Lords Sitting of 12 November 1919

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
EARL HAIG.
Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig, K.T., G.C.B., O.M., G.C.V.O., K.C.I.E., having been created Baron HAIG of BEMERSYDE, in the County of Berwick, Viscount DAWICK, and Earl HAIG—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD HORNE.
General Sir Henry Sinclair Horne, K.C.B., K.C.M.G., having been created Baron HORNE of STIRKOKE, in the County of Caithness—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD WAVERTREE.
William Hall Walker, Esquire, having been created Baron WAVERTREE of DELAMERE, in the County of Chester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
WATER PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a.

STORE CATTLE FROM ABROAD.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE rose to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has had before him any application from the Canadian Government for the admission of store cattle; and if so, if he will undertake before agreeing to such request to give an opportunity for the House to consider the whole question of admission of store cattle from abroad in view of the great danger to our own flocks and herds by such admission; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should not have raised this subject again so soon had there not been a change in the Presidency of the Board of Agriculture, and also had rumours not reached me that the Government are contemplating the admission of Canadian store cattle, if not
204
of all other store cattle, into this country and the repeal of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1896. I should like to take the occasion to congratulate my noble friend Lord Lee on his appointment as President of the Board of Agriculture. Those who knew hint in the House of Commons, where as a great agriculturist he represented a county division, are delighted to know that he occupies this very responsible position.
My excuse for bringing this question once more before your Lordships is that there is undoubtedly a feeling of great unrest amongst the farmers upon this matter. Only last week at the Council meeting of the Royal Agricultural Society there was a report brought up by the Veterinary Committee of that important body, to which so many of your Lordships belong, which report said this—
"Foot-and-Mouth Disease.—During the same four weeks 21 outbreaks of the disease have been confirmed. These occurred in the counties of Warwick (2), Cambridge (3), Huntingdon (2), and the Isle of Wight (14). Since the beginning of the year 49 outbreaks have been reported, and in connection with these 1,762 animals have been slaughtered as diseased or exposed to infection. During the past week an additional outbreak has been confirmed in Lincolnshire."
I rather think there has been a further outbreak since then. A discussion upon that alarming report followed; and in view of this statement by the Veterinary Committee, the Council of the Royal Agricultural Society passed the following resolution—
"That in view of the alarming outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, any relaxation of the law prohibiting the importation of store cattle from abroad is to be strongly deprecated, and the Council desire again to emphasise their support of the following resolution passed by the representatives of agricultural and breed societies in the Cardiff showyard."
The resolution there referred to is as follows—
"That having, regard to the great importance of protecting the live stock of this country from the introduction of contagious disease, this meeting of representatives of agricultural and breed societies deprecates in the strongest manner any proposals to repeal the Diseases of Animals Act, 1896."
I think those quotations show that the whole of the agriculturists not only in this country but in Ireland and Scotland are very nervous about the present state of things, and rightly so when we are suffering from this serious outbreak of foot-and-

205
mouth disease. Most of the 1,700 animals slaughtered were cows in milk or in calf, and in these days of shortage of milk it is a serious matter that it should be necessary to slaughter them owing to disease.
It is rather unfortunate that when this question came up before the Imperial Conference in April, 1917, the then President of the Board of Agriculture, Lord Ernle (I do not see him in his place) treated it in a rather light manner. He said that in this country we were very "panicky" about outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia; that the date on which our policy was founded with regard to that was 1892; that he had seen the papers of 1892 and there was not a case of pleuro-pneumonia at all. That seems to be a rather remarkable statement for the President to have made; he had only had the papers that morning, and had had apparently only one case before him in 1892, yet he says that the whole of our legislation was based upon that case which turned out to be not pleuro-pneumonia at all. But that is entirely contrary to the facts; because what really happened was this. The legislation was really founded upon the serious outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia which occurred in 1890 when the figures for four months showed that pleuro-pneumonia existed in twenty counties in England, that there were about 190 outbreaks in all involving the immediate destruction of many infected cattle and of 5,389 healthy cattle because they had been exposed to contagion.
Not only did contagious pleuro-pneumonia exist in Canada, but I find the same thing happened as regards other countries in connection with the import of Canadian cattle. The Belgian Government in 1894 prohibited cattle from Canada being imported, and Germany did the same; so that besides this country, Belgium and Germany were satisfied that there was pleuro-pneumonia in Canada at that time. The Canadian Government said then, as they say now, that the disease did not exist. The experts of the Board of Agriculture in 1894, together with outside experts who were called in, pronounced the disease to be pleuro-pneumonia. Notwithstanding this, the Canadian Government sent a remonstrance to the Governor-General in 1895 saying—
"The conclusions of the Board of Agriculture in their minute that such disease exists in Canada and that it is contagious pleuro-pneumonia of a
206
special type but not different in its 'contagious and fatal effects' from the commonly accepted type known in Europe and elsewhere is altogether irreconcilable with the fact that it cannot be at all found in Canada, and that it has never, in any part of the Dominion, ever been known; that no trace of it even has been nor can be discovered. This declaration is made after very earnest search by Veterinaries employed for that purpose by the Canadian Government."
This shows that in 1894, as at the present time, there was the same conflict of opinion between the people of this country and the people of Canada.
I admit that if the noble Lord is going to say that his advisers tell him things are now entirely different, then the President has other grounds to go upon; if he is able to say that now, contrary to what happened in 1894, in 1896, and up to the time when I left the Board of Agriculture in 1911—when all the experts at the Board were unanimous against admitting store cattle from Canada or any other country abroad because of contagious disease—then the case will be different. The advisers of the noble Lord are Sir Stuart Stockman and Mr. Anstruther, the latter of whom had charge of the particular section and has been through this business from the beginning. It will be interesting to hear from the noble Lord whether at the present moment there has been an absolute change of opinion on the part of the officials at the Board of Agriculture responsible for the care of our live-stock.
I may say that I think it is rather remarkable that Lord Ernle (he was Mr. Prothero at the time) should once have said that he had never consulted the Irish Department in this matter. What he said was this—
"I am afraid I ought to consult the Irish Department because they may make difficulties, but I do not think they will, because, as I say, the whole development of Irish farming is in favour of the break up of these great grass ranches on which the store cattle were grazed, and from which they were sent over."
That is a question with which I am not competent to deal, but there are many noble Lords present from Ireland who will be able to say whether that is the case, and whether matters have changed since the days when Ireland was certainly unanimous against the introduction of stores from Canada or elsewhere. I remember very well in a discussion which took place in 1906 on a private Member's Bill introduced in the House of Commons by Mr. Cairns in the first session of the Liberal

207
Government—I am not sure whether my noble friend Lord Lee remembers it—that Mr. William O'Brien stated that if that Bill was passed it would render, at the very lowest, 200,000 holdings in Ireland absolutely unprofitable and unproductive. That is a very strong statement to make, and if the conditions in Ireland are to-day the same as they were then it would be very serious indeed to repeal this Act and allow stores to come into this country from abroad. I have taken this case, so far, down to 1894.
Then came the Act of 1896. Up till 1896 it was within the discretion of the President of the Board of Agriculture whether or not he would admit stores. It was thought by the then Government that it was very desirable to give absolute security to agriculturists and that there should be no change in the practice of the Board. Mr. Walter Long, in introducing the Bill of 1896, said that uncertainty prevented agriculturists from embarking their capital and skill in an industry of which the fruits were not quickly realised and which might, at any time, be destroyed, if, by the removal of the restrictions, disease was suddenly introduced. I believe these words are equally true to-day, as they were in 1896. If the Government are unable to give any assurance to agriculturists such as was given by Mr. Walter Long that the Act of 1896 will be continued and this country will be kept, so far as possible, immune from disease, there will be the greatest feeling of anxiety and a sense among agriculturists that their business is not secure. I have often read the noble Lord's speeches in which he said that the greatest boon at present is to make agriculturists feel perfectly secure in their business, so that they can go ahead and invest their capital in the most important industry in this country. Mr. Long further said that pleuro-pneumonia was difficult of detection owing to the fact that it might long be latent without declaring itself, and that sheep scab was also difficult to detect and had done great mischief among the flocks. We have to bear this point in mind—that pleuro-pneumonia is difficult to detect. The Canadian Government, in perfectly good faith, may examine all the stores before they are embarked, but the cattle may develop pleuro-pneumonia on the voyage and the disease might be discovered only after the stores had been scattered throughout the length and breadth of the land.
Again, I notice that Mr. Walter Long referred to a question which I am sorry to say was raised last July. He said it had been contended in some quarters that this measure—the Act of 1896—was an attempt to introduce the principle of protection in favour of our cattle owners, but he could assure the House that the Government had no such object in view. He should have thought that in those days no honourable Member would have regarded it as possible that the Government should take any steps that could be looked upon as protective in the ordinary sense of the word—that is to say, that they would exclude foreign and Colonial cattle in order to enhance the price of meat here. I am sorry to say that that attitude has been departed from by Lord Ernle, because by his direction the Earl of Crawford last July said—
"The position is this. The Board acknow-ledges in the fullest measure that the ground of the prohibition on which Canadian stores, born and reared in Canada, and leaving it for the first time, are now excluded is not justified, and that they are, and for many years have been, exceptionally free from disease. But the Board is equally strong in the opinion that no relaxation of the prohibition itself is possible in the interests of live stock at home. It follows that, if the present ground of the prohibition is removed as a matter of justice to Canada, the prohibition itself must remain as part of the domestic policy of the United Kingdom."
Clearly, if that is the attitude still of the Board, the meaning is that although Canada is perfectly free from disease we are going to exclude Canadian stores not on the ground of disease but on the ground that we desire to protect the British breeder as against the foreign breeder. The noble Lord shakes his head. Then there is no intention to do that, and we are not to have this fiscal policy revived in this way. If he had not shaken his head I should have asked how could he refuse to keep out Canadian cattle on protective grounds?
I have now brought the case up to 1896. As a matter of fact it goes on much later, because it was only in 1910 that this question again came up in the House of Commons. The noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture is perfectly aware that this is a question which has created a great deal of controversy in the Party to which I belong—the Liberal Party—which has continually opposed his Party on the question. There were only a certain number of county Liberals like myself who consistently supported Mr. Walter Long in the Act of 1896. When the Liberal Government came into power with

