Lords Sitting of 27 March 1919

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
BRENTFORD GAS BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

PUBLIC NOTARIES (ARTICLED CLERKS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I think no detailed explanation is required; but I may toll you in a sentence that when the case of solicitors' clerks was dealt with in 1916, the case of the articled clerks of public notaries was not dealt with. The short effect of this Bill is to modify the requirements of the enactments relating to public notaries with respect to articled clerks who have served in His Majesty's Forces or in other public service or have been prisoners of war or interned in connection with the present war.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SOLICITORS (ARTICLED CLERKS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in short explanation of this Bill I may say that the. Solicitors (Articled Clerks) Act, 1918, dealt only with persons who were serving. It is, of course, not unreasonable but necessary that provision should be made for articled clerks who have served at any time during the continuance of the war. With modifications, about which I need not trouble you now but which will be explained in Committee if necessary, that is the object of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On-Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GRANT OF ADMINISTRATION (BONDS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I ought to explain that when there is a vacancy in the office of the President of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division great inconvenience has been felt because bonds which are required under the Court of Probate Act, 1857, can only be given to the President, and in the vacancy of the office there is a necessary suspension of that very important branch of public activities. The object of the Bill is to provide that in the event of such a vacancy such a bond can be given to a registrar.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I am extremely glad that the Government have brought in this Bill, which removes a very serious difficulty. I received a number of complaints from solicitors during the recent vacancy, when business was much interfered with, and I was much pressed to secure some legislation of this kind.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ADVOCATES AND LAW AGENTS (QUALIFI- CATION OF WOMEN) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

PUBLIC-HOUSE IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, there is a privilege Amendment which has to be made, and I move that it be made.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, privilege Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendment to Lords Amendment, and reasons for Commons disagreement to certain of Lords Amendments.
[NOTE.—The references are to Bill (21) as first printed for the House of Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 1, page 1, lines 10 and 11, leave out ("the time when but for this Act the principal Act would have expired") and insert ("Michaelmas Day nineteen hundred and nineteen").
The Commons disagree to this Amendment:
Because it is inexpedient to derogate from the rights already conferred on tenants by the Act of 1915.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 1, page 1, lines 10 and 19, leave out ("ten per centum of the standard rent") and insert ("for the period from the passing of this Act until Lady Day nineteen-hundred and twenty, ten per centum of the standard rent, and for the period from Lady Day nineteen hundred and twenty until the date of the expiration of this Act twenty-five per centum of the standard rent").
The Commons disagree to this Amendment:
Because it is not expedient to allow rents to be raised immediately, or by more than ten per cent, before the Act is directed to expire.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 4, page 4, line 2, at the end of the clause insert the following new paragraph:
"(v) At the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section two of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following proviso:
"'Provided that if the rateable value of the dwelling-house on the said third day of August exceeds the standard rent as so defined, that rateable value shall, as respects that house, be deemed to be the standard rent.'"
The Commons disagree to this Amendment:
Because it is inexpedient to make substantial retrospective amendments to the principal Act.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
After Clause 4.
Insert the following new clause:
"Restriction on raising assessment.
"5. It shall not be lawful during the period of the operation of the principal Act to raise the assessment (or in Scotland the valuation) for rating purposes of any house to which the principal Act or this Act applies by reason only of any increase of rent permitted by this Act."
The Commons disagree to this Amendment:
Because it alters the law with regard to the assessment; and the Commons consider that it is unnecessary on their part to offer any further Reason, hoping that the above Reason may be deemed sufficient.

LORD AMENDMENT.
Clause 5, page 4, line 22, after subsection (2) insert the following new subsections:
"(3) The principal Act both as originally enacted and as extended by this Act shall have effect as if in proviso (vi) to subsection (1) of section one of that Act after the word 'until' there were inserted the words 'or in respect of any period prior to.'
"(4) Any rooms in a dwelling-house the subject of a separate letting shall, for the purposes of the principal Act and this Act, be treated as a part of a house let as a separate dwelling."
The Commons propose to amend this Amendment by leaving out subsection (4).

LORDS AMENDMENT.
After Clause 5.
Insert the following new clause:
"Limitation on rent of houses let furnished.
"6.—(1) Where the occupier of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act, either as originally enacted or as extended by this Act, applies, lets, or has before the passing of this Act let the house or any part thereof at a rent which includes payment in respect of the use of furniture, and it is proved to the satisfaction of the county court on the application of the lessee that the rent charged yields to the occupier a profit more than twenty-five per cent, in excess of the normal profit and twenty-five per cent, as hereinafter defined, the court may order that the rent, so far as it exceeds such sum as would yield such normal profit, shall be irrecoverable, and that the amount of any payment of rent in excess of such sum which may have been made in respect of any period after the passing of this Act, shall be repaid to the lessee, and, without prejudice to any other method of recovery, may be recovered by him by means of deductions from any subsequent payments of rent.
"(2) For the purpose of this section 'normal profit' means the profit which might reasonably have been obtained from a similar letting in the year ending on the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen."
The Commons disagree to this Amendment:
Because it is inexpedient to extend the principal Act to furnished houses, and because of the practical difficulty of ascertaining the "normal profit" in the county court.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
After Clause 5.
Insert the following new clause:
"Amendment of definition of standard rent.
"6. At the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section two of the principal Act, the following words shall be inserted:
"Provided that in the case of any dwelling-house let at a progressive rent payable under a tenancy agreement or lease the maximum rent payable under such tenancy agreement or lease shall be the standard rent."
The Commons disagree to this Amendment:
Because it is inexpedient to extend the Bill to cover cases not contemplated by the principal Act.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment and Reasons be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I waited for a moment in the expectation that the noble and learned Lord, or some other member of the Government, would give your Lordships some guidance in the consideration of these Amendments. As the noble and learned Lord no doubt has only deferred for a few moments any observations he has to make perhaps your Lordships will allow me to trouble you very shortly in respect to these Amendments. May I state, in the first place, that I have it in charge to say to your Lordships, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, how very sorry he is that he has been called away and is not able to be in his place to-night. He had made arrangements in ignorance of when this stage would be taken, and he was unable to alter them.
Your Lordships' House is placed in a rather special position in respect of this Bill. It has been my good fortune or my ill-fortune to have been engaged in many of the occasions when there has been a difference of opinion upon Amendments between the two Houses of Parliament, but in all my experience, which is not so great as that of some of your Lordships, I never remember a case precisely like the present, because in this case the House of Commons has rejected, not some, but all of the Amendments made by your Lordships' House except a few of a drafting character or Amendments which are very little more than drafting. All the Amendments which your Lordships inserted in the Bill have been rejected in the House of Commons, including one which was moved by His Majesty's Government. That is a significant occurrence.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: And this was done on the Motion of the Ministers of the Crown. It is only one more example of the novel system of Cabinet government under which we have the fortune to be administered at this moment, and of the total want of solidarity between the various Ministers who compose the Government, which allows one Minister to move an Amendment in this House and another Minister to move its rejection in the other House within about twenty-four hours.
1062
I have been trying during the period which has elapsed since I had the opportunity of seeing the Commons treatment of the Lords Amendments, to find what could possibly have been the reason for these proceedings. It is not, I am well assured, that your Lordships' House treated the House of Commons with any want of due respect. On the contrary, there was nothing said, so far as I am aware, in the whole course of the proceedings, which was not of a very proper character. We spoke of another House with the regard and respect which are always due from one House of Parliament to the other. So far as we are concerned, no charge can be made on that ground; and, indeed, not merely in manner but in substance, we were very careful to treat with great respect that about which the House of Commons cared.
Your Lordships are aware that there was a series of Amendments by which the House of Commons laid a good deal of store, which they inserted during the passage of the Bill through that House. Such things as the extension of the time over which the Bill should run, the enlarging of its scope so that it applies to a larger class of houses than it did when it was originally introduced, the stipulation that adequate repairs should accompany any rise in the rent, the increased retrospective action of the Bill, the refusal of the clause in the original Bill under which, in certain circumstances, the County Court Judge could permit an increase of rent—all these Amendments which were put in the Bill in another place your Lordships' House respected. In no case, although I must confess I had some hesitation in respect to one of them, did your Lordships attempt to alter the decision of the House of Commons. But, notwithstanding that attitude on the part of your Lordships' House, every single one of the Amendments inserted here was rejected in another place.
I have made it my business to make myself acquainted with the reasons put forward in another place for the attitude which was adopted. There are very few reasons. They are lamentably absent from the discussion. There are the reasons, the technical reasons, which are upon your Lordships' Table, but which I think you will not find to be very enlightening. But, broadly speaking, there are very few reasons. Indeed in respect to one of them,

1063
a privileged Amendment, which was held to be a violation of the privileges of the House of Commons, we have not had the advantage of knowing anything of the reasons of the House of Commons, because it appears to be the rule in another place in regard to this class of privileged Amendments, which are "waivable," that if it is the intention of the Minister not to "waive" he need not give any reasons at all for disagreeing with the Amendment. He need only say, "I move to disagree." That appears to be the rule in the other House of Parliament. I cannot say that I admire the intelligence of that rule, and I could not help congratulating myself that the Assembly to which I have the honour to belong is not bound too closely by rules, if rules lead to so very unintelligent a result. The upshot is that the Amendment which was passed by your Lordships to help the particular class of occupier which the Bill is intended to help, and without which the Bill is probably technically unworkable, however well it can be made to work by a little pushing and shoving on the part of local authorities, has been rejected by the House of Commons upon the ground of privilege (which they might have waived) without any reason whatever being given, either on the Blue Paper which is before your Lordships or in the debate in another place, why this very singular course of action should be adopted.
I pass to the other Amendments. I am not going to trouble your Lordships with details upon them. It would not be correct. We shall have an opportunity of dealing with them in detail in a moment. I should just like to say, broadly, that the House of Commons have rejected not only the Amendments in favour of the landlords which we inserted. And when I say "landlords" I mean, of course, that very poor and humble class of landlord whose only offence is that they are called landlords, and nothing else, and being called landlords they come under the same condemnation as your Lordships do, but in no other respects—perhaps we may express it with regret—do they resemble our position. All the Amendments in their favour have been rejected, and not only have all the Amendments in respect of those who receive rents been rejected, but all the Amendments which we inserted in the case of those who pay rents have been rejected also. The whole of the Amendments which your Lordships inserted in order to protect those who held by a sub-letting agreement a
1064
furnished or an unfurnished house have been rejected, practically without any reason; and of course the privilege Amendment, which I have already mentioned, by which the rating authority would not have been allowed to raise the rates in respect of an increase of rents permitted under the Bill (thereby by raising the rates increasing the rent) has also been rejected.
Your Lordships are therefore placed in a very singular position. I cannot understand what principle has governed the House of Commons in their action. They seem to have selected one class of persons in the country, neither the highest nor the lowest, and given them special privileges, and rejected any Amendment by which those privileges could be in any way diminished. They will not allow a fair rent in respect of repairs, and in order to make good the loss on the mortgage interest they will not allow a fair rent to be given to those wretched small landlords; on the other hand they will give no relief whatever to the still smaller persons who pay rent to those very privileged individuals who are the immediate occupiers. That is a proceeding so astonishing that without very strong argument I am sure it would be impossible for your Lordships to accept.
Therefore it becomes us to consider what we ought to do. This is a matter, of course, entirely in your Lordships' hands. I do not know that anything I have said will have much weight with your Lordships. I only offer an opinion, a very humble opinion, for your consideration. Let me say that it is not the practice of your Lordships' House, at least it never has been since I have had the honour of sitting here, to insist upon all your Amendments. That would be most unreasonable. The other House are the representatives of the people. They have recently been before their constituents, and I am quite sure none of us would desire to treat their decisions with anything except the most profound regard. I should not suggest that we ought to insist upon all the Amendments which we made. There are, in the first place, the Amendments which we inserted the object of which is to permit, as I have said, the raising of the rent in order to compensate for the increased charge on mortgage interest, and for the stipulation as to repairs. That is not, as the House of Commons have left the Bill, sufficient

