Lords Sitting of 13 March 1919

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
FERRIES (ACQUISITION BY COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

SUMMONS AND PROCESS SERVERS' FEES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Stanmore.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: May I ask the noble Lord to give some explanation of this Bill? This is the Second Reading stage, and I think your Lordships will expect something to be said regarding the objects of the measure.
LORD STANMORE: The noble Earl (Lord Crawford) who is in charge of the Bill is not at the moment in the House.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: This is not the first occasion on which this kind of thing has happened. I beg to move that the debate be adjourned, and if necessary I shall press the House to go to a Division.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and adjourned accordingly.

WAR CHARITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, in Scotland, as in England, there are a number of war charities which now find themselves in possession of funds which cannot be applied to the objects for which they were subscribed—such as funds, for instance, for
674
sending parcels to prisoners of war. In England in such cases I understand that the Charity Commissioners have powers which enable the difficulty to be got over, but in Scotland there appear to be no means of obtaining authority to devote the funds to other objects except by application to the Court of Session, which is an expensive method and altogether disproportionate to the funds involved. This small Bill, therefore, proposes that the governing body of the charity in such a case may, with the sanction of the Local Government Board for Scotland—which exercises in that country the same functions as the Charity Commissioners under the Charities Act of 1916—make provision for the application of the funds to objects similar to the original or other suitable purposes. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—
(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INTESTATE HUSBAND'S ESTATE (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I hope you will consent to read a second time another very short Scottish Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to provide machinery for carrying into effect the provisions of the Intestate Husband's Estate (Scotland) Act of 1911. That Act has the same object as was secured for the rest of the United Kingdom by the Intestate Estates Act, 1890—namely, to obtain for the widow of an intestate husband who died without issue the whole of his estate where that does not exceed £500, and, where the estate exceeds that sum, £500 in addition to any legal rights the widow may have in the remainder of the estate after deduction of the £500. Experience has shown that, especially in cases where the estate is in part heritable, there is frequently no known process whereby a widow may secure the rights this Act confers upon her. The present Bill proposes to promote procedure to be available in all such cases. The first three clauses of the Bill provide for an application by the widow, entitled to the benefits of the 1911 Act, to the Sheriff Court for the appropriate order by the Court to enable her to make good her rights in the different cases which may occur.

675
Clause 4 safeguards the claims of the revenue. Clause 5 repeals Section 5 of the Act of 1911, which provides a special method of determining the new value of the heritable estates for the purposes of the Act. This Bill proposes to repeal that section and to leave the value to be determined in accordance with the ordinary rules. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

UNION OF BENEFICES BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed, and sent to the Commons.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported inter alia—

VACANCIES AND APPOINTMENTS.
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of the death of Mr. W.G.G Leveson Gower, killed in France on the 9th of October, 1918, and of the death of Mr. A.W.G. Hinchliffe, who died of pneumonia on the 20th of February last.
The Committee expressed their great regret and authorised the payment in each case of a year's salary, in accordance with the provisions of the Superannuation Act, 1909, the amounts being £300 in the case of Mr. Leveson Gower, and £285 in the case of Mr. Hinchliffe.
The Committee heard with regret of the retirement of Mr. W.H. Gordon, Mr. A.H. Robinson, Mr. H.P. St. John and Mr. T.A. Court.
Mr. Gordon, Senior Clerk in the Office and Clerk of the Journals, has completed forty-three years in the service of the House. He retires on the 30th of April next, and the Committee sanctioned the grant to him of a pension at the rate of £500 a year as from the 1st of May next, and a gratuity of £1,669 16 s. 8d., the pension and gratuity being calculated in accordance with the Superannuation Act, 1909.
Mr. Robinson, Principal Clerk of Private Bills, since 1901, and Taxing Master of costs on private Bill since 1903, has completed forty-one years of service. He retires on the 31st of May next, and the Committee sanctioned the grant to him of a pension of £800 a year, as from the 1st of June next, in accordance with the Superannuation Act, 1859
Mr. St. John, Principal Judicial Clerk and axing Master of Costs on Judicial Proceedings since 1908, has completed forty years of service. He retires on the 31st of March, and the Com-
676
mittee sanctioned the grant to him of a pension of £766 13 s. 4d. as from the 1st of April next in accordance with the Superannuation Act, 1859.
Mr. Court, Receiver of Parliament Office Fees, Accountant and Examiner of Acts since 1903, has completed forty-five years of service. He retired on the 28th of February last, and the Committee sanctioned the grant to him of a pension of £325 a year, as from the 1st of March and a gratuity of £1,048 4s. 8d.
The Clerk of the Parliaments reported that he had appointed Captain Francis W. Lasceller, M.C., and Captain Colin Davidson to fill up two of the present vacancies in the Parliament Office.

JUDICIAL OFFICE.
The Committee sanctioned arrangements for enabling Law Lords to have the use of shorthand writers for the dictation of their reserved judgments, and for the typing of the judgments in lieu of printing.
The Committee also sanctioned, in the case of nautical assessors, the payment of travelling expenses and of a subsistence allowance of £1 1s. a day in addition to their attendance fee.

REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT.
The Committee on the recommendation of the Chairman of Committees resolved that the Lords following with the Clerk of the Parliaments be appointed a Sub-committee to consider all matters concerning the Refreshment Department of the House of Lords, viz.:—

Duke of Rutland.

Marquess of Lincolnshire.

Lord Sanderson.

Lord Strachie.

Lord Parmoor.

Lord Muir Mackenzie.

Lord Lambourne.

The Committee to appoint their own Chairman.

EMPIRE PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION.
The Committee considered an application brought before them by the Lord Chairman for the accommodation of the Empire Parliamentary Association in the House of Lords precincts. After considerable discussion the matter was referred to a Sub-committee of the Lords following together with the Lord Chairman of Committees, viz.:—

Earl Curzon of Kedleston (Lord President).

Marquess of Lincolnshire.

Viscount Harcourt.

Lord Finlay.

Lord Lambourne.

