Lords Sitting of 24 June 1919

Preamble
The House reassembled after the Whitsuntide recess, the LORD CHANCELLOR taking his seat upon the Woolsack at a quarter past four of the clock.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

FORESTRY BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill for the development of forestry in this country, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I propose to put down the Bill pro forma for Second Reading on Tuesday next.

STATEMENT OF RATES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, this very modest Bill had a rarely tranquil passage in another place, and I think its only opponent was Sir Frederick Banbury. It is, in actual fact, a little Education Bill. I think it deserves that term better than some Bills so called, because it is intended to provide instruction of a kind which has been too much neglected in the past. Some years ago Miss Octavia Hill, who was a great practical philanthropist with special knowledge of the life of the poorer classes, wrote these very significant words—
"The practice of compounding for rates is at the root of the reckless and us less expenditure which we see everywhere incurred by local authorities. The very moment that the large body of voters felt that they paid the rates, that moment we should leave deliberate expenditure. If it were large it would at least be incurred because it was believed to ix really good. At present the large body of electors do not realise that it affects them. Weekly tenants have the vote; weekly tenants do not realise that their rent includes rates; weekly tenants vote expenditure involving loans
1042
for sixty years, but can remove from the burdened area at a week's notice. It is neither fair nor wise."
These views were very strongly emphasised in your Lordships' House on June 24, 1908, by Lord St. Aldwyn, whose presence at our debates we shall always sadly miss.
I think it may be said, and almost said as an axiom, that one cause of the reckless public expenditure which we deplore is the fail of most voters, whether Parliamentary or municipal, to realise that they have an interest in checking wasteful expenditure. Many people seem to think that there is an inexhaustible gold mine belonging to other people on which they can draw indefinitely, and that the more public expenditure there is the more prosperity there will be. This doctrine has been very widely preached, and it does account for the fact that retrenchment, which was once a popular plank in the platform of a great political Party, has now almost entirely disappeared.
The one principle of this Bill, as stated in Clause 1, is that every document containing a "demand for rent or receipt for rent, which includes any sum for rates paid or payable under the existing law" by the owner instead of the occupier, shall state the amount of such rates. That principle has already been put in practice voluntarily in a very large number of cases, and I think it has been conclusively proved that there is no practical difficulty whatever in carrying it out. I could show your Lordships booklets and cards by which this principle is worked, and it seems to be extraordinarily simple. The effect would be that the rent-payer would have information as to the part which is played by rates in the demand made upon him, and therefore he would learn to take a personal and direct interest in checking unnecessary expenditure.
It was pointed out in another place that this Bill was also required to enable the Rent Restriction Act to fulfil its objects and prevent fraud in connection with that Act. The Bill does touch in any way the question of compuanding; but under the Act of 1915 it is laid down that where an increase of rent is demanded on account of a rise in rates the landlord must give particulars. It was pointed out by Colonel Yate, who introduced the Bill in another place, that at Leicester out of 60,000 houses on which rates were levied no less than