1065
or anything like sufficient. These unfortunate people will be out of pocket altogether with the depreciated currency which we use. Many of them are very poor. I know this of my own experience. Many of these so-called landlords are widows and persons with small means who have invested their small savings in house property, and who really have lived upon the rents which they received from the property. The House, of Commons are determined that, so far as they are concerned, these unfortunate persons should be ruined.
I do not think that your Lordships would be wise to insist upon that Amendment, and I will explain why. In the first place the Amendment was passed in this House with a very small majority; in the second place, its bearing on the Bill is very complicated. The Bill itself is a very complicated one. It is one of those Bills which are drafted by reference, and are extremely difficult to understand—so difficult to understand that I am sorry to say the House of Commons has not understood it. If your Lordships will look at the Blue Paper you will find that they think that we provided in our Amendment that the rent should be raisable from the passing of the Act. Unless you read the Bill very carefully and the Amendments, the mistake is not unnatural; but, as a matter of fact, the first, increase of 10 per cent, cannot begin until what is called the extended period, which is six months after the declaration of peace. That complication is one reason why I think it would be unwise to insist upon the Amendment, because these things having to be justified in the country it is always difficult to justify what is difficult to explain.
Undoubtedly, upon this subject, of the raising of the rent from 10 per cent, to 25 per cent., very much uncertainty is felt in different parts of the country. One of the few Amendments brought forward in the House of Commons was an Amendment by an hon. gentleman who said that there were over a million persons out of employment, and that their feelings on the subject were very strong. He certainly was in a much better position to judge of that than I am, or any of your Lordships are, for he himself represents many of them. Those seem to me to be good reasons why your Lordships should not insist upon that particular Amendment. After all, the unemployment to which the
1066
hon. gentleman referred is part of the sequel of the war, and therefore to that extent no doubt this measure may be looked upon as a war measure, and one which ought to be treated in a special way. For that reason I venture to suggest that that Amendment, and the Amendment shortening the period by which the operation of the Bill would commence, should not be insisted upon.
But when I turn from those Amendments to the Amendments which provided that in the case of sub-letting the same principle should be applied in the rent which is paid by the sub-tenant to the tenant as is applied in the case of the rent paid by the tenant to the landlord, I confess that I do not see how it is possible for your Lordships to abandon the Amendments which you passed. They are obviously just. There can be no possible reason, as far as I can see, why a different treatment should be meted out to the subtenants from that given to the tenants. If it is difficult for the tenant to pay rent, then it is equally difficult for the subtenant, to do so; and if the tenants come to Parliament and ask for relief they have no right to use that relief in order to make money out of somebody else. That is precisely what they are doing; and it seems to me so outrageous a principle, and one so utterly contrary to the most elementary dictates of justice and equity that if your Lordships were to abandon these Amendments it would be really little use our sitting here at all.
I observe, in reading what passed in another place, a great desire on the part of hon. gentlemen sitting in different parts of the House to vindicate their democratic principles. I am a believer in Tory democracy. I have ventured to say in your Lordships' House—and your Lordships were, good enough to listen to me—how deeply I felt the obligation upon us to show the sympathy which we feel, and. which is a perfectly sincere sentiment on our part, with all the hopes and fears and interests of the wage-earning class. It is an old policy of the Party to which I belong. It is a policy in which I have been brought up, and one in which I believe. It is a policy founded upon justice—justice to all classes. I had the opportunity only last night of discussing with some friends why it was that the Army in the field had shown itself so much more disinterested than those who are

1067
engaged in industry at home, and we all agreed that the reason was that they found their motive in an ideal. Those who think that they can really earn the gratitude of the democracy by reducing everything to a cash basis, and who believe that they can hope to gain votes by letting off a man his rent and allowing him on the other hand to charge a high rent, to his neighbour, are misjudging the British working man, and are living in a fool's paradise if they think he honours or respects a policy of that kind. We have deep respect for the objects and susceptibilities of the wage-earning class, but we ought not, so long as we sit here, to lend ourselves to what is plainly unjust. In preventing injustice we fully believe that in the future we shall have the reward which we have earned from the people themselves.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, the Lord Chancellor, who was in charge of this Bill when it was last before your Lordships' House, will reply to any specific Motions that may be made in the course of the discussion which the noble Marquess has just opened. But, inasmuch as he commenced his observations with an appeal for some guidance to the House, I should perhaps hardly be fulfilling my duty did I not respond to such a request coming from him.
The noble Marquess, in the speech to which we have just listened, has defended the action which, largely upon his advice, the majority of your Lordships took upon a recent occasion. He has spoken with fairness and propriety, as it seemed to me, of the reserve which your Lordships exercised in not touching particular clauses or parts of the Bill with which you might not have been altogether in sympathy, and ho has further defended your action with regard to the particular Amendments which were introduced here into the Bill. He has justified them in each case, although I am interested to observe that he is prepared, for reasons which I will presently mention, to advise your Lordships to modify your attitude, in some particulars, and he concluded his remarks by a rather impassioned vindication of the traditional attitude of your Lordships' House towards the interests of the wage-earning class, an attitude of which, I may say with absolute sincerity, I am convinced that there is no more whole-hearted
1068
exponent in this House than the noble Marquess himself.
On the last occasion the noble Marquess defended with some vigour the right of your Lordships' House, as a Second Chamber, to revise. That is uncontested, and you are the judges of the limits within which you exercise that power. I would not presume to lay down any rules, dogmatic or otherwise, in that respect. We are not discussing to-day the wisdom of the action that you took last week; we are discussing to-day the proposition whether it is wise, in view of what has passed in another place, generally speaking, to persist in that attitude.
I do not think it is necessary for me to enter into the merits of the particular Amendments which are, in the main, the topics of difference between the two Houses. Good reasons, I think, were advanced in each case for the adoption of those Amendments in this House; it is certain that, if there had not been such reasons, they would not have been introduced. There was the Amendment substituting a fixed date for an uncertain date for the raising of rents under this Bill. There was the Amendment for dealing with the increase in rent after the passing of the Bill; and as regards that, the noble Marquess just now explained once again, with a great deal of perfectly legitimate warmth, that it is a monstrous thing to say that this particular Amendment was introduced out of regard for the interests of the landowners—assuming the landowners to be the class to whom so many of your Lordships belong. That would be a gross injustice. This was a provision introduced by you to protect an entirely different class of landowners—the small landowners; indeed, to call them landowners is in itself to provoke the very sort of confusion of which you have been the victims.
Then there is the Amendment directed against what, I think, has clearly been shown to be an abuse—I mean the Amendment, or Amendments, intended to prevent the tenant from practising extortion or evading the law by sub-letting houses or rooms at excessive rents. Upon that I understand the noble Marquess reserves his opinion, and we shall discuss the matter when we come to it in the course of this afternoon's procedure. There was one-other Amendment rejected in another place which was moved by the Lord Chancellor

1069
here. The noble Marquess, I think, alluded to that as a somewhat uncommon proceeding. I believe my noble friend on the Woolsack acted at the moment on good advice, as he believed, that the Amendment would lie acceptable to the Government in another place; and if any mistake was made upon that point, it certainly was not made by him.
With regard to the general attitude of the House with respect to these Amendments and the attitude of another place in rejecting them, I have been trying to make clear in my own mind what are the circumstances in which your Lordships' House as a Second Chamber is justified in holding out against such treatment as has been meted our to us in this case. Is this a case where we are entitled to resist the attitude of the House of Commons? The first case in which, I think, this House is not only justified, but perhaps more, than justified, in holding out is one in which the proposals which it has made are carried by very large majorities of your Lordships' House. The noble Marquess has just admitted himself that, in the case of the two principal Amendments, that did not occur. The figures were, in the one case, thirty-seven against thirty-four; in the other case, thirty-six against thirty. And the figures of the minority would, I think, have been somewhat swollen—the decision might, indeed, have been the other way—if some noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite (my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, for instance, who, I think, doubted the wisdom of the course which you were pursuing) had seen their way to support the Bill in the Division Lobby. But my inspection of the Division Lists shows me that only one, or, at most, two noble Lords on that Bench—Lord Buck-master, and, I think, Lord Denman—supported by their votes the attitude which, on this side, we Mere taking up.
The second case which would justify resistance would, I think, be this—that in the action which we were taking we should not be open to any suspicion either of infringing the privileges of the House of Commons or of acting in the interests of a particular class. To only one of these Amendments does my first observation apply. One Amendment, and one only, I think was rejected in the House of Commons without discussion because it was regarded as a breach of privilege. I need not farther refer to that. Then as
1070
regards the interests of a class, it does appear undoubtedly to be the case, if I may judge, from what I read in the Press, that, unfair as I think the charge is in this particular case, your Lordships are looked upon as having intervened in the interests of the class to which you belong. It is an unjust suspicion, I think, in this case; it is an unfounded suspicion; but it is one which exists, and one of which abundant use is being made in the Press of the country, as every one of your Lordships knows.
The third condition which would justify us in holding out would be that we should be backed by a large force of public opinion. Since the action of your Lordships' House last week—there has not been much time to read what has passed since the action of the House of Commons two days ago—I am bound to say I have observed very few signs of sympathy for the position which you took up with regard to this Bill.
My last condition justifying resistance would be that our protest should find considerable support in another place, and should be justified by success. Like the noble Marquess, I read the discussion which took place in the House of Commons on Tuesday. And although there were one or two valiant defenders of the line that you had adopted here, I am bound to say that there were also members of the Party to which the majority of us in this House belong win sharply criticised the action taken by noble Lords opposite. And, indeed, so strong and all but unanimous was the opinion of another place upon the matter that supporters of your Lordships' action did not venture in a single case to press the matter to a Division. I think I am right in saying that the rejection of your Lordships' Amendment was in every case carried nem. con. in the House of Commons. That may have been ill judged, it may have been uncalled for, but at the same time it is a fact that you cannot ignore. And these decisions of the House of Commons were arrived at in a House, be it remembered, the large majority of which belong at the present time to the political Party with which the majority of your Lordships are associated.
In these circumstances I do not think that this case falls within the category where the Leader of the House would be justified in asking your Lordships to persist.

1071
There are, there will be in the future, many cases in which you can exert your great authority with influence and with effect. Is this one of them? I doubt very much whether any one of your Lordships is convinced that that is the case. I was reading only just before I came down here a passage in the Daily News, in which, with reference to the debate that took place yesterday afternoon, very high praise was given to your Lordships. This was the remark that I read, greatly to my surprise, in that organ of public opinion—
"The country is finding in the House of Lords the only court to which it can look for protection of its interests or the decencies of public life."
This was very high praise from a most unexpected quarter; but I am not quite sure in my own mind whether it was not more inspired by dislike of His Majesty's present advisers than it was by enthusiasm for your Lordships' House. However that may be, I do not want to impair this unsolicited, but, as I think, well-deserved reputation, by advising your Lordships to take any step on this occasion which in the general interest would be unwise.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I desire to say only a very few words following what has fallen from the Leader of the House, especially as he was good enough to mention me as having advised a certain course in respect to some of the Amendments at an earlier stage. On that occasion, in relation to the two first Amendments moved by my noble friend behind me (Lord Salisbury) and by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, I expressed the opinion that those did not afford a favourable field for a collision with another place. It was almost certain to be said, as I thought, that if we pressed those Amendments on the attention of the House of Commons we did so to a considerable extent as interested persons. I stated my belief that such a charge against us would be in the main unfounded, because the class of property owner mainly affected by the Amendments is a far smaller owner than those represented in your Lordships' House. But still it would not be quite true to state—as I think the noble Earl opposite seemed disposed to state—that there would be no foundation for the charge; because, as a matter of fact, practically all those of us in your Lordships' House who are owners of property do own a certain amount of property of the kind
1072
in question, and if there were any idea of profiting by an Amendment of that kind we should as individuals possibly gain accordingly. I therefore thought that it would be unwise to press those particular Amendments, and consequently, as the noble Earl truly said, I did not support my noble friend behind me in putting them before your Lordships' House. I entirely also agree with him that on those Amendments now it would not be wise to insist.
Until we come to the consideration of the later Amendments I do not desire to discuss their substance, or to express any opinion as to whether it would be wise for your Lordships to insist upon them—those, I mean, on which the noble Marquess indicated his opinion that we ought to insist. But I can fairly say that, subject to anything that may be stated on their merits from the Benches opposite, they seemed to me to fall into an entirely different category; that they are quite clearly and on the face of them designed for the protection of a humble class of tenant; and there can be no question that any of your Lordships who favour them are actuated by the faintest tinge of self interest. I will not say any more on that subject at this moment.
The noble Earl the Leader of the House laid down a very careful series of rules which, as he conceived, might guide the conduct of your Lordships' House in such a case as this. For one thing he stated that a certain measure of support in the House of Commons ought to be forthcoming before we could think it right to insist on a particular Amendment. My impression, from having looked at the Report of another place, was that, as regards one or two of the Amendments, there was a distinct expression of opinion in that House that they ought to be accepted there. And it did also strike me—as I confess it has struck me on some former occasions when I have been sitting on the other side of the House—that the treatment by His Majesty's Government of the arguments advanced here was somewhat curt; that the opposing arguments were not developed to the extent which we might have been fairly entitled to claim, and that the whole matter was brushed aside somewhat roughly instead of receiving the degree of consideration which I think they might have had reason to expect. Nor do I think that the fact that the Amendments were not carried in this House by

