it lids been the considered and deliberate policy of Parliament that larger subventions should be paid to Ireland than to Scotland. That has been the consistent and deliberate policy of successive Governments. The statement to which Lord Lovat refers—that made by the Secretary for Scotland on July 3—was to the effect that assistance to crofters should continue to be given through the Board of Agriculture rather than, under the Scottish Housing Bill, through the local authorities or the Local Government Board, now the Board of Health for Scotland.
The noble Lord asks what provision is going to be made for existing crofters and if they come under the Housing Bill. The answer to that question is that, while power and duties under the Bill are conferred upon local authorities in crofting districts just as in other districts; the framework of the Bill does not, so far as the power of acquiring land and erecting houses upon it is concerned, lend itself to the conditions of the crofting districts.
I will explain briefly to your Lordships the reasons which seem to me to make that view adequate. In the first place the local authority is not empowered to rebuild or improve a house except on a site which it has acquired. Therefore, to improve the houses to which Lord Lovat refers they would have to begin by buying the house and buying the site, a procedure which is manifestly inconsistent with the whole theory of crofting holdings. Then, in the case of an ordinary owner who has a house in bad condition, the local authority can step in and repair the house at the owner's expense if the owner fails to fulfil that duty himself.
LORD LOVAT: May I ask who the owner is?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Any owner.
LORD LOVAT: Is the owner the crofter, or the landlord?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think the crofter would be the owner.
LORD LOVAT: That is a point which no one knows.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Then my noble friend ought never to have asked me. It is a most improper question to put to me under those conditions. In the case of the Scottish Office, I gather that the procedure of making the crofter at any rate repair his holding, and recover from him the cost would be inapplicable, because the crofter has probably not got the means for doing so. The third method, available in the ordinary case, is for the local authority to make loans to an owner within the margin of one-half of the estimated property to be burdened with the hereditable security for the loan. That procedure again is, I think, inapplicable to the case of the crofter, who has no power to mortgage his house and croft. These are difficulties which every one roust acknowledge, and which could not he rectified, as Lord Lovat seemed to think possible, by drafting Amendments to the Housing Bill.
Lord Lovat laid stress upon this point, that if the crofter class is excluded from the Housing Bill they will, in effect, be forced to contribute by their taxation to provide houses for other people even more well-to-do than themselves. Generally speaking no general statute can deal completely, or perhaps always logically, with a special case, though crofters, it must be remembered, through special legislation do secure certain advantages from the State, certain subventions which roust be taken into account in striking a balance; but I think I can reassure Lord Lovat by saying that it is not intended by the Scottish Office to acquiesce in this position of things. Though it is not proposed to deal with the crofter problem in the Housing Bill, it is none the less hoped to deal with it in the Land Settlement (Scotland) Bill, which is now in a forward state of preparation. As my noble friend was informed by Lord Ernie in this House on May 28 last, it is hoped to allocate the sum of two and a half millions sterling to Scotland for the settlement of small-holders and cognate purposes in that country.
LORD LOVAT: I am talking about the existing crofters.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I must ask the noble Lord to take special note of my next sentence. My noble friend will understand that it is impossible for me to announce in advance the contents of a Bill which is still in preparation, and which therefore has not yet been made public. I cannot consequently anticipate the provisions of this Bill, but the Government is doing its best to work out a scheme in connection with this Bill which will enable assistance to be given in the improvement of existing houses in the crofting areas; and in this endeavour the Government will keep in view the recommendations of the Royal Commission on housing in Scotland which are applicable to these crofting areas.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I intervene in a Scottish conversation with very great diffidence, but I should like to ask my noble friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, when he tells us that there is a Bill on Scottish small holdings yet in preparation, how long he intends the present Session to last. I presume he meant getting it in preparation with a view to dealing with it within the present Session. Is he going to ask us to remain here until that Bill has been developed, because otherwise I am afraid my noble friend Lord Lovat may feel that the realization of his hopes is rather remote. I should also like to ask the noble Earl this point. He told us just now that it was quite understood to be a settled matter of British legislation that Ireland should always receive a larger contribution than Scotland. It seems to be a rather unfair rule to make.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I did not say that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If I have misquoted the noble Earl he will correct me. I understood him to say that, Ireland always received better treatment than Scotland. Does he mean per capita, or in what respect does he mean, that she always receives better treatment?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Lord Lovat referred to labourers' cottages in Ireland, and asked why nothing of the sort was done in Scotland. I did not say it was the settled policy of this country that Ireland
88
always shall receive larger grants and subventions, but I said that in this respect for twenty years past all successive Governments have acquiesced in and indeed carried through that policy, and it is an undeniable fact. I made no estimate of what future Governments would do.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps I may just say that it may have been the practice in the past, but I think recent circumstances have led us to doubt whether the Irish population are so much more deserving than the Scotch population that they ought to continue to receive such preferential treatment. There are many Irishmen, of course, who are among the most loyal citizens of the Empire. There are a good many who are not. I think that will be admitted, and perhaps in the preparation of future legislation by the Government my noble friend might think it wise to advise his colleagues to vary the rule which has prevailed hitherto.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am afraid that I cannot make an announcement of the Cabinet's future Irish policy at the present juncture. I hope that we shall be able to get the Scottish Land Settlement Bill through during the present Sitting?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Before the summer holidays?
LORD LOVAT: I do not think the Government have given very close attention to this question of crofter housing, and the answer that I have received from the noble Lord is a most unsatisfactory one. It is unsatisfactory because we have had in the past our crofter housing attended by a Land Settlement. Bill, and I can assure your Lordships that the total sum disbursed out of the £200,000 which was specially voted for the improvement of crofter housing was rather less over a four-year period than is spent on many individual Scottish estates, and the £15,000 that the Secretary for Scotland talks about giving us an immediate grant of is not even enough to put these houses in order on a single Skye estate.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LOCAL ELECTIONS (PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