209
their enormous majority in 1906, it was touch and go whether the Act would not have been repealed. The feeling was strong in the country, and was acknowledged by the Government to be strong, that it was not a protective measure except as against disease. If for one moment it had been based on the protection of the industry for the benefit of the English or Irish breeder of stock, then that Act would have been repealed immediately so far as the House of Commons was concerned.
I hope the noble Lord is going to tell us that it will be equally so in the future and that the Government will not base its action on anything but the question of disease and upon sanitary protection of herds and flocks. Otherwise I am afraid the time will come when the thorny question of Protection versus Free Trade will be raised as it has been raised in the past in the House of Commons. If that happens one cannot tell what will follow. Up to now, whether the Government has been Liberal or Conservative, agriculturists have been able to insist that it is not a question of protection in the fiscal sense, but entirely a question of the protection of our flocks and herds from disease. So far we have been successful. I venture to ask the noble Lord if he will give some specific assurance on this matter. I can assure him, and he must realise it, that agriculturists in this country, as represented by the Royal Agricultural Society and the great agricultural societies in Scotland and Ireland, feel very strongly on the matter and they are very nervous. It is not right to describe them as "panicky."
It is desirable that we should have some specific assurances. I therefore put these questions to the noble Lord. Does the President of the Board of Agriculture accept the position taken up by the late President in regard to the importation of Canadian cattle and justify it on the same grounds after having looked into the question himself? If so, does he now base the prohibition as long as it is continued on protection of the industry of breeding stores here and not on protection from disease? Will he undertake not to introduce legislation to repeal the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1896, during the present Parliament? I beg to move for Papers.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LEE OF FAREHAM): My Lords, may I, in
210
the first instance, thank my noble friend Lord Strachie for his very kindly welcome to me in my new and exceedingly difficult position, and assure him that it is a very great encouragement to me to receive such expressions from one who is so much identified with agricultural interests in this House.
The question which the noble Lord raises is one admittedly of very great importance, and, as he rightly says, it has not been raised today for the first time. Indeed, it was raised in your Lordships' House only as recently as last July, and a reply was then given on behalf of the Government by my noble friend the Earl of Crawford, in which he stated the general conclusions to which the Government had come. I may say at once that there has been no change up to the present time. The considerations which influenced the Government then have only been emphasised by the events which have taken place since. I do not deduce from the reply of the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, on that occasion the conclusion that the Government were animated by a desire to institute protection in the fiscal sense for the flocks and herds in this country. That certainly was not their intention and the noble Lord has read into the answer something which was not really there.
I will put the noble Lord out of, I will not say his misery, but his anxiety at once by replying specifically to the Question on the Paper. I prefer to answer his Question rather than the somewhat controversial series of questions which he has put to me. I do not wish to be involved in any controversy with my predecessors, and I hope I shall be able to show that the policy of the Board has been consistent in this matter throughout. The noble Lord asks whether the President of the Board of Agriculture has had before him any application from the Canadian Government for the admission of store cattle. The reply to that is that the Canadian Government made strong representations at the time of the Imperial War Conference in 1917, and those representations have never been withdrawn. As to the second part of the Question, the existing embargo could not be withdrawn without fresh legislation, and therefore your Lordships' House, indeed both Houses of Parliament, would have the fullest opportunity of considering and discussing the whole matter before

211
any change could be made. I will add a reply to a question which is not specifically on the Paper but which is undoubtedly implied—that is, that the Government do not propose to introduce legislation for the purpose of removing the embargo under present conditions, for reasons which I will give to your Lordships. That is the reply to the Question on the Paper.
Before giving the reasons to which I have just alluded I feel bound to say that I cannot endorse Lord Strachie's main argument that Canadian cattle ought to be excluded on the grounds of the existence, or suspicion of existence, of disease in Canada. On the contrary, I doubt if there is any country in the world which has a more blameless record with regard to cattle disease. Certainly the record is better than our own in this country. Canada is, and has been for a long period of years, exceptionally free from cattle disease. There has certainly been no foot-and-mouth disease or pleuro-pneumonia for many years. The official experts of the Board of Agriculture are in full agreement with that statement. That being the case, it is only natural that the Canadian Government should resent, and I think rightly resent, what they consider to be an implied stigma, or to use their own phrase "an undeserved slur," upon the Canadian herds. They speak of it as "an old sore," "a long-standing grievance"; it was not merely a "slur" in the sentimental sense, but it was very injurious to Canada in her business relations with other countries.
In that matter, therefore, I feel bound to re-echo what was said by my predecessor at the Imperial Conference, and endorsed by the present First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. Long (then Colonial Secretary), and acquit Canada in the most explicit and unreserved way from the stigma to which they object, and to say that we recognise that the embargo could not be justified on the ground that Canadian cattle if imported were likely to infect our herds in this country. I will go further, and say that I think the Prime Minister of Canada, Sir Robert Borden, was fully justified in stating at the Imperial Conference that there would be far more reason to exclude British cattle from Canada on these grounds than there would be to exclude Canadian cattle from this country.
Lord Strachie was hardly fair, I think, to my predecessor (Lord Ernle) in stating that he treated this question in a light
212
manner at the Conference. I am quite certain that he did not think of it lightly, and that he gave it the most serious consideration. It is admitted that under the then existing conditions—and that is really the important point—both Lord Ernle and the then Colonial Secretary agreed that the embargo might be removed. But the case to-day is that the conditions have changed in many material respects. I would remind your Lordships that the Prime Minister of Canada stated at that time in the most open way that, if the stigma and slur were removed, it was a matter entirely of domestic concern to this country to decide what action, if any, should be taken with regard to the exclusion of cattle from any part of the world.
I said that circumstances have changed. They have changed in one respect in a very unfortunate direction. There has been recently, no doubt as a result of the war, a very grave increase of cattle disease all over the world. The conditions are very alarming, and I feel bound to inform your Lordships of the extent of the peril with which we are threatened at the present time. I have here the latest figures available with regard to foot-and-mouth disease on the Continent of Europe. The last return from France, dated October 10, shows 46 Departments affected, 4,900 animals concerned, and there is an average of 400 new premises infected every ten days. In Belgium the position is worse. The latest returns show that there are 9 infected Provinces, 17,684 animals concerned, and new premises infected at the rate of over 300 per week. In Holland 11 Provinces are affected and 1,646 premises. That is a very serious and very near menace. With regard to other countries, practically all the countries in South America are more or less affected at the present time. There is disease in eleven districts of Argentina, and Paraguay reports disease throughout the whole country, while Brazil reports very few districts free from it. This shows that the world position has greatly changed for the worse, and we have unfortunately the repercussion of it at this moment in this country.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: You are speaking entirely of foot-and-mouth disease?
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Yes. We have a series of extremely serious and quite inexplicable outbreaks of foot-and-mouth

213
disease in this country. They are widely separated, and in spite of the fullest investigation we are unable to find any clue whatever as to how the disease has been imported. Unusual precautions are being taken at all the Continental ports and at ports of entry in this country, but so far without stopping the apparent import of the disease; and I need hardly assure your Lordships that the Board of Agriculture, in conjunction with other Government Departments, are taking every precaution possible, and that there has been no relaxation whatsoever of the regulations. At the same time I should like to say that the amount of slaughtering has not been excessive as compared with previous outbreaks, and I venture to hope that there is no occasion for panic. At the same time we do deduce this, that in this world condition, which is bound to continue for many years, the only hope of safety lies in isolating the United Kingdom as far as possible, because we cannot afford in a matter which so gravely affects the whole of the agricultural industry to take any unnecessary risks.
Another condition which has changed greatly since the Imperial War Conference in 1917 is that the advantage to us of importing store cattle which existed then has largely disappeared. In 1917 we were confronted with the submarine menace, with all its infinite possibilities. There was an actual shortage of meat in this country. We were beginning deliberately to live on our herds for food purposes, and any inportation of cattle from overseas was a much-needed reinforcement of our food supplies. To-day there is no shortage of meat in this country. There is even a surplus. In fact, the markets are unable to absorb the amount of home-grown cattle which is offered. There is an almost embarrassing glut. This is due, apart from other considerations, to a curious and interesting fact. As the result of war rationing of meat the British people have learned to eat less meat. They find it agrees with them, and I have no doubt that if we continue in that course we shall be a better-looking and more healthy people in the future than we have been in the past. But however that may be, it is undoubtedly the fact that at the present time the demands upon butchers are not more than 75 per cent. of the normal demands. Therefore this rather embarrassing situation has resulted, that farmers are unable to dispose of their fat cattle
214
and sheep owing to the falling off in the demand.
There is another consideration—namely, that owing to world difficulties there is an actual shortage of feeding stuffs available for the herds which we have already in this country. If we imported large numbers of additional cattle we should be unable to feed them, and a very serious position would result. Apart from that, there could be little advantage in importing stores from Canada or elsewhere unless they were cheap, and under the existing conditions of freight, which is as high as £15 or £18 per head from Canada at the present time, stores certainly could not be delivered here cheaply. Consequently from the point of view of the consumer they would only represent eventually very dear meat, and no benefit whatever in the shape of a fall of price to the consumer in this country would result.
For these and other reasons, my Lords, in the view of the Board of Agriculture it would be quite inopportune to consider removing the embargo or altering existing legislation. In any case there would be great difficulties. As pointed out by Lord Strachie, there would be very serious opposition from Ireland, and well justified and great objection would be taken by the whole agricultural community to any repeal of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1896. That Act applies to all countries alike, and if we repealed it we should have to institute a process of discrimination which would be difficult and invidious. Altogether, in view of the changed circumstances since the qualified undertaking was given by the Government in 1917, we are not prepared to introduce legislation to alter the existing law. At the same time I feel once more bound to dissociate the Government in the most formal way from the reflections upon Canada implied in Lord Strachie's speech, and to renew in the most formal way our withdrawal of the stigma to which the Canadian Government so rightly object. The matter has now become one simply of domestic concern, to use Sir Robert Borden's phrase, and a matter with regard to which the Government must consider and safeguard British interests to the exclusion of all other considerations.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord opposite will allow me to join my noble friend Lord Strachie in the congratulations addressed to him on

