Lords Sitting of 25 November 1919

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four o'clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

EGYPT.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to lay any information before the House on a subject which is causing much anxiety—I refer to the state of Egypt—and whether at the same time he could give us information as to the scope and purpose of the Mission which is known as the Milner Mission.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, in reply to the noble and learned Lord I will first say a few words about the local situation in Egypt. When I last addressed your Lordships in May—it was, I think, May 15—the short-lived Ministry of Rushdi Pasha had recently come to an end, and Lord Allenby had not as yet found a successor. A few days later, however, Mohammed Said Pasha, who had already been Prime Minister from 1910 to 1914, assumed office and formed an Egyptian Administration. His first task was to restore order and tranquillity to a country still disturbed by the abortive revolution of the spring. To this task he and his colleagues devoted all their energies, and attained such a measure of success that in July Lord Allenby felt justified in transferring to the ordinary civil tribunals of the country the trial of any cases arising out of the disturbances of March and April, other than those of violence against members of His Majesty's Forces; and, to mark his confidence in the Ministry and the good sense of the nation, the preventive censorship of the Press was abolished.
By this time normal conditions had been established throughout the country, and the fellahin, who constitute over 90 per cent. of the population, were enjoying an almost unprecedented degree of prosperity, which went far to efface from their minds the stormy time through which they had passed during the war. In the towns,
340
however, the high cost of living—which I am afraid has not yet diminished—kept alive the spirit of discontent, and the Nationalist leaders took full advantage of this circumstance to pursue their campaign against the Prime Minister and the Protecting Power, to which he was accused of undue subservience.
In the early part of June a few small and half-hearted demonstrations took place in Cairo without, however, giving rise to any serious disorder or breach of the peace. In August signs of industrial unrest became prevalent amongst different classes of workers in the towns. This unrest was fundamentally due to economic causes but was exploited for political purposes by the agitators, who were not slow to realise the value of the strike as a weapon in their armoury. Trade unions or Syndicates were formed, and the foreign Socialist elements took no inconsiderable part in fomenting the discontent which, as I have said, was rife amongst the workers in the larger cities.
On September 2 an attempt was made to assassinate the Prime Minister by means of a bomb. The assailant, a young student of El Azhar University, was arrested, and there is no doubt that the motive of the crime was political.
The Government attempted to meet the legitimate grievances of the workers by setting up a Conciliation Board, which was not unsuccessful in obtaining substantial amelioration in the conditions of labour, and the Government itself set an example in this respect by according a generous increase in the rates of pay to all grades of its employees.
A considerable impetus was given to the cause of the Extremists by the publication early in September of a telegram from Paris to the effect that the United States Senate had decided that Egypt was considered to be neither under Turkey nor under Great Britain, but politically independent. Although this rumour was officially contradicted by the American Agency in Cairo, the effect produced by it was considerable, and the Nationalist Party in Egypt have never ceased to believe that their campaign had the sympathy and would receive the support of one or other among the Great Powers. Of these, as your Lordships are aware, France and America have formally recognised the British Protectorate. Italy has promised

341
to acknowledge it. Its recognition is contained in the Peace Treaty with Germany, and is accordingly confirmed by all the signatories of that Treaty. Any such expectations, therefore, are doomed to complete disappointment.
Such was the sequence of events in Egypt until mid-autumn. The sharp recrudescence of disorder in October, to which I shall again revert presently, was so distinctly and directly connected with the anticipated despatch of the Mission under my noble friend Lord Milner that I must now ask your Lordships to go back with me to the date at which that Mission was first announced, and to the object which it had in view. Already in May last I announced the intention of His Majesty's Government to send such a Mission, and I thus defined its object. It was—
"to inquire into the causes of the late disorders in Egypt, and to report on the existing situation in the country, and the form of Constitution which, under the Protectorate, will be best calculated to promote its peace and prosperity, the progressive development of self-governing institutions, and the protection of foreign interests."
I call special attention to the words "progressive development of self-governing institutions," because they have been almost completely, and as it would appear deliberately, ignored in the subsequent agitation, although they were the keynote of the policy which the Mission was to hold in view. My Lords, at that time it was intended to despatch the Mission at as early a date as its composition could be completed. But difficulties were experienced in more ways than one. It was not found easy to find available members with' the requisite authority and experience; the summer is not exactly the best time in which to conduct investigations in the interior of a country with the Egyptian climate; it was felt desirable to give the newly-formed Egyptian Administration an opportunity of firmly establishing itself; and it was thought at that time —an illusory hope—that the Peace Conference at Paris might address itself before the autumn to the solution of the Eastern problem. Lord Allenby, upon whose judgment His Majesty's Government placed great reliance, informed us that the Sultan of Egypt and the Prime Minister both favoured a postponement till the autumn, and that he agreed with their views. It
342
was in these circumstances that the date of departure of the Mission was deferred.
Meanwhile, His Majesty's Government succeeded in composing the Mission of persons possessing, in at least three cases, actual administrative experience in Egypt, and all of them qualified by their representative character, high position, and public reputation to produce a strong feeling of public confidence in the impartial and sympathetic character of the inquiry which they were commissioned to hold. I have little doubt that, under the guidance of my noble friend Lord Milner, whose name has been so long and honourably associated with Egypt, they will be able to render a great service to that country.
I will now proceed to deal with the object that Lord Milner and his colleagues will have in view. Your Lordships will have noticed from the reports in the Press that the attacks that are made upon the Mission revolve to a large extent round the words "British Protectorate," and that these have become a sort of battle-cry in the agitation that has been fomented in Egypt. I think it desirable that we should clear our minds on the matter, not of cant, because I suspect that the apprehensions that have been aroused have been to a large extent sincere, but of gross and palpable misunderstanding. It was in 1914, after we had been compelled to declare war upon Turkey, that the British Protectorate over Egypt was declared. So far from this being intended, or indeed regarded at the time, as a high-handed act aimed at the suppression of Egyptian liberties, it was decided upon by Mr. Asquith's Government as a much milder and more generous policy than that of annexation, which at that time was strongly advocated by some. Cyprus, which had long been administered by the Colonial Office as part of the British Empire, was annexed. But the opportunity of incorporating Egypt in the Empire was deliberately, and I think wisely, rejected, because it was intended, in the wide latitude of opportunity which the formula of a Protectorate affords, to give free scope to the political aspirations and the self-governing capacities of the Egyptian people.
My Lords, I observe that a great deal of play is now made with the argument that when the British Protectorate over Egypt was declared in 1914 no attempt was made to define its character or implications. I do not remember that that argument was

343
much used, or indeed used at all, at the time. Perhaps, in the light of later events, it would have been wiser if Mr. Asquith's Government, who at that time had the advice of Lord Kitchener at their elbow, had indulged in some fuller explanation. But I think that your Lordships can readily understand how it was that this was not done. Not Egypt alone, but almost the whole of the Western world, soon to be followed by the Eastern, was involved in the first throes of the terrific struggle which was to last for another four years. Before long Egypt herself was threatened; her own frontiers were in danger; immense armies were collected upon her soil, either for the defence of the Canal or on their way to the various theatres of war; Egypt became a throbbing hive of war industry and war commotion; inter aorta silent