1043
43,000 were compounded. Personally, I think compounding is an evil which is beginning to be widely recognised, but, as I have said, this Bill does not touch the question of compounding, except in so far as it would render the practice a little less attractive in regard to future buildings.
The only criticism of the Bill that I have heard is that it will cause a great deal of trouble to the rating authorities in the case of large blocks in the City of London which are let to a considerable number of tenants at different rents The Local Government Board has looked into the question and says that the Bill would not have this effect, and I think myself it would not. But if there is any doubt in your Lordships' minds, of course words could be added in Committee which would make that point perfectly clear. I think I have said enough to show that this little Bill is needed as an educational force in the direction of economy in local expenditure. It is a very small measure and does not touch the vast field of national expenditure, except in so far as it might teach some tenants to realise that all wasteful expenditure in the long run must recoil upon the community as a whole. This House has shown an earnest desire for economy, which is not conspicuous, elsewhere, on very many occasions, and it has shown most distinctly that it does desire to check reckless extravagance, which is now leading us, I believe, straight into bankruptcy. I therefore confidently commend this humble effort in what I think is the right direction to the favourable consideration of your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a.—(Lord Sydenham.)
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, my noble friend has correctly stated that this Bill passed through the other House with a minimum of criticism and without a Division. My noble friend is responsible for the provisions of his own Bill, and on behalf of the Local Government Board I have no objection to offer to the Second Reading.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, do not rise to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, because with its objects one must have great sympathy. That owners should be encouraged to state the portion of the rent which represents rates is a very good thing, but it seems to me that it
1044
may be hard upon them that they should be bound to do so under the penalty of fine. There are a number of small owners who will, as far as I can understand, have constantly to make a number of minute calculations in order to be able to comply with this Bill. I hope that in Committee some Amendments may be inserted which may diminish that hardship. If, fur instance, an owner, having once made his demand, did not think it worth while to show that in future another halfpenny would be rates and not rent, and if he did not mean to raise his rent by reason of the halfpenny rise in the rates, I think it would be well to save him the necessity of making a number of minute calculations spreading that halfpenny of rates over weekly payments. I cannot help thinking that those who framed this Bill did not see how complicated some of the accounts would be, but that could be met by some clause in Committee, and I hope that by the time the Committee stage is reached I shall be able to produce some provision which will satisfy the noble Lord who is i n charge of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BUSINESS AND SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH rose to ask the President of the Council whether it would not be expedient to arrange that the House should meet four days in each week for the rest of the session.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I desire to ask the noble Earl the President of the Council whether we ought not to revert now to what has been the long established practice of the House and sit four days in the week. I am not quite certain when that practice was given up, or exactly what authority regulates the course of procedure. It has been the custom of the House since January to sit on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. That is not a very convenient practice, because on Wednesdays Notices of Motion take precedence, and if there is only one day in the week for Notices, and that day is often taken p long periods in advance, it may happen that owing to illness or some other cause the noble Lord who has put down the Motion for a Wednesday does not move it, and the sitting is wasted. I think it

1045
would tend to the general convenience if we could have two days in the week for Notices and two for Bills, and the suggestion I venture to offer is that we should revert to the practice of sitting four days in the week—namely, on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies to the Question of my noble friend, perhaps I might be allowed to intervene for a moment. Some of your Lordships way remember that when this subject of public business was under discussion I ventured to ask the noble Earl whether it might not be wiser to take the course which my noble friend has now suggested—namely, to make Monday, as it used to be, a regular sitting day, assuming (as I did) that from the point of view of most of your Lordships Monday world be a more convenient day to sit than Friday. Therefore I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give an affirmative answer to my noble friend, for the reasons which he has put forward.
Perhaps I may be allowed also to ask the noble Earl at the same time whether be has anything to state about the course of business for the next week or so. The business on the Paper appears to be quite straightforward for this week. On Tuesday next, your Lordships will remember, it is proposed to proceed further with the Enabling Bill of the most rev. Primate. I do not know whether the noble Earl has any further intimation to make about that measure, which it appears may occupy more than the one afternoon which was contemplated for it; and also he may be able to tell us whether it is at all probable that during next week it will be his duty to make any statement on foreign affairs in view of the recent news from Paris. Of course, I do not desire to press the noble Earl to tell us anything which he is not in a. position to make public at this moment, but no doubt it would be convenient for your Lordships if he is able to give us some information.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I will do my best to answer the Questions put both by the noble Lord and by the noble Marquess. I have always been quite ready myself to revert to what the noble Lord has described as the time-honoured practice of this House of sitting on Mondays. That practice was, I under-
1046
stand, only temporarily departed from with a view of meeting the convenience of noble Lords during the war; and on the last occasion when I was questioned on the subject at this Table. I said I thought the occasion would before long arise when we should have to resume it. I think the position of business and the arguments of the noble Lord conclusively establish that the occasion has arisen, and I believe I shall be acting in accordance with the general sense of the House if I propose that we do sit four days in the week, in the manner suggested, during the remainder of the session.
The noble Marquess went on to ask whether I could say anything about the order of business during the few weeks that lie before us. I will state to the best of my ability the arrangements that are in view. To-day we have taken the First Reading of the Forestry Bill. To-morrow we shall ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to the Restoration of. Pre-War Practices Bill, and to the Disabled Men (Facilities for Employment) Bill. On Thursday of this week—the 26th—the Lord Chancellor will move the Second Reading of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Bill, a measure, as your Lordships know, of the first importance, which is likely both on that and subsequent stages to receive a good deal of attention at the hands of your Lordships.
Now with regard to next week. A little while ago I was asked whether an opportunity would occur to those interested in the proposed changes in respect of the Government of India to state their views in this House before the proposed Joint Committee was set up, and I answered that question in the affirmative. The Motion for the setting up of this Joint Committee and the laying of the names of the, suggested Peers before your Lordships' House will provide that opportunity. I therefore suggest that on Monday next we, should take the debate upon the question of the Government of India, when I shall move, "That it is expedient that the Government of India Bill be committed to a Joint Select Committee of Lords and Commons," and submit the names of the, noble Lords who it is proposed shall be appointed from your Lordships' House.
As the noble Marquess has said, on Tuesday of next week we propose to take the further debate on the Second Reading of the Enabling Bill. I am told that a