215
his undertaking his important office in this House. I can venture, I think, to assure the noble Lord that those in this House who are deeply interested in agricultural matters —and they are very numerous—will welcome the contributions which he will make to our debates, and that he will always receive the fairest treatment from members of this House.
We have all, I think, heard with great relief the announcement made by the noble Lord. As Lord Strachie stated, the agricultural world has been deeply moved over this matter of the possible importation of store cattle. My noble friend mentioned the Royal Society, from which I have no doubt many of your Lordships have received a circular on this subject. Two bodies with which I happen at this time to be officially connected as an officer—namely, the Central Chamber of Agriculture and the Shorthorn Society—have both expressed the deepest concern over the prospect of the unrestricted importation of Canadian cattle, which seemed likely from what, as we know, passed within the last two years. I cordially join in what fell from the noble Lord regarding the stigma which Sir Robert Borden and many other people in Canada conceived was unfairly laid upon that country in this matter of the importation of store cattle as it referred specially to Canada. There was, as has often been explained, a special risk in connection with Canada owing to the fact that the vastly long frontier between Canada and the United States could not be entirely guarded against the transit of cattle, possibly diseased; and therefore even though Canada itself might appear to be immune, it did not follow that imported cattle might not be diseased.
But I for one, have always desired to put this matter on far more general grounds. I believe it to be a mistake, owing to the offence which it gave, to pick out Canada as being a specially risky country in this respect, when we all know that there were other countries to which far more danger may have attached. But I should like to act on grounds of the broadest principle. I desire to see the importation of all cattle into this country in any circumstances made practically impossible, except in certain cases for breeding purposes under regulations of the strictest quarantine. We have to regard this country as being specially and primarily, for farming purposes, a
216
stockbreeding country. As your Lordships know, there are five or six breeds of cattle in these islands differing from, and as we think superior to, any others which can be found either in Europe or any other part of the World, and of which the type (as can be very easily shown) changes when these breeds are imported to other countries, even though they may be exceedingly successful there and do well; so much so that perpetually from all parts of the World breeders have to come back here to get the best blood, and to import bulls in order to keep the type in its best form. As we all know, on a smaller scale with regard to the Channel Islands breeds, both the Jersey and Guernsey type changes even when it comes as far as this country, and those desiring to keep a real Channel Islands herd have from time to time to import an Island bull in order to maintain the character. This being so there is a complete answer to complaints, whether made by Canada or by any other country, regarding the importation of store cattle.
The noble Lord has been able to show that at this particular moment the dangers are extreme. The figures which he gave about foot-and-mouth disease on the Continent of Europe are positively terrifying, and it is quite clear that it must be a long time before an embargo could be removed, even if we desired to remove it. It is easy to understand the absolute confusion into which agricultural conditions have been thrown by the war. The irregular movements of forage and litter and the like must have made the conditions infinitely more dangerous than they would be in normal times, and it must be a long time before those dangers pass away; but I make bold to observe that, even if they do pass away, when they do pass away and even when the risk of foot-and-mouth disease and also of pleuro-pneumonia has returned to the normal scale, I trust that even then, and for the reasons which I have tried to explain, there will be no question of the introduction of store cattle into this country either from Canada or from anywhere else. By all means do not let us lay any special stigma on Canada, but let us take this opportunity of laying it down as a firm principle, not to be departed from, that cattle should not be imported into this country.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, it is with a sense of great relief that I heard the speech of the noble Lord the President

217
of the Board of Agriculture upon a subject which appears to me to be vital to the continued prosperity of agriculture and its due output of food for the people of this country, and, if I may say so, I hope that the President of the Board is now impressed with the belief that this a matter upon which vacillation is unthinkable, and that, without any slur upon Canada or any other part of the Empire, the policy of this country as shown by the experience of the last forty years should undoubtedly be to exclude cattle—as the noble Marquess has suggested—and other domestic live stock of every description, subject to those exceptions which he himself has put forward.
I do not know what the exact nature of the undertaking was that appears to have been given by Ministers of the Crown in the year 1917, but I do know that it has led to the impression throughout the agricultural world here, and indeed in certain other parts of the Empire, that it was the intention of the Government of this country to discontinue the policy which it has maintained with great courage and determination for at least twenty-five or thirty years. As the noble Marquess has pointed out—and my noble friend Lord Strachie, I believe, also mentioned it—it is quite impossible in this matter to distinguish between Canada and other parts of the North American Continent. With the very long, tortuous frontier of several thousand miles you cannot have one law in this respect for Canada and another law for other parts of the American Continent. Foot-and-mouth disease is raging in certain parts of South America to-day. Importers into the Argentine and other countries of the best British stock are finding that, whereas the animals are quite free from all disease when they leave this country they become affected with disease even in the receiving stations and the quarantine stations before they enter the farms of those countries.
Before the war we were responsible for the supply from our own islands of no less than 65 per cent. of the meat that our population requires. That fact is due entirely to the past policy of the Government in keeping our flocks and herds immune from serious contagious diseases imported from abroad. I venture to go so far as to say with some knowledge of the food position during the war that immunity from serious live stock disease was more
218
largely responsible than any other one factor for the avoidance of national starvation during that critical period. Thirty or forty years ago, as we all know, the livestock population of this country was seriously attenuated owing to the ravages of these contagious diseases—not only foot-and-mouth disease but pleuro-pneumonia and cattle plague and other alarming and devastating diseases. Under cover of continuous Government protection from that time till now against imported disease livestock husbandry has become the sheet anchor of British agriculture and has been built up to dimensions that could not possibly have been contemplated at the time the Board of Agriculture was set up.
May I, in passing, remind the House that the Board of Agriculture owes its origin to the prevalence of these seriously contagious diseases, and to the then universally felt necessity for adopting a strenuous Government policy against their importation? The very existence of the Board is due to the necessity of taking action against the importation of these serious diseases. The noble Marquess has not in any way over-estimated the importance of British livestock when he reminds us that this country is to-day the reservoir—and will continue to be the reservoir if adequate protection is afforded—of all the best farm stock in the world of every variety, and this for two main reasons. One reason he has mentioned— namely, that all importing countries have to come back to us in order to maintain the type of stock which they require. Another very good reason is that it is known all over the world that we have hitherto adopted this policy of protecting our livestock against these serious diseases.
It may be suggested that there is some sectional interest at work in this matter. There is no difference of opinion among leading agriculturists, whatever be the particular type of their husbandry. I had the honour some years before the war of sitting upon a Departmental Committee set up by the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, to consider the question of the causes and prevalence of foot-and-mouth disease. As your Lordships may remember, that Committee reported unanimously in favour of the maintenance of the existing Government precautions against the importation of disease. Unfortunately they could not trace with any certainty then what the origin of the disease was, and, as the President of the Board has pointed out

219
to-day, although disease is prevalent in this country he himself and his advisers find it impossible to say where the disease comes from.
It is some source of satisfaction to us all to know that, for the present at least, no alteration of policy is intended. And I wish that the President of the Board could have gone further and have said on behalf of the Government that, whatever may be the condition for the time being in the matter of the prevalence of cattle disease in this country, it is the definite and continuous policy of the Board that there shall be no alteration as regards the importation of stock and that the embargo shall continue to be placed upon it not merely in the best interests of the agricultural community but in the interests of the continuance of the food supply of the nation.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, I should like to add one word of congratulation to the newly-appointed President of the Board of Agriculture. I can confirm from my own knowledge the welcome with which his announcement will be received by agriculturists in all parts of the country that he does not intend to introduce legislation for the withdrawal of the restrictions which make us practically safe in this country from pleuro-pneumonia. I think we shall all be grateful to the noble Lord for giving us unasked the information which he has done with regard to the strange and formidable progress of foot-and-mouth disease in this country, and, indeed, in many parts of the world. Foot-and-mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia, however, are two things that are quite distinct from each other and it is to pleuro-pneumonia alone that the Motion on the Paper applies. There is so much ignorance on the subject of these contagious diseases in many quarters of England that I should like to draw as briefly as I can the distinctions between them. I have heard the strangest things said, even in this House, upon that point. Foot-and mouth disease is a disease by which the contagion can be conveyed in a hundred different ways. It is the easiest thing in the world to spread it; it is one of the most difficult to put a stop to it when it has spread very widely. It does not last very long—that is the only thing to be said in its favour. I have had considerable experience in coping with that disease when it was in existence in no less than sixteen different counties, and we were able to pronounce a clean bill of
220
health, I think, within five months. I am not afraid, therefore, that with proper management and with the intelligence with which, I am sure, as long as the noble Lord is President of the Board, the crusade against it will be carried out, the country will suffer anything like permanently from foot-and-mouth disease, and I hope it may be extinguished again within a reasonable time.
I should like to ask one question which has occurred to me in consequence of the extraordinarily rapid rise of foot-and-mouth disease without any apparent reason. Is it possible that it may have been conveyed maliciously, and been done on purpose by foreign enemies? That has occurred to me, and when I remember the way in which wells used to be poisoned and other things of that kind done by emissaries of the country with which we have just been at war, it has occurred to me that that might be a subject well worth consideration by the Board of Agriculture.
Just one word about pleuro-pneumonia. Pleuro-pneumonia has this peculiarity, that it can only be conveyed by the immediate contact of one animal with another. That is why the law provides in the case of cattle who suffer from pleuro-pneumonia when they are imported into this country alive that they shall not leave the wharf alive. That is an absolute safeguard against the reintroduction of the disease, because no animal coming from any other country can have immediate contact with English cattle as long as that precaution continues—a precaution which I sincerely hope and trust will never be removed.
I entirely agree with what fell from the noble Marquess in his observations about Canada. It is no reflection upon Canada. It applies to animals from every other part of the world, and the only reason why Canada has been brought so much into this question is that she is the one country, I believe, that has asked and pressed for relief from this particular restriction. I am not here to say that there is any disease of that nature in Canada; no one can say that, though I am not quite sure that at the same time they can say there is not any. It is not denied, however, that pleuro-pneumonia exists to-day in the United States; and when we remember that between Canada and the United States there is a line of some 3,000 miles in length which can be crossed with great ease, it would be very difficult to guard

221
against the importation of cattle from the United States into Canada which might possibly have within them the seeds of the disease. The difficulty of the whole position is that you cannot detect the disease nowadays in the living animal. I have never heard of a test that is efficient in the case of animals that have once been inoculated for the disease; they do not respond; but at the same time they have it in them and may convey it to animals with which they come into contact. In conclusion, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord for the manner in which he has met us in the course of this debate.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I rise only to ask leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name, and to assure the noble Lord that had such a statement been made on the previous occasion as he has now made, it would not have been necessary for me to put down my Question to-day.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, in asking you to give a Second Reading to this Bill I attempt a task which, I fear, must be tedious and somewhat lengthy in its performance. The subject is technical; it is one in which, as I have reason to know from what has been put to me, some of your Lordships take an interest and in respect of which some desire explanations; therefore it seems to me that the most convenient course that I can adopt is to give a general explanation of the objects of the Bill and then a more particular explanation of some of its most important clauses. I may say at the outset, for the convenience of those who desire to take part in the debates in Committee, that I do not propose to ask your Lordships to take the Committee stage next week but probably in ten or twelve days; in any event, adequate notice will be given of the precise date.
This Bill deals with matters that were really dealt with in a Bill to amend the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, which was introduced into the House of Commons in November, 1917. The Bill then introduced was not in fact proceeded with, but advan-
222
tage has been taken of the criticisms and suggestions then made to re-draft the Bill, and as re-drafted and presented to the House to-day it contains amendments to the Act which in the opinion of the Board of Trade are desirable. The experience which the Board has gained in administering the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks (Temporary Rules) Act, 1914, under which licences are granted to work old patents and designs, has naturally been of great advantage in drafting the Bill, and its provisions—I hope your Lordship will observe this—have been framed after the most careful consideration by a special expert Committee consisting of some of the principal legal and expert authorities on Patent Law. It has also been examined and approved of by the Advisory Commercial Council of the Board of Trade.
Now as to the main objects of the Bill, and I will attempt to dispose of these as shortly as I can. The Bill is put forward in the interests of reconstruction and of trade generally. Its main objects are to prevent the abuse of patent monopoly, to encourage and reward inventors, and to secure the earliest possible use of inventions. Special attention has been given to provisions—of which I will not say more in detail at the moment—to prevent the obstructive use which may be made of foreign-owned patents, and the Bill contains numerous minor amendments which the experience of the last ten years has shown to be necessary.
Let me say, first of all, a word as to the prevention of the abuse of patent monopoly. The object of granting patents for new inventions is one with which your Lordships are familiar; it is primarily to benefit the trade or industry concerned. You may attempt to achieve this object in a variety of ways, none of which, considered individually, would be adequate for that purpose. For instance, it is not enough to reward the inventor; it is necessary also to secure that the new invention should be brought into commercial use without undue delay. To bring a new invention into commercial use requires in many ways, for obvious reasons, the co-operation of the capitalist, and the readiest way of securing this co-operation is the grant of a monopoly. That is an economic conclusion which was reached in its main features many years ago in this and other connections. It is a familiar observation that a monopoly,