MINISTRY OF WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
[THE EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Appointment of Minister of Ways and Communications.
1. For the purpose of improving the means of, and the facilities for, locomotion and transport, it shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Minister of Ways and Communications (hereinafter referred to as the Minister), who shall hold office during His Majesty's pleasure.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved to leave out "Ways and Communications," and insert "Transport." The noble Lord said: If this Amendment is carried the clause would then read: "It shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Minister Transport." This is not a matter of vital importance, and is not one that will raise a constitutional crisis between the two Houses. It is really more a matter of convenience than anything else. The names of many Bills which have been introduced of late are somewhat cumbersome. For instance there is one that is to be considered to-morrow which is called the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Bill. Though the name of the Bill we are now considering is not so bad as that, I think it is somewhat long and might with advantage be shortened. Various abbreviations have been already suggested, but they have been more or less of a failure.
I think the name by which this Bill is generally known is that of the Transport Bill. An Amendment was moved in the House of Commons to insert this word, and I understand that the Minister in charge of the Bill did not consider it unfavourably; in fact, he promised to consider it on Report, but when that stage was reached it was found that stress of business had prevented him from doing so, and the result is, I am informed, that the Amendment was rejected, though not by a very large majority.
I ask you to consider that you would earn the gratitude of all the people who in the future have to deal with this Bill if you made this alteration—men of business, typewriters, even the printers of your Lordships' House would feel it a relief if you would use the shorter title. I do not wish to alarm my noble friend in charge
90
of the Bill, much less to threaten him, but I much fear that, if this Amendment is not adopted, recourse will be had to "direct action," and that we shall find that people will use the words "Transport Bill," whether we like it or not. Under these circumstances would it not be well for your Lordships to give a lead in this matter and to adopt the name by which the Bill is commonly known?
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("Ways and Communications") and insert ("Transport").—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: This is not, of course, a question in which any principle is involved. It is not a matter on which the Government itself feels very strongly, and I am not disposed to contest the arguments used by the noble Lord. I think this is a more convenient title. But my noble friend has made a mistake in the account he gave of the treatment of this question in another place. He said the question was raised in Committee, that the Minister showed some sympathy with it and undertook to reconsider it on Report, but failed to do so, and that in a Division, in which the Government Whips were pat on, the Amendment was defeated. That is not the case. The Minister in the House of Commons took the view that I take here. He said this was a matter for the House to settle, and it was left entirely to the discretion of the House. No Government Tellers were put on in the Division, and the result was that the Amendment was rejected by 109 votes to 65. That is an indication of the opinion of the House of Commons, without any direct pressure from the Government. The Government was neutral in the matter. I propose to take the same position here. I cannot accept the Amendment. The Government think that this title is the better of the two, and the figures which I have quoted show that that is the view taken by the House of Commons. It is not a matter of great consequence, and if your Lordships feel strongly on the matter and are disposed to carry the Amendment of the noble Lord, I shall offer no opposition to that being done. If your Lordships divide upon it I shall personally vote for the title in the Bill as it stands.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I quite agree that this is not a matter of very vital importance; but, after all, Sir Eric Geddes

91
in his original speech on the Bill, said that we had not got quite the equivalent of the American word "transportation" but we were getting very near to it. I think the word "Transport" might be agreed to, and I hope the Government will assent to it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Powers and duties.
2.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Minister in the exercise and performance of any powers and duties transferred to, or conferred or imposed upon him, by or in pursuance of this Act, to take steps to carry out the purposes aforesaid, and there shall, as from such date as His Majesty in Council may by Order determine, be transferred to the Minister all powers and duties of any Government Department in relation to—

(a) railways;

(b) light railways;

(c) tramways;

(d) canals, waterways, and inland navigations;

(e) roads, bridges and ferries, and vehicles and traffic thereon;

(f) harbours, docks and piers;

including any powers and duties of any Government Department in relation to any railway, light railway, tramway, canal, inland navigation, harbour, dock, pier, or other undertaking concerned with any of the matters aforesaid, and any powers of any Government Department with respect to the appointment of members or the procedure of any commissioners, conservancy board or other body having jurisdiction with respect to any such matters as aforesaid, and any powers of any Government department with respect to the making, confirming, issuing, granting, Or giving (as the case may be) of byelaws, regulations, orders, licences, approvals, or consents relating to any of the matters hereinbefore mentioned:
Provided that—

(i) His Majesty in Council may by Order except from such transfer any particular powers or duties, or provide for the exercise or performance of any power or duty so excepted by the Minister concurrently or in consultation with or at the instance of the Government Department concerned, or by the Government Department concerned concurrently or in consultation with the Minister, or provide for the retransfer to any such Department of any powers and duties transferred to the Minister by this section; and

(ii) Nothing in this section shall transfer to the Minister any powers or duties of the Admiralty exerciseable in or in relation to ports declared under the Dockyard Ports Regulation Act, 1865,
92
to be dockyard ports, but His Majesty in Council may by Order transfer to the Admiralty, instead of to the Minister, any of the powers of the Board of Trade with respect to dockyard ports, or with respect to the appointment of members of any commissioners, conservancy board, or other body having jurisdiction in the whole or any part of a dockyard port; and

(iii) Nothing in this section shall transfer to the Minister the powers of the Board of Trade with respect to the appointment of members or the procedure of the Railway and Canal Commission, but His Majesty in Council may, by order, transfer those powers to a Secretary of State instead of to the Minister.

(2) His Majesty in Council may by Order make such incidental consequential and supplemental provisions as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving full effect to any transfer of powers or duties by or under this section, including provisions for the transfer of any property, rights and liabilities held, enjoyed, or incurred by any Government Department in connection with any powers or duties transferred, and may make such adaptations in the enactments relating to such powers or duties as may be necessary to make exerciseable by the Minister and Ins officers or by the Admiralty and their officers, as the ease may be, the powers and duties so transferred: Provided always that nothing herein contained shall enable the powers so transferred to be increased.
(3) In connection with the transfer of powers and duties to the Minister or the Admiralty by or under this Act, the provisions set out in the Schedule to this Act shall have effect.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (1), after "Department" where that word first occurs, to insert "except the special and temporary powers contained in the Defence of the Realm Act." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment in order to ask the Government whether they intend to include in the powers given under this Bill the very special and exceptional powers given to the Government in many cases solely in consequence of the war. Under the Defence of the Realm Act there were temporary powers, what I would venture to call extraordinary powers, given, and I do not suppose that the Government want them to continue in time of peace. But I am advised that, unless some words such as I suggest are put in and this Bill passes both Houses of Parliament in, say, a week's time, the Minister would then be able to exercise the powers contained in the Defence of the Realm Act. I shall be glad if the Government can give us an assurance or information on that point.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, after ("Department") insert ("except the special and temporary powers contained in the Defence of the Realm Act").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I think I made this point clear when I was speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill. Such powers as are stow vested temporarily under the Defence of the Realm Act in the Government Departments whose functions are transferred under this clause will, of course, be, transferred, for the remaining period over which the Defence of the Realm Act operates, to the Minister; and I submit that it would be right and proper that it should be so. You cannot divide these powers and say that these Government Departments shall continue for a few weeks to administer temporary powers whereas all other functions dealing with these matters have been transferred to the Minister. But those powers, of course, are only temporary, governed by the duration of the Defence of the Realm Act. When the Defence of the Realm Act lapses, as it will six months after the signing of peace, then, of course, any powers under that Act which have been transferred to the Minister will lapse as they would have lapsed if they had been left to the Departments concerned.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had an Amendment upon the Paper, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraphs (a), (b), (e), (d), (e), (f), and to insert "railways, railway undertakings, canals, and light rail ways."
The noble Lord said: I desire to conform, not only in letter but in spirit, to the decision at which the House arrived yesterday. I have given the Lord Chairman the Amendment, which I desire to move in place of the words down on the Paper. Instead of moving the words appearing on the Paper I desire to move to leave out the words "roads, bridges, ferries, vehicles, and traffic thereon." I do this in order to raise the question of roads at a very early stage of this Bill. If it is possible to arrange with the Government for a strengthening of the Committee which was conceded in the other House, it will probably be unnecessary to move the excision of roads, and bridges, and vehicles, and traffic thereon.
The fact is that the Committee given in
94
Clause 20 is not, we think, a sufficient concession on that point, and we do not believe it will be sufficiently strong, or represent what I am sure it is the Government's intention that it should represent—namely, the view of those interested in road traffic not otherwise represented in the Ministry. All through the history of legislation, from the earliest days, roads have always been put in a totally different position from any other subject and when locomotion has been dealt with roads have nearly always received separate treatment. They differ in this Bill in that they are not a revenue-earning concern. They are already "nationalised," if I may use that term—that is to say, they are kept up by the nation out of rates and taxes, and are in a different position from railways, canals, or any other revenue-earning concern. In the last Bill which dealt with the subject—the Development of Roads (Improvement) Act of 1909—roads were dealt with even separate from light railways, and the then Government set an excellent precedent then when the roads were treated, as before, on a separate basis.
Perhaps the noble Earl has no idea of the magnitude of the interests in roads and road transport. With regard to the roads themselves, there are roughly 150,000 miles of secondary roads and 30,000 miles of main and principal roads. There is spent upon the roads, as the Minister-designate says, about £20,000,000 a year; but, on the other hand, the taxes on the roads in the way of petrol tax and other taxes bring in about £3,500,000 a year, which of course must be deducted. This question of roads and road transport also affects no less than six kinds of mechanical transport—namely, motor cars, motor 'buses, motor lorries, motor cycles, traction engines, and agricultural tractors, which have increased lately in great numbers. In 1915, the last year of which we could get a return, there were 1415,500 motor cars, 142,000 motor cycles, 35,000 commercial lorries, 33,000 hackney: carriages, and from 6,000 to 8,000 'buses, giving a total of 326,000 motor vehicles. It is estimated that by the end of 1920 there will be something like 700,000 motor vehicles. They are not represented in any way in the Ministry of this Bill. The drivers and mechanics employed number about 500,000 or 600,000 men, and it is estimated that between £50,000,000 and £60,000,000 is