1047
considerable number of noble Lords desire to speak on the subject, and that the debate is likely to last over at least two days. It. may be, therefore, that your Lordships will not be in a position to divide on the Wednesday. It is very important indeed that we should obtain in the course of next week, before the week comes to an end, the Second Reading of the Forestry Bill, to which I have referred and which has been introduced to-day by my noble friend Lord Crawford. It is a matter of considerable urgency, the importance of which is known to many of your Lordships. I will therefore propose one of two arrangements. The Enabling Bill will occupy your Lordships' attention on the Tuesday and Wednesday of next week. If you have not finished the debate and desire to continue it beyond Wednesday evening, your Lordships sitting presumably after dinner both on Tuesday and Wednesday, I suggest that you should either close the debate at an early hour on Thursday, say at 5.30 in the afternoon, so as to enable us to proceed to the Second Reading debate on the Forestry Bill, or that you should take the Forestry Bill on that day and that your Lordships should sit on the Friday and have the whole of that day for finishing the Enabling Bill. I am rather inclined to think, from communications which I have had with noble Lords opposite, that the former of the two arrangements will be the more suitable, and that after two full days' debate you will be prepared to finish the discussion on the Enabling Bill and have a Division, say, by 5.30 on Thursday afternoon. No doubt I shall hear from your Lordships which of the two arrangements is on the whole the more convenient. That takes us through next week
Then we pass to the week commencing July 7. In that week I will propose that the Committee stage of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Bill and of the Forestry Bill be taken; and if I may project my gaze so far as the following week, commencing July 14, I would suggest, as at present advised, that that week might be devoted to the Second Reading of the Ministry of Ways and Communications Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That Bill has not yet passed the other House.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Of course, presuming it has passed the House of Commons; and if its passage through another place is not delayed, we anticipate
1048
that it will reach your Lordships' House by the end of next week. It is possible that the Housing, Town Planning, etc. (Scotland) Bill may have come up from the other House in time to allow the Second Reading to be taken that week also. Further ahead I do not think I should look for the moment. It is quite clear that we have a very heavy programme before us, which is calculated to occupy every hour of your Lordships' time up to the end of a normal session, and then it may very well be that other subjects of first-class importance may supervene, demanding a day or perhaps more of your Lordships' time.
To the particular question of the noble Marquess about a statement on the peace terms at Paris and the international position, I should perhaps do well not to reply till I have seen the Prime Minister; but I think it more than likely—I think it almost certain—that when he comes back from Paris he will feel it part of his duty to make a statement in another place, and, if that is so, your Lordships may feel certain that a corresponding statement will be made here. I have answered the Questions of the two noble Lords and given a forecast as far ahead as I can reasonably be expected to do.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure we shall all agree that the noble Earl has given an account as full as can be expected of the business which lies before us. For my own part I am very glad that he has agreed to sit on Mondays. I was always rather reluctant that Mondays should be given up, and I am certain that it will help us to get through the business if we add one more day to the working week.
I only rise to make one comment upon what the noble Earl said with reference to the Enabling Bill, in which great numbers of your Lordships are interested. I think he has met those who are promoting that Bill and other noble Lords very fairly in the arrangement of business which he has suggested, but I should like to make two comments. He foreshadowed, rightly I think, that the discussion of the Bill will extend over next. Tuesday, and will therefore have to be taken on subsequent days, and he said he proposed that it should be taken on Wednesday. That, I think, considering the importance of the Bill and the immense interest taken in it both in this House and outside, is proper. But I