HOUSE OF LORDS STAFF.
The Committee approved of the reorganisation of the House of Lords Staff in accordance with the Memorandum circulated by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I am sorry that this First Report of the Select Committee has not been actually circulated to your Lordships. It has been rather a difficult Report to draft and print, but I can assure your Lordships

677
that there is nothing very far-reaching in the proposals. The Report, of course, is now on the Table of the House, and I ask in the usual form that it may be considered and adopted. I think I ought to say two other things. One is that I am sure our sympathy goes out to the relatives of two members of your Lordships' staff, one of whom died the other day in very unhappy circumstances, and the other of whom was killed in action. I desire also to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that four of your senior clerks are retiring. They are all very well known to your. Lordships, and I am certain that our good wishes go out to them in the retirement they have so splendidly earned.
Moved, That the Report be considered and adopted.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE ALLIES AND POLAND.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY LORD STUART OF WORTLEY had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call attention to the claims of the Polish people to the reconstitution of their ancient nationality and independence, and to ask the Lord President of the Council—
Whether it is intended to leave the victualling of Poland and the relief of Polish distress to private charity;
Whether the Inter-Allied Commission now in Poland have powers to provide any relief for the scarcity, distress, and sickness which have reached such grave dimensions in that country;
Whether steps have been taken to send a British Red Cross unit to Poland;
Whether the expenses of such mission will be wholly or partly defrayed by the British Government;
Whether the Allied Powers have considered the political importance of giving all possible assistance and encouragement to the Government and people of Poland, and of securing them in the enjoyment of as much as possible of the territory, including the port of Dantzig, of the Ancient Kingdom of Poland; and
Whether he can give any other information as to the policy of the Allied Government towards the newly reconstituted Polish nation.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to put the Questions which stand in my name I wish to disclaim at the outset any charge or suggestion which might have been inferred from a phrase that I used two clays ago when discussing the practice of asking Questions in this House, that the noble Earl who leads the House ever practises anything in the nature of undue reticence or studied ambiguity in the answers which he gives. My phrase about "sheltering behind smoke clouds" was aimed at Ministers who purposely ignore the Questions which are put to them. In this case it will be clear from the Paper what is the specific form of each Question which I desire to have answered, and, as I said the other day, I shall be completely satisfied, and shall have no right to complain, if in regard to any one of those Questions I am told that it is not in the public interest that it should be answered. In truth, my Lords, the noble Earl who leads the House is of all Ministers the least open to any charge of undue reticence or studied ambiguity, for he often goes beyond what is asked for in the Question in the enlightening answers which he gives the House the advantage of hearing.
I take it that there is no occasion for me to-day to elaborate or dwell upon the historical claims which the State of Poland has upon British sympathies. Your Lordships will have observed that I carefully use the words "State of Poland." I am not anxious to prejudge any question by speaking of the Kingdom of Poland, for in truth one of the most unsatisfactory parts of the history of the relations between Poland and British public opinion has been the fact that in the nineteenth century British opinion showed towards the sufferings and wrongs of Poland an indifference which I think was, in ranch too high a degree, based upon what were rather pedantic considerations of imperfections in the Polish Constitution, as it existed at the time when Poland lost her independence through the partitions, not of the nineteenth, but of the eighteenth century.
Premising that I can safely dispense with any comment as to the claims which Poland has upon British sympathy, I think I can equally dispense myself from the necessity to dwell upon Poland's present

679
sufferings. Two questions seem really to arise, and they both arise out of the difficulty in which we find ourselves as to knowing what are the real facts of the case. One set of writers and correspondents in the newspapers tell us at the present time that in Germany there is no food and that there is the greatest possible danger of imminent starvation. Another set of writers tell us that there is food in Germany, and that it could be made available to relieve the distress of the people were it not for the unpatriotic unwillingness of the wealthier classes there to submit to those self-denials which would make better distribution possible in respect of the food which does exist.
I believe that the first question we have to ask ourselves is this—Is the moral claim of Poland to relief greater than that of Germany at the present day, or greater than that of Russia? I propose to measure its moral claim against those two and those two countries only; because it was admitted by His Majesty's Government, when Lord Wimborne's Question was asked last week, that in almost every other country, besides Germany, in Europe which had come within the ambit of the military operations of the last four years there was the direst distress prevailing. Lord Wimborne, I think, mentioned Poland, and the noble Lord who answered for the Government spoke of the relief which had been given, either by or at the instance of the Allied Powers, in the case of a great many countries which he mentioned, but I observed with some concern that the name of Poland was omitted from the list. At all events, it did not appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT. My Lords, has Poland, as against Germany or as against Russia—the only two countries with which I think it ought to be compared for the purpose of the present Question—a higher moral claim to our sympathies or relief, upon grounds of poetic or any kind of justice, at the present time? In this connection let us remember that in any list of priorities or preferences it can be clearly shown that Germany should stand, not at the top, but as near the bottom as possible. Germany it was that plotted the war, that devastated the fields and carried off the products for her own consumption, that led away captive the population and destroyed the shipping whereby alone the supplies of food could have been replaced; and in the case of
680
Russia we can have cognisance only of the de facto holders of power in that unhappy country at the moment, and they it is who have destroyed the transport, paralysed agriculture, both with regard to reaping and sowing, and put out of action that great world-source of food supply which used to be in better times forthcoming from Russia.
Such being the comparative moral claim, what are we told as to the comparative actual need in the case of Poland? Unfortunately we are obliged to rely upon newspaper accounts; but what are the probabilities? Germany made for herself, and has ruthlessly used, the opportunity to seize all the food supplies of all the neighbouring countries, including Poland, with which she has been at war. At the same time we cannot forget that Poland has been twice ravaged and devastated by retreating Russians and advancing Germans, and then again, and lastly, by retreating German forces. Therefore one would say that there is considerable presumptive evidence that Poland has suffered and is suffering at least as much as, and probably in a higher degree than, either Germany or Russia from want of food; and I have reason to know that Sir Esme Howard, who is at the head of the British Mission now in Poland, and who, as your Lordships know, is a distinguished member of His Majesty's Diplomatic Service, has written home to the Lord Mayor of London asking that a Mansion House Fund should be opened to relieve the distress in Poland. In the same letter he describes, in terms with which I will not horrify your Lordships, because they are so painful, the state of affairs in Poland.
As I first said when I rose to address your Lordships before the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council was in his place, there is no man less likely or less inclined to shelter himself behind ambiguities and reticence than he is. He always gives us a clear statement, and I invite him to do so on the present occasion. I take it that it is agreed—I am now on the last Question—and that it requires no contention or argumentation, that it is desirable in the interests of Europe and of civilisation as a whole that the once partitioned State of Poland should be reconstituted now and at once; that the reconstituted State should be made strong both in territory and in resources; and that it should have access to the sea. I