95
directly invested in various factories which make motor vehicles.
There are also transferred under this Bill very considerable and far-reaching powers, which appear in the White Paper giving a return of powers and duties of the Minister of Ways and Communications. I will just lead one or two of the transferred powers. The Minister has taken over the power to make regulations in respect to the construction of motorcars and the use of the highways; lights on motor vehicles of all kinds; the speed of motor-cars and vehicles of all kinds; the prohibition of driving motor-cars on certain highways; the limitation of speed; identification and registration; the issue of driving licences; power to hold Inquiries; the control of international passes, and making regulations with regard to hackney vehicles. In addition to that, there is the very important power of determining differences between county councils and other local authorities and Government Departments. These are very special powers, which have hitherto been very wisely exercised on the whole, I think, by the Local Government Board.
I have not yet seen, though the Government may have it in mind, any mention of anyone specially versed in or acquainted with these subjects either in the list of those persons given by the Minister-designate in another place or in any debate or reply by the Government on this question. Moreover, mechanical transport is taxed. In 1918 I think there was an amount of about £800,000 in taxes. This year it is calculated £2,500,000 will be produced by the petrol tax at 6d. Motor vehicles are divided into two classes: what are called pleasure cars pay 6d. per gallon, and commercial cars 3d.
Then in regard to the improvement of roads. Taking that aspect, out of the £7,700,000 to be spent by the Government on the roads this year, something like £5,200,000 comes directly out of the pockets of those who have been taxed in respect of the petrol duty and carriage tax, and £2,000,000 out of the Road Board funds, so that really out of the £7,700,000 to be spent on roads and road improvement this year not less than five-sevenths, roughly speaking, comes out of the pockets of one particular class, which is not so far represented at all in connection with this Ministry.
It may be said that the system under which roads are repaired and transport on the roads is managed should be changed, but no demand has come from local authorities or anybody else for this particular change. Roads are not in the same position as railways and canals, which have their own special difficulties. I venture to say, as Chairman of the Joint Roads Committee, which has had the duty for a year past of repairing the special damage done by Government traffic during the war, that you could not spend more than you are spending now. We are spending as much on materials and labour as we can legitimately spend, and local authorities appear to be quite convinced of that, too, because when we offer them money they say they cannot spend more than we are able to give them.
There is no dissatisfaction either, I gather, with the Road Board as to the way in which it has done its work, for I find that 459 local authorities, including forty-one county councils, in England, Scotland, and Wales have definitely declared themselves in favour of a reconstructed Road Board with fuller powers, but against the Ministry of Ways and Communications taking over the management of the roads. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill quoted something which the Hertfordshire County Council had passed last night, but the Lancashire County Council, which is one of the most important of our county councils, whose opinion I think ought to carry weight with the Government, passed the following resolution in regard to the Bill—
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Will the noble Lord give the date?
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: March 5, 1919. The resolution states—
"The Parliamentary Committee—"
that is, of the Lancashire County Council—
"view with great apprehension the effect of placing the roads and all traffic under the control of a Minister who has to deal with railways, light railways, and tramways, and of giving him the power of distributing money that may be voted by Parliament for the construction, improvement and maintenance of roads and bridges."
I will not read the whole of it, but only this further sentence—
"The main roads have been developed for competition in traffic as against the railways, and it seems to the Committee inadvisable, as a matter of public policy, that the risk should be run that the future development of road traffic may be either directly or indirectly checked for the

97
ulterior purpose of preventing inconvenient competition with railway interests, whether in the hands of companies or under State control."
Thirty-nine county councils take more or less that view.
The proposed Advisory Committee, to be established under Clause 20, is only, after all, an Advisory Committee largely nominated by the Minister, and, of course, under the control of the Minister. With all due deference to the Government we do not consider that the Committee is anything like strong enough in its constitution, as at present proposed. There is another point about this matter, and that is that hitherto all our roads and the legislation with regard to roads and their construction have been devoid of politics. There is a danger of political influence, and it is greater to-day than ever it was. Mr. Lloyd George, when he set up the Road Board, said most distinctly that he set it up in the form in which it exists to-day because he was afraid of the danger of political influence in road-making. I am afraid in the future the Minister will be subject—and that is the real danger—to very strong political influence in the amount of grants he spends on certain roads. There might be quite big political questions arising on that point. In my opinion grants to roads should be entirely removed from the possibility of political pressure. Other noble Lords may not share my view. But on the Ministry, as announced, there will be only one person representing the great mass of roads out of nine members; I will not go so far as to accuse the others of bias, but there is only one person who knows anything about roads, and he knows nothing about transport, but only about construction. In other words he is a permanent way man; not a traffic man.
Do the Government propose to abolish the Road Board altogether? It is a statutory body, created in 1909, and though its powers are transferred it is not abolished. Is it still to exist without powers? We on the Road Board do not know as we have had no communication with the Minister-designate so far. There is also the point that the Minister is the final court of appeal on all road matters. Instead of being an impartial person it is possible that some other form of transport—railways—may clash, and it is obvious that roads would go to the wall. I hope the Government will take a broader view of the matter. I should not like it to confirm
98
the impression, which is widespread and growing, that in order to make railways pay in the interest of State control the Ministry is going in for a policy of subordinating all other interests to those of railways. In other countries roads have been neglected where the railways have been State owned—and we are frightened of that happening here.
I make another appeal to the Government on the sentimental side. Roads are one of the oldest forms of civilisation, and poets and philosophers of all ages have descanted on the glories of the road. Roads have had their own special influence on civilisation; roads are to me almost a religion, if I may put it that way; and it seems to me you are diminishing the glories of the road, neglecting the traditions of the road—the roads of Telford and Macadam—and giving them a subordinate place in a Ministry whose chief aim, rightly, will be to make that other form of locomotion—railways—pay. The roads are national property to-day. We have on the whole the best roads in the world, and I suggest that the Government should give serious consideration as to whether they cannot improve Clause 20, or give those who are interested in road matters some indication of the policy they propose to pursue. I formally move the Amendment, subject to the reply I may receive from the noble Earl on the whole policy of roads.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 21, leave out paragraph (e).—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD HARRIS: The Amendment moved by the noble Lord gives me an opportunity of explaining the reason why I was unable to support my noble friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) last night. It seemed to me rather a strong order to expect this House to agree to bifurcate the Bill at this stage of the Session. That was one reason. Another reason was that the principle of the railways being included having been accepted, the question was really reduced to docks and roads. I have not very much experience of docks, but I was largely influenced in my vote by the speech of my noble friend Lord Emmott. I do, however, know something about roads, and I am not alarmed at the idea of the Central authority coming in now and then on the subject of roads.