223
being contrary to the common right, can be justified only by some consideration which offers an advantage to the public. The consideration which justifies the grant of a monopoly to a new invention is not only to use it for the advantage of the public but also to benefit the trade by new inventions being brought into commercial use during the period of the monopoly. The public are entitled to have a monopoly so framed and guarded that they are not deprived of this consideration. The difficulty is that of preventing the abuse of the patent monopoly without so restricting it as to disincline the capitalist to finance it.
The chief abuses of the patent monopoly may be summarised under three heads. In the first place, the prevention of abuse within the Realm of all patents of invention from indirect ulterior motives; in the second place, using a patent monopoly to encourage trade abroad and injuring it here; and, in the third place, hindering trade in the Realm by unfairly refusing the grant of licences. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill are an attempt to deal with the whole question by a complete and comprehensive scheme for the purpose both of encouraging manufacture within the Realm and preventing the abuse of a patent monopoly. As regards Clause 1 the procedure as to the grant of the compulsory licences under Section 24 of the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, has been found in practice to be both cumbrous and inconvenient, and it has been very rarely used in fact, though great hopes were entertained of it when it was first adopted. As regards Section 27 of the earlier Act the standard of comparison between British and foreign manufacture was one which was extremely difficult to work out in practice, simply because the necessary data were not available. Further, other cases have occurred where the appropriate remedy is revocation, and still others where the appropriate remedy is a compulsory licence. Under the old practice one had no alternative, but experience suggests that there is no reason for not allowing a tribunal to order either remedy in its discretion. It is therefore proposed in Clause 1 to replace both the sections to which I have referred by a single one, amalgamating the procedure so far as possible. The procedure recommended is a simple and inexpensive procedure which it is hoped, will be found generally convenient.
224
I ought to make an observation now as to the second object which I defined as the second general object—namely, the assistance and encouragement which the State ought to give in order, so far as possible, to bring about the early use of inventions. Clause 2 is specially designed to encourage the bringing of inventions to commercial use at the earliest possible moment, and it is hoped also that this clause will be of great assistance to the poorer inventor. Under the terms of the clause the patentee may at any time cause his patent to be endorsed by the words "licence of right." In any such case any person is entitled to the grant of a licence upon terms which in default of agreement, are settled by the Controller. Clause 2 further lays down the principles upon which such licences should be framed. When patents are so endorsed the patentee pays only half the yearly renewal fees from the date of such endorsement. It is hoped that this provision will be a great boon to the poorer inventor who cannot find sufficient financial support and who is often unable to place himself in touch with those who might be disposed to utilise his invention. It is also believed that it will be found an advantage to those manufacturers who desire to make an early use of any important improvements in processes or in machinery.
I said that the third general object which it was hoped to attain was the extension of the grounds of opposition, and I ought to say a word, perhaps, about that, because I understand that some doubt or apprehension is entertained upon that part of the Bill. Clause 4 extends the grounds of opposition and provides that the grant of patent rights may be opposed on the ground that the invention was published in any printed document published before the date of application. This clause will, it is hoped, help to secure the validity of patents which are granted. It is in some respects a substitution for a provision which, in the view of the board, is unsatisfactory and one which presents very considerable difficulty.
Clauses 6 and 7 deal with the subject of the extension of the terms of the patent, as to which your Lordships know there has been a great deal of discussion among inventors and traders. The Bill proposes, in the clauses to which I have referred, to extend the life of all existing patents for a period of two years, thus making the normal period of a patent sixteen years

225
from the date of application, instead of fourteen as at present. By a further amendment to Section 18 of the existing Act, Courts are given specific power for the extension of the terms of a patent where the patentee, as such, has suffered special loss or damage as the result of the present war. There are many such cases of hardship, and your Lordships will probably be of opinion that some such assistance should be given to them. It is hoped that these two proposals will satisfy the demands of those who have asked that some provision should be made to deal with the more essential cases. The extension of two years will have the additional advantage that it will bring the period of protection in this country into closer agreement with the period that is given in other countries which are parties to the International Convention for the protection of industrial property.
There are other clauses in the Bill with which I do not think it is necessary at this stage that I should trouble your Lordships, because I have given a general statement which indicates the main objects of the Government in making their proposals. If there is any obscurity I shall, of course, be very pleased to deal with any special cases if any further observations are invited from me. I may, perhaps, say one word about the Schedule. The Schedule of the Bill contains several minor amendments to the Act of 1907 which experience has shown to be desirable. Some of the amendments are by way of deletion of matter which has become obsolete, or they merely make statutory what is at present office procedure. There are certain amendments to Section 5 of the Act of 1907 and other sections. Those of your Lordships who take a special interest in this subject will be able to call attention to any special amendment made by the Schedule as the debate takes place. I have only to add that, naturally, very great attention will be paid to the views of those of your Lordships who are interested in the subject. I shall allow a considerable period to intervene before the Committee stage takes place, and I am sure your, Lordships will put down Amendments for the Committee at as early a date as is convenient, so as to afford me an ample period in which to examine and discuss them.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, this is as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, a complicated and complex question, and I agree with him that it would be quite impossible at this stage to deal with all the detailed matters which must give rise to considerable controversy when we come to the Committee stage. I should like at the outset to associate myself with what the Lord Chancellor has said as regards the loss we are suffering in all discussions on patent questions through the death of Lord Parker. He stood out as a man of special knowledge on all such questions, to which he had given the most careful attention.
The subjects with which the Lord Chancellor said the Bill was primarily intended to deal are really in themselves easily stated, and I do not wish to re-state them. I want at this stage of our discussion to point out that the Bill is faulty in many directions. It does not carry out the ideas and principles which the noble and learned Lord has expressed as being the ideas and principles of the Government. It is, of course, a difficult topic. Monopoly is contrary to the Common Law and Statute Law of this country, and what is really done in the Statute of Monopolies as regards patent rights is not so much to safeguard, or have consideration for, the inventive faculty of the patentee, as to safeguard our industrial interests in order that; we might have the advantage of what is called "new manufactures," which are essential in order to maintain our industrial position.
What we have to carefully consider in Patent Law is whether the manufacturing side has every possible facility, consistent of course with due remuneration for the inventive faculty. As regards the abuses to which the noble and learned Lord has referred, and which he says are dealt with in Clause 1, I think by far the greatest abuse of our Patent Law is when the patentee seeks to use the monopoly right which has been granted to him in order to get indirect and outside advantages. That is absolutely inconsistent with the whole principle of our Patent Law. Unfortunately this tendency has been carried very far, so far indeed that the owners of patent rights have attempted to dominate large trades and industries in which a particular patent right may be of value, but which goes far outside any consideration as regards the use of any patent right or claim.

227
This matter is, I think, intended to be dealt with in Clause 1, sub-section (e)—
"If any trade or industry in the United Kingdom, or any person or class of persons engaged therein, is unfairly prejudiced by the conditions attached by the patentee, whether before or after the passing of this Act, to the purchase, hire, license, or use of the patented article, or to the using or working of the patented process:"
—it constitutes an abuse, in reference to which he comes under the liability of a revocation of the patent. There is attached to that a proviso which I do not think is of any importance. I consider this provision is absolutely inadequate for the purpose for which it is designed.
No provision against this monstrous abuse of monopoly right granted for patent purposes will be sufficient except one which renders any contract containing these outside conditions, which are aimed at dominating particular trades or industries, absolutely null and void. It is no good giving the right of litigation as regards the persons whose trades or industries are injuriously affected. It is a most costly matter to promote litigation against trusts and combines who deal with questions of this sort, and I hope that far more stringent regulations will be introduced.
In the well known Act, what I may call the great Consolidating Act of 1907, the original provision there was that a contract which included these outside advantages attaching to the use of patent rights should, ipso facto, become null and void. That would have been satisfactory, but unfortunately a certain proviso was attached with the result that, instead of having a very simple remedy which would have been effective in all cases, you had litigation under the terms of the proviso which was immensely costly as regards the individual, and which, so far as the combine or trade was concerned, did not really affect their gains one way or the other.
I look on this as one of the most important matters in our Patent Law. The abuse has been carried to a large extent in the United States. There was a famous action brought by the United States Government against the United Shoe Company, I think it was. It went on for eight years at a most prodigious cost, and ultimately the United States Government were defeated by a majority of one vote in the ultimate Court of Appeal. Litigation of that kind would cost any private individual thousands of pounds, and if we are to have
228
an effective remedy against this admitted abuse it ought to be a remedy which does not imply litigation but which makes these arrangements null and void. May I call your Lordships' attention to the words "unfairly prejudiced"? Whether the prejudice is unfair or not will depend on individual opinion, and to allow the individual manufacturer to embark on litigation in those circumstances is almost suicidal as regards his trade interests.
The next point on which I should like to say a word or two is with regard to the meaning of "licence." It is true that, in order that manufacturers may have the full benefit of patent grants and patent rights, you must have a system of compulsory licence. Where I think great danger lurks in the present proposal is this. You give every licencee, whatever may be the terms of his licence, the right to call upon the patentee to promote litigation (in the sense of an infringement action) whether the patentee desires it or not. In other words, you encourage litigation and in a very bad way, because the patentee himself might not desire to litigate as regards his monopoly or patent rights. The effect of the proposal is that, whether he wishes it or not, the licencee can compel the patentee to bring litigation, which may often be promoted in the interests of the licencee and not in the interests of the manufacturer or the patentee himself.
Upon that point—I have a strong feeling about litigation myself—may I read a passage from a judgment by Lord Lindley. He said—
"Every person of common sense knows what is involved in patent actions and what the expense of them is. And everybody knows that to be threatened with a patent action is about as disagreeable a thing as can happen to a man of business, and is a thing most calculated to paralyse a man in his business even if he is innocent of any infringement of the Patent Law."
That is a true statement, and I hope the clause as to licences will be altered, taking away from the licencee the right of enforcing upon the patentee to bring an action when the patentee does not want to bring it himself. Litigation ought to be reduced as far as possible.
With regard to the rights of the Crown in patent actions, I quite agree with the principle which has been adopted—that the Crown, which in this connection merely means some official in the Department,