681
am happy to be able to say that I shall be followed in this discussion by a noble Lord who sits near me, who, in the course of his career, had opportunities of becoming acquainted with what may be called the artificial Germanisation of Danzig, a fact which very much bears on the propriety or otherwise of restoring to the State of Poland that access to the sea which it once enjoyed at Danzig. It is, I take it, admittedly desirable that this strong State should be reconstituted for the very purpose of standing between Russia and Germany; that it should have complete independence; and that it should have nothing about it which partakes of what German diplomatists are pleased to call orientations either towards Germany or towards Russia. It should be able to stand up of itself. At the same time I think your Lordships will agree that, whether by affording it relief now or by otherwise befriending this newly-constituted State, we should do that which should give Poland reason in the future to be grateful for British sympathy and British friendship.
LORD TREOWEN: My Lords, I hope that I may be permitted, before the noble Earl replies, to add a few words to what has fallen from my noble friend in relation to the claim of the Polish people to their ancient nationality and independence, in special reference to the fifth Question which stands in his name on the Paper. I venture to do this for what I think is probably an exceptional reason put forward in your Lordships' House. It is that I have had the somewhat rare advantage of having lived for some time in Poland and having had exceptional opportunity for making myself acquainted with the people in that country and of studying their history, their language, their customs, and those national traditions which exercise so large an influence in the formation of independent nationalities.
It was about the year 1887, being then established in Russia, that I was first drawn to a careful study of the Polish question; and one of the causes that attracted me specially to that country, apart from my natural and longstanding sympathies with it, was the great interest which was then being displayed by the German Government and by the Imperial General Staff in Berlin in the affairs of that ancient kingdom. It appeared to me that there was no justification for any special interest at that time. There was nothing
682
threatening in the attitude of Russia. The policy of the Emperor Alexander III was notoriously pacific. The dispositions of the Imperial Russian Staff were well known to be inspired entirely with the thoughts of defence and not of offence. I was led to the inference that there must be some political considerations in Germany which demanded an exhaustive study of that belt of country lying between Danzig on the Baltic and Odessa on the Black Sea, and I endeavoured to make myself as much acquainted with it as I could.
Physical geography is not a science which has been much studied in this country. Therefore it is not a matter of surprise possibly in this country that the existence of two great rivers whose upper waters almost touched in the region of a very undefined watershed and whose waters flowed respectively to the south and to the northwest through broad, rich, alluvial basins did not convey any very striking impression. But to the German mind it was otherwise. To the German mind it expressed the existence of a commercial route to be exploited, of a military line of communications to be made use of possibly at some future time. In short, the Vistula-Dnieper line was one to which the German paid very great attention, and—though it would have been futile for me or any one else with a knowledge of such facts as could be gathered in those days to forecast the developments of German polity thirty years after—having always retained my affection for Poland and my interest in its concerns, the thirty years which followed piled up the conviction in my mind, which I ventured to express on the outbreak of the recent war, that what Germany was out for in that war was the settlement of the Polish question in a manner suitable for her, and specially for Prussian, interests.
During the thirty years of the reign of him whom we must call the late Emperor of Germany much has been published which has thrown a light upon the aims of Germany. We have bad vast publications connected with the late Prince Bismarck, with which no doubt many noble Lords are well acquainted, and I think they will remember that right through all these remarks one is struck by one thing; that is, if one's mind, as mine was, is directed to the particular point—and that was his obsession in regard to Poland. He seems to have had from the earliest part of his

683
political career a dread of the resuscitation of the Polish State, and there is no doubt that the existence of a free, strong, and independent Poland would have cut directly across many schemes which are now known to the public under the general term of the Mittel-Europa policy.
Bismark's position appears in innumerable of his speeches. Perhaps some of your Lordships may remember one most dramatic incident which lie recites of his early days in the Prussian Landtag. He speaks of a certain Polish priest who had been elected to the Landtag, and who stood throughout the whole of the debates because he would not sit on the same benches as his Prussian colleagues. He speaks of it as being a sort of spectacle, and in his first speech, delivered in 1848, which he was not allowed to conclude, he attacked that very point. In one of the last of his public utterances, made, I think, about the year 1894 to some delegates from West Prussia who visited him at Varzin, he made use of these words—
"Gentlemen, I have shown you a fancy picture of the Polish State which I hope will never be realised. Danzig is the first town which a Polish State would have to gain possession of, because it is on the coast. If one day we Germans are beaten, if we were to lose the position we now occupy in Europe, you Germans at Danzig would be more seriously threatened than even your German fellow-countrymen in Posen."
Well, my Lords, that day has arrived. Germany has been beaten, and the question of Danzig and the Vistula basin, and of Polish independence, have got to be determined.
I ask the noble Earl to tell us, as far as he is able to, what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government on this most important question. The Prime Minister, in many of his public utterances, has been scathing in his remarks upon the Congress of Vienna. What we would like to know is whether the Peace Conference at Paris is going to undo the wrong done to Poland at Vienna when it handed Danzig back to Prussia and condoned the robbery of 1791. At the present moment I am not in a position to compare the proportion of Poles and Germans in Danzig, but any one who has known Danzig in former days would have recognised it as essentially a Polish city. It has carefully been made German. The Polish population have been repeatedly removed and well-disposed German colonists have been introduced, but
684
that does not affect the real fact that from a long distant period it was a Polish outlet from the great Vistula area.
It is most regrettable, at a time when a question of such vital importance as this is before the Conference in Paris, that a leading newspaper in this country should publish utterances calculated to prejudice the case of Poland in the public mind in England. A communication appeared in The Times not long ago from the late correspondent of that paper at Berlin. It was an argument in favour of the retention of Danzig by Germany, and it is a remarkable fact that that letter was followed a week or two later by an article in the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, which endorsed the view of The Times correspondent as one which would satisfy Germany. Later still that view found support in the new Reichstag at Weimar from Count Brockdorff Rantzau, who, speaking on this very subject, said that while Germany must retain Danzig the claims of Poland might be met by special conventions affecting the navigation of the Vistula.
But this is not all. In The Times of yesterday only there was a most astounding statement. It was to this effect—
"The Paris Correspondent of Time Times announces that Poland will be given a corridor communication with Danzig."
How are we to interpret this very equivocal statement? We can only ask the noble Earl to give us such enlightenment as he can as to the real state of affairs. From other sources I have heard that the Conference in Paris is extremely favourable to the claims of Poland, and that in fact it is considered a settled thing that the whole littoral from a line drawn somewhere about 60 kilometres to the west of Danzig, including Danzig and Elbing, would be handed over to the new Polish State. I may mention, in passing, that Elbing itself is a place of very considerable importance. I remember a good many years ago the first torpedo boat being sent to Russia from Elbing, and conveyed by inland waterways through Russia to the Black Sea. The part that Elbing was to play in German development was not then altogether realised. It has been shown to a very considerable extent during the late war. Most of the "U" boats came from Elbing.
The vital question which I would ask the noble Earl to elucidate as far as he can is this, Is the new State of Poland to