1073
an overwhelming majority is one to which we need pay very great regard. It was not a very full House. The attendance here on the days on which we ordinarily sit is very largely composed of those who are accustomed, and indeed (if one likes to put it so) obliged, to support His Majesty's Government in such a case. Therefore the degree of independent opinion which was manifested by your Lordships on that occasion was, I think, far larger than the mere figures would give one reason to suppose.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, after what has fallen from the noble Marquess who has just sat down, I really hope we may appeal to the noble Earl the Leader of the House to reconsider his attitude with regard to some of the later Amendments to which allusion has been made. Taking the noble Earl's own definition of the conditions under which this House has a right to insist on Amendments—in the first place I think he was not able to be present; we know of his very engrossing duties elsewhere during the. greater part of those discussions—if he had been present I am sure he would have been deeply impressed not merely with the absence of any argument, on the part of the Government opposed to the views we put forward on behalf of the smaller tenants, but by the acceptance by the noble and learned Lord of the principle and the fact that he merely suggested to us that the Government draftsman would be prepared to put into a form more acceptable to the Government the views which he, felt were acceptable to the whole House. Therefore the first question on which the noble Earl puts stress—namely, that the Amendments should have been supported by a large majority here, is even more enforced in the case of Amendments which were unanimously accepted by the House as a whole.
That is not the only point. The noble Earl talked of a large force of public opinion outside. I can only judge from the post-bag of which I am now the victim since moving certain Amendments. I have not received one line of opposition; but I have received scores of cases of the most telling hardship. Only this morning I received, from a man living in my own neighbourhood, a request to me as a landlord, "Will you not set right this anomaly? Here I am with employment assured me in the neighbourhood in which I have
1074
lived all my life, but I am unable to find a house. I have a large family, and you have a house which you have let to someone at £13 a year, who has sub-let it to a sergeant in the Canadian Infantry for £65 a year, because it has a little furniture in it." What is there of democratic principle in allowing a man, whose rent it had never occurred to me to raise, to make 500 per cent, out of the house at the expense of some of those whom we are specially bound to consider, because of the circumstances in which they are serving this country. I only suggest that if such cases, which cannot be answered, could have been put before the House of Commons, or put forward by the Government, we should have been in a different position. What chance had we of influencing public opinion in another place? The Bill was taken here one night and discussed, and early the following afternoon the House of Commons were forced to deal with it. In the ordinary condition of things there would have been some communication with members who desired to be seized of our Amendments, but we left ourselves in the hands of the Government, and the Government took no steps.
I really feel that if attempts are made to prejudice this House by the imputation that we have some ulterior motives in such action, then it is our duty to show that it is not so. I also feel that if on subjects on which we have special knowledge and information, and upon which no member of the Government is able to show there is any flaw in the arguments we advance, and if on those subjects we put Amendments in the Bill and are then asked to withdraw them, when the question is not argued or discussed in the House of Commons, we may just, as well abrogate all right to consider and make Amendments in Bills which come before us. I urge the noble Earl to think twice before he asks us to reject our Amendments en bloc, as the Government have done in the House of Commons. If I wished to say anything contentious I should say that it is a challenge to this House to prove that it has still got some influence on legislation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is undoubtedly true, as the noble Lord who has just sat down has observed, that very powerful arguments were used by your Lordships in the course of the debate in Committee and on the later stages of the Bill, and it is certainly true, and

1075
the noble Lord is quite entitled to point it out, that in reply to many of the hard case cited I was not able to give a satisfactory reply. In fact, the noble Marquess somewhat mercilessly, and more than once, commented on that circumstance, and the only defence possible to make in relation to some of those hard cases was that the apprehensions entertained were well-founded; that the Bill was admittedly a necessary Bill; and that it was extremely hard to suggest a way in which the objects of the Bill could be attained while, at the same time avoiding the mischiefs indicated. It is quite true that on more than one occasion I placed the draftsman of the Government at the disposal of noble Lords opposite—an unusual course, which I adopted for the reason that very meritorious cases were on more than one occasion made out. On only one of those occasions did I definitely indicate that I was prepared to accept an Amendment. In the other cases, to one of which the noble Lord has just called attention, I made it quite plain that the difficulty was a very great one to so amend the Bill as to meet the case, and I could not give any satisfaction that the only method by which it could be attempted, an exceedingly cumbrous one, would be acceptable in another place.
I cannot help thinking that some of the later Amendments might have had a more favourable reception elsewhere had it not been for the persistence in the first two. The reasons for the rejection by the House of Commons of the first and second Amendments, and particularly of the. first Amendment, can be defended very much more easily than the reasons given for disagreement with some of the later Amendments.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The first Amendment the Commons disagree to "because it is inexpedient to derogate from the rights already conferred on tenants by the Act of 1915." It is true, and I ventured to point it out in the debate, that to accept this Amendment did in fact derogate from the Parliamentary bargain to which your Lordships were parties, and which was contained in the principal Act, that these tenants should have immunity from an increase of rent till peace was signed and for six months afterwards. Therefore I ventured to think at the time that it was not an Amendment which it would be right to press.
1076
The second Amendment is one which, as I can understand, excited at any rate in some quarters of the House of Commons resentment. I agree with all that was said as to much ignorance and malice being shown in discussing the part which your Lordships played. As was pointed out, it should have been understood that the class of landlords affected by this Bill has very little representation in your Lordships' House. I ventured to point out, however, that your Lordships were dealing with a subject which was extremely difficult, and that it was very hard to balance the disadvantages which different persons must suffer. I pointed out that there had been an acrimonious debate in the House of Commons as to whether 10 per cent, increase should be allowed, and that there was a considerable party in the House of Commons who thought that the increase should only be 5 per cent., and that an important and by no means brief discussion took part upon whether it should be 10 or 5 per cent. Certainly it is, I think, a striking circumstance that only one or possibly two members in the whole of the House of Commons, when this Amendment was impeached there, rose to defend the course which your Lordships had adopted in this House.
The next Amendment is of a different class. It is one in respect of which a great deal can be said for your Lordships' view, and I am bound to say quite candidly that when I apply my mind to the explanation of the Commons disagreement to this Amendment I am unable to follow it. The Commons disagree "because it is inexpedient to make substantial retrospective amendments to the principal Act." It is right that upon such matters I should be candid with your Lordships, and I think there has been some misunderstanding on the part of those who drafted the reason for disagreement in this case. I say nothing about the next case because it is concluded by the objection taken, but I ought to add a word about subjection (4), which is struck out, and 6(1).
On that point I start by saying that of all the difficulties of this Bill in my judgment the most serious is that of sub-letting. I think your Lordships called attention to omissions from the Act which have not received the attention to which they were entitled. The difficulty of the task is immense. I attempted several methods

1077
myself of dealing with it, and thought of various ways in which the Bill might be amended in order to give effect to our Lordships' wishes. I failed to do so, and then the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, with great ingenuity, put down an Amendment which I thought was more promising than any solution which had occurred to me to that time. Thereupon, I told your Lordships that I had come to this conclusion, and we invited discussion between the noble Viscount and the Government draftsman in order to see whether their united ingenuity and technical skill could frame a suitable Amendment. That was the history of Clause 6 (1). I thought it was hopeful, but I always had my doubts about it, because, for one reason, it was necessary to fix an abstract standard of "normal profit." The Commons disagreed with the Amendment on the ground that it is inexpedient to extend the principal Act to furnished houses. It is arguable in my humble judgment if it could be done. If it cannot be done it is obviously inexpedient.
The second part of the reason is "because of the practical difficulty of ascertaining the 'normal profit' in the County Court." I think there is great, difficulty in determining the "normal profit," find I am bound to say it is undoubtedly true that it might throw very considerable additional work on the County Courts. If it were left to me I would have taken the risk of this course. If I may respectfully say so, I think it would be most unwise to choose a quarrel on a draft with which none of us pretended to be content. The last Amendment is that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, with which I confess I lave great sympathy, and I so said in the course of the debate. That was an Amendment to deal with a case of dwelling-houses let at a progressive rent, payable under a tenancy agreement with a maximum rent, providing that the maximum rent in such a case should be the standard rent. The Commons disagreed to that Amendment on the ground that it is inexpedient to extend the Bill to cover cases not contemplated by the principal Act.
Here again I am bound to tell your Lordships, quite candidly, that in. my humble judgment this is a case contemplated by the principal Act, and therefore the objection taken, the ground on which disagreement is founded, is not, I think, one that
1078
can be defended. But another objection was taken, as I understand, though it has not been inserted in the Tabled list of objections. It was suggested that a case might frequently occur in which a house was let at a rent rising possibly £5 or £10 a year for a period of ten years, and it, was pointed out that, if one took such a case, one easily might have a period that was the relevant one in the middle of such a lease. It very often happens, when a lease is granted at a progressive rent, that there is reason to anticipate that; the character of the neighbourhood will improve, and, in view of that improvement, the tenant is willing to pay a rent which rises perhaps by £20 or £30 a year.
Supposing a relevant period to occur in which one had to determine the standard rent before the full improvement in the character of the neighbourhood had taken place, you might find that the landlord, would be able to add 10 per cent, to the rent of the ultimate year. Such was the view taken by those, who had technical knowledge of the subject, as I am informed. I have gone into these matters with a little more detail than I should have done because other noble Lords who preceded me have spoken of individual Amendments. I would venture to reinforce, if I may, what has been said by the noble Earl who leads the House. Is it really worth while, when once the Amendment which deals with the amount of rent has gone in the House of Commons—from which up to the present we have met with no support at all—is it worth while to carry this ground of controversy further? I would most respectfully submit to your Lordships that we should be well advised in this case, having made our protest and exhibited many admirable, unanswerable and, in some cases, unanswered arguments, to take the view that we should act more wisely by not persisting.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I suppose we are going to give up these Amendments and acquiesce in the action of the Commons because, we do not dare to stand by our own convictions. I must say that the reasons given seem to me, without, disrespect to the House of Commons, absolutely childish. We read in regard to the first Amendment that it is inexpedient to derogate from the rights already conferred on tenants by the Act of 1915.