99
I confess the enumeration of the number of vehicles that my noble friend opposite gave us just now does not frighten me, although one is thankful to think one has got the repair shop at Cippenham to mend them when they do reach those numbers. Obviously, what we have got to look forward to, if that enumeration is nearly a correct forecast, is an enormous increase of mechanical transport on the roads, and that will in all probability include a very much larger number of heavy lorries and omnibuses than are now running, and very possibly in some cases of light railways, and it does seem to me that where you have got public mechanical transport passing through the areas of more than one local authority it is absolutely essential you should have some central authority which ran control that transport.
In the past local authorities have suffered very materially at the hands of these roving and independent mechanical transport companies, which have put omnibuses on almost wherever they pleased. A little control has come in of late years, but a few years ago these companies put on routes of omnibuses wherever they pleased, passing through the areas of more than one authority, and where the two authorities could not agree to act together these roving companies were absolutely independent. They never have paid sufficient towards the rates for the amount of damage they do to the roads. That is one of the reasons why I feel justified in including the subject of roads in the Bill.
It is quite true, as my noble friend says, that the first officer who will have to do with the roads, General Maybury, is not a mechanical engineer. I happen to know a great deal about General Maybury, because I was instrumental in getting him appointed Surveyor in Kent, from which position he has risen to his present great eminence by his own efforts. So far as the maintenance of the roads is concerned, where this heavy mechanical transport is going to increase so much and momentum is going to be the chief factor, it is important to have a man who is a first-class expert on the subject of road construction. Therefore I am not alarmed at the idea of having a central authority come in where necessary on the subject of the maintenance of roads, and the control of transport on the roads, because I am perfectly certain that in General Maybury we have a man who would not interfere unnecessarily.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The noble Lord who moved this Amendment asked me a question which I will answer at once in order to get it out of the way. He asked me what the effect of the Bill was upon the position of the Road Board. As I understand it, under Clause 2 the powers and duties of any Government Department in relation to roads, bridges, ferries and so forth will be permanently transferred to the new Ministry, and as in the definition clause the Road Board is included in a Government Department I can only conclude that the effect will be to abolish the Road Board, since its powers will be transferred under this Bill to another body.
There is one other point that I wish to deal with and that is the question of the attitude of highway authorities towards the Bill. It is quite true that I quoted the opinion expressed recently by one County Council, and the noble Lord to-night has quoted another, but I think that I am justified in making this general statement, that whereas in early days ninny resolutions were passed by highway authorities in opposition to the Bill that opposition, as was the case in the House of Commons, and as I believe will prove the case in your Lordships' House, was based upon a misunderstanding of the provisions and powers in the Bill, but of recent date we have had proof that the inclusion of roads under the powers of the new Ministry has the approval of the highway authorities of this country, in so far that is as any general organisation can speak for a collection of associations. Therefore without entering into an examination of what the opinion of one highway authority or another may be I feel justified in saying that we are satisfied that this Bill as it stands applying to roads has the approval generally of the highway authorities.
The Amendment of the noble Lord does of course raise a very sharp question of principle. It really strikes at the whole principle of the unity of control of transport which is embodied in the Bill, and having inflicted three long speeches upon your Lordships on the subject I have no intention of once more defending the principle of co-ordination. But I think I can save myself any necessity of doing so if I plead in aid the speech of the noble Lord himself because the speech which he has just delivered is in my opinion one of the strongest arguments for the inclusion of roads in this Bill. The noble Lord has

101
given figures to show the extreme importance of roads as a transport service. It is just because it is in our opinion an absolutely essential transport service that we hold it should be included in the powers of any Ministry which has to deal with transport as a whole.
The noble Lord said he hoped that the Government would take a broader view of the question. Here again I cannot help feeling that we do take a broader view of the question than the noble Lord because we look at this issue from the broad standpoint of the transport interest of the country, while the noble Lord I think—I say it with all deference—is inclined to take a narrow view, because he approaches the question in the frame of mind of fear lest roads may suffer by conflict with railways. That is a narrower point of view than the one from which we approach it. The noble Lord thinks that roads should not be included in this new Ministry because he speaks of it as a Railway Ministry, and he has again to-night referred to the fact that there is only one man out of nine whose appointment has been announced in the House of Commons who is an expert in roads. It does not need any further tribute. Lord Harris has just mentioned the fact, which is known to all your Lordships, that General Maybury is the greatest expert living in road-making. The noble Lord who moved this Amendment says quite truly that he is not an expert in road traffic, and he thinks it is a mistake to hand over powers of control over road traffic, such as are now enjoyed by the Local Government Board, to a man who will be an expert merely in road-mending and road-making. But there is no justification for saying that these powers of control of traffic will be placed in the hands of a man who is an expert in road-making. It is quite true that no Announcement has been made of the personnel of the new Ministry beyond the important officials who were announced in the House of Commons. But surely we may take for granted that, if the new Ministry is to administer these powers, the Minister will take steps to ensure that they will be placed in the hands of persons of experience in carrying out these duties.
Without, going into the general question I want in very few words to show why I think that the position of roads, from the point of view of the road lover, would be much more dangerous if they were ex-
102
cluded from this Bill than they would be if they are left in it. The noble Lord, I think without any justification, assumes that this is going to be a Railway Ministry, and a Ministry, therefore, which cannot be entrusted with the upkeep and maintenance of roads. We deny that altogether, and we say this is going to be a Minister who will look after the interests of transport generally. But what would be the position if you were to take roads out of his hands, and leave them purely with the Board of Trade, with the Local Government Board, and with the Road Board? The Minister would still have, as Lord Harris pointed out, full powers of using the roads. He could put upon the roads, as it is open to any company to do, the services of motor omnibuses to any extent, and the only control which the local authorities have over these motor omnibus services is contained in a purely temporary measure, the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916, which is perpetuated in this Bill, but which of course, would disappear if you were to take roads out of the Bill. In that case, the Minister would have power to use the roads to any extent, to cause the utmost expense to the local authority in repairing them, but he would have no power and no money to help in their maintenance, their improvement or their repair. I think that would be a much more serious objection than if you were to place them under a Transport Ministry.
I really would like to meet the noble Lord, if I can, and he has asked me whether I can tell him what would be our attitude when we come to consider the position of the Road Committee at a later stage of the Bill. I think it would be inconvenient at this stage to discuss in detail the clause which the noble Lord has put upon the Paper. I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope whatever of being able to accept that Amendment, because he, in fact, converts an Advisory Committee into a rival authority, having its own representation in Parliament, exercising itself, and not through the Ministry, the powers which will be transferred, and administering the funds which are at present used for road development.
The difference of principle between the noble Lord and the Government is this. We say that the Minister must be responsible for exercising these powers which will be transferred to him. We are perfectly prepared to listen to any representations the noble Lord may care to make as

103
to the way in which the Minister should carry out those responsibilities and fulfil those duties, and we are prepared to listen also to any representations he may make as to the composition of the body which may advise the Minister; but that instead of leaving responsibility with the Minister some other body should be set up to divide that responsibility with him and to exercise powers independently of him, then there is a difference of opinion on which I fear I can hold out no hope we can come to an agreement with him. That is all I can say at this stage with regard to the matter which will come later; but I hope very much that your Lordships will not accept an Amendment to strike the roads out of the Bill.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: After what the noble Earl has said, I do not press my Amendment. You will find on the Paper to-morrow an Amendment to Clause 20 which will further deal with this matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT DEVONPORT VISCOUNT DEVONPORT moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the appointment of members or." The noble Viscount said: This clause proposes, inter alia, to transfer to the Ministry the powers of any Government Department with reference to the appointment of members of any body having jurisdiction with respect to harbours, docks, and piers. This means taking away the existing powers exercised, for example, by the Board of Trade, the Admiralty, and other Government Departments, in connection with the appointment of members to various dock and harbour boards. As regards the Port Authority, the number of members of which is thirty, no less than ten of these are appointed members, the remainder being elected by the payers of dues. There is not a shadow of a doubt that this clause will take away from the Board of Trade the appointment of the two members that they have hitherto appointed. It will also take away from the Admiralty the one member they have appointed.
I desire to refer to the definition clause—Clause 27—in order that I may get some explanation on a point I am going to put and upon which we are advised that, if this works out in the way it is suggested to us it may work out, it will have very
104
far-reaching and serious consequences. Clause 27 says—
"In this Act the expression 'Government Department' includes any Government of other public Department."
This certainly seems to imply—and we have been advised accordingly—that certain public bodies who appoint the Port Authority will lose their right. I have already explained that out of about ten appointed members three are appointed by strictly Government Departments, and that the seven remaining members are appointed by public departments which we fear will come within the definition of "Government Department." The London County Council, for instance, appoint four members to the Port Authority, the City Corporation appoint two, and Trinity House appoint one. If this power is going to be transferred to the Ministry, I do not hesitate to say that it will vitiate the principle of securing a representative body to which Parliament in 1908, when it passed the Port of London Act, attached the first importance.
If I am right in my surmise—and I would be glad to hear from the noble Earl what his view is—it will be most serious we think. Without saying anything of an offensive nature as to what the new Ministry is likely to do or not to do, it cannot be denied that it will not be on the question of appointment such an independent body as the Board of Trade; because the Board of Trade is an administrative body pure and simple; it has no interest in docks, whereas the new Ministry will have a very great interest in clocks, and will have control of the whole of the railway docks, which of course would be competing docks. I submit they will find it very difficult indeed to discharge, this function of appointment. I do not say their interests will be in conflict, but it will be very difficult to keep out of their minds altogether the possibility of bias. At the present moment we have the security of the appointments coming from the Board of Trade as being a thoroughly independent body, and we are much exercised in our minds at the idea that the whole appointments are going to pass from the representative body into the hands of the Ministry. I shall be glad if the noble Earl will give us some assurance on that point.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 2 and 3, leave out ("the appointment of members or").—(Viscount Devonport.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I gather that the noble Viscount is afraid lest this clause as it stands may interfere with the appointments of the Port of London Authority. I am advised that the only two Departments which would be included under the words "Government Department" are the Admiralty and the Board of Trade. The Admiralty being exempted by a later clause, it is confined solely to the powers of the Board of Trade. Any other public body to which the noble Viscount has referred having powers to nominate to the Port of London Authority would, I am informed, not be affected by this clause.
That, therefore, leaves us merely with the question whether the nomination of the Board of Trade should remain with that Department or be transferred to the new Ministry. I confess I really thought that this Amendment was consequential upon the previous one, which the noble Viscount has not moved. It seemed to me that if you are transferring the powers of the Board of Trade with respect to harbours and docks, then it is only right that you should transfer also the right of nomination to the Port Authority. If you do not, you will leaving nomination in the hands of a Government Department which will then have no interest and no concern with docks at all. The noble Viscount may say that it will be an impartial body. I do not admit that the new Ministry will not, by reason of having an interest in clocks, be qualified to make appointments to the Port of London Authority. It seems to me that the appointment must be made by a Department which is concerned with docks and not by a Department which, as the Bill now stands, will have, no concern with docks at all.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I ask the noble Earl what Le takes to be the meaning of the expression in Clause 27, "In this Act the expression Government Department' includes any Government or other public Department"? What is a public Department which is not a Government Department, if the term excludes such bodies as the noble Viscount (Lord Devonport) mentioned?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I am afraid I am not in a position to give the noble Marquess instances of what such a public Department may be.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Perhaps the noble Earl will inquire?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I will inform myself as to that.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 13, leave out ("or the Admiralty") and insert ("Admiralty or Secretary of State").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRACIHE LORD STRACIHE moved, after subsection (3), to insert the following new sub-section—
"(4) There shall be established a separate Department of the Ministry (hereinafter referred to as the Roads Department) to which all matters relating to the exercise by the Minister of his powers and duties with reference to roads, bridges and ferries, shall stand referred, and the Minister before exercising any such powers shall receive and consider the report of the Roads Department with reference to the matters in question."
The noble Lord said: I have put this Amendment down at the request of the County Councils Association, and it seems to me—I think the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will agree—rather a compromise between the views of my noble friend Lord Montagu and the Bill, upon this question of the control of roads. It has been stated in a previous debate that a large increase in motor traffic is likely in future, and that it is desirable to have a central control.
The House will see that my Amendment does not at all interfere with central control. All that it does is to ensure that the control should be efficient and, to a certain extent, in touch with local authorities. Lord Lytton said that the Road Board was abolished. If that is so, does it not seem desirable that there should be some other body, such as is here suggested—a Department of the Ministry which should be a Roads Department—to which all matters regarding roads should be referred? The Minister would consider their reports and then would exercise his powers as he thought fit.
I think the noble Earl said that, generally, local authorities approved of the Bill. That may be so as regards the roads being