229
should not be entitled to use patent rights and patent claims without recognition of the interest of the patentee. In other words, there is no reason whatever why an official in the Department should be put in a better position than an ordinary manufacturer. What I do object to is this, that whereas the ordinary manufacturer would have to pay whatever in the court of law was ascertained to be the cost of the infringement or the cost of using the patent right, so far as the Crown is concerned the matter is settled merely by the Treasury. There is enormous dissatisfaction amongst patentees as regards the amounts ascertained by this domestic forum, and I think the time has come when what I should call the Treasury dole ought not to be the measure of remuneration of the patentee with regard to patent rights or claims, but an official department, under the control of the Law Courts, should have to pay neither more nor less than an ordinary manufacturer has to pay if he desires to use a patented article. Let it be put on the same footing, and the same principle be applied in either case.
Then I am entirely in agreement with what the noble and learned Lord has said as regards the extension of patent rights, but I am not quite sure that the particular point to which I wish to call attention is covered by it. The proposal is generally, if I follow the Bill aright, that the fourteen years for patent rights should be extended to eighteen. To that in itself I make no objection, but I want to take a particular case. Supposing, as the noble and learned Lord has said, that during the period of the war a particular patented article has not been required or a particular patent right could not be floated, because there was no capital for purposes of that sort during the period of the war. Is there a provision in the Bill that a patentee who has suffered, and can show he has suffered, under conditions of that kind, should have a further opportunity of obtaining some remuneration when the war conditions have ended? I think that is a case where a moratorium is justified, although I do not find it is in the Bill itself.
There is another matter upon which I should like to say a word. I agree entirely with what the noble and learned Lord has said—namely that it is desirable as far as possible to go into questions concerning patent rights when the patent grant is made, in order to avoid litigation in the
230
future; and therefore he has extended the subject matters or questions which can be brought before the Controller. I desire to add my testimony as to the way in which the Controller has done his work; but when we come to the question of the amendment of patents I wish to make this suggestion. The amendment of patents is very often a complicated and technical subject. It first comes before the Controller, and then on appeal before the Law Officers. I do not wish to speak with other than great respect of the Law Officers, but they are not suited to act as judges in these matters. Many of them have no special knowledge of patent law at all, and I ask whether it is not now time to dissociate the Law Officers from matters of this kind, and allow an appeal from the Controller on the amendment of a patent to go to the Courts in the same way as other appeals from the Controller go. Except on this particular matter all appeals from the Controller go to the Courts at the present time, and without making any undue complaint I can say—I had a considerable number of patent matters to deal with when I was at the Bar—that consideration of these matters by the Law Officers appeared to me to be highly unsatisfactory, not in accordance with their ordinary duties—they had great difficulty in finding the time —and I think certainly there were many complaints. Of course, I do not want to make a complaint against them personally, but against the system.
One other point. At the present moment, if one claim to a patent is found to be bad, as the noble and learned Lord well knows, the patent right fails, and the proposal is that we should adopt what is really the American system, of a number of claims to a patent which can be considered separately, some of them good and some of them bad, and if you bring an action on a claim that is held to be good you are not defeated because there are other claims which may be held to be bad. At first sight that may appear to be a reform, but I want to suggest to your Lordships that it is quite the contrary, and that we should want to see how the matter operates. An inventor in this country—and I suppose it applies to other countries—lives very largely—I do not want to use terms of prejudice—by a suggestion to manufacturers that they are infringers. They are only too glad if they can to avoid matters of litigation, and rather than embark upon litigation they naturally very often give way.

231
What is the effect of a large number of claims? The patentee has claims on which he can make suggestions of infringement, very much to the detriment of the manufacturers. He has other claims, perhaps, which he can substantiate more easily, and in reference to which he frames his litigation, and therefore obtains an advantage of somewhat an unjust kind. He ought to stand or fall by the claims he makes, and if you compare the practice in the United States with the practice here I hope that the old practice in this country will be maintained. The practical difference is this, that in this country you find two or three carefully prepared claims—carefully prepared because it is known that if a single claim is unsupported the whole claim is upset. In America you find a patent with fifty to sixty claims, put in every variety of language, intended to frighten every kind of manufacturer within the patent area, and it does not matter how many claims there are, because if forty-nine or fifty-nine of the claims are found to be bad and one supports a claim, in that respect the patentee will succeed. At any rate I hope that the American system will not be introduced here. I have only been able very shortly to indicate one or two of the points upon which I think this Bill will require considerable revision.
As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, it is quite impossible to go at any detail into a Bill of this kind on the Second Reading, and I venture to doubt whether even in Committee a Bill of this kind can be satisfactorily discussed in your Lordships' House. It is too complicated, it is too detailed, and it requires somewhat enlarged knowledge of preceding law. Particularly is that so in a Bill of this kind where there is so much legislation by reference It is an extremely difficult and complex bill to understand, and it occurred to me that possibly we might consider it in a far more satisfactory way than it was considered in the House of Commons—where it was pushed through in a very hurried manner—by appointing a committee of your Lordships' House to consider it in detail. I only throw that out as a suggestion. I do not propose myself to make any Motion in that direction. I am sure we ought to thank the learned and noble Lord on the Woolsack for the luminous way in which he has introduced this Bill.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, naturally I come to a consideration of this question from a very different standpoint from that of the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down. It is simply because various rather important bodies of commercial men have interviewed me in regard to some of their objections to details of this Bill that I venture to say a few words about it. The whole subject, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, has said, is extraordinarily difficult, and I feel it rather an act of temerity on my part as a mere layman to speak about it, but the representations made to me have been so strong on certain points that I venture to ask your Lordships' attention for a few moments while I deal with them. I do not, of course, offer any opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill. If I may venture to say so, I think that there are useful provisions in it. I certainly shall be glad to see useful inventions more used in this country than they often have been in the past, and shall also be glad to see that foreigners will not be able to block manufacture here so as to import the goods, made under patent processes, from abroad. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has said that this Bill has, amongst other objects, the encouragement of inventors; and Sir Auckland Geddes in another place, in dealing with the Bill, said that it was introduced for the purpose of assisting and encouraging poor inventors. I cannot find much in this Bill that is really going to encourage invention. I am told that it was drawn without reference to the patentees and manufacturers, although it no doubt went before certain people qualified to express an opinion, but many of its provisions are in opposition to the recommendations that the patentees made.
It is true that the period of a patent is extended two years, and that is a concession in favour of inventors, but even so we fall short of America. There is no reduction in fees, which is advocated by many commercial men, except of course in the case of "licences of right." Many people believe that revenue will be increased and not diminished if fees are reduced, but this House is not the place where a proposal of that kind could properly be made. Some of the other provisions of the Bill are, I think, rather doubtful. The "licences of right," of which personally I approve, the power to

233
revoke patents which some commercial men object to—in regard to that I feel hardly qualified to express an opinion—the provision to which the noble and learned Lord opposite referred, and also the provision with regard to the use of a patent by the Crown—those are not provisions in themselves which encourage inventions.
It is also true that this Bill received rather scant attention in another place. It was introduced on July 15, the Standing Committee to which it was referred was changed at the last moment, and there were members of that Standing Committee who did not know until the morning of the day on which the Committee sat that it was going to sit, or that they were members of it. The result was that after very brief discussions in Committee the Bill was passed through. There were some points which were put off in Committee by the Minister in charge, the Solicitor-General, on the ground that they would be discussed on Report, and they never were discussed on Report. I suppose that either the House was tired or that the members interested were not there, and so the Bill really was very little discussed in detail. I think that is the reason why your Lordships may well consider the Bill with some care.
Unfortunately the questions in a Bill of this kind are very technical. I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with any extended remarks on details. There will be Amendments moved in all probability to extend sixteen years to eighteen years, or perhaps alternatively to make the period of sixteen or seventeen years, or whatever it may be, run from the period of acceptance and not from the period of application. I expect also that there will be an Amendment to extend by six instead of three months, as proposed by the Bill, the time for examination into the novelty of an invention—a time which is also occupied very often in settling difficulties with the Patent Office.
I believe that commercial men would like to have patent cases as far as possible sent before one Judge. That is a question on which I am hardly competent to speak, because it touches upon the legal system of this country, but as a matter of practice when the Judge is experienced in Patent Law and such questions as come up under it, I am told that the whole matter is grasped much more quickly, and the case is dealt with much more satisfactorily than when it comes before a Judge who is a
234
comparative stranger to them. If such a thing could be done so that patent cases should go before one Judge rather than before several, I believe that measure would be very gratefully received by the commercial community. These are matters of some importance, but as regards the commercial community so far as I know the claim most strongly put forward by important bodies of commercial men and experts—such bodies as the Federation of British Industries, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, and the Institute of Patentees—and very strongly put forward by Chambers of Commerce, is a. demand for a moratorium for the period of the war. Most commercial men, I believe, put forward a claim to eliminate completely the period of the war. Since the Bill was in the other House I believe that legislation has been proposed or carried in Belgium, France, and Germany in which in different forms the principle is recognised that the period of the war should be left out from consideration in computing the life of a patent. As far as possible, it is contemplated in those counties that the extension of benefits should apply only to other nations giving reciprocal rights. I do not, of course, know how our treaties would affect a matter of that kind, but at any rate the action of those countries is an additional argument for the concession which was appealed for by my noble and learned friend opposite (Lord Parmoor).
What are the arguments against? It is said that this Bill increases the period of the patent by two years. That is true, but that is a change in the general law as regards patents and has no bearing on the hardship suffered by many men whose patents were of no use during the war— patents which would have been all used had no war occurred. It is said also, and justly, that under Section 7, to which the noble and learned Lord opposite also alluded, one reason for extending the life of a patent which may be considered by the Court is that the patentee has suffered owing to the war having occurred. The objection that commercial men take to making use of that provision is this. I believe that the costs of an undefended case would be at least £100, and the costs of a defended case would be not less than from £750 to £1,000, and that is rather a heavy premium for a man to pay who has already suffered owing to not being able to use his patent during the war. Then it is said