685
be free or not? It can never be free if the outlet to the main artery of the country, the mouth of the Vistula, is to remain gripped in the Germany fist. It cannot be free if the commerce of the country is to be controlled at a German port in the interests of cosmopolitan financiers, whether in this country or in Germany, who may have marked out Poland and South-west Russia as their prey.
We have heard a great deal during the whole course of the war as to what our aims were, and it has been pretty well driven home that our object in this war was to secure the future independence of the small oppressed nations, and in a recent public utterance of the Prime Minister lie has said that our victory has safeguarded democracy. I think that I have said enough to show that there is some cause for uneasiness, which we should like to have cleared up, in the present position regarding Poland. I should like to remind your Lordships that of all the small nationalities of Europe there is none that holds such a democratic record as Poland. It is the only nation to the East of the Rhine that has any record of constitutional development on democratic lines. I hope that I have not trespassed too much upon your Lordships' indulgence, and I feel sure that the noble Earl will give us such information as he can.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON):
My Lords, the noble Lord who put the Question upon the Paper proved himself, if I may say so, a most sympathetic exponent of the interests of the people whose cause he was pleading. The noble Lord who spoke next gave us an interesting chapter out of the history of the past thirty years—a history in which, as regards Poland, he has himself borne a share—and it is, I think, one of the remarkable features of this House that no subject however abstruse, and no country however remote, can come under discussion here but we always find some noble Lord who can speak with personal experience and authority on the matter. The noble Lord required no apology for his intrusion into our proceedings. We were very glad to hear him, as we always are.
As regards Poland, we are all in sympathy with Poland wherever we sit. The age-long sufferings of that country, the cruel partitions that she has experienced, the
686
injuries that have been inflicted upon her during the past few years, the spirit with which she has throughout maintained her own national ideals, have ensured her an abiding position in the regard of mankind; and it is a matter of satisfaction to every one in this country, as elsewhere, that an opportunity has at last occurred of redressing the balance of forces and once again giving her a place in the sun. The emancipation of Poland has been one of the objects of the Allies throughout the war. Noble Lords will, perhaps, recollect that in the early days of the war, when we were fighting with Russia (then under the Government of the Tsar) as an Ally, the future liberation of Poland was one of the objects which we consistently and even publicly pressed. We had hoped that had the changes that have taken place in Russia not occurred that liberation would have been secured.
When the Revolution took place in Russia the care of Poland passed, so to speak, out of the hands of Russia into the hands of the remaining Allies, and the House will perhaps recall that in June, 1918, before the later dénouement of the war that culminated in victory had taken place, the Supreme War Council, sitting at Paris and issuing a kind of summary of the war aims of the Allies, pledged itself to the creation of a united and independent Polish State with free access to the sea. During the last three months, since the suspension of hostilities, great strides have been made towards the realisation of that ideal. A great deal of work has been done, and the framework of what it is hoped will be a sound and stable political structure is already being set up in that State.
I might, of course, content myself with answering in the briefest terms the exact Questions that are upon the Paper, but the noble Lord who opened paid me so warm a compliment upon my habitual lack of reticence in your Lordships' House that I am sure he would wish me to justify that reputation by giving your Lordships a perhaps rather less restricted survey of the situation as it exists in Poland at the present moment. The present position is as follows. On the collapse of the Central Powers, General Pilsudski, a life-long champion of Polish independence, himself a Socialist, I believe, of advanced views, who for more than a year previous to the German Revolution had been im-

687
prisoned in a German fortress, provisionally assumed supreme power in Poland with a view not to personal advancement but to retaining that position until he could place it in the hands of a Polish Diet freely elected upon a democratic basis. But at that time there were quite a number of parties in Poland, and one of the most aggravating features of the situation was the division that presently occurred between the opposing influences and authorities.
It was in January of this year that an agreement was reached between General Pilsudski on the one hand, and the parties of the Right and the Polish National Committee in Paris on the other. Then it was that a new Cabinet was formed under the presidency of that talented artist whom we know so well and respect so much in this country, M. Paderewski. I would call your Lordships' attention to this fact, that the Cabinet of M. Paderewski approximated very closely to the ideal which so many people desiderate in this country, but which we find it so difficult to attain. It was a Cabinet of experts, and not of politicians; and excellent, my Lords, as is the work of these gentlemen, I am afraid that my survey of the situation will lead me to the conclusion that it is likely before a very long time has passed to cease to be a Cabinet of experts and to become a Cabinet of politicians. Whether we should derive from that a warning or an encouragement, I do not say.
The first task of this Government was to hold elections for the Diet which has to draft the new Constitution for Poland. These elections were held in what used to be Austrian Poland and Russian Poland in the last days of January. They could not, for obvious reasons, be held in German Poland because it still remains legally a part of the German sovereignty. In the elections the popular and especially the peasant parties won the day. The Diet met on February 21, General Pilsudski placed his resignation in its hands, and was unanimously re-elected chief of the State pending the establishment of the Constitution. On February 28—a fortnight ago—a vote of confidence in General Pilsudski's Government was passed by the Diet. Thus, Poland has succeeded in forming the elements of a constitutional Government which is entrusted with the administration of the country and is controlled and supported by a duly elected Diet. That was one great step in advance.
688
The second, and a more important one in the history of these proceedings, was the recognition of this new State by the Government of this country and by the Allied Powers. We have recognised Poland as an independent sovereign State and its existing Government as the official Polish Government, with which we shall be happy to enter into the ordinary diplomatic relations as soon as circumstances permit. This Government is now functioning in circumstances of great difficulty, to which I will in a moment allude, and the task with which it is occupied may be thus described: It has to combat the menace of Bolshevism on the East, to maintain order during the period of transition in the State itself, and to avoid coining into conflict with greater dangers upon the West.
I said that the situation with which this Government is confronted is one of great difficulty, and this is clear. Poland is suffering from the extortion of many long years of hard, and in some cases cruel, misrule. Upon the top of that come the additional miseries and requisitions resulting from the war. When the Germans evacuated the country they either destroyed or carried away a great deal of the machinery with them, the result, of course, being that it is with extreme difficulty that the factories and workshops can resume operation. Hundreds of thousands of workmen who have been deported to Germany are returning and finding great difficulty in procuring employment. Many others, to be numbered also by many thousands, prisoners of war from the adjoining countries or demobilised soldiers, add to this immense and unoccupied mass of men within the borders of the country.
Meanwhile the currency is depreciated, the finances are in a state of extreme disorder, there is scarcely anything that is a necessary either of public or of private life of which Poland does not at this moment stand in most urgent need. She requires the immediate import of clothes with which to cover her people, and of foodstuffs with which to keep them alive. She requires the purchase of raw material to enable her to start her industries again, and in the period of insecurity through which she is passing she also requires the men, the arms, and the money with which to vindicate and uphold her newly-recovered freedom. She is threatened by Bolshevik forces of a formidable character