1079
There is a contract between two parties, and the House of Commons passes a Bill that is binding on behalf of the tenant and worthless as regards the landlord. We are also told that it is inexpedient to make substantial retrospective amendments to the principal Act.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We are now on the Amendments themselves. I beg to move that your Lordships do not insist on the first Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the Amendment in Clause 1, page 1, lines 10 and 11.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move that your Lordships do not insist upon your next Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the Amendment in Clause 1, page 1, lines 18 and 19.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I move, for the purposes of discussion, that your Lordships do not insist on the Amendment in Clause 4, page 4, line 2. I wish merely to accept the guidance of the judgment of the House upon this point. I have made it clear to those responsible in another place that it is really not accurate to say that this Amendment makes a substantial, or, indeed, any retrospective, amendment to the Act, and I think I succeeded in convincing them that my view on the paint is well founded. If your Lordships think it worth while, I have reason to suppose that this Amendment would be assented to. I know that Lord Balfour of Burleigh has a special knowledge of this subject and has paid great attention to it, and that it is an Amendment to which he attaches considerable value. Perhaps one of your Lordships would move appropriately.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg to move that the Lords insist upon the said Amendment. I understand from the noble and learned Lord that he has some reason to believe, that it will not be unacceptable to the Government.
Moved, That this House doth insist upon the Amendment in Clause 4, page 4, line 2.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should like to ask a question of the Government on the next Amendment—the new clause after Clause 4; and to put myself in order I will move, pro forma, that this House doth insist upon the said Amendment. I do not intend to persist in that Motion. The difficulty in which your Lordships are in is this, that we have not the remotest idea why the House of Commons dislikes this Amendment. What happened in the House of Commons was this. An attempt was made to waive the question of privilege, which Mr. Speaker ruled it was perfectly possible to do, but he explained (and I do not make the least reflection on his ruling which was no doubt perfectly right) that it was impossible to waive the question of privilege unless the Minister who moved it was prepared to move also that the House of Commons agree with the said Amendment. As the Minister was not prepared to move that Mr. Speaker would not allow any discussion upon it at all. We are therefore absolutely in the dark as to why the Commons disagreed with this Amendment. It is all the more puzzling because it is entirely in conformity with the whole policy of the Bill, and is designed to help the special privileged class, which all the efforts of the House of Commons were directed to help. As I have explained to your Lordships, if an assessment is raised and the rates are raised then, by a section in the principal Act, the amount of the increase can be transferred to the rent, and therefore it involves the raising of the rent to the occupier. Yet the House of Commons objected to it. It is due to nothing except this old rusty question of privilege. Of all, I must not say exactly what I think, but of all unintelligent reasons for rejecting a good piece of legislation designed to help the Government, and to help this Bill, this old rusty and creaking privilege is the most absurd, and I cannot understand how any intelligent, body of men, let alone the great assembly for which I have the most profound respect, can consent to be bound by anything so futile as a regulation of that description. I have no right, of course, to make any observation except perhaps to express a pious opinion (it may be the noble Lord will hardly think it is pious) as to the rules of the House of Commons, and I ask if the Government can enlighten us why the Government reject this Amendment.
Moved, That the House doth insist on the said Amendment.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Before the noble and learned Lord replies, perhaps I might add something to what has fallen from the noble Marquess regarding this particular question, I have always understood that the House of Commons took an entirely different view of possible interference of your Lordships' House on matters of rating as compared with any interference with questions of taxation, and yet when Mr. Speaker declared this to be a question of privilege he spoke on it with a final judgment, which seemed to imply that it was a kind of matter which we had no right whatever to touch, I should be glad if the Lord Chancellor would tell me whether he agrees with the view that a line, if not a clear and distinct line, can be drawn in the matter of the privileges of another place between questions of taxation and questions of rating.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I should like to point out to the noble and learned Lord, and also to remind your Lordships, that the case is even worse than as put by my noble friend the. Leader of the Opposition. There is an Act on the Statute Book which is called the Parliament Act, and Section 1, subsection (2), of that Act is devoted to defining a Money Bill, which this House is precluded by Statute as well as by custom from dealing with. But at the end of that subsection I find these words—
"In this subsection the expressions taxation, public money, and loan, respectively, do not include any taxation, money, or loan raised by local authorities or bodies for local purposes."
Therefore rating was deliberately excluded in the Parliament Act. from this definition of a Money Bill which this House may not touch. It is perfectly true that a later section of the Parliament Act says—
"Nothing in this Act shall diminish or qualify the existing rights and privileges of the House of Commons."
What could be the use of putting in that very special subsection (2) of Section 1 if it did not mean that the House of Commons was not usually going to insist on its privilege in the matter of rating. If my noble friend would answer and enlighten us on this subject we should be glad.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Several noble Lords have asked me a series of-conundrums at somewhat short notice on an extremely complex and difficult question. I confess that so much has happened since the Parliament Act was passed that; I have even forgotten that there was a statutory definition of such a point, and while I should like time to prepare a complete and considered view on the question. I know enough to be sure of this, as indeed all your Lordships do, that long before the statutory disqualification of this House contained in the Parliament Act was passed the claim of the House of Commons to impose considerable disqualification upon this House in the matter of Money Bills was acquiesced in. What is important to notice is, if my recollection is not at fault, that the. House of Commons has been in the habit of insisting that their rights in relation to rating matters were of the same class as their rights in relation to ordinary Money Bills. I do not think the right was ever given up by the House of Commons of the claim that such Amendments were privileged, and that they were entitled to resist them.
In dealing with the particular point mentioned by the noble Marquess I can tell your Lordships exactly how this matter arose. I sent over to those who were responsible for the Bill in another place an intimation that it seemed to me that the arguments which were urged in favour of
this clause were rather strong, and I stated that they should be considered on their merits. I know that they had been so considered, but I did not hear the result of the consideration, because the time was so short, and I could not possibly have seen those who were acting in another place. The Minister in charge, Mr. Fisher, had intended to state to the House of Commons, I understand, the reasons why the Government were unable to accept it, but when he got up Mr. Speaker said, "You cannot do so unless you are prepared to accept the Amendments." The Government were not prepared to accept them, and that is why the reasons remain unknown to this day, so far as the House is concerned.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to add one word on the question of privilege. It was decided long ago in the case of private Bills, which often confer rating rights, that such Bills might be commenced in this House, and they often

1083
are commenced in this House, and there is no breach of the privileges of the House of Commons in that respect. I believe that generally the privilege of the House of Commons has been limited to matters of Imperial taxation, and has not been pressed as regards rating questions. It is a matter which one does not go into without looking into the historical associations connected with it, but it has been specifically decided—I can say that with certainty—that all private Bills stand on the same footing, though rating proposals can in the first place be inserted in this House without in any way affecting the privileges of the House of Commons.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: According to precedent, I now have the honour to move that in not insisting upon this Amendment the Lords make no admission in respect of any deduction which might be drawn from the Reason offered by the Commons, and do not consent that this Reason should bereafter be drawn into a precedent.
Moved to resolve, That in not insisting on this Amendment the Lords make no admission in respect of any deduction which might be drawn from the Reason offered by the Commons, and do not consent that this Reason should hereafter be drawn into a precedent.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I move that your Lordships insist on the next Amendment—Clause 5, page 4, line 22. No argument of any sort or kind has been adduced in either House of Parliament why a tenant, who, because he has had the great advantage for four years of the concession of a certain fixed rent—fixed at a time when the present abnormal circumstances did not exist—should continue to take advantage of this abnormal situation and derive an enormous rent and profit for himself out of sub-tenants. As the matter is left, it has to a large extent vitiated the whole intention of the Act of Parliament. The Commons give us no reason whatever for their objection, and so far as I can see no reason was advanced. The sole suggestion has been that because
1084
in the original Act the question of subletting was not dealt with we should not now deal with it, although it is recognised as an evil. That certainly seems to be the negation of all that the Houses of Parliament have been accustomed to act upon. I think that not only are we on very strong grounds in insisting on this Amendment, but I have the strongest reason for hoping that if we send it down again our Amendment will be made part of the Act.
Moved, That this House doth insist on the said Amendment.—(Viscount Midlelon.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with regard to the statements of the noble Viscount that he has strong reasons for thinking that if this Amendment is sent back it will be adopted, I can only say that I discussed the matter with those who are concerned, and I urged all the considerations which have been urged by the noble Marquess, and endeavoured as far as I could to persuade those with whom I was discussing the matter and who are directly concerned in the responsibility for the Bill to adopt the Amendment. But I confess that I have not the same strong reasons as the noble Viscount for thinking that if it is sent back the Amendment will be accepted. Nobody could be more ready than I myself am to assist the object which the noble Lord has in view, but it is well to consider—and we have an illustration of this in the language of subsection (4)—the difficulties of drafting Amendments which would effect the purpose desired. Those difficulties are further shown by the fact that there is this loophole even in the sub-clause which was drafted by so many experienced draftsmen. If I thought that this Amendment would be accepted in another place I should most strongly urge your Lordships to accept the view of the noble Lord. But I do not think it will be so accepted, and I am bound to point that out. The noble Lord says that this evil of sub-letting has gone on for four and a half years, yet in the House of Commons where we would think that Members would be hearing constantly from their constituents that they were suffering from this cause not a single member got up to protest when this Amendment was advocated. If your Lordships have deliberately reached the conclusion that it is worth while challenging an issue upon this point, it is useless my saying anything further, for those that hold that view will naturally

1085
illustrate it in the Division Lobby. While I sympathise with them, I do not think that this is a favourable occasion or a favourable issue for such a challenge.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the last words of the noble and learned Lord impel me to say one word on this question. The issue appears to me to be a perfectly fair one to return to the House of Commons, even though it may not be a favourable one in the sense that in the long run we shall be able to make it part of the Bill. Bat it appears to me that this is just one of the occasions in which your Lordships may properly press your view on another place, because there is nothing to make us believe or suppose that this particular point has been seriously considered by those in another place, all the more for the reason which the noble and learned Lord advanced that no member in another place rose to explain that he had received protests from his constituents on this particular case. That may well be so, because the people who suffer from this kind of grievance are not in a position to protest in a great number of cases, whilst those who profit by it probably are, and therefore they naturally remain silent. I think therefore it will be worth your Lordships' while to remit this matter once more to the House of Commons in order that they may have an opportunity of seriously considering whether it does not represent common fairness and justice.
LORD BUCKMASTER: If it be that your Lordships think that this is a clause upon which it is important and desirable to insist let us, at least, make the issue plain. Do not let there be any possibility of a misunderstanding as to what it is this House is desiring to do. As I understand this Amendment, what the House desires is to protect against the extortion in the way of excessive rent which is only frequently exacted against people who take small portions of houses. It is to protect one of the most unprotected and inarticulate classes in the Kingdom, and it is not to put one single farthing of money into the pockets of landlords. I think it is desirable that that should be stated, because one of the unfortunate things that happens when Amendments of this kind go down to another place is that there is nobody to state in the other place what were the views which induced this House to take the course they did. And, although
1086
I do not suppose for a moment that anything one says will be reported, at least it should be clear from the OFFICIAL REPORT that, in supporting this Amendment against the House of Commons, we are supporting the people who need protection, and they are doing all in their power to oppress them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: By your Lordships' leave, may I say this? Our discussions to-night have been of the most amicable character, and I rise now in the hope that I may be able to suggest one of those arrangements to which in another place I was very well accustomed. The case made by the noble Lord really, of course, deals not only or indeed principally with the class of case referred to in the sub-paragraph now under discussion. Far the most important case is that which he depicted so vividly in which a householder puts a bed and a few chairs into a, room and lets it for the rent of the w/hole house. The noble Lord will do me this justice, that I did all I could to help this Bill in its passage through your Lordships' House. I have heard that there is at least a very great prospect that I shall obtain for him the very important concession he desires, but those who are prepared to assent to that feel great difficulty about this subsection, and I hope that, on the understanding that he will be fully met on Clause 6 (1), the noble Lord will agree to his part of the compromise and consent to the omission of this subsection.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think there has been any case made out against this proposal made by my noble friend. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, has just stated exactly what the issue is. It is an issue about which there cannot be the remotest doubt. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack moved this Amendment which we are now proposing to insist upon, and it was moved for one reason, if for no other, that when the principal Act was passed it was supposed to have been covered, and the then Lord Chancellor (I think I am stating accurately), who now sits on this bench, was understood to say in Parliament that it was covered. Now that doubts have arisen as to whether it was covered or not, and the present Lord Chancellor moves to put it absolutely right and make this protection assured, then we are asked to abandon this Amendment. I cannot think that your Lord-

1087
ships would be wise to abandon it. I think it is just, and it would almost be a breach of faith with the Parliament which passed the principal Act three years ago if your Lordships did not insist upon this Amendment.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: It has been said that this Amendment found no support in the House of Commons. I find that it was only spoken to by four Members in the House of Commons. One of them was the Minister in charge of the Bill, who deprecated agreement with the Amendment. Of the other three, two of the hon. Members who spoke strongly supported the Amendment, one of them going into particulars, and giving examples—most conspicuously the example of a householder at a rent of 8s. who converted himself into a landlord at a rent of 30 s. a week.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I think, puts members of the House into some difficulty. He charms us so sweetly by the appeal he makes for reasonableness, as he puts it or as it would appear to me in this matter, in asking us to give up this Amendment in order that some other Amendment may be obtained. But is not that a very difficult
alternative to put before us? We are asked in effect not to insist upon a clause against extortioners in the hope that we may be successful under some other clause against extortioners. It is an extraordinarily difficult question of conscience which the noble and learned Lord has put to members of this House, and I should be very glad if we could really have some further guidance as to what good reason there is why, if this clause is explained and understood in another place, it cannot be given effect to.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I understood that the only question open to discussion when Amendments were going backwards and forwards between the two Houses was the Amendment still subsisting. It seems to me that, if in another place some one has something up his sleeve to make this clause better, we had better insist upon our Amendment, and let them submit their Amendment to our Amendment.
On Question, whether this House should agree with the Commons in the said Amendment?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 54.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Stafford, E.

Gisborough, L.

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

Grimthorpe, L.

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Hyrton, L.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Killanin, L.

Bradford, E.

Cave, V.

Knaresborough, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Milner, V.

Newton, L.

Chichester, E.

Peel, V.

Ranksborough, L.

Eldon, E.

Wimborne, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

Howe, E.

Saltoun, L.

Jersey, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Shandon, L.

Lucan, E.

Blythswood, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Lytton, E.

Dinevor, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Ernle, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Harris, L.

Northumberland, D.

Hindlip, L.

Rutland, D.

Aberdare, L.

Lambourne, L.

Somerset, D.

Atkinson, L.

Lawrence, L.

Avebury, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Bath, M.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Crewe, M.

Buckmaster, L.

Parmoor, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Burgh, L.

Phillimore, L.

Salisbury, M.

Burnham, L.

Redesdale, L.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Brassey, E.

Clinton, L.

Roundway, L.

Fortescue, E.

Coleridge, L.

Rowallan, L.

Leicester, E.

D'Abernon, L.

Sandys, L.

Russell, E.

Denman, L.

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

Sandwich, E.

Ebury, L.

Selborne, E.

Erskine, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Stanhope, E. [Teller.]

Finlay, L.

Sudeley, L.

Forteviot, L.

Sydenham, L.

Churchill, V.

Gainford, L.

Weardale, L.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Willoughby de Broke, L. [Teller.]

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment insisted upon accordingly.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Your Lordships have just refused to accept the very humble advice which I ventured to give. Notwithstanding that, I will heap fire on your Lordships' heads by moving that your Lordships do insist on this next Amendment (After Clause 5, insert the following new clause: 6 (1)).
Moved, That this House doth insist upon' the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move that your Lordships do rot insist on the next Amendment—the last on the Paper.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that the observations made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack at an earlier stage of the debate this afternoon show that the House of Commons have completely failed to understand what was the real purpose of this Amendment and how it would operate. It may be that I did not make myself very plain on the former occasion, but the reason was that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack most courteously accepted my Amendment while I was in the middle of explaining its terms and provisions. The result was that what was only half said was quite enough for representatives of the Government in this House, but there was apparently nothing to be said in another place. Let me repeat what the position is upon this Amendment in order that the whole matter may be made plain.
There are a number of bodies—it is not unfair to call them semi-philanthropic bodies—which lay out sites near towns. The Hampstead Garden Suburb is one. Their object is as far as possible to beautify the neighbourhood of great cities, to prevent over-crowding, to secure pleasant and decent houses at a reasonable rent. They are not out to make all they can out of the and that they hold; they are not out to exact the highest rent they can secure from the tenants to whom they let. What they are out for is to perform an extremely
1090
valuable public service—namely, to extend buildings as far as possible and to secure at the same time that this extension shall not be associated with the hideous, soul-destroying, dreary rows of houses that have too often disfigured the extensions of our great cities. Now, as part of their policy they have been in the habit of letting these houses on terms which provide that the rent shall increase for the first two or three years, or it may be increased after the lapse of two or three years; and the amount by which it increases is, say, £5 or £10 on a £50 or £60 rent. If this Bill passes as it is drawn, the result will be that if for any reason one of these tenancy agreements came to an end before the real rent had been reached, they would be unable to let it at the rent which had actually been agreed between them and the tenant as the real rent of the place. I would beg your Lordships to understand that the earlier rents are reductions from the rack rent made in consideration of the uncompleted condition of the suburb into which the tenant is introduced. It may be that his garden is unmade, or that the house requires something doing to it. There are concessions made to the tenant off the agreed fixed rent in order that he may have some compensation for the disadvantages attendant upon entering a new house and a new neighbourhood.
It is suggested by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that in another place they were frightened at the prospect of a rent that increased £5 at a time for a period of many years. I cannot understand how it can possibly affect the matter. One has to remember that this Act applies only where the property is in hand, and therefore the tenancy must have been broken by some means before you can bring this Act into operation; otherwise the normal course of the lease and tenancy will go on. The case that I am suggesting to your Lordships is one where the low rent was existing in 1914, the house being then, let. The higher rent was reached say in 1915, and the lease came to an end in 1917. At that time you would have reached the full rent under the agreement, and this Bill says you must not increase the rent beyond the standard rent, which means the rent at which the house was let on August 3, 1914. In other words, you must not increase the rent more than 10 per cent, above, not the rent which the man is paying when the tenancy ends, but the rent at the notional antecedent date,

1091
which may be so much lower than the actual rent he was paying when the tenancy ended that the 10 per cent, you are allowed to add will not bring it up to that figure. That is the position, and it does appear to me that it is most unfair, and although I am not anxious to challenge controversy with another place needlessly, I should like to know what possible relevance to such arguments as I have been placing before your Lordships, the explanation given by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, as to why another place disagreed with this Amendment, can possibly have.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble and learned friend is quite right when he reminds your Lordships that he and I in another capacity are accustomed to doing with other people that which I did when I stopped him when arguing his case at an earlier stage. I was interested by the case he made with reference to garden cities. I thought the case was fairly made and ought to be dealt with. I am not at all sure whether he appreciated or answered the objection taken, not I think to that part of his argument which depends upon the class of case he put forward, but to a wholly different class of case. Take the class of case where a house is let upon a progressive rent, the reason for fixing a progressive rent being that both parties are in agreement that property and Tents in the neighbourhood will go up. Supposing, for instance, tramways are constructed and property in the neighbourhood does not appreciate. For the moment the standard period is, of course, August, 1914, and in relation to the standard rent at that date an increase of 10 per cent, is permitted. Supposing that the rent of the last year is to be taken in such a case. Then an increase which has by no means taken place in fact will be taken as the standard rent. I am not prepared, however, to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division on this matter, and if my noble and learned friend will move to insist upon the Amendment. I will accept it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I beg to move that your Lordships insist upon your Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth insist upon the said Amendment.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
A Committee appointed to prepare Reasons for the Lords insisting on certain of their Amendments and for disagreeing to the Commons Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments: Report from the Committee of the Reasons to be offered to the Commons, and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to return the Bill with the Reasons.

THE METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE.
LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS rose to call attention to various communications to the Press on the subject of the administration of the Metropolitan Police Force; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is now some weeks since I put this Notice on the Paper, which I did in consultation with some of my friends. Even then I did so with some hesitation, and I have been in some hesitation since, as to whether I should bring it forward for discussion, because it is not always wise when matters of some delicacy are under discussion in private to arouse a public discussion. But certain communications which have appeared in the Press quite recently convinced me that it was justifiable for me to bring this subject before Parliament. The peace and the safety of the public are so dependent upon the Police that it is quite natural that we should take a deep interest in that body, and that we should be anxious if we have any reason to apprehend that there is any possibility of disorganisation being introduced into it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear.
LORD HARRIS: I hope very much that the Government may be able to-night to reassure us upon this point. There certainly are disturbing features in some of the communications to which I am going to call attention. I shall confine myself strictly to those matters which we know of, which have appeared in the public Press, and I shall do my very best to avoid any expression or any reference which might cause irritation to any one concerned among those who apparently are in dispute about matters of very vital importance.
After the lamentable abstention from their duty of last year of the Metropolitan Constabulary—a calamity which I am

1093
afraid I must say has severely shaken the confidence of the public in the stability of the force—a Representative Board was formed, representative of several ranks in the Police. The object in view was to give an opportunity to all ranks of representing their grievances to the Chief Commissioner, and I must say here that I cannot conceive it possible that a force with such high traditions, with such a reputation, which had won not merely the confidence of the inhabitants of the, metropolis but was the admiration of the world and the pride of the metropolis—I cannot believe that such a force could haw got into such a state as it was last year, and, if these statements are correct, which I hops they are not, into such a state as it is now, unless there had been very serious grievances to be remedied. This Representative Board was agreed to by the authorities with this object. Apparently this Board has not given entire satisfaction to everybody, and it is now proposed to form three different Representative Boards, representing each of the different grades or ranks in the service; and in connection with the subject, there appeared on March 24 a statement issued by the National Union of police and Prison Officers, which concluded with these words—
"The public must not lose sight of the fact that if the Force is to have the Representative Board made for them in this manner—"
the preceding sentences had referred to the way in which the new boards were be formed—
"the present irritation will be intensified."
This is a rather ominous expression. It-alleges that there exists irritation and that unless care is taken it may increase. That is my justification, I think, for bringing the matter under discussion now.
I have been, and I should imagine most people who have read these communications to the Press have been, much puzzled as to these manifestoes, as they have been termed, by the Union of Police and Prison Officers. They are constantly appearing. Sometimes they have adopted a tone which I venture to submit is very much to be deprecated. I cannot make out to whom they are. addressed. Are they official? Are they addressed or sent to the Home Office or to the Chief Commissioner? They do not appear to be so. They may be addressed merely to the public, but I should like information upon that. They
1094
do not appear to be addressed to the authorities. Yet, in one case, on March 8, official notice was taken of one of these communications, and quite appropriately, I daresay, although an official order has been emulated to the Police that the Cabinet has decided that recognition should net be given to the Union of Police and Prison Officers. I submit, therefore, that it is legitimate to ask what are the relations if any of the authorities with this Union and what is the objection to the scheme of a Representative Board which was established by which is now going to be substituted, so I gather, by a scheme with three Representative Boards.
On March 8 there appeared a statement which is described as from New Scotland Yard, and in that state-merit reference is made to a communication of the National Union of Police and Prison Officers, so that I in that case at any rate recognition was given to the Union. in that communication, which is very long—I do not for a moment propose to read it—the Commissioner stated that certain communications he Lad made had been misrepresented. As I have already said, I can conceive that before the war there were grievance existing in the Force. I think that is highly possible. I can also conceive that the intention to remedy them was prevented by the war. I can also conceive that dining the war the Metropolitan Constabulary were specially hardly tried in many respects, and I daresay the fact these grievances which existed before the war had not- been Up was extremely irritating to them. But now a change has been indicated and some very valuable concessions have been made, to the Force. For instance, ns regards their emoluments pay and allowances of several kinds, a Committee, appointed by the Home Secretary, with Lord Desborough as chairman, is going into the whole subject.
As regards other matters in which they may have grievances of various kinds they have now got either one board or three representative boards, constantly sitting and passing resolutions up to the Chief Commissioner, and it has been conceded that prompt personal attention should be given to these representations by the. Chief Commissioner himself. Surely these are very valuable concessions to the Force, which should satisfy than as a body that attention being given to such

1095
cases as they may be able to represent. In fact, it is only in the matter of discipline that there is any reservation, and I am tempted to express the opinion that in the matter of discipline, that reservation has been wisely made. I should like to read an extract from the Metropolitan Police Orders of a date which I do not recall but quite recently, referring to the substitution of three boards for one. The Chief Commissioner, I take it, gives this as one of his reasons for preferring the three boards which are representative of different ranks to one board representative of all ranks—
"In the opinion of the Commissioner, judging from his experience during the last six months, it is impossible that the discipline necessary to the efficiency of the Force can be maintained if the interests of superior officers are placed in the hands of the lower ranks; or if, in discussions which affect the Force as a whole, officers place themselves on the same level as those who are under their orders. A matter like this cannot be treated in the same way as if officers and men were engaged in sport, where, for the moment, the question of rank is waived, and all take their Stand on their proficiency in the game."
These seem to me to be very appropriate words, and to express a justifiable opinion on the vital subject of discipline.
In the command of such bodies as the Navy and Army, seized with the duty of protecting the country from invasion, and in the case of a body such as the Police seized with the duty of protecting the civil community from depradations and violence, where strict obedience to orders has always been regarded as essential, and essential not merely for the security of the body to be protected but also for the cohesion and the safety from attack of the protecting body itself, discipline is always and always must be under the control of the commander of the unit, however small or large that unit is. Are we to understand that the undermining of this exercise of authority has been aimed at? If so, is it aimed at by the representative board or boards; and is it that which has caused the existing dissatisfaction with the system of one board and the necessity of resorting to three boards.
As I have already said, on March 8 there appeared in the Press a communication from the Chief Commissioner referring to some statements of his which, I gather, he considered had been distorted in a statement issued by the Union of Police and Prison Officers, and referred to on February 22, in a Resolution No. 147, issued by the executive com-
1096
mittee of the Representative Board, the tone of which seems to me likely to cause offence, and certainly reads like a refusal to accept the statement of the Chief Commissioner as truthful. This is one of those statements which I have referred to as much to be deprecated. In the end this particular dispute between the Representative Board, or its executive committee, and the Chief Commissioner has gone up to the Secretary of the Home Department, but what the position is at the present moment I do not know, and I do not think we have had any information in the public Press. Apparently with it is involved this other question of the establishment of the new three boards in lieu of the old one board. I ask my noble friend whether any Papers can be presented which would be explanatory of the causes which have led to this change of system, and what right the board, or boards, desire to have added to those which have been given to them.
I draw a distinction between the objects which the Representative Boards aim at and those which the Union of Police and Prison Officers may aim at, because the Representative Boards are recognised whereas the Union is not. I assume, of course, that the Union does aim at recognition. They have issued statements, one of which I have referred to, upon which it is possible to place an ominous construction and which ought to be deprecated. I wish to be absolutely just in referring to any communication from the Union. This week there has been sitting in London a conference of delegates, called by the National Union, and The Times of the 25th instant states—
"The agenda for the conference including the full text of the constitution and the draft rules for the union, together with a series of amendments of which notice has been given, are published in the current issue of the Police and Police Officers Magazine."
On a recent date, the 25th instant, this appeared in the Press—
"The first four objects of the Union are worth quoting:

"(a) To use every legitimate and reasonable effort to maintain a just, impartial, and efficient public service.

"(b)To promote and encourage at all times the due observance of the regulations and discipline of the services.

(c) "To rigidly maintain a true sense of the obligation to the public to permanently guard against any possibility of members withholding their services as a means of obtaining

1097
redress and to have all differences between the authorities and members arranged or decided by amicable or conciliatory means.

"(d)To establish harmonious co-operation between members and the governing authorities."

THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Are those the Articles of Association?
LORD HARRIS: I can only give you them as I get them. It is the misfortune under which we rest that we are entirely dependent for our information upon these matters upon the Press. We have no other information, and this is evidently a Press description of something which occurred. I will read the commencement of the paragraph; I take it that this is not a communication from the Union, but a Press explanation—
"The agenda for the conference, including the full text of the constitution and the draft rules for the union, together with a series of amendments of which notice has been given, are published in the current issue of The Police and Prison Officers Magazine. The first four objects of the Union are worth quoting."
And those are what I have read.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Thank you.
LORD HARRIS: They seem to be laudable objects, qualified to satisfy one as to the intentions of the Union to do all in its power to maintain the discipline of the Force. I am bound to add this, that on the 13th—I do not know whether it was in consequence of, but it was following the announcement of the War Cabinet that recognition was not to be given to the Union—the National Union, in a long manifesto, of which I will quote the concluding words, said—
"The Police Force have not, nor have they had since the commencement of this crisis—"
There again is an ominous word. According to them there is a "crisis" existing—
"any intention of striking, and they ask the public to assist them in this intention by seeing that they get a full and impartial inquiry into the whole matter which is in dispute between the Chief Commissioner and the Representative Boards."
I felt Bound to quote this statement of the Union as regards their intentions and the existing position from their point of view. But in the same column I have quoted, giving the first four objects of the Union. I find this, which is stated to have appeared in the
1098
Union Magazine of January 23, and is attributed to a constable, who is described as the secretary of the Metropolitan Representative Board. These words are attributed to him—
"There is one point that must not be lost sight of, and that is that every member of the Board must be a Union member and that only Union members' complaints be considered by the Board."
If that means anything it means that any policeman who is not- a member of the Union, or any number of policemen who have grievances and are not members of the Union, shall not have those grievances taken up by the Representative Board because they are not members of the Union. It seems to me that that is entirely inconsistent and absolutely conflicts with one of the four objects which is to have; all differences between the authorities and the members arranged by conciliation. It has a strongly suspicious resemblance to that practice of tyrannical exclusion from the benefits of Unionism which is brought to bear by members of Unions of many kinds upon those members of the community who are not themselves members of the Union, and of the refusal to them of the right of enjoying liberty of action. Again I must quote, I am sorry to say, something that appeared on the 10th. This is a statement by the Union and it concludes thus—
"When will the Government realise that to serve the best interests of the country it is necessary to remove and not create friction in a body of men like the Metropolitan Police who have in their keeping the safety of the lives and property of the citizens of the great Metropolis. It is well to point out that in the. event of extreme measures being necessary the whole of the Police Force of the United Kingdom would be involved."
It is quite possible to construe that as a threat of a strike. It is a very incautious statement and is liable to mislead and also to excite the members of the Force to whom it was addressed. There are other somewhat similar expressions, and they inevitably lead one to the suspicion that efforts are being made in some quarters to undermine the disciplinary system of the Force and the control of Authority
I venture very temperately to offer my humble advice in attempting to dissuade the members of the Force from listening to any such insidious temptation. They have been granted ample opportunities of presenting their grievances. I am sure that they cannot dispute—for I have seen

1099
The Police Orders for the last five months—that in many instances these are being looked into sympathetically. The whole matter of pay and allowances is being gone into by a competent Committee at which they are being heard. They have also like every citizen the opportunity of presenting their grievances through any Member of Parliament either in this House or another place, and I ventured to suggest to them that if they desire to reinstate themselves in the confidence of the public, and to regain the admiration of the world, and to hold fast by those high traditions which were to their honour and of which they must have been very proud, they will take warning in time of the danger of attempting to tamper with the delicate matter of discipline.
I will read to your Lordships the form of declaration which a constable makes on joining the Forces. The general declaration reads as follows—
"I, being appointed a constable of the Police. Force of the Metropolitan Police District, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lord the King in the office of constable, and will act as a constable for preserving the peace"
That is not an attestation, it is a declaration, but I submit that it is as valid as an oath. These are men of experience and position and education, and, having solemnly made that declaration, if they contemplated joining anyother community of men it is their bounden duty before joining such a community to take care that none of its rules run counter to the declaration that they have freely made.
Let me ask them to look round the world. There is plenty of opportunity for giving consideration to various forms of government just now. I ask them to consider whether under any form that has suddenly come to the surface there is any real abstention from an insistence upon the principle of discipline. I have submitted that, however small the unit be or however large, in the case of certain forces, which have to be maintained for the protection of a country or its civil population, the control of the officer of the unit is inevitable and must be insisted upon. I would ask them to consider what has happened in Russia where control was withdrawn in the case of the death penalty in the Army. What followed? The murder of officers without court-martial, and it has gone on to wholesale murder. I do not suggest for a moment that there is anything
1100
comparable between the character of the Metropolitan Police and of the Russian Army as it was, or that under any circumstances the British character is capable of the enormities which have been committed in Russia and other countries, but I submit that in this matter of discipline a lesson is afforded which our constabulary may well study if there is any suggestion made to them that the rules of any community which they should join should come before the declaration which they have solemnly made of their duty to their Sovereign and the public.
In bringing this matter, which I think is a serious one, before your Lordships, I have taken care to avoid any expressions or descriptions which are calculated to irritate any parties in the disputes or arguments that are going on. But, having regard to the statements, some of them very conflicting, which have appeared in the Press, I feel that I was justified—and I hope your Lordships will support me—in bringing this matter forward. I beg to move.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I should like to draw attention to one aspect of this matter which has, perhaps, not received sufficient attention. In the present situation in regard to the relation of the Police authorities and the Force, the noble Lord who has just sat down has dealt so completely with that that no further reference to it is necessary. I should like to say at once, as regards the present situation, that the stand which the authorities have taken up in their refusal to recognise the Police Union is one which I am sure will meet with the whole-hearted support of your Lordships' House, and, I believe, of the vast majority of the general public. But I think it is a little unfortunate that the events which have led up to the present situation are more or less clouded in obscurity. It is a pity that the Government have not taken steps to inform the country of the reasons for the course they have taken. Their failure to do so has, I believe, led to the conclusion that in some respects that policy has net been as consistent and as logical as it might have been.
The first point to which I should like to draw attention is the origin of this trouble—the strike that occurred at the end of last August. The circumstances attending the outbreak of that strike were somewhat remarkable. In the first place the Com-

1101
missioner of Police was in Ireland at the time, and I believe the Home Secretary was also. There appears, so far as Press statements can be relied upon, to have been no widespread discontent or dissatisfaction; at least there was no outward sign of it in the Police Force before the strike. The strike notice was only given on Wednesday, August 28, and the notice expired, the men were due to come out on strike, on the evening of the next day—on Thursday. Thus the authorities were only given a little more than twenty-four hours to prepare for this emergency. Moreover, that notice came not as a collective representation on the part of the Police, it came from the Police Union, which the authorities had up to that moment, and have up to; the present time, refused to recognise. The Commissioner also stated that the first collective representation he had received from the Police was on the Friday, the day when the strike actually occurred.
The first impression given by these circumstances was that the strike was brought about almost deliberately, in such a way that no arrangement could possibly be come to by the authorities at a time when the Home Secretary and the Commissioner were away, and also—what is even more remarkable—at a time when the authorities were actually doing their utmost to meet the men's demands; because a scheme had been prepared by which the pay was to be gradually increased, and the scheme was even to go farther in some respects than the men's demands in that a pension for widows was also provided. It would appear at first, sight that this strike was deliberately brought about in order to forestall the: scheme which would have met the men's demands, and was intended to precipitate a strike at all costs, and to bring about a situation under which an arrangement would prove to be impossible. I do not say that that is the correct conclusion—very likely it is not—but that is, I think, the natural inference that anyone would draw from reading the, accounts which have appeared in the Press. It seems to me either that that is the conclusion, or else the inference is that the Police authorities were extraordinarily and culpably out of touch with the feelings and sentiments of the men.
As far as the strike goes, there is no reflection whatever on the Government. But we now come to certain steps which the Government took in order to deal with
1102
this situation. The first step was the personal intervention of the Prime Minister, and this, I think, emphasizes the force of certain remarks made by the noble Vis-count, Lord Midleten yesterday in regard to the unfortunate consequences of the intervention of Ministers in settling these questions of vital importance. The noble Viscount referred to the necessity of the resumption of Cabinet Government, which has practically ceased to exist. The Police deputation was received by the Prime Minister, and the first point to be noted is that the Prime Minister had announced that he would not recognise the Union, but the deputation which was invited to appear before him consisted of the representatives of the Union. The explanation given of this apparent inconsistency by the Home Secretary, Sir George Cave, was that the Prime Minister received them, not as trade unionists, but as policemen. There may be a distinction, but I think it is almost a distinction without a difference; at any rate, it is such a nice distinction that I am perfectly certain that there are very few people in this country who can possibly understand it.
I need not go into the details of the way in which the Prime Minister satisfied the men's demands. He satisfied their demands as regards pay and the reinstatement of the constable whom they wished to have reinstated. With regard to the recognition of the Union, the Prime Minister said it was impossible in war time to sanction a union, as that would be recognising a principle which had reduced the army of Russia to a state of complete demoralisation and disintegration. I think few people would be disposed to quarrel with that statement, but it is not quite evident what he meant by the words "in war time" There might perhaps be some logic—I think it would be very unsound—if you were talking of a military force, that some relaxation of discipline might be permitted in peace time but could not be permitted in war time; but I cannot see how there could be any logic whatever in making such a statement to a Police Force. The functions of the Police Force are precisely the same in war time as they are in peace time.
I would not wish to press this point too far, because I quite realise that in the course of a more or less informal interview with this deputation the Prime Minister might have used words which he may have

1103
attached no particular meaning to; but it does show the evil of this way of settling these very important questions. Such a question as this should have been settled after a Cabinet meeting, after the most mature consideration, and the declaration of the Government's policy finally given to this deputation should have been most carefully worded so that all possibility of mistake might have been avoided. We all recognise the Prime Minister's qualities. He is peculiarly well fitted to deal with this situation. He has an extraordinary charm of manner, he is very eloquent, and he has a wonderful faculty for hitting the nail on the head. That may be all very well when you are dealing with matters which require tact only, but these are matters of very important policy, which cannot be decided in an informal and more or less haphazard manner. The Prime Minister at any rate made it quite clear that they could not recognise the principle of a union. That was at the end of August or the beginning of September, 1918.
The next thing that happened was that at the end of February of this year the Government issued an invitation to an Industrial Conference to the representatives of various trades unions representing the industries of the country, and they included the Police Union among them. It seems very extraordinary that they should refuse to recognise a certain body of men as representing the Police in August and in the following February invite them to attend this Conference. The Conference was attended by the Prime Minister. We are given an account in the Press of how he listened with considerable amusement to a speech which was delivered by Mr. Marston, the President of this trade union. Mr. Lloyd George seemed really to have treated the incident in a peculiarly light-hearted manner and not to have realised the very serious consequences of the course which was being pursued.
Those are, I think, the main criticisms which can be brought against the Government; but there are one or two minor points on which further information is desirable. One of the demands made by the Police was for the reinstatement of an ex-constable. I do not know how to pronounce his name, but it is spelt, T-h-i-e-l, and appears to have a somewhat foreign ring. When the Prime Minister settled the question at the beginning of
1104
September last it was decided to reinstate this police-constable. Since then he has been doing his utmost to undermine the discipline of the Police Force, and I think it would be interesting to your Lordships to know what the present position of this constable is, because if he is still in the Police Force that position is to say the least a very anomalous one.
Lord Harris has referred to the representative boards which are now the channels of communication between the Police Force, and the authorities. As he said so much on that question I do not think it is necessary for me to add anything; but I believe your Lordships would like to know the reason for the formation of those boards. I do not know that there is any exact analogy between a police force and a military force—I am not well enough acquainted with the interior economy and administration of the Police to know; but if there is not an exact analogy between them the analogy is at any rate a very close one. I fully appreciate that these representative boards are not allowed to deal with questions of discipline, but, even with regard to other questions such as pay and pensions, allowing such a principle as this must tend to undermine altogether the authority of the police officers. The officers as channels of communication with the Commissioner are completely eliminated. All I can say is that a principle such as that introduced into a military force would lead to complete disorganisation and demoralisation, and no battalion or regiment could exist for a moment where it was recognised.
In these few criticisms which I have made I should like to assure the House that I have not made them in any spirit of trying to find fault with the Government. We all recognise the difficult and delicate situation with which His Majesty's Government have to deal; and, as I have said, with regard to their present attitude I am sure they have the support of your; Lordships' House. I can only hope that these criticisms will prove to be un-founded. If they are unfounded I do not see that it will be my fault but rather the fault of the Government which has neglected to explain its policy to the country. We have ahead of us a very serious situation to face. We live in a time of great unrest. We do not know in the least what the outcome of the present state of affairs around us may be.

1105
The time may come when the Government may have to make a stand. I think it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, speaking on the question of Industrial Unrest, who said that he hoped that the Government would go to the furthermost limits of concession, but, having reached those limits, that they would stand firm and that nothing should induce them to concede a further point. If we should over have to come to that situation it will be absolutely essential that the Government should have the support and sympathy of the country, and it is necessary that in this case, and in all such cases, the policy of the Government should be explained. If the Government has made a mistake it is far better for them to say so. There is nothing which does more to discredit Governments then the air of infallibility which they are so apt to assume. In conclusion, I hope the Government will give us a complete and adequate answer to the various criticisms that have been made.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, I fully appreciate the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in asking this Question to say nothing which could accentuate the difficulty of the situation to which he referred. I hope I may be successful in satisfying him on the majority of the points upon which he touched, and also that I may be able to enlighten to a certain degree the obscurity to which the noble Duke has referred.
I would say first that the "manifestos" to which Lord Harris referred are communicated to the Press by the Union and are not addressed to the Home Office or to the Commissioner, and that no official notice is taken of them. It may be convenient if I here remind your Lordships that the Union is a union of Police and Prison officials throughout the country, whereas the Metropolitan Police Representative Board is a board freely elected to represent only the Police Force in the Metropolitan area. The resolution to which the Commissioner referred in his General Order of March 8, which appeared in the Press, was not a resolution passed by the Union, it was one appended by the Metropolitan Police Representative Board to their draft constitution which they had submitted to the Commissioner. The resolution ran as follows—
"In submitting a copy of the above reconstruction of the Metropolitan Police Representa-
1106
tive Board for the information of the Commissioner, this Executive Committee resolves that the Metropolitan Police Representative Board is regarded purely as a temporary instrument of representation of the Metropolitan Police-pending the early recognition of the National Union of Police and Prison Officers, and this Executive Committee are convinced that if the Commissioner would recommend this cause for adoption by the Home Office his action would be keenly appreciated by the whole of the Metropolitan Police"
The Commissioner pointed out that there could be no question of basing proposals for the welfare of the Metropolitan Police on the recognition of the union. The union had not been recognised by the Government, and the organisation of the Representative Board for the coming year must be based on that fact. The Government decided in August last that the union could not be recognised as a body entitled to make representations to the authorities with regard to matters affecting the Police, but at the same time the men were to be permitted to join the union, "so long as the union did not claim or attempt to interfere with Police regulations or discipline or to induce members of the Force to withhold their services" This condition was agreed to by a deputation of members of the Police to the late Home Secretary. The Government have, recently confirmed their decision not to recognise the union. But when this decision of August last was come to it was felt that the Police should have better means of collectively representing their grievances to the authorities than had existed in the past, and accordingly a Representative Board was set up to represent the members of the Force in matters connected with their conditions of service and general welfare, other than questions of discipline. I would ask your Lordships to note that the question of discipline is absolute excluded from the-purview of the Board.
The Board was to be elected by ballot, and they in turn were to elect a committee of not more than twelve members who should hold office for a year and then-retire, but who should be eligible for reelection. The Committee elected last autumn has sat almost continuously for six months and the members of it have been withdrawn from their police duties for approximately two days in every three. The committee have passed a large number of resolutions, many of which have been; couched in peremptory terms, and on February 21 they forwarded to the Com-

1107
missioner a resolution in which the committee "emphatically declined to accept a statement made by the Commissioner;" and with reference to an attempt by the Commissioner to remove a misunderstanding by a conversation with the secretary of the committee the resolution "requested that in future all comments intended to be conveyed to the Executive Committee or the board should be reduced to writing" The Commissioner thereupon announced in General Orders that he would not receive as delegates from the committee any of the men who were parties to the drafting of that resolution, although he would be willing to receive such a deputation provided that none of the members who took part in drafting the Resolution which I have quoted should form part of the deputation.
The term of the present Representative Board expires at the end of this month, and It became necessary to arrange for the election of a new Board. Judging from his experience during the last six months the Commissioner had come to the conclusion that it was impossible that the discipline necessary to the efficiency of the Force could be maintained if the interests of superior officers were placed in the hands of the lower ranks, or if in discussions which affect the Force as a whole officers were placed on the same level as those who were under their orders. The Commissioner therefore decided that instead of having one Representative Board for the whole Force there should be separate Boards representing the Inspectors, the Sergeants, and the Constables. This will explain to the noble Lord the origin of the three Boards instead of one. The existing Representative Board took exception to this change, and the result has been a partial boycott of the elections of the new Board and only the Inspectors' Board has been constituted. The existing Representative Board had submitted a counter-draft of what they thought should be the constitution and scope of a Representative Board. They claimed that the Board should have (1) jurisdiction in all matters affecting the welfare of the Force or any member—that is to say, without any exclusion from their purview of questions of discipline; (2) they were to have access to records, documents, and books, or any written matter whatsoever connected with any subject of their inquiry, which might be a matter or question of discipline; (3) the Executive Committee
1108
of the Board was to have power to cause the attendance before them of any member of the Metropolitan Police Force, which, of course, would have included power to summon the Commissioner before them. It was to this proposed constitution that they appended the resolution which I have already mentioned, and to which the Commissioner referred in General Orders of March 8. It will be seen that the scheme was so framed as in effect to throw the entire administration and working of the Force into the hands of the Executive Committee, and that while responsibility for the Force rested on the Commissioner's shoulders the power in all matters that might come before the Representative Board, including questions of discipline, would pass into the hands of the Board or their Executive Committee.
The attitude of Mr. Marston. Mr. Thiel, and Mr. Zollner, the chief leaders of the Union, with regard to both the Representative. Board and the question of the recognition of the Union, may be gathered from recent issues of the Police and Prison Officers Magazine, which is the organ of the Union. Thus, in the issue of January 23, Constable Patterson, the Secretary of the Metropolitan Representative Board, wrote—
"There is one point which must not be lost sight of, and that is that every member of the Board must be a Union member and that only Union members' complaints be considered by the Board;"
while in the issue of February 6, Mr. Zollner, who is described as the Union Organiser for the City Police, wrote—
"We, as a body of men, are determined to have recognition, and we are also determined that the Union shall have a say in matters of discipline."
This shows the length to which they are desirous of going, and that it is their extreme aim in the direction of recognition and self-government, rather than lack of consideration on the part of the authorities, that has caused the friction to which the noble Lord refers.
The noble Lord said, and said truly, that it was difficult to realise how a Force with such traditions could have got into such a state unless, in fact, it had been treated with want of consideration; and I fancy that the noble Duke rather inferred the same thing. May I suggest that this comment is based upon a misapprehension as to the history of the Police Strike which occurred in August last, and perhaps it

1109
would be as well to remind your Lordships of the circumstances in which the strike occurred. At the time the Homo Office issued the following statement—
"It has been generally assumed and repeatedly stated that the strike of the Metropolitan Police had been preceded by many applications from the men for an increase in pay which the Commisisioner of Police and the Home Office has refused to entertain. This is not the ease. The following are the facts. In December 1917 the war bonus was raised from 8s to 12 s. per week, and the allowance for each child was raised from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. This increase was accepted by the. Police as entirely satisfactory, as appeals from a Setter addressed by the editor of the Police Review to all members of Parliament in which the following passage occurs: 'On behalf of the Metropolitan Police Force we can testify to the general feeling of satisfaction which this substantial rise in their wages has given to the men, and, perhaps, even more so to the wives.' It was assumed that no further increase would be asked for immediately, and, as a matter of fret, from that time until August 28 no application for an increase of the Police pay was received either by the Commissioner or the Home Office, though in July one or two Question asked in Parliament indicated that a further increase was desired. In the meantime, however, applications for approval of an increase of pensionable pay had been received from the police authorities of Lancashire, the West Riding and other counties, and when the Home Secretary, on his return from The Hague at the beginning of July, after hearing a deputation from the police authorities, approved the increase, it was decided in principal that an increase of pay should be granted to the Metropolitan Police at an early date. The Commissioner of Police proposed that the grant of this increase should be accompanied by a scheme for the payment of pensions to widows of police officers and pensioners, and this proposal, which involved actuarial calculations, was referred to two well known actuaries. Mr. F. B. Wyatt and Sir Gerald Ryan. Their report had not been received when the strike occurred—"
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What date was this?
THE EARL OF JERSEY: Late in August. The statement proceeds—
"As regards the recognition of the Police Union, the position was as follows. Ever since the formation of the Union every Home Secretary, with the full concurrence of the Commissioner of Police, had refused to recognise it. In June, 1917, the reasons for this refusal were fully set out in a letter addressed by the Commissioner of Police to Mr. Wardle, M.P., with whom he had discussed the matter. No reply had been received to that letter, and the Home Secretary, in replying to Questions in Parliament, had adhered to his decision against recognition. On August 28, 1918—"
I would ask the noble Duke to take special notice of this point—
"a letter was received from the Executive Committee of the National Union of Police and Prison Officers demanding (among other things) that the
1110
war bonus of 12 s. weekly be immediately increased to £1 per week and be converted into permanent wages and be made pensionable, that a war bonus calculated on a basis of 12½ per cent, on all wages and allowances be granted in addition to the above demand, and that there should be complete official recognition of the Union and its duly authorised officials. The letter concluded with an intimation that non-compliance with the above demands by 12 o'clock midnight, August 29, 1918, would necessitate the suspension of Clauses (a), (b), and (c) of the Union Rule 2. The rules referred to are as follow—

"(a)To use every legitimate and reasonable effort to maintain a just, impartial, and efficient public service.

"(b)To promote and encourage at all times the due observance of the regulations and discipline of the Services.

"(c)To rigidly maintain a true sense of obligation to the public, by permanently guarding against any possibility of members withholding their services as a means of obtaining redress, and to have all differences between authorities and members arranged or decided by amicable and conciliatory means."

Lord Harris has already quoted those rules and has rightly described them as very laudable objects, but may I point out that these laudable objects were to be suspended the very moment that they became inconvenient. The Home Office statement concluded—
"The letter did not contain, any statement that a strike would take place at the time mentioned, and the men were under a legal obligation to give a month's notice before withdrawing from duty. The strike broke out without further notice at midnight on August 29."
This will clearly show that it was not a strike to which the men were driven by any reluctance on the part of the authorities to entertain legitimate grievances but rather a strike probably against the better judgment of many members of the Force, sprung upon the authorities by those who were determined to secure at all costs, if they could, the recognition of the Union.
Lord Harris has referred to the Committee of which Lord Desborough is chairman, and this Committee is going fully into the question of Police pay, pensions, and conditions of service, and it is hoped that when their Report is received it will be possible to deal with the whole matter in a satisfactory way as regards not only the Metropolitan Police but also the Police Forces throughout the country. The object of the Representative Board as originally laid down was to bring to the notice of the Commissioner matters affecting the conditions of service and the

1111
welfare of the various ranks, other than questions of discipline, so that he might investigate them and as far as possible remedy them or bring them forward for consideration by the Home Secretary as police authority. The Commissioner has placed on record his appreciation of much of the work done by the Representative Board and its Executive Committee in bringing matters to his notice which required adjustment, and it is his considered opinion that the system of these Representative Boards is necessary to the wellbeing of any Police Force.
Many of the Police authorities throughout the country have adopted the suggestion of the Home Office and have constituted Representative Boards within their Forces. It is hoped that before long the system will become general throughout the country, and in this connection I am authorised to state that the Secretary of State is considering the advisability of bringing in a Bill to place these Representative Boards on a statutory basis. Many of your Lordships know the difficulty with which Standing Joint Committees are faced owing to the competition which prevails between different counties when the rates of pay of the Force are being constantly varied. While there are great difficulties in the way of instituting a uniform scale throughout the country owing to the difference in local conditions, it is hoped that some scheme may be devised which will ensure an equitable arrangement and meet any reasonable differences in the matter of pay, pensions and conditions of service.
I will only say, in conclusion, that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, quoted the declaration which is made by a constable on his appointment. I entirely agree with all that he said in that connection, and I think we shall all agree that it is difficult to see how a man who has made such a declaration can faithfully observe it, and, at the same time, obey the orders issued by a Union which, in pursuance of its own ends, may be in direct conflict with the authorities whom that man is pledged to serve. I hope I have answered the noble Lord's Questions to a large extent to his satisfaction, and I venture to express the hope that he will not think it necessary to press his Motion.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I think very little remains to be said after the exhaustive statement of my noble
1112
friend who has spoken for the Government. I am sure we owe a debt of gratitude to the Home Office for taking the public so fully into its confidence, through the mouth of my noble friend. I venture to think that in this controversy, this lamentable controversy, between the Metropolitan Police Force and the Government, the Government cannot take the public too much into its confidence. I am perfectly certain that the less secrecy there is and the more publicity there is the more sure the Government may be of the approval of public opinion. I think the statement of my noble friend is a very grave statement. I think all your Lordships will have listened to parts of it with a feeling of intense regret and even of sorrow, for there was no Force serving His Majesty in any part of the United Kingdom or the Empire that had a larger share of our confidence and, indeed, affection than the Metropolitan Police Force, before the events of August last.
My noble friend has shown that the strike of August last was deliberately engineered and was doubly, trebly unjustifiable. It was trebly unjustifiable because there was no sufficient grievance even for a Force that was not under discipline; trebly, because it is quite incompatible with the obligation of a Police Force to strike; trebly, because this ultimatum to the public was given at a time when this country was still engaged in war. I cannot help thinking that the trouble which still confronts the Government is largely due to the manner in which that strike was dealt with last August. I have already said so in your Lordships' House, and I shall not repeat what I said. But nothing will change my conviction that that strike was not dealt with at the time with the necessary firmness and decision. The question is how to deal with the situation with which we are now confronted. I hope my noble friend's statement will be read throughout the length and breadth of the country tomorrow.
That statement proves that those who are responsible for the policy of the Police Union are deliberately endeavouring to obtain a share in the control, the command, and the discipline of the Police Force. There can be no other conclusion from the quotations he read to us. The Government are bound to resist that claim to the very end and at any cost. I do not doubt

1113
for one moment that that is their intention, but it is vital to the well-being of the nation, the safety of the metropolis and the very existence of the Police Force. I know of no argument, usually used for urging the policy and the wisdom of giving those employed in industry a share in the management of that industry, which applies to the case of the Police Force. The Police Force is not an army, it is perfectly true; but a school is not an army and yet a school requires discipline, and a Police Force requires discipline. It is only begging the question, only endeavouring to lead to a false trail, for the officials of the Union to declare, as they do whenever insistence is laid on the matter of discipline, that it is an attempt to militarise the Force. It is nothing of the sort. Take discipline away from that Force, as you most certainly would by sharing the command with Union officials appointed otherwise than by the officers of the Crown, and you destroy the discipline; and, the discipline destroyed, the Police Force is destroyed.
This debate will have served, I think, a most useful public purpose. First of all, it will, for the first time, give a consecutive story of the Police strike of last year. It told us what we did not know before—that, in order to strike, the Police Union had to suspend the first four rules of its own constitution. In the second place, it has given us a very full account of the story since that strike. Further, it has exposed to the whole public gaze the real objects of the leaders of the Police Union. I think His Majesty's Government will reap, as their reward for this publicity, the general assurance from public opinion—as I am able to give them an assurance on behalf of my friends in this House—that, so long as the Government maintain their present policy of endeavouring, in the first place, to remove all legitimate complaints as to the conditions under which the Police serve, and to secure for them the best possible conditions of pay and service, while, at the same time, maintaining the discipline of the Force without hesitation or indecision and continuing to refuse this demand for recognition of the Union—so long as they maintain that policy, they will have not only the support of your Lordships' House but that of the whole public opinion of the nation, to which in the last event they must always appeal, and which will always in the end decide the question.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should like to ask the noble Earl who represents the Home Office whether he can give a specific reply to the question of the noble Duke, as to how it came about, having regard to the settled policy of the Government not to recognise the Union, that the Union officials, or rather representatives of the Union, were invited to the Industrial Conference.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My noble friend has not been warned of that question; but whatever the explanation may be, I think the noble Marquess can rest assured with the very clear announcement my noble friend has made as to the attitude of the Secretary of State and the Police authorities towards the recognition of this society as a whole.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

EASTER TRAVELLING FACILITIES.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL rose to ask His Majesty's Government how many special trains have been run in connection with horse racing since the 1st of February, and what train mileage, this represents; and whether in view of this fact the Government still refuse to grant facilities for travel to the working part of the population at the Easter holidays.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the very interesting and serious discussion to which we have just been listening has pushed my humble Question to rather a late hour, but I think your Lordships will see that it is a matter not altogether without importance. The particular point that I want to call attention to is this. I wish to ask what facilities for travelling will be granted to the poorer portion of the population at the Easter holidays. In connection with that I have inquired, and am inquiring, how many special trains have been run in connection with racing. Your Lordships may think that the two questions are not particularly intimately connected, but in fact they are rather intimately connected. The public notice that locomotives and carriages, officials and coal, are all available to run special trains for what I may call luxury or pleasure purposes, and they then see a statement like that which appears in the Press this morning, made by Sir Albert Stanley to a deputation in connection with this matter, in which he deals with the shortage of locomotives and

1115
railway stock and the difficulties of giving additional facilities at Easter. He ends, I am glad to see, by saying that some additional facilities will be given.
I think that the sensitive part of the public which we have been discussing on various occasions of late, whose condition is much too vividly present to our minds—I mean the labouring portion of the population, which is in a state of somewhat nervous unrest—is apt to note these two facts in a somewhat simple manner. What they say is this—"We find that accommodation is available; coaches are available, officials found, and even coal can be burnt for this mere useless purpose of luxury, and then we art told that we cannot have accommodation for excursion trains at Easter." I should not myself, not, I think, would any member of your Lordships' House, find it a particularly entertaining thing to do to get up early in the morning to go down in a crowded uncomfortable, slow train to Margate, eat shrimps on the beach all day, and then come back in an equally crowded train at night; but this process affords, I suppose, a change of scene and a glimpse of romance in the somewhat drab life of the working population, and it is much appreciated and much enjoyed. There is a very strong feeling that they do want, after all the anxiety and tenseness which we have all been through, as much of this relaxation as can reasonably be afforded when these important statutory holidays come round.
I am satisfied that it is of importance, of real importance, from the point of view of avoiding the kind of comment to which I have drawn attention that, having provided services of a luxury character, we should at least provide equally good, or better, services for the purposes of the recreation of the population. It is to give the Government an opportunity of making a statement upon these contrasted points, and assuring this House—and, what is much more important, the great public outside—that the matter is present to their minds, and that they are not unmindful of their obligation to the working classes in this matter, that I have put down the Question which stands in my name.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: May I assure the noble Earl at once that it is not in the least the desire of the Government, or of the Board of Trade in particular, that any distinction should be made between the different classes, as he seems to think might
1116
possibly be insinuated by what has happened. In the first place I should like to inform him that since February 1 the principal railway companies concerned in Great Britain have run 193 trains in connection with race meetings, representing a total mileage of 6,442. All passengers travelling to race meetings, I need hardly remind your Lordships, pay the present full ordinary fare—that is to say, what was the full fare plus the 50 per cent, which was added. No distinction has been made in any way, and I would like to remind your Lordships of what has taken place in this matter.
Early in the war it was found necessary to suspend entirely the arrangements which had previously existed for the grant of cheap tickets at week-ends, holiday-times, &c., and later, owing to the continued depiction of the railway companies' staff and rolling stock during the war, it was found necessary to increase passenger fares by 50 per cent. There have been numerous resolutions, chiefly from watering places and labour bodies, urging that cheap facilities should be given during the coming Easter holidays, and several Questions on the subject have been asked in the House of Commons. The Board have consulted the Railway Executive Committee in the matter, and the Committee have informed them that while they are considering the question whether, and to what extent, it may be possible to give cheap travelling facilities this year, such facilities could not be allowed at Easter. The replies given to the Parliamentary Questions have been to this effect. It has also been explained that while, as already stated, it will not be possible to give cheap travelling facilities at Easter, the railway companies will endeavour to meet the holiday-makers by an argumented train service.
In addition, to the serious financial loss at which the railways are run just now (of which a full explanation has been given in Parliament) the difficulties of the companies in regard to shortage of men and rolling stock are still sufficiently acute to make if desirable that an excessive amount of traffic should not be encouraged. For rolling stock we are no better off now than before. Some 700 locomotives were sent abroad. and it is true that sixteen came back, but they came back for repair. A consideiable percentage of the locomotives here now are standing idle, labour and material for repair being inadequate.

1117
The transport position in France is no better than it was, and our own lines of communication are longer than they were. The Board of Trade will improve the railway service when possible, and they greatly regret that they cannot give such Easter facilities as they would like. May I remind your Lordships that this country alone has maintained its transport system intact, and we hope, to see at an early date more normal conditions reached.
May I add that, in view of the present conditions obtaining on the railways, no reduction of fans can be made during the forthcoming Easter holidays. The railway companies will endeavour to meet the requirements of the holiday-makers by augmenting their ordinary services as far as practicable, and special trains will be run for this propose. There will be no differentiation in any way, and no desire to grant greater facilities to race-goers than to worker. The Government, and the Board of Trade in particular, are concerned in seeing that the workers get their full share of all that can be given in railway facilities, and we greatly regret that, while special trains can be arranged, it is impossible to go further under present conditions and grant a reduction of fares, which would involve an enormous increase in railway travelling—a far greater increase than that which has been made.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Lord will notice that I did not say a word about fares.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: No; but I thought the noble Earl would like to hear a statement on that point.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of March 26]

MANSFIELD RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESinformed the House that the opposition to the Bill
1118
was withdrawn: The Orders made on the 27th of February last and the 6th instant, discharged, and Bill committed.

SUNDERLAND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.

STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to the Standard Life Assurance Company—Was presented by the Lord Stanmore, read la; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, section 7), deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eight o'clock.