235
that many patentees have benefited by the war. That is perfectly true. Ex hypothesi they will not benefit now that the war is over. But in any case it is no answer to say that some have benefited. That only makes the case rather worse for those people who have lost owing to the war.
I hope the Government will meet the strong body of opinion that exists in regard to this question. If they cannot give an all-round moratorium applying to all patents, there is an alternative Amendment which could be proposed — that those patentees who could show, as a matter of fact, that they had suffered owing to the occurrence of the war and owing to causes produced by the war should have an extension of their patents. I think it is unfair to throw heavy expense upon poor men with inventions in which they believe who could not work them during the war. So far as I can gauge the opinion of commercial men, there will be a deep feeling of injustice if the Government are unable to meet them in regard to this particular branch of the question. I apologise for detaining the House so long, but I wanted to give expression to opinions which had been suggested to me by commercial men who seem very well qualified to speak on this question.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I should like to call attention to a point which has not been mentioned, and, while I shall not deal with any question of substance arising under it, I think it is a point of form in legislation which is of very great importance. The noble and learned Lord has pointed out to the House that in his Bill there is a Schedule with many items in it that are called minor amendments. There is precedent for that. I think that in a certain sense I was responsible for the first occasion when this method of legislation was used. It was in 1897 in the Land Transfer Bill. There was an immense number of very technical amendments that could not be, perhaps, simply described as drafting amendments, but it was thought it would make the Bill very tiresome and difficult to pass if all those amendments were set out in clauses. Accordingly this device was invented of a schedule of minor amendments which were enacted by means of a short clause such as there is in this Bill. The very greatest pains were taken that there should be nothing that could really
236
be called a matter of substance in those amendments, and, at any rate, that there should be absolutely nothing of a controversial character. I think it is only under conditions of that sort that such a schedule is admissible in the drafting of a Bill.
It certainly is the case that there are some points in this Schedule which raise questions upon which a great deal of interest is taken. I have no doubt the noble and learned Lord has seen that Lord Southborough has put down an Amendment which is an Amendment upon the Schedule. I do not say that therefore the Schedule is in fault for raising the subject, but the subject, which is an important one, can only, I think, be raised in the Bill by dealing with the Schedule. It is the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, has just referred, the question of whether patent actions should be referred to one Judge. There is a great deal to be said on that subject, both for it and against it. But there you have a question which arises on the Schedule. It is perfectly clear that it is a question which ought to be in the body of the Bill.
The general effect of amendments put in a schedule like this is really to withdraw them from the consideration of Parliament, because people do not look at the schedule and they are told in the body of the Bill that it is a minor amendment and so they do not trouble themselves about it. There are several other questions to which my attention has been called and which, no doubt, will be heard of in Committee. My point is that a schedule ceases to be such a document as ought to be presented to Parliament in that form if it contains controversial matter and matters which ought to be dealt with fully in the body of the Bill.
If the House thinks that I am right in that view, I think it adds some force to the appeal made by the noble and learned Lord opposite that it might be well if this Bill were examined in a Select Committee. I think that it is certainly worth while, because then this Schedule, which has the fault in it which I have mentioned, would be carefully examined, instead of being practically passed en bloc. This is not the Lord Chancellor's Bill. This is a Bill that has come up from the House of Commons. If the Lord Chancellor had introduced a Bill and had said, "I will give you a schedule of amendments which

237
are minor amendments and you may take it that they are of the character that I have described" this House would at once have passed them en bloc, and never thought further of examining them, but the state of things is quite different now, and I think the Schedule will have to be examined item by item.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I, like the noble Lord who spoke just now, have received a number of communications from Chambers of Commerce pointing out a good many faults in the Bill as it stands, and suggesting Amendments which are very complicated and technical. I hardly think those Amendments could be considered in Committee of the whole House, and I should like to reinforce what has been said upon the advantages which would be gained by referring this Bill to a Select Committee. I believe that that course would give great satisfaction in many quarters.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (who was indistinctly heard): My Lords, I think those speakers who have suggested that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee have really betrayed some lack of observation in regard to the qualities which your Lordships are accustomed to show in dealing with the Committee stage of even complicated measures. It is quite true that the course is sometimes adopted of sending matters to Select Committees, but there are large numbers of matters very much more difficult than this is which have been commonly dealt with by your Lordships. All of the specific points which have been the subject of criticism are well within the capacity of your Lordships sitting in Committee of the Whole House.
Take any one of the points made by my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor. His were more technical than most of the points which were made. The noble Lord has great experience in this matter, and he objected that under Clause 1 (2) (e) the remedy was not provided in the best possible way. Let us see whether that is so? The words are—
"(e) If any trade or industry in the United Kingdom, or any person or class of persons engaged therein, is unfairly prejudiced by the conditions attached by the patentee, whether before or after the passing of this Act …"
In such circumstances application may be made to the Comptroller for a statement of
238
the abuse of monopoly rights. Certain consequences follow in the plainest possible manner if he succeeds in obtaining a statement from the Comptroller that there has been an abuse. My noble and learned friend wishes that it should be declared that it is ipso facto an abuse. There is a great deal to be said upon that if the noble and learned Lord wishes to make the point in Committee. But to say that your Lordships are not competent to deal with it in the full House is to do your Lordships a great injustice.
Then my noble and learned friend developed a further point in his reference to the immunities provided in favour of the Crown. That is an arguable point, and I should be glad to hear him develop the argument when we come to the Committee stage. Lord Parmoor made another point —namely, that the appeals in such matters should not go to the Law Officers. I was a Law Officer for nearly five years, and if I had been a member of the House when the proposal was brought forward I should have given it warm support, because the hearing of these appeals adds considerably to the work of the Law Officers; but having done the work for nearly five years I may, perhaps, express the opinion that the work is well done, though I agree with the noble and learned Lord that it is incongruous that it should be dealt with by the Law Officers. No doubt the matter will receive consideration in the Committee of the Whole House.
My noble friend Lord Emmott spoke of the desirability of giving more relief to those whose patent period has suffered by reason of the war. An increase, not of fourteen to eighteen years, but of fourteen to sixteen years has been given, which really does not prevent the additional two years being a relief to a man who has suffered by the war. I can assure Lord Emmott that the matter has been carefully considered, and the opinion is that full advantage has been enjoyed by the persons concerned. However, it is a fair matter for discussion, and it will be fully considered. I must confess that my noble and learned friend and Lord Emmott, when they spoke of the drastic way in which, according to their views, the Bill ought to be amended, did a little less than justice to the industry of the Committee which passed every clause of the Bill. Because a number of commercial men, I

239
will not say with axes to grind but from their own special points of view, are playing a more prominent part in this matter than the interests of the whole community require and are assailing noble Lords with resolutions, we must not assume that the men who put forward those resolutions are right and that the men of great experience who considered all these matters are wrong. I think when these things are fully considered you will find that those who attempted to adjust these things were right. However, it can be dealt with in Committee.
I do not agree with Lord Emmott when he says that this Bill does not give encouragement to inventors; but whether it gives enough encouragement is a fairly debatable matter, and any suggestion made by the noble Lord will receive careful consideration. When Lord Emmott suggested that in the case of those who suffered by the war there should be a moratorium and greater relief than is given in the Bill, the noble Lord will not forget that under our international agreements any advantage we concede to our own inventors must be given to foreign inventors, and in some cases it is not convenient to give such extensions.
One word with regard to what Lord Muir Mackenzie said as to the Schedule of minor amendments. The noble Lord was good enough to remind us that he was the father of the practice which he corrects in the observations he has made. The noble Lord distinguishes his innovation by saying that in the case of his Schedules all the amendments were as unimportant as possible. It is at least a curious coincidence that in the notes that were made for me when I began to study this Bill the draftsman said that in this case also they were of the least possible importance. After having refreshed my memory by looking at the creation of the noble and learned Lord in the Lands Transfer Bill, I shall be able to tell him which of them have violated what is not, perhaps, a fundamental rule of Parliamentary practice. I am hopeful that with help and good will we shall get through the Committee stage, contriving at the same time to give the impression that we have considerately attempted to meet every real case of hardship.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TRADE MARKS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a Bill which as far as I am aware excites less controversy than the Bill to which your Lordships have just given a Second Reading; it is less complicated in its conditions, and therefore I can explain its general outlines with a greater economy of time. The Bill substantially deals with the same matters as were dealt with in the Bill to amend the Trades Marks Act of 1905 introduced in the House of Commons in November, 1917. That Bill was not proceeded with; it met with the same fate as the Bill relating to patents, but the interval has been used in this case as in the other to obtain suggestions from those especially competent to deal with the matter.
This Bill like the one to which your Lordships have just given a Second Reading, had the enormous advantage of being drafted by the same Committee, presided over by the late Lord Parker, to which I have already made reference, and it, too, was most carefully considered by the Advisory Commercial Council of the Board of Trade. I do not think it necessary, unless and until a specific question or difficulty is proposed, to do more at this stage than briefly to explain each of the three Parts into which the Bill is divided. Part I contains proposals having for their object the providing of facilities for the registration in the United Kingdom of marks which though not registerable under existing legislation are nevertheless Common Law marks, and which could be protected in the form of an action which is known in law as a passing off action. The second subject-matter concerns proposals which have for their object the prevention of the abuse of word marks. The commonest form of such marks is the use by an owner of his word mark not for its proper purpose of distinguishing his goods from other people's goods but for giving a name to an article. I do not know whether I make myself clear to your Lordships, but the effect of this is that, under the protection of the Trade Mark law, the owner obtains in fact a perpetual monopoly of the manufacture of the article. It was never intended under any of the Trade Marks Acts that this particular abuse should be sanctioned, and many observations have been made as to cases in which the existing statutory provisions