1049
would point out to the noble Earl that there has appeared recently on the Paper a Notice* for the Wednesday, and perhaps he will use his influence, or if necessary something stronger than influence, in order to clear the Paper so that the Enabling Bill can be taken on the second day as well as on the first. That can be done, and is very often done by your Lordships in the case of a Bill of first-class importance, in order that the discussion should not be interrupted, and that the interest which is excited in the Bill should not be broken off but should be continued from day to day until the Bill is finished. I presume, therefore, that that will be done.
But supposing that it should happen—which is possible—that the discussion on the Enabling Bill is not finished on the Wednesday, then the noble Earl offered us one of two alternatives, either that the further proceedings on the Second Reading should be postponed till the week following—
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: No, till the Friday.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Till the Friday; or should be taken on the Thursday. Personally I have no hesitation in expressing my humble view that your Lordships would not wish to sit on the Friday for this purpose, and that it would not be a suitable day to have a Division on a Bill of first-class importance. Therefore there is the alternative of the Thursday, and. the noble Earl says that if we sit upon the Thursday he hopes that the House will consent to bring the discussion to a close at an early hour on that afternoon so as to give time for the Forestry Bill. It is quite possible that the House will be willing to bring the discussion to a close early on Thursday afternoon, bat I do not think it will be possible to bind the House on a matter of that kind. It must depend upon the number of noble Lords who desire to speak, or rather on the number of noble Lords whom the House desires to hear, which is a more appropriate way of putting
* The Notice referred to was in the name of Lord STRACHIE, and was as follows: "To move to resolve, That an inquiry by an independent authority should at once in held, and to report immediately on the discrimination made by the Ministry of Food between she price of milk fixed for producers in Somerset, Devon, Cornwall, and Dorset, and the rest of England, whereby such producers lose 2d. a gallon on their milk."
1050
it. There may be noble Lords who are anxious to speak whose speeches the House would not wish to miss; and of course the House, if it holds that view, is supreme in a matter of that kind. I do not think, therefore, that it would be possible to enter into a binding engagement of that type, but I frankly admit that the noble Earl has met us most generously in the matter. I need not say that we shall do all in our power to co-operate with him.
I do not know that I have anything further to say except with reference to the last passage in the noble Earl's speech. He said that he expected there would be an opportunity for a discussion of the Peace terms, but that he would wish to postpone any definite statement on the subject until the Prime Ministers return. When may that be probable? Has the noble Earl any reason to hope that as soon as the German Peace is signed the Prime Minister will return?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I know that it is the Prime Ministers desire to do so, but any definite arrangement on the point has not yet been made.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps I shall be saying what most people think when I state that as soon as the immense obligations which rest upon the Prime Minister in Paris are mitigated it would be an excellent thing for the country at large, and for the Government in particular, if he could return to his duties in England.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Perhaps with your Lordships' leave I may make a brief comment on two points raised by the noble Marquess. The first is as to the Motion on the Paper next Wednesday, July 2, in the name of Lord Strachie, which the noble Marquess suggested might be removed in order to enable the debate on the Second Reading of the Enabling Bill to proceed through its course. I hope that my noble friend Lord Strachie may follow the hint put forward by the noble Marquess. I myself should be quite prepared to use any influence I may have with him in that direction, important as is the subject that he proposes to raise. But the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who is interested in both matters, sent me a draft of a letter he had already written to Lord Strachie on the subject, which was of so persuasive a character that I felt that I

1051
could add nothing whatever to its effect. I would therefore wait to see what influence Lord Selborne has been able to exercise before I enter the field myself.
As regards the second pint—namely, the proceedings on Thursday of next week, when I hope to be allowed to ask your Lordships to end the debate on the Enabling Bill and to proceed to the Second Reading of the Forestry Bill—the noble Marquess will bear me out when I say that in discussing with him the arrangements I mentioned just now I always said that they were subject to the convenience and necessity of the Government in respect of any Government measure. Therefore, without asking your Lordships to enter into any absolutely binding engagement, I have not a doubt in my own mind that after you have had three full days' debate on the Enabling Bill you will, in order to meet the convenience of His Majesty's Government and the House, be willing to conclude that debate at half-past five on Thursday afternoon, and allow my noble friend Lord Crawford to proceed with the Forestry Bill.

THE FUTURE AUSTRIAN FRONTIERS.
VISCOUNT BRYCE VISCOUNT BRYCE had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call attention to the statement, made in the official summary of the terms of peace offered to Austria, that those terms include a provision that the frontier of Italy should be advanced to the watershed of the main chain of the Rhætian Alps at the Brenner Pass, with the result of transferring to the Kingdom of Italy about 200,000 German-speaking Tyrolese inhabiting a region which has never been under any Italian Sovereign; and to ask His Majesty's Government in what form it is proposed to present to Parliament an account of the negotiations which have led to the settlement of the terms of peace proposed to Germany and Austria and to the conclusion of whatever peace may be ultimately signed with those States.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, at the request of His Majesty's Government I will postpone this Question, and I will put it down again for an early day, if possible next week.

OUT-RELIEF TO WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether a Report has been called for upon the administration of out-relief to women and children; whether the Report is being prepared by the Poor Law inspectors of the Local Government Board in the various unions; how many inspectors there are, distinguishing men and women; and whether the inquiry is being mainly conducted by the women inspectors.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend I may say that the Local Government Board are obtaining Reports from their general inspectors upon certain questions relating to the administration of relief to widows and children by boards of guardians in their districts. The general inspectors in charge of districts are fourteen in number, and there are seven women inspectors.
EARL RUSSELL: Seven in addition to the fourteen?
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I understand they are in addition. The general inspectors are responsible for the Reports for their districts, but detailed inspections in connection with the matter have been made by the women inspectors in a number of unions.
EARL RUSSELL: May I ask the noble Viscount a supplementary question arising out of that? He will notice that in the last line I ask whether the inquiry is being mainly conducted by the women inspectors. I understood the noble Viscount to say that the inquiry is being made by the women inspectors in a number of unions' but I emphasise the point whether it is the rule that the inquiry is being made by women inspectors or by men.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I have given my noble friend the information with which I have been furnished; but to meet his convenience I will make further inquiry upon that point, and also as to whether I am correct in my assumption that the seven women inspectors are in addition to the fourteen.

MOTOR-CAR HEAD LIGHTS.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government what excuse there is for regulating the head lights of motor-ears under the Defence of the Realm Act; and, since the present Order is clearly illegal and ultra vires, whether it will be at once withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, Defence of the Realm Regulation No. 11 empowers the Secretary of State to make Orders regulating the lights to be carried by all vehicles, or by the vehicles of any specified class or description. The Regulation remains in force until the termination of the war, and the Order to which the noble Earl refers appears to be intra vires. I understand that there is reason to believe that it is generally agreed by motorists as well as by others that brilliant and dazzling head lights are a source of danger at all times, and especially under the conditions now prevailing in consequence of the war, and it is very desirable in the interests of public safety that the Home Secretary's Orders, though provisional in character, should be maintained in force until a permanent measure can be settled. I understand that this matter will come within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Ways and Communications.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
Message from the Commons, That they have come to the following Resolution, to which they desire the concurrence of this House—namely, "That it is expedient that the Government of India Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."
PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of June 3.]
BRITISH AND CONTINENTAL BANK BILL. [H.L.]
The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on the 29th of May last discharged, and Bill committed.

SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE, AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY.
Petition of the Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Company under their Common Seal praying for leave to introduce a Bill to empower the Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Company to raise additional capital and for other purposes; together with a copy of the said Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing, Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Tramways Provisional Orders. [H.L.]
Also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Tyne Improvement.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
LEEDS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
WEST HARTLEPOOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
SHOREHAM BY-SEA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
BIRMINGAM CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
BRITISH AND CONTINENTAL BANK BILL. [H.L.]
BOURNEMOUTH GAS AND WATER BILL.
FYLDE WATER BOARD BILL.
PEMBROKE GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

D. Northumberland (Chairman),

V. Hood,

L. Aberdare,

L. Hindlip,

L. St. Levan;

1055
agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 1st of July next, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against
1056
the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.
House adjourned at ten minutes before five o'clock.