689
on the East, by Ukrainian bands on the South-West, and by Germans on the North-West.
One of the first acts of the new Government was to mobilise the whole male population of the country, and among the duties that fall upon the Allies, as we cannot help them in substantial contributions of men, is that of providing them, so far as we can, with the means of carrying on the warfare that must for a time lie before them, and the leadership which is so necessary for them. Only yesterday or the day before it was decided at Paris, where close and constant attention is being given to this matter, to appoint a French General of eminence, who is going at once to Poland to assume command of the forces there in the position of Chief of the Staff to the head of the Polish Government, General Pilsudski.
As regards the duty that lies upon Poland herself, I think it may not be unwise to utter a word of warning to her statesmen. It is beyond all things desirable that she should in this period avoid any unnecessary armed collision which would exhaust the forces of the country in fighting over questions which must be decided, not in Poland itself, but by the Peace Conference at Paris. There have been disputes of this description. There was a dispute of which you may have read in the papers that occurred in a place called Teschcn in Upper Silesia, a dispute which resulted in warfare, in armed collision, between the Poles and the Czechs. I am glad to say that by the action of the Allies in Paris this dispute has been settled and a provisional arrangement which does not in any way prejudge the decision of the Peace Conference has been concluded, and an equitable distribution of coal from the mines in the disputed districts—for that was the source of the trouble—has been ensured.
Similarly, in Posnania a provisional line of demarcation has been drawn which, it is hoped, will secure peace in the country and put an end to minor conflicts between the Poles and the Germans, such as have been going on for several weeks. On the other side, in East Galicia the attempts made with a view to arranging an armistice between the Poles and the Ruthenes do not seem so far to have given very favourable results. On the anti-Bolshevik front the Polish forces seem able to cope with their task, and there is no immediate danger of a Bolshevik invasion. The best way in
690
which Poland and her neighbours both on the East and the West can defend themselves against Bolshevism is, however, by strengthening their organisation at home and by carefully avoiding conflicts over questions which the Peace Conference will decide on the principles of right, and not on the faits accomplis on the spot itself.
Both noble Lords were anxious that I should tell your Lordships exactly what is being done by the Allies in respect of assistance, and Lord Stuart of Wortley placed Questions on the Paper which I will answer in the order in which he put them. I think it is only fair to bear this in mind, that the difficulty of communications with Poland is extraordinarily great. Anybody who is familiar with the present condition of the Continent, with the complete breakdown of railway communications, with the disappearance of rolling-stock, with the exhaustion of almost all the necessary materials of movement, will understand that it is a much easier thing to talk about sending relief than it is actually to send it. There are, further, the difficult questions arising out of shipping, and so on. One other word of caution, if I may. Do let us remember that though we are speaking about Poland to-day, and pouring out with a full heart all our sympathy for Poland, there are other countries to be considered, too. There are other places that are starving; and the claims that come to us from Poland, urgent as they are, I can assure your Lordships are not one whit more so than those which simultaneously reach us from many other parts of the European Continent.
Now as regards the Questions upon the Paper. The first is, Whether it is intended to leave the victualling of Poland and the relief of Polish distress to private charity. The answer is in the negative. Certainly not. The second Question is, Whether the Inter-Allied Commission now in Poland have powers to provide any relief for the scarcity, distress, and sickness which have reached such grave dimensions in that country. Yes, my Lords. In the instructions which were furnished to the Inter-Allied Commission now in Poland the Commission was directed to co-operate with the mission of the Supreme Economic Council which has also been despatched to Poland for the purpose of examining the situation with a view to the provision of relief in the matter of foodstuffs, and the first fleet of food ships has already been despatched to Danzig.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: Any medical stores?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Yes, I think so. The next Questions of the noble Lord are, Whether steps have been taken to send a British Red Cross unit to Poland, and whether the expenses of such mission will be wholly or partly defrayed by the British Government. On February 6 the British Red Cross Society inquired of us whether it was the wish of the Government that British Red Cross units should be sent to Poland, and, if so, what we proposed. The Society was informed on February 17 that it was most desirable that a British Red Cross unit should be sent to Poland, and that if funds were not available for the purpose we should be only too happy to approach the Treasury upon the matter. The British Red Cross Society has since decided to send to Poland a section of hospital stores for the relief of the sick and wounded in that country, to the value of £100,000; and we have been inquiring in the last day or two from Sir Esme Howard, who represents us at Warsaw, whether there is a Polish Red Cross Society to whom the goods can be despatched, and, if so, who is its responsible head. To the last two Questions upon the Paper I have already to some extent replied. Yes, my Lords, it is true—in answer to these Questions—that all possible assistance and encouragement are being given. An independent Poland is a cardinal feature, of the policy of the Allied States; a Poland which shall as far as possible contain all genuinely Polish territories. It must be our object there to create a strong and compact and durable Poland, without, I hope, large alien minorities included in its territories which will only be a source of weakness and disruption in the future.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The noble Lord asked direct questions about Danzig and the "corridor of communication." This is a matter that is being discussed at Paris at this very time, and I am not aware that a final decision has been arrived at. But all the points which the noble Lord mentioned are, of course, present to the minds of those allied statesmen who are meeting at the Quai d'Orsay, and I myself think it is more than likely that the ultimate provisions made
692
will include the handing over to Poland of Danzig, with communication by rail to the more directly Polish frontier in the neighbourhood of the Polish town of Thorn. That, I know, is the object with which the statesmen in Paris are working, although I am not aware that the final decisions have yet been reached.
I think I have now answered every question that has been put to me. The sum and substance of the matter is this. The Allies are thoroughly conscious of their obligations, and mean to fulfil the promises they have made. The steps for facilitating the financial, economic, and material revival of the country are being taken; and if, as I hinted just now, Poland can keep her own claims within reasonable limits and not seek to absorb outlying populations which have no racial affinity with her own people, and which, if forcibly embraced within her borders now, would break up those borders and imperil her own national existence at some date in the future—if all those conditions are realised, I believe, my Lords, that this once glorious, but in modern times unhappy, State will have a dawning era of brightness and prosperity before it.

NEW CAPITAL ISSUES.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL rose to call attention to the new Regulation on Capital Issues, and to ask His Majesty's Government—

1. Whether the present Regulation has been withdrawn.

2. Whether, in the promised modification of this Regulation, care will be taken to limit it to the purpose for which it is really required, and to avoid unnecessary and harassing interference with business.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall try to put my Questions so as to escape going outside the somewhat severe limits which the noble Earl the Leader of the House laid down the other day in dealing with the matter of Questions and I think at any rate I can safely promise His Majesty's Government that I shall ask no question and expect nothing to be answered which is not actually upon the Paper.
It is, perhaps, useful for one moment to look at the history of this matter before I ask the specific Questions. Your Lordships will be aware that a Treasury Regulation, so-called, was issued, stating that no capital issues should be made without their

693
sanction, or, as I think the official phrase had it, no capital issues "ought" to be made. This was thought sufficient throughout the actual conduct of the war, but at no time had it any legal sanction, or had it, so far as I know, any effect upon those who disregarded it except that of preventing securities so issued from being quoted on the Stock Exchange. Then there came a period when the war was over in all but a technical sense, and suddenly, without consultation with anybody, so far as I know, in the industrial or financial world—except apparently the Stock Exchange—the Treasury issued a most drastic Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act making illegal retrospectively all the things done without Treasury sanction during the previous three years or so. I think the consternation that was caused by that Order is sufficient excuse for calling your Lordships' attention to it to-night.
When the matter was raised in the other House, so great was the feeling exhibited there that an assurance had to be given—I think on the same day as that on which the matter was raised—that the retrospective part at any rate of that Order would be withdrawn; and I think we may understand that it is gone. But before the new Order which is to be issued comes out, those responsible for advising the Treasury should carefully consider the course they are going to pursue, and should not make the Order any more than is necessary to achieve the object desired. The object desired by his Majesty's Government and by the Treasury, as I understand, is one with which I think all good citizens would sympathise. It is, as I understand, to conserve the cash of the country and make the surplus of the country as far as possible available for Government loans and expenditure, rather than for ordinary industrial undertakings, with the exception of such undertakings as the Treasury think would be useful for reconstruction purposes, and should be undertaken during the transition period. I do not suppose any one would object to that object.
But let me call your Lordships' attention to the Regulation which has been actually issued. First, quite at the beginning, it says—
"No person shall, except under and in pursuance of a licence granted by the Treasury—(a) issue, whether for cash or otherwise, any stock, shares, or securities."
694
The words "or otherwise" are very wide, and cover every possible way of issuing stock. They cover, for instance, the mere conversion of a person's interest in the stock. I have in my own mind at the moment a case where there is a certain undertaking, which happens quite by accident to be not in the form of a company, but in which one person has two shares, another one share, and a third person a fourth share, being altogether three sets of persons or companies concerned in the undertaking. Merely for convenience it is desired to convert into a limited company, with share capital, and to divide the share capital in proportion to the three interests. That cannot be done without the licence of the Treasury, and yet it does not involve the transference of a single penny of cash. It is merely another mode of stating the interests which already obtain in an existing concern.
Further on the Regulation says that no person shall—
"(c) sub-divide any shares or debentures into shares or debentures of small denomination or consolidate any shares or debentures of a larger denomination."
Under that Regulation as drawn up a limited company, which has a stock certificate showing for instance that a man is entitled to one share of £10, may not substitute for that another piece of paper which shows that he shall be entitled to ten shares of £1. Yet that would not involve any drain upon the capital resources of the country, or the transference of a single penny. I am told that the objection of the Treasury is that smaller shares are more negotiable. But what has that to do with the object of the Regulation? Or is it a legitimate interference with business at the present time?
Then there is a paragraph which says that no person shall "renew or extend the period of maturity of any securities." A banker may make a loan, and he may take, as bankers do, as collateral security, a debenture which gives him something specific to look to as security. He may arrange that that debenture shall mature at a fairly early day. Supposing that debenture matures and the customer wishes to renew the loan; be is not at liberty to renew the debenture without the licence of the Treasury—again a transaction which involves the passing of no new money or any drain upon the resources of the country. Yet it is prohibited by this Regula-

695
tion. Again, there is a Regulation to the effect that no shares are to be transferred which have been issued during the period when the Regulation had no statutory authority. That, I suppose, will disappear when the retrospective part of the Regulation goes, but I submit to the Government and to your Lordships' House that it is not necessary to make these Regulations go beyond what is desired.
There is a further provision which prohibits the buying or selling of any stock or other securities except for cash. I really do not know exactly what "except for cash" means. Does it mean for one payment on one day, or that the whole consideration must be cash? If, however, it does not involve the taking of new money from the public, what is the reason or necessity for it? It may be said also that the Treasury have always been perfectly reasonable, and that the New Issues Committee have always dealt with cases in a reasonable spirit, and that no hardship has been caused. First of all there is the question of delay, which in the past has been very great. We have been assured that in the future it is to be reduced. I hope that is so. We have also been assured—and this I hope the noble Lord will confirm—that applicants will have an opportunity in the future of a personal interview. I am not so sure, however, that it can be rightly said that the Treasury are always reasonable in the matter. I have within my own knowledge a case where the Ministry of Munitions, having made a loan to an industrial concern and having asked to take a debenture for it, the Treasury refused, to allow the issue of that debenture to a new Government Department. If that is the spirit in which matters are approached it is not the ordinary spirit of business.
I should like to ask specifically the two Questions which I have put on the Paper. The first is as to the old Regulation. Is it in force at this moment, or has it been withdrawn pending the issue of a new one? If it is in force at this moment, it is causing so much difficulty and anxiety that I have been unable to obtain an official copy of it and have been forced to get a copy from the newspapers. There is so much anxiety to know what are the penalties and obligations under the Regulation. The second Question I ask is that the new Regulation when issued may be confined to the actual purpose desired by the Govern-
696
ment, and shall not apply to what are merely paper transactions, which do not involve the taking of new money from the public, and particularly that it should not put difficulties in the way, as pointed out in another place, of ordinary transactions between industrial companies and their bankers. The Government have said over and over again that they desire as far as possible to remove all control from industry, and desire to put industry upon its feet again, so that it may run its natural course. Yet here you are controlling things which, as far as I can see, have been put under control merely for the pleasure of controlling them. I hope that the Government will, in the new Order, limit it to its legitimate purpose—and even that only for a limited time—of preventing capital from being diverted into foreign adventures or harebrained schemes, when it is wanted for the purposes of the Government.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, the noble Earl has put two Questions on the Paper, and I will reply to them at once. The first Question is whether the Order in Council, dated February 24, has been withdrawn. It has not formally been withdrawn, but it is not proposed by the Government to take any action to enforce the prohibition contained therein, and it will be superseded by another Order in Council as soon as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had time to reconsider the question in all its bearings. That is an undertaking which, as the noble Earl mentioned, was given in another place, when criticisms of the Order of February 24 were made in a rather acute form.
Delay has unavoidably taken place in issuing the new Order in Council owing to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is at the present time engaged at Paris. But a new draft has been prepared and will be submitted to the Chancellor as soon as he returns, which, I am informed, will probably be at the end of this week. In these circumstances the noble Earl will perhaps forgive me if I do not deal with some of those detailed objections which he raised to clauses and phrases in the Order of February 24. As I have told him, action is not being taken under that Order, and I hope that when he sees the new Order in Council which is to supersede the present one he will find that some at all events of his objections have been met, and that he will no longer have any grievances on that

697
point. I think the House will see that it is only fair that the noble Earl and those who think with him should await the issue of the new Order before further attacking that which is not at the present moment being proceeded with.
With regard to the second Question which the noble Earl has put, it is certainly the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in drawing up a new Order in Council, to do everything in his power to secure that any new Order does not hamper in any way honest or legitimate business; but he has come to the conclusion that it is necessary to continue the control of capital issues in a modified form, for three main reasons which I will give to the House. In the first place, it is important that steps should be taken to prevent any avoidable drain on the foreign exchanges. The noble Earl in his opening remarks indicated that he realised the fairness of that point. As any of your Lordships who are acquainted with these matters know, the export of capital involved by people in this country investing their money in foreign securities would necessarily cause the foreign exchanges to become unfavourable to this country.
The second reason that prompts the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter is that such steps as are possible should be taken by the Government to induce an adequate flow of capital available for investment into channels necessary for the speedy restoration of commerce and industry and the development of public utility services. To put it in other words, His Majesty's Government are anxious that firms engaged in enterprises which are in the national interest should not be prevented by lack of capital from continuing their operations.
A third reason—I do not know that I am justified in saying that this is the most important, but at all events it is an important, reason—is the importance of controlling capital in view of the maturing Public Debt. I am not referring at this moment to the Funded National Debt, but to the maturing Public Debt. Perhaps some of your Lordships are not aware of the colossal figures already reached by this Debt which matures before March 31 next year. I will give them to your Lordships. This is the Debt maturing before March 31, 1920. Treasury Bills, other than those held as collaterals or other loans which are shown later on, amount to
698
£900,000,000; Exchequer Bonds, those called certain, £179,000,000, and those at the option of the holder, £68,000,000; loans in the United States of America, £55,000,000; Japan, £19,000,000; Canada and the other Dominions, £48,000,000; and in neutral countries, £26,000,000. Besides these there are outstanding Ways and Means advances—that is, by the Bank of England and by Government Departments and Funds—of not less than £447,000,000; and there is what is known as Morgan's loan in the United States of America, which is £16,000,000.
This is probably not a convenient opportunity for a detailed examination of the appalling total of the National Debt, but I am glad. to see that my noble friend Lord Faringdon—than whom no member of your Lordships' Hours is more qualified to deal with such matters—has put down a Notice to call attention on March 25 to the state of the national finances. The general public seem quite indifferent and apathetic to the state of things, and they surely need enlightenment such as I hope they may receive from the debate which will take place on Lord Faringdon's Motion. Fresh burdens are every day falling on the shoulders of the taxpayers. Your Lordships may have noticed in to-day's newspapers the figures which were given in another place last night as to the amount that is now weekly being paid in unemployment donations. It is £1,200,000; and this despite the fact, the notorious fact familiar to every one of us, that in agriculture, on the roads in domestic service, and so on, there are thousands of jobs waiting to be filled.
I hope I may be pardoned if I venture to mention, to your Lordships what struck me as a typical illustration of the complacency with which the most enlightened people seem to regard this state of things, asking that more and more money should be provided by the State for any and every object. It occurred only last night, when the most rev. Primate—who, I am sorry to see, is not in his place at the moment—turned and rent me because I suggested that some quite indefinite expansion of the cost of providing guide-lecturers in public galleries should be borne, or partly borne, by visitors to those institutions. The most rev. Primate seemed to indicate that this additional expense had only got to be borne by the public and that that

699
did not matter. It struck me that the attitude of his Grace was typical of the way in which people in this country regard any expenditure that can be thrown on to the State at this moment. I can only hope that the right rev. bench will give a little of their leisure to studying the liabilities of the nation at this time, and, having mastered the elementary facts, use their great influence in pointing the obvious moral of the urgency of public as well as private economy. I did not gather from the remarks of the noble Earl that he was attacking the necessity for some Government control in these matters. I think at the outset he admitted that some Government control was necessary.
EARL RUSSELL: I only asked that it should not be unnecessarily harassing.
LORD HYLTON: Quite so. But I think any one who has studied these questions—and surely they are questions which at this time even the most thoughtless citizen ought to study—must be aware that there was never in the history of this country a greater need for vigour, judicious vigour, on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. You may deplore any general control by the Treasury in this or other matters, but I, as a private member of this House, venture most emphatically to assert that had control been exercised by the Treasury in a greater measure during the last four years, hundreds of millions of expenditure might have been saved to the country.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will appreciate the obvious anxiety of the noble Lord who has answered this question to give us all the information in his power, and that anxiety is well evidenced by the fact that he has furnished us with a number of most useful, suggestive, and instructive figures which are, of course, as he will well understand, in no way strictly relevant to the questions he was asked to answer. The real questions he was asked were whether the present Regulation was to be withdrawn, and whether the new Regulation was to be modified.
LORD HYLTON: I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but I venture to think I did answer specifically those two questions.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I am sure the noble Lord will not think I am complaining, for I am quite satisfied he gave into the fullest possible extent all the information he was able to obtain to answer these questions. At the present moment we are governed in a strange way. It appears that the heads of Departments are engaged in various occupations, and that nobody is left in their place to conduct what appears to me to be some of the most important and critcal affairs on behalf of the nation.
If I understood the noble Lord aright—it, may be I misunderstood him—the present position is this. The existing Regulation is not withdrawn and the new Regulation has not yet been issued, but the Government have expressed their intention of taking no proceedings to punish the people who break the existing Regulation. The result, therefore, is that at this moment there is no Regulation at all, although it is suggested that the imposition of such a Regulation is of the most urgent and vital importance in order to conserve the nation's capital for the purpose of meeting some of the many and imminent obligations to which the noble Lord has referred. I submit that this is a most unsatisfactory position for us to find ourselves in. Either these Orders are really important, or they are not. If they are important, they certainly ought to be operative in a form in which any person who offends against them shall be adequately punished and restrained. If they are not, they ought to be at once abolished without further delay.
I believe it is right to say that every one who is satisfied that restrictions are necessary in any direction will be ready to submit to these restrictions. I believe that is true On the other hand, it is equally true that people will no longer submit to restrictions unless they are satisfied that they are necessary. The restrictions to which this country has willingly, I may almost say cheerfully, submitted in the past are restrictions which are beginning to gall and irk them very considerably now that they regard the reason for their imposition as passing away. This very Regulation to which the noble Earl has called attention is an excellent illustration of what I mean. In the first place, it is to be remembered that the very worst thing this Government can do is to cause capital to be wrapt up in a napkin and kept unused; yet that, of course, is part of

701
the result, because you are not at liberty to use it as you like but as somebody else thinks proper.
LORD HYLTON: I am sorry to interrupt again. I cannot, of course, speak on behalf of the great capitalists, but I am informed that great capitalists are not in the habit of wrapping up their capital in napkins, because no interest would be derivable. Therefore all that we can do is to issue such Regulations as may induce them to put their capital into concerns of national importance.
LORD BUCKAUSTER: The noble Lord, if he will forgive me for saying so, occupies this awkward. and. uncomfortable position—that he is the only person we can attack when we desire to attack the Government and it is extremely difficult for us because we recognise that, so far as the noble Lord is concerned, he is doing all lie possible can. He says that money is not wrapped up in a napkin. Indeed it is. It is on deposit in the bank in vast quantities, and although it is perfectly true that some interest is being earned, yet unless that money can be used by the banks themselves in a wealth producing manner for the purposes of the country, the use of that money is absolutely arrested.
The most important thing that can possibly be done at this moment is to use capital in connection with labour for the purpose of producing wealth. It is the only way in which wealth can be created, and the more you impede, arrest, and hinder it in the smallest degree the longer you will prolong the difficult, and I think the dangerous, position in which this country stands, and the more difficult it will be for it to meet obligations which are near to our doors. The noble Lord says that the Treasury should have exercised a little more control in the past. I agree with him. But the control that I desire the Treasury to exercise is not control upon the public, who wish to be as little controlled as may be, but control upon the Government. And where is the evidence of that? What control have they exercised upon the Government, and what control are they exercising now? The noble Lord's speech is the very first I have heard from any member of the Government that appeared to recognise even in the most remote degree that our expenditure had reached such vast limits that unless it was quickly curtailed we might find it extremely
702
difficult to know how the future was to be faced. Even then he did not enforce the absolutely essential moral. He said it was important that people should know what our obligations and debts were, but the real obligation is on the Government, and the real moral is this—that not one single farthing of public money should be spent unless it is absolutely vital in the interests of the nation that the expenditure should be made. You should exercise not merely general benevolent supervisory authority over this expenditure, but should conduct our affairs on what, to use Mr. Gladstone's own phrase, I would call a cheese-paring economy. Everything that can be done should be done to pare down the Estimates to the very lowest. In doing that we should set an example by which the people could say, "At any rate the Government will not spend money because they know that the country cannot afford it, and we ought to imitate them." Instead of that, no such example is set. The absolute opposite is the example set in every direction; and I say with deep and bitter regret that the public are imitating it, and that public and private. extravagance together will make it very difficult indeed for this nation to face the future with success.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, I do not rise to prolong the debate on its wider or narrower aspects, but to ask a question of the noble Lord who replied on behalf of the Government. I understood him to say, but perhaps I was mistaken, that in a list of obligations that were maturing before the end of March there was as item of £900,000,000 of Treasury bills. The usual amount of Treasury bills that mature week by week, as far as I remember, varies from £50,000,000 to £90,000,000. Is the noble Lord correct in saying that before the end of March as much as £200,000,000 to £300,000,000 are maturing each week?
LORD HYLTON: I ought to correct that, and say that there are £900,000,000 up to March 31, 1920.

LAND BANKS.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to introduce legislation to establish land banks which will be in a position to assist ex-Service men with a knowledge of agriculture but who have insufficient capital to purchase land.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD ERNILE): My Lords the Bill for land settlement does contemplate the creation of a system of credit for ex-Service men for the purpose of seeds, fertilisers, implements, and other necessaries for the cultivation of a holding; but it does not include money to be advanced for the purchase of land. These small-holders will be able to purchase their holdings on the instalment system, and it is not the intention of the Government to create land banks. So far as we have any experience in the United Kingdom the attempt to create land banks has been hitherto a failure. One great difference marks out our system from that of any other country. The land itself cannot be pledged as a security, because it is not the property of the small-holder, whereas on the Continent there is always that element of security in creating a land bank. There is another point which I think is national rather than connected with our system of land tenure, and that is that in this country one man has a rooted objection to letting his neighbour know his financial affairs, and as in every case the land bank system depends upon a committee of the man's neighbours, who themselves make the advances, we do not think that it is the proper method to attempt to establish credit in this country. For the actual details of what our scheme of credit may be I am afraid that I must ask the noble Viscount to wait for the introduction of the Bill.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: I cannot, of course, do anything other than await the Bill; but I am disappointed by the answer that I have received, and I must ask the noble Lord to allow me to refer to the subject again on some future occasion.

EXPORT OF SULPHATE OF AMMONIA.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government if the Sulphate of Ammonia Export Traders' Association, who control the sales of sulphate of ammonia, are correct in informing applicants for permits that such cannot be granted for shipments to Spain, and, if so, whether it is true, as reported, that several firms, amongst them Mr. G. M. Bauer, the Chairman of the Association, are offering sulphate of ammonia in Spain.
LORD ERNLE: My Lords, the export of sulphate of ammonia is restricted, and the Board of Agriculture controls the amount that can be exported. The principle upon which we go is that we provide for all the wants of the agriculture of the United Kingdom, and whatever surplus remains has been hitherto allotted only to Allied countries and to our own Dominions. At the same time there is no doubt that the Sulphate of Ammonia Association are preparing to re-start their business with Spain as soon as the surplus of sulphate of ammonia allows. The increase in sulphate of ammonia production has been considerable, and the increased use of it by agriculture has been very great. The export of sulphate of ammonia has been cut down most drastically during the last two or three years. I think the explanation of Mr. Bauer, on behalf of the Sulphate of Ammonia Association, offering sulphate of ammonia in Spain is that he is anxious to keep up the trading connection with Spain, and is finding out what orders he may be able to place if and when there is sufficient sulphate of ammonia to export after satisfying our own needs and those of our Dominions and Allies.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: May I point out to the noble Lord that I do not think my Question has been quite answered. I asked whether the Traders Association were correct in informing applicants for permits that sulphate of ammonia could not be sent out yet. On the other hand I am told that Mr. Bauer is making arrangements to send it out. If he has not got permission to do so I do not see how he is in a position to promise to send it out.
LORD ERNLE: I am afraid I did not make myself clear. All permits are regulated by the Board of Agriculture. If there is a surplus of sulphate of ammonia available after satisfying our agricultual needs we license that for export, in the first instance, to our Dominions and our Allies. Hitherto there has not been a surplus at all, except for those two purposes—namely, for the Dominions and the Allies. There is none now. There will be no sulphate of ammonia going to Spain; and, as I tried to explain, if Mr. Bauer is inquiring in Spain where he can place orders for sulphate of ammonia, it is in the expectation that some day or other there may be a sufficient surplus to export. I hope the noble Viscount is satisfied.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I ask a question arising out of what my noble friend has just said? I understand the position is that there is no sulphate to go to Spain now, but that Mr. Bauer and probably some of those associated with him are making inquiries in Spain in order that if and when export is permitted they may be in a position to supply there. What I should like to know is, Does the position of Mr. Bauer give him an advantage in taking that step over those persons to whom the noble Lord has alluded, who are unable now to get permits? Would it be equally easy for there, to make similar arrangements in Spain for the supply; because, if not, it would appear as though some advantage was given to Mr. Bauer in respect of his position, over and above that which is open to the ordinary exporter.
LOAD ERNLE: I can quite see the noble Marquess's point. Mr. Bauer has no official position whatever. He is not associated with the Board of Agriculture in the most remote fashion. He is merely the head of the principal manufacturers of sulphate of ammonia, and were he or anybody else to apply who had sulphate of ammonia to dispose of, they would all be
706
treated on exactly the same footing, and there would be no favour shown.
LORD EMMOTT: Perhaps I might explain to the noble Viscount opposite. Probably what has happened is this—I do not know the circumstances—that somebody, desiring to know whether it was possible to export sulphate of ammonia to Spain, has applied to the War Trade Department, which, knowing the policy of the Board of Agriculture and acting, indeed, in regard to this particular commodity entirely according to the wishes and instructions of the Board of Agriculture, has replied that that was not permissible at present.

PRIVATE BILL.
[From Minutes of March 12.]

BECCLES WATERWORKS COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given yesterday); read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past six o'clock.