241
have in fact been abused. The very distinguished persons who considered this Bill came to the conclusion that the abuse could be corrected in the manner proposed here. Part III consists of minor amendments to the principal Act. I think I need not at this stage call attention to any particular proposal.
I will only add that in Clauses 1 to 5 of the Bill an attempt, long overdue, has been made to frame a complete scheme for the registration of common law trade marks. It is hoped the effect will be to state, in a compendious form, a convenient code which will be of assistance to practitioners and also to the general public who are interested in these trade marks. I shall be very ready to give, so far as I can, any explanation in point of detail which I may have omitted, but I think I have given a sufficient indication of the scope and object of the bill to justify your Lordships in giving it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I rise not to delay the Bill but to thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for having so kindly consented to postpone the Committee stage, not only of the Bill now under consideration but also that which we have just discussed. I hope that when he sees the, Amendments which will be placed on the Paper after a consideration of the details of the Bill, be will feel that we were justified in asking him to take this course. There was, no doubt, a desire to hurry these Bills through at a late stage of our previous sittings, and I hope the noble Lord will think that we were justified when he sees the Amendments on the Paper.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope the noble Lord will not think it necessary, in order to convince me that the delay in the Committee stage is justified, to add that the interval will be used to put down a large number of Amendments.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, I wish to make a few brief observations on this Bill. In the first place I desire to apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Stuart of Wortley, who particularly desired to speak upon it, but who had to leave the House in connection with a prior engagement and so was unable to remain until we reached this Bill. I believe that Lord
242
Stuart of Wortley desired to express very strong opposition to the Part B Register and also to plead for reasonable delay before the Committee stage is taken. I cannot say that I go so far as to oppose altogether the Part B Register. I can quite see that there are points in its favour, but one important Amendment is very urgently desired by certain Chambers of Commerce. That is to strike out the words "without search" on page 2, line 6. If these words could be left out of the clause I think the opposition to the whole of that clause would not be so great as it would be otherwise.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Would the noble Lord tell me the page and the line to which he refers.
LORD EMMOTT: Page 2, line 6, to leave out the words "without search." If these words can be struck out I do not think there will be so much fear of its operation as there is now on the part of certain commercial men. A search is very important in regard to the trade mark Registries located in Manchester and Sheffield. These cities, as your Lordships know, have their own Registries and they thoroughly understand, from their own point of view in regard to the trade marks in which they are interested, the whole working of the system of trade marks. Nearly all countries have a search, and if a search is not to be insisted upon in regard to applications under the B Register all registered holders will have to watch each week the announcements which are made, because opposition will be their only defence, If they happen to miss anything a lawsuit will probably be necessary, and I maintain that it is not in the interest either of the applicants or of the opponents-that a lawsuit should be required in an instance like that, when search would meet the case.
There is another point. Many traders in the United States register trade marks here. How will they be able to inspect every week? It is quite possible, if legislation of this kind is carried, that there may be some movement for retaliatory legislation, so to speak, there, and I think that would be very undesirable. If the question is urged that it will cost money to make this search, there is very considerable profit realised at present in the Office of Patents and Trade Marks, and I am entitled to say, on behalf of the

243
commercial people who have considered this question, that they themselves would far rather prefer to pay a higher fee than go without a search. Finally, as, after a great many years of agitation, a search in regard to patents and the examination of patents has been set up, I do not think this is the right time to drop a search in regard to trade marks. That is all I have to say on that part of the question.
There are, however, one or two other matters I wish to mention. The words in Clause 6, subsection 2, "any single chemical substance," are extremely vague, and I hope His Majesty's Government will be able to accept an Amendment in regard to them, making what they desire, and I think what everybody desires, a little more plain and certain. There are other minor Amendments which, I think, will be moved but with which I need not trouble your Lordships.
Now I come to one which, although it is in that Schedule of minor Amendments in this Bill, seems to many commercial men to be a matter of very great importance. I allude to the Amendment to Section 62 of the principal Act. It will be found at the bottom of page 7 in the Bill. Whilst my noble friend Lord Muir Mackenzie was speaking of the minor Amendments in another Bill I was irresistibly reminded of this so-called minor Amendment, in regard to which there is the strongest possible objection raised by large groups of commercial men. Section 62 of the principal Act allows an association to register trade marks when examination of the goods which pass under that trade mark is insisted upon. I may be entering here on controversial ground, but it seems to me that the real point of an association trade mark ought to be a guarantee of quality, rather than anything else. I know there are other things mentioned, such as origin, and so on, but I think it ought to be a guarantee of quality. I do not see the reason for an association trade mark otherwise. A single firm may have a trade mark of its own. Its quality is known, whether it be good or bad, but when an association has a trade mark it ought to be a guarantee of quality and should be given only after an examination of the goods. Such trade marks have been of considerable use in regard to bodies such as the Irish Creameries and the Danish Butter Association. The objection raised to this Amendment to Section 62 of the principal Act is that it proposes the
244
omission of examination. I confess I do not quite understand why. There seems to me to be some misunderstanding between commercial men and the Government, and one reason why we plead for a little delay in the Committee stage is in the hope that some kind of adjustment will take place in the meantime.
What is proposed in the Bill will enable associations of foreign manufacturers to register a trade mark, and that trade mark will simply mean that the goods come from one ring of manufacturers who have formed this association. In the past it has meant something more. It has meant that the goods have been examined and are certified as to quality. In the same way associations here, which have been refused registration, may possibly be able to register under these new provisions. I hope the Government will see their way to drop this proposal. I am informed that it would be a very serious and regrettable innovation on our present practice, and I hope that between now and the Committee stage the Government will meet commercial men and see if some better understanding in regard to the merits of this question cannot be arrived at. At present there is a real misunderstanding on one side or the other, and it is most desirable that it should be cleared up.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I am not going to repeat my remarks as to the Schedule of the Bill. It has the same character as that of the other Bill, and the noble Lord who has just spoken has given very strong, instances of the objection of dealing with legislation in that way.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I confess that, as at present advised, I entirely disagree with the noble Lord. I think Lord Emmott gave a weak example. I may prove to be wrong in Committee, and I confess I had not examined the words in any detail at all until the noble Lord called attention to them. Frankly, I do not believe it will prove to be a trade technical matter, or, that the variation suggested has, in the least, as one of its objects, a desire to do away with the necessity for any such examination as that which the noble Lord finds useful. I should rather have said that it was intended, by the substituted words, to make the certificate one of more commercial value. I find that words are

245
inserted in the Second Schedule to this effect—
"The Board of Trade, if satisfied that such association or person is competent to certify as aforesaid, may …"
do exactly what they have power to do under the old Section 62 which has been varied. I may prove to be wrong, but the fact that there is still an insistence on this, and that fresh words have been introduced into the section to the effect that the Board of Trade shall satisfy itself as to the competence of such association to judge of quality, seems to me to be a most amazing basis for the argument that we want to get out of the examination. I rather think Lord Emmott is right when he says that this apprehension may be one which has no solid foundation. I have not read the words until this moment, but I will consider them before the point is raised in the Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS.
LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that it is proposed to hold a meeting of the National Congress at Amritsar next month; whether this proposal is unfavourably viewed by many people in the Punjab; and whether, having regard to the recent outbreaks and the feelings which they have engendered, it is considered advisable that this meeting should take place.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in 1907 the National Congress shed its extreme elements, led by Mr. Tilak, after a free fight at Surat. Subsequently Congress became much more moderate in tone, and the noble Lord will probably remember this, as he presided over one of the meetings at Bombay himself. Unfortunately the extremists, with the assistance of Mrs. Besant, captured the Congress completely during the war, and it remains now entirely in their hands, though there has been a schism which has led to the formation of a new party. The effect of the domination of the extremists in the Congress has naturally been to increase the bitterness and kind of language which is calculated to create race hatred in India.
There was a special Congress meeting in Bombay in August, 1918, at which very
246
strong language was used—language which undoubtedly helped to intensify an agitation that has been such a painful feature in India since 1916. In December, 1918, another Congress met at Delhi at which also some inflammatory language was used. This meeting was described at the time as "a triumph of mobocracy and extremism." Three months later there was a dangerous rising in the Punjab and elsewhere, which was shown to have been precipitated (although well organised in advance) by the passing of the Rowlatt Act, and which was not unconnected with the Afghan invasion.
In spite of all these circumstances it is now arranged that there should be another meeting at Amritsar, and it is difficult to believe that this meeting is being held without a purpose. In June last the Amritsar branch of the Congress, which had taken alarm, cancelled the invitation to the Congress which it had previously given. Then followed what so often happens in India. Strong influences were brought to bear on the branch, and it changed its mind again and cancelled its former resolution. Agricultural classes in the Punjab have rendered magnificent service during the war. They provided more than half of the total combatants which India brought to bear on the war.
But, unfortunately, there has been another side to the picture. During the war the Punjab has passed through two distinct and very dangerous crises. In 1915 there was the most serious conspiracy that has ever been known since the Mutiny. That was discovered and very ably handled by Sir Michael O'Dwyer, and this year there was another most serious rising in many places which, if it had not been promptly suppressed, might have paralysed the campaign on the Frontier and led to a really great disaster. Amritsar was one of the scenes of violence; where the mob shouted "Kill the English"; where they destroyed Government buildings and mission buildings, and where several murders were perpetrated. The steps taken by Sir Michael O'Dwyer to restore order have been attacked in unmeasured language both here and in India, and his impeachment and that of the Viceroy has been demanded. The result of that has only been to create an atmosphere of unrest and hostility to Government and to British residents almost all over India.
In these circumstances, therefore, to allow another meeting to be held at Amritsar does seem likely to have a very disturbing effect at a time when calm is wanted for the introduction of the new reforms into India. On the third of this month the Viceroy appealed to the Princes and Chiefs, who, he said—
"Could lend valuable assistance by guarding their States against a lawless and malicious spirit, and by refusing to tolerate the lying stories as to the motives of the British Government."
That is significant, because these things have not taken place in the Native States where the Chiefs have taken steps to prevent them. I understand that sober opinion in the Punjab is opposed to this meeting being held—and well it may be. I think myself it is never wise to take risks in a country so inflammable as India, and I submit that in allowing this meeting to take place a risk will be run which is not justified in the circumstances I have described.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD SINHA): My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will not expect me to follow him into the history of the recent disturbances in the Punjab, or the older ones in 1915. I will try and confine myself to the immediate question as to whether or not it is desirable that this Congress should be held, or whether any information has been received by the Secretary of State here with reference to the proposed meeting at Amritsar.
I will begin by saying that the Secretary of State has received no communication whatsoever from the Government of India on the subject. The only information in the possession of the India Office is from Indian newspapers received in England. The latest information is that contained in a telegram published in the Pioneer Mail of October 17, received in London on Saturday last. It seems, my Lords, that the Indian National Congress meets annually just after Christmas, and its last sitting was held in December, as the noble Lord stated, when, in accordance with their usual practice, it was decided to hold a session this year, 1919, after Christmas, at Amritsar. This was long before the legislation known as the Rowlatt Act, and long before the disturbances referred to by the noble Lord in his speech; but it appears also that the Government of India, as well as the Local Government, have been throughout aware of the intention on the
248
part of the Congress authorities to hold a Conference at Amritsar in December of this year, and the telegram to which I referred as having been published in the Pioneer Mail on October 17, is to the effect that a conference has been held between the Divisional Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Amritsar and the leaders of the Congress Party there; that the Reception Committee have finally decided to hold the next session of the Congress at Amritsar as originally settled; and that the question of the site for the Congress Pandal or tent will be settled later in consultation with the. Deputy Commissioner.
If these facts are correctly stated in the telegram to which I have referred, there appears reason to believe that the local authorities are fully alive to the possibilities of the situation, and it seems probable that they have come to the conclusion that the best course to adopt in the circumstances is to allow the Congress to meet as arranged nearly a year ago; and they seem to be of opinion—it is mere inference on my part—that any action on the part of the Government that might have the appearance of suppressing or even obstructing a political gathering which has an All-India character, might have consequences the reverse of those which the noble Lord desires. In those circumstances the Secretary of State does not think it is necessary for him to take any action or even to express any opinion either to the Government of India or to the Local Government.