107
entirely under the Minister of Ways and Communications, but I venture to suggest to the noble Earl that the mere fact of the County Councils Association desiring this Amendment shows that it is desirable that, in these circumstances, there should be a special Department whose duty it should be not to lose sight of the great interests of the local authorities as regards roads. The County Councils, as he knows, are very much interested in the roads of the district. It is not, I think, unreasonable that there should be this special Department, a friendly Department, to which the local authorities can go with the knowledge that their views will be placed with force before the Minister, who, of course, will have other questions also to consider. The Department will be in direct contact with the Minister and the local authorities.
I notice that the noble Earl said there would be persons of experience in road management on the Committee, and he evidently contemplated that there was to be a separate Committee for the purpose. Therefore, I think it is only going a little further if you meet the wishes of the County Councils Association in this matter. I freely admit that the Minister is responsible. All I am asking is that there should be a body to take the place of the Road Board, and called the Roads Department of the Ministry. I am certain the Government can only desire that there should be no friction but good feeling between the local authorities and the new Ministry. Therefore, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 14, after subsection (3), insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Strachie.).
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Before the noble Earl replies, I should like to support the Amendment. It does net clash in any way with the proposals for the Road Committee in Clause 20. It will strengthen the position of the roads. And it is supported by the County Councils Association, whose opinion should carry great weight, and all people connected with the roads question. I should be very glad if the Government could make Sir Henry Maybury's Department into a proper Roads Department. He is the present engineer to the Road Board, and we have great confidence in him. We would like to see his Department made into a special Department under the Ministry.
108
It would not clash with any proposals I have later in the Bill.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I hope I may be able to satisfy both noble Lords and also the County Councils Association on whose behalf they speak. I am unable to accept the Amendment—it is not necessary in order to carry out their purpose—as it is objectionable for two reasons. I hope I shall be able to satisfy noble Lords if I assure them that it is the intention of the Minister to have a separate Road Department, and that that Department will be in charge of Sir Henry Maybury, in so far as those matters are concerned in which he is an acknowledged expert.
But I have two objections to the Amendment. Both are serious objections, though the first is not so serious as the second. My first objection is, that it would be a great mistake to single out one sphere of activity which this Department will have to deal with, and it is admittedly a subject which falls within different Departments, and the administration must follow those lines. if you say that there must by Statute be a special Road Department, then I shall have requests to make a special Department for canals, tramways, and so on. That is, I think, a serious objection.
My second objection is much more serious—it is an administrative one. I have told the noble Lord that the Minister has undertaken to have a special Road Department. Obviously, that Department will not only be consulted in the exercise of the powers of the Minister in regard to roads, but he will also act on their advice. But if you say that the Minister is never to take any action until he has received the report of a. Special Department of his Ministry, then it is a serious interference with his administrative control. After all, a Minister must be left free to organise his own Department as he thinks best. He has assured us that he intends to have a special branch of his Department to deal with roads, but to say that he cannot take action on his own responsibility until certain members of his own staff have submitted a report will be to put a serious limitation on the Minister.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I understood the noble Earl to say, at a former stage of the Bill, that those who were entitled to speak for the highway authorities accepted the Bill as it stands. Perhaps

109
the noble Earl merely meant that they accepted the inclusion of roads under the Ministry, but clearly, as he put it, it would appear that their acceptance went further than he intended, because now they move this Amendment, which does involve a change, not of great substance, but of some substance in the Bill.
The objection of which the noble Earl spoke as being so grave is the prospect of interference with the Minister's arrangement of his own Department. It is quite true, of course, that in a sense public Departments are usually organised, so far as the office arrangements are concerned, by the Minister in charge, but I think there is this difference of principle between the noble Earl and the highway authorities for whom my noble friend behind me spoke, in that they do regard the whole business of roads as being somewhat different in character from all the other sub-departments included in the Bill; so that even although, as the noble Earl said, those interested in light railways ask for a separate light railway department, and these interested in canals make a similar request, it would not be difficult to show that the case of the roads stands on a different footing altogether.
As was pointed out by Lord Montagu on the Second Reading, roads differ from all other services in that they in no way represent a profit-making concern. They simply represent a public service costing money, and that surely does put them on a different footing from either railways, light railways or canals. Many of us hold that it is desirable to mark that distinction by creating this statutory department. It is no slight on the Minister who is about to start this Department, to give this direction of Parliament. The noble Earl has stated that it is the intention of the first holder of the Office to create a Department of this kind, but he may change his mind later on, or his successor in the office may take a different view, and may merge this Department in the general work of the office. I confess I do not entirely apprehend the force of the reasons which appear to the noble Earl to be conclusive as against this Amendment, and I trust on reflection he may take a more favourable view of it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should like to add one word to what hasfallen from the noble Marquess who has just sat
110
down. I do not think the argument which my noble friend opposite has used in respect of this Amendment—namely, that it would create a dangerous precedent which would be followed by all the other interests—is quite sound, because roads evidently stand in a special position. The roads are already under a. public authority. They differ therefore essentially from any other of the various means of transport which are included in the Bill. They are already under local authorities who are responsible to the ratepayers, the local electors of the country. You may, if you think it wise in the public interest, invade the rights of control which are exercised by railway companies or dock companies or any other companies—your Lordships may agree or differ on that—but at any rate those stand on quite a different footing from invading the roads of the ratepayers who control those roads, and therefore I do not think that it would be correct to say, as my noble friend opposite said, that to give a sub-Department of the Office to roads by statute would create an embarrassing precedent for him in dealing with other interests in the Bill. Roads obviously stand quite apart.
The second contention which I would urge is that he has more or less put forward his support of these provisions in his Bill on the ground that they have the general consent of a large majority, he thought, of the road authorities. Surely the fact that the County Councils Association have thought it necessary to put forward this Amendment would to that extent vitiate the contention of my noble friend. It can no longer be truly said that in this respect he has behind him the support of all the road authorities. They themselves put forward this Amendment, and have laid, as I am informed, great stress upon it. In these two respects I think that my noble friend's argument fails.
Then my noble friend says "Do not be afraid. The Minister has announced that he has every intention of dividing up his Department into sub-Departments, and the roads will be one sub-Department and your Lordships will get all that you require, not by statute, but, by the act of the Minister." The noble Marquess who has just sat down has pointed out that these arrangements which are made by the Minister departmentally are not quite the same thing as a statutory provision. The Minister may change his mind. I do

111
not think from what I know or have heard of Sir Eric Geddes that he is likely to change mind, but what is much more likely is that Sir Eric Geddes will not permanently continue in office, in fact that is almost certain, and when a charge takes place—it may be in the dim and distant future, or it may be in the course of a very few months—the new Minister, who may not be one of the political friends of the Government opposite, may take a wholly different view of the proper means of organising the Department. In that case, although of course in that respect the Minister-designate will have kept his word, yet the local authorities of this country and the County Councils Association may be deprived of that very security which my noble friend opposite most candidly and frankly admits they ought to have. That is a very strong reason, is it not, for making the intentions of the Minister-designate a statutory obligation? There is no objection to it on the ground that it would set up a precedent, because the roads stand on a special footing. There remains only one difficult argument left, and that is that the Minister may not wish to refer every matter for report to the new sub-Department before he acts.
For myself, I do not think that that would be in practice any real difficulty—the Sub-Department will be under his own roof, so to speak, it will be part of his Office, and there will be no difficulty whatever in communicating. And it is not altogether foreign to the structure of the Bill, because, as we shall see when we come to consider the Committee which is to preside over the question of the raising of rates and fares (though I think that clause very insufficient), yet there does appear the very principle against which my noble friend protests. There the Minister is called upon to refer any question of the raising of rates to the Committee, and to receive their report before he acts. So that that principle is involved.
But if the noble Earl thinks that principle very difficult in connection with this Amendment—I mean in connection with roads—personally I should be quite content (I am only speaking for myself) if, at any rate so far as this particular stage is concerned, the last sentence of the Amendment were left out, as to referring everything to the Sub-Department before acting, and not acting until a report is received. I do not know how that suggestion might be
112
viewed by my two noble friends who spoke. I think the existence of the Sub-Department, existing by Statute, would probably secure, not all, but most of what my noble friends suggest, without making it absolutely necessary that by Statute every decision should be referred to them before it became definite.
LORD STRACHIE: I hope the noble Earl may be inclined to accept the suggestion of the noble Marquess. If he was willing to do so I should be quite willing to take the responsibility on behalf of the County Councils Association to leave out of my Amendment the words "before exercising any such powers," because I take it that that is what the noble Earl objected to. He said his principal objection to the Amendment was the fact that it made it obligatory on the Minister to have all these matters referred to him, and he could not exercise his powers before he considered them, and that it would cause delay. I admit there is a certain amount of force in that, although I do not think in practice that it would matter. I hope the noble Earl will meet me in this matter on behalf of the County Councils Association, which I am sure he will agree is a very important body in this country. I would remind the noble Earl that the Government said yesterday that they would accept any reasonable Amendments which would improve the Bill.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: If the noble Lord is either in any doubt as to the intentions of the Minister to create a Department or in any fear lest, if he does so, some other Minister may go back upon that, I can certainly meet the noble Lord on that point. It must be obvious to any one that it would be impossible to administer this Department in any other way. If, therefore, noble Lords will be satisfied with putting into the Bill words to say that there shall be a special Roads Department, I am prepared to do that. But I cannot meet noble Lords with regard to any other point, as to the fact that everything shall be referred to this Department. For this reason. It really would be administratively impossible, if you will consider for a moment. Any man who has been in an administrative Department knows that a great deal of his work is done verbally by consultation with his officials. If you are to put. upon him the statutory obligation that he is never to

113
exercise any function in relation to a particular Department without referring to some member of his staff or branch of his Department, that will preclude him from doing any business verbally at all.
LORD STRACHIE: I offered to leave that out.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: What I am pointing out is that it will not be left out merely by doing what he suggests. I am willing to say that there shall be a separate Department of the Ministry to deal with roads, but I cannot do more. If the noble Lord is satisfied with that, I will consult him between now and the Report stage as to how the matter can be met, or I can accept his words down to "Roads Department."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Down to "referred."
LORD STRACHIE: I am sorry that the noble Earl is unwilling to meet me. I thought that I had met him quite fairly. I offered to strike out "before exercising any such powers," which leaves the Minister with free hands. I regret that I cannot go any further, and I stall have to ask the House to go to a Division on this.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The noble Lord said he was prepared to meet me, but he has not met me. If he wants me to put in certain words to the effect that the Minister must refer to this special Department, that will preclude him from making any verbal reference. He will have to do everything in writing. The noble Marquess talked about the question of rates, but that is a different matter. This is to say that the Minister shall not exercise his powers on a great question of policy. It is also stated in another part of the Bill that he shall not exercise his powers in taking over a new thing without referring it to a committee. The noble Lord says he will take out "before exercising any function," but I cannot accept words which will put upon the Minister the obligation of keeping a written record that he has referred a matter to a certain part of his Department.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I think I follow the point of the noble Earl, that his main objection now applies to the words "stand referred"; that he conceives that
114
this places a duty on the Minister to put in writing before this Department for their advice the details of any powers which he desires to exercise. I confess that I myself should not have interpreted the words in that very strict sense. What is desired as part of the Statute is that there should be a definite statutory Roads Department to which would be entrusted in the first instance, of course subject to the final decision of the Minister, the whole care and administration of matters relating to roads. I can hardly think that my noble friend, or the County Councils Association which he represents, would desire to nail his colours to the mast with these words "stand referred"; and I suggest that between now and Report my noble friend and the noble Earl should consult as to the addition of some words, making the sense of what I have roughly expressed—namely, that this would be the Roads Department having charge of the administration of matters relating to roads, with a view to their insertion in the Bill. I do not myself think that it would be sufficient merely to say, "There shall be established a separate Department of the Ministry (hereinafter referred to as the Roads Department)." I think the words require some amplification, and I hope the noble Earl will agree.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I am quite prepared, and I think my noble friend who moved his Amendment is prepared, to accept the words of the noble Marquess and to leave out the words "shall stand referred." I think that is as far as we can go. The noble Lord can therefore have this Amendment with the omission of the words "shall stand referred, and the Minister before exercising any such powers." With those words cut out I think we could accept it. The words "shall receive and consider'' should stand, we think.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I think this matter should stand over until a later stage of the Bill. I thought I made it clear where I am prepared to meet the noble Lords. If it is merely a question of words, we can agree between now and the Report stage. If it is more than a matter of words and we are unable to come to an agreement, then they can bring it up on the Report stage and the House can exercise its decision upon the matter. I am quite willing to meet the noble Lords between now and then.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: We must press it to a division, because the County Councils Association are very anxious indeed that the view of the House should be taken on this.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My noble friend has gone as far as he can to meet Lord Montagu and Lord Strachie. May I point out to your Lordships that as the Amendment stands it has clearly been drafted by persons who have seldom had to take charge of a large Government Office. It says that every duty and every power of the Minister shall be referred to a subordinate department of the Ministry before the responsible Minister can take action—that is to say, every question relating to roads, or to ferries, or to bridges has to go to the Roads Department. The Roads Department has to report on ferries before the Minister can take any decision. That sounds to me anomalous. The Roads Department cannot take any action, I take it, per contra without taking the decision of the Minister. The result is going to be almost ludicrous and impossible, I think. The Minister by statute has to refer to his Department. There is no guarantee that the Minister shall have to accept the advice that Department may give.
I put this also to your Lordships as an anomaly that must arise. When the Minister has by his duty got to appoint a new head of the Roads Department, he has to submit that point to the Department before he comes to a decision. Is that possible? He has to ask the advice of a subordinate Department without a head who shall be made the head of that Department. That is perfectly impossible, and I do not think it ought to be pressed.
The Minister will have duties to the Cabinet which he cannot always discuss with his Department. He must, in the first place perhaps, take the views of the Cabinet without a written report from anybody in his Department. He has powers which, in nine cases out of ten in great Government Departments, are settled between the head of the Department and the Minister concerned. This prevents him settling anything verbally. Is that your Lordships' desire? I have seen the inside working of several Government Departments, and if a Minister is precluded from discussing confidentially and verbally with the heads of his Department on
116
matters relating to the interests of that Department, the work of the Department is going to be wrecked. I beg your Lordships not to impose by Statute so very grave an infraction of the duties of the Minister concerned.
LORD STRACHIE: We have tried to meet the noble Earl in every way. He said he was aware of the working of Government Departments. I venture to think his argument as regards responsibility is not founded on a very strong basis. May I read to the Committee the Amendment which I suggest the Government should now accept?
"That there should be established a separate Department of the Ministry, hereinafter referred to as the Roads Department, to which all matters relating to the exercise by the Minister of his powers and duties with reference to roads, bridges and ferries, the Minister shall receive and consider the report of the Roads Department with reference to the matters in question."
That leaves out all the matters which the noble Earl said were contentious, and I would suggest that he might meet the County Councils Association by putting in this Amendment, and if he found there was any objection, on Report the Government might propose separate words.
LORD WITTENHAM: May I point out that that Amendment hardly makes grammar. How does the sentence end?
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I agree that this does not read. I suggest that it only wants slight alteration—
"That there should be established a separate Department of the Ministry, hereinafter referred to as the Roads Department, to deal with matters relating to the exercise by the Minister of his powers and duties with reference to roads, bridges and ferries, and the Minister shall receive and consider the report of the Roads Department with reference to the matters in question."
That reads, and I think it meets the noble Earl's point, because it does not fetter the Minister in any way.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I am not prepared to accept words hurriedly prepared and read out by noble Lords opposite. I think they are unreasonable. I have undertaken to discuss the drafting of the Amendment and meet them if I can. If they are not content with that I must abide by my decision.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the noble Earl is quite right in declining to accept an Amendment until he has had the opportunity to consider it. I agree that an Amendment of this kind is really required in the Bill and should be inserted, and I do not think my noble friend opposite goes quite far enough in the words which he has stated he would accept. I think you require further words, and with a little trouble, if we were not quite so sleepy, we might, even on the present occasion, find suitable words.
I do not think the words read out by Lord Strachie, if he will forgive my saying so, are grammatical, and after all, one must try, even at twenty minutes before midnight, to be grammatical. Therefore, I think the proper course is not to press the Amendment, but to bring it up at a future stage of the Bill. I hope my noble friend will to do that. He has the absolute promise of my noble friend, who is incapable of breaking any promise, that he will accept at any rate the first words, and he will no doubt construct following words between now and the Report stage when we shall be able to press that view on the Government, and, I hope, convince them.
LORD STRACHIE: After the appeal of my noble friend behind me (Lord Montagu) I will, of course, consent, especially as he is an important member of the County Councils Association.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
House resumed.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I ask the noble Earl if it is the intention of the Government to proceed with this Bill to-morrow as the first Order?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: We desire to take the Housing Bill to-night after this, but if the noble Marquess is not staying I should like to make a short statement as to the course of business. We propose to ask your Lordships to continue the Ways and Communications Bill in its normal position on the Order Paper to-morrow, which will be after several Motions of which notice has been given.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: At what hour does the House meet to-morrow?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: At 3 o'clock. Your Lordships will remember that on Monday there is the Royal Pageant on the Thames. The procession is expected to pass Westminster Palace at 4.45 p.m., and take about half an hour to pass. I propose to-morrow to consult your Lordships privately as to the most convenient course to take. We might meet at 3 o'clock on Monday and adjourn at 4.30; or else we might meet at 5.15 for business. I am not quite clear whether it would be most convenient to meet at 3 o'clock and adjourn after an hour and a quarter's debate, and then resume business. It is clear that we shall have to sit on Monday night after dinner, and the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, proposes on Monday to move that for the remainder of the sittings Government business should take precedence, except on Wednesdays.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I do not know whether the noble Earl realises that people who will desire to attend the House on Monday will have the greatest difficulty in getting here, as Monday is a Bank Holiday, and in addition there will be the Royal Procession. I should have thought it would have been possible for the House to meet on Friday and adjourn over the Monday.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The House of Commons is meeting on Monday.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It does not matter what the House of Commons does.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think a large number of members of both Houses will be here in order to see the Pageant. I am afraid it will be difficult, at short notice, to arrange for a Friday sitting. We have a great deal of business to do, and our sittings up to now have been extremely short. We shall have to ask your Lordships to sit on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday next week.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: On Monday the trains will only run as on Sundays. There is no train at all for some time to get back by.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I hope the noble Earl will not finally decide against sitting on Friday, and perhaps to-morrow he will tell us whether, with this Bill before

119
us, it would not be an advantage to have a Friday sitting. I agree that in all the circumstances it would be a pity not to sit on Monday. A great many of your Lordships will find your way to the precincts of the House for the purpose of watching the procession, and it would be a pity not to have a. sitting. I hope the noble Earl will not altogether dismiss the idea of a sitting on Friday.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Of course, I will not dismiss that idea. I merely desire your Lordships to know that those who have Government Departments to look after have outside engagements. I have twelve or fifteen engagements on Friday, and all of them must be put off if this House sits on Friday. I think we shall have to sit on Monday in any case.

FALMOUTH DOCKS BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.
HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Fourth Report from the Select Committee made; to be printed, and to be considered on Tuesday next.
MEDWAY CONSERVANCY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment.
ANIMALS (ANÆSTHETICS) BILL.
Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next, and to be printed as amended: Minutes of Evidence (with the proceedings of the Committee) laid upon the Table and to be delivered out.

HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, &c., BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendment to Lords Amendment, and Commons reasons for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment and Reasons be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[NOTE.—The references are to Bill (77) as first printed for the House of Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 27, page 22, line 31, after ("with") insert ("and if the owner has not given such notice as aforesaid")
The Commons disagree with this Amendment, but propose the following Amendment to the Bill in lieu thereof.
Clause 27, page 22, lines 30 to 33, leave out subsection (2) and insert as a new subsection:
(2) If the notice of the local authority is not complied with the local authority may—

(a) at the expiration of the time specified in that notice if so such notice as aforesaid has been given by the owner; and

(b) at the expiration of twenty-one days from the determination by the Local Government Board if such notice has been given by the owner, and the Local Government Board have determined that the house is capable without reconstruction of being made fit for human habitation;

do the work required to be done.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think upon this Amendment only a very short statement will be necessary—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is agreed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, it is little more than a drafting Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of July 29.]

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for a Bill by the
Ammanford Gas Company
ought to be dispensed with:
Read, and agreed to.

COMMONS REGULATION (COITY WALLIA) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, without amendment, awl recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

WORKINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment.

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY)BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL.
RESTORATION OF PRE-WAR PRACTICES (No. 3) BILL.
Second Reading (which stands appointed for to-morrow) put off to Monday next.

LAND SETTLEMENT (FACILITIES) BILL.
Second Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Thursday next.

STONEY'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
PALLIN'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

FALMOUTH DOCKS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
House adjourned at ten minutes before midnight.