INDIA AND THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE.
LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India who is responsible for the selection of a Chitpavan Brahman as the representative of the Indian working classes at the Washington Conference.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put this Question upon the Paper because of the strong protests which I have received from the People's Union and the Kamgar Hitwardhak Sabha of Bombay, which I know to be bodies really representative of the working classes. I have also received a strong expression of opinion from the Indian Liberal Federation of Trichinopoly. The People's Union has as patron the Maharaja of Kolhapur, who has courage-

249
ously championed the cause of the non-Brahmins and depressed classes in his State, and who has been bitterly attacked by the Brahmins in consequence. The People's Union pointed out when Mr. Joshi was appointed that his connection with "bodies entirely financed by capitalists and mill-owners makes it impossible for him to represent labour in the true sense." The Kamgar Sabha stated that it "learned with alarm" the selection of Mr. Joshi, and also pointed out that it "has found him connected with bodies founded and subsidised by mill-owners, and has no confidence in him as a representative of labour."
To any one who has lived in India it seems almost like a practical joke to appoint a Brahman to represent labour, although there are exceptional Brahmins who have devoted themselves to the lower and working classes. No one who has lived in India can fail to be aware of the great ability of the Brahmins and of the very great services which they have rendered to the Government, but they are the most privileged class remaining in the world, and it is a very remarkable thing that this privileged class should have captured the Labour Party. It has been correctly said that the ascendancy of the Chitpavans over every other Brahman sept in Maharashtra is undisputed. There are historical reasons to account for the large number of them who have taken part in a great many revolutionary movements. I notice that a Home Rule paper published in London which resents this appointment for reasons quite different from my own, states that before leaving Bombay Mr. Joshi made a speech in which he said that "he was at a loss to see why the Government had selected him," and he added that "he could not claim that right, as he had never worked with the labourers. He was confident that the Government could have found a man who not only lived and worked with the labourers, but who had made a special study of Indian Labour problems." This frank statement does great credit to Mr. Joshi, but it does not help Indian labour.
My information is that the Bombay Government nominated a man whom I happen to know to be specially qualified. Therefore it is clear that strong influences must have been brought to bear upon the selecting authority, either in India or here, to appoint a Brahman, and the selection
250
seems to have been made with the idea of propitiating what is called the Moderate Party. It is curious that just the same mistake was made before. When the Franchise Committee was appointed two Hindu members, both Brahmins, were appointed. In consequence of that, which I think was a serious blunder, the non-Brahmins, who form the vast majority of the population of Madras and who were led by the late Dr. Nair, refused to appear upon the Committee. This is not a small matter. It may be said to affect two hundred millions of people, nearly all illiterate and helpless for whose well-being we are in a special sense responsible.
LORD SINHA: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I express my regret that he should have brought into the speech with which he introduced this Question any reference to the Chitpavan Brahmins. It is proverbially dangerous to indict a nation, and I should have thought it was equally dangerous to indict a community. The community with which this gentleman is connected, the Chitpavan Brahmins, are thus described by Sir Valentine Chirol, one sentence from whose book was, I think, quoted by the noble Lord. Sir Valentine Chirol says—
"Amongst the Chitpavans are to be found many of the most enlightened and progressive Indians of our time, and many have served the British Raj with unquestioned loyalty and integrity.''
In the Report of Mr. Justice Rowlatt's Committee this is what is stated with regard to the Chitpavans—
"A few words are necessary on the position of the Chitpavan Brahmins in Western India at the present time. Poona has remained their headquarters. They have continuously shown high intellectual capacity. They have furnished the Bombay Presidency with its two best political thinkers, Ranade and Gokhale, and the Poona Press with its most influential journalists, Telak and Paranjpe. They have provided Western India with most efficient teachers and officials. If a comparatively small body of impressionable young men of this community have imbibed revolutionary ideas, and carried their ideas to the point of political assassination, it must not therefore be supposed that the community as a whole is disaffected."
I am sure my noble friend did not intend to make any reflection on the Chitpavan Brahmins as a class, and it is only in order that there might be no misapprehension in India that I feel obliged to express my regret that the word should have been introduced into the Question when there was no occasion for it.

251
Mr. Joshi no doubt is a Brahmin, but he is a member of a society well known to my noble friend, and during the time that he (Lord Sydenham) was Governor in Bombay that society—known as the Servants of India Society—enjoyed his patronage and favour. Mr. Joshi is a member of that society, and as such his chief work has been that of social service amongst the industrial classes in Bombay. It was as such that he was nominated by the Viceroy, who had before him the names of Mr. Joshi as well as the gentleman to whom Lord Sydenham referred. The nomination under the Article of the Peace Treaty relating to the election of delegates for the Labour Conference rests with the Government of India, and the Viceroy is well within his right, I submit, in nominating Mr. Joshi, who is known throughout India as one of the most indefatigable social service workers for the industrial classes. The Viceroy considers that no better selection could have been made.
The appointment of Mr. Joshi has been acclaimed in Bombay, both in the Press and on the platform, and the mill hands themselves consider that he is the best delegate that could be appointed. It was after the mill hands had expressed in a public meeting that, being unorganised, they could not elect for themselves, the Viceroy proceeded to nominate Mr. Joshi. In a letter which I have the authority of the gentleman who wrote it to read publicly, it is stated—
"It is impossible to find any representative workman, for unfortunately the standard of education is very low, and in these circumstances His Excellency chose Mr. Joshi, who, I believe, has the confidence of the mill hands to the full, and will prove an excellent representative."
There is no doubt that Mr. Joshi himself is an extremely modest man, and he did say at a meeting in Bombay which gave him a send-off that far better men than himself could have been found by the Government if they desired to do so, but that, having been selected by the Government, he would do his best to perform the duties entrusted to him. I do not think, my Lords, that that modest disclaimer of Mr. Joshi of his own merits can be taken to prove that the Government of India has made a wrong selection, and I can assure my noble friend that his appointment was not due to any pressure exercised either here or on the Government of India by tile Moderate or any other party.
LORD SYDENHAM: I should like to say that I had not the slightest intention of reflecting in the least upon the Chitpavans. I have known many of them and like them, and I am well aware of the very great services that they have rendered to the Government. It merely happens that I mentioned, as is historically the fact, that there are reasons which quite naturally have made Chitpavans take hostile action against the Government.

HOUSING.
EARL GREY: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government for the terms of the new agreements made by Dr. Addison with the building trades to facilitate the erection of new houses, and whether they contain the principle of payment of contractors or others on the basis of cost plus a percentage of profit.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, the Ministry of Health have been in negotiation with representatives of the building trade with a view to making arrangements by which the erection of houses can be accelerated. Two forms of procedure have been discussed. The principal feature of the first is that representatives of the local authority, the local federated builders, and the housing commissioner meet together and arrive at an agreed price at which houses are to be erected, and that then the number of houses to be built under the arrangement is distributed to the builders in proportion to their resources. On the conclusion of such arrangement the individual builders will enter into contracts with the local authority, which will be for a lump sum, with variations for charges in the cost of material and labour. The second procedure is that which is authorised by Section 12, subsection (3), of the recent. Housing Act—namely, that builders holding partially developed land may enter into an undertaking with the local authority for the erection of houses to be bought with the land by the local authority. In this case the local authority would purchase the house at, a specified sum, a figure from which there is to be no variation except in the event of an increase in the rates of labour. Neither of the arrangements contains the

253
principle of payment on the basis of cost plus percentage of profit.
EARL GREY: I thank the noble Viscount for his answer.

AMMANFORD GAS BILL.
Reported, without Amendment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, in moving that the House do now adjourn, I beg to take this opportunity of announcing what the Government propose to submit to your Lordships in relation to the Industrial Courts Bill. That measure has been under discussion in another place for some time past, and. must continue there for some little while to come. It was originally undertaken that the Third Reading of that measure should not be passed in another place until a final conference had taken place with representatives of labour. It had been hoped that the conference would have taken place before now, and that the Bill would have reached your Lordships' House this week. That expectation cannot be realised. The conference will take place on Friday next, and the Third Reading elsewhere cannot, therefore, take place until Monday. We are most anxious that your Lordships should consent to pass the Bill through all its stages during next week. The reason for that is, I think, adequate. The Bill temporarily regulating wages expires on Friday November 21, and it is necessary that this new Bill should be passed to replace the powers which lapse under the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act. Those are the reasons which make it necessary for us to invite the House to pass the Bill through all its stages next week. It is accordingly proposed that on Tuesday next my noble friend Lord Curzon will move the suspension of Standing Order No. XXXIX in relation to this Bill, the First and Second Readings being taken on that day and the Committee stage on Wednesday, with the expectation of getting the Bill passed into law finally for Royal Assent on Thursday.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships are much obliged to the noble Earl for having given us timely notice of the intention of the
254
Government respecting the Industrial Courts Bill. The measure not having yet reached your Lordships, I am afraid that I am not familiar with its terms, though I have a general knowledge of it, and even if it were not out of order to do so I should not desire to offer any comment adverse to the Bill. As far as I know it may be a very good Bill, but of course the noble Earl is aware, or he would not have taken the step that he has taken this evening, that it is a very strong request to ask your Lordships to suspend the usual methods of legislation in order to carry this Bill through. It is possible that when we see the Bill your Lordships may be able to consent to such a course, but the noble Earl will allow me to say with great respect that we can enter into no agreement on that head until we are familiar with its terms. We are, of course, as the noble Earl well knows, resolved so far as in us lies to rather improve the methods of procedure in your Lordships' House and not to assent too readily to a curtailment of those Standing Orders which have been prescribed by tradition in order that legislation may be passed into law with due regard to its importance. I hope that my noble friend will not think that in anything I have said I have gone outside the limits of due courtesy to the Government.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I quite understand that nobody in this House is pledged to accept the proposal put forward in this manner. My only object was to give notice at the earliest possible moment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My object was to give that notice in order that tomorrow, on the Motion for adjournment, your Lordships may discuss this matter, if you wish, in advance of the Motion which will be submitted to the House on Tuesday.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We do not know what is in the Bill.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think everybody is to-day familiar with the Bill. However, it will not come before your Lordships as an operative Motion until Tuesday next.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of November 11.]

ARBROATH HARBOUR ORDER CON FIRMATION BILL.
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Arbroath Harbour: Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Section 7) deemed
256
to have been read 2a (The Lord Stanmore) and reported from the Committee.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection that the Lord Monteagle (M. Sligo) be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Armaghdale; read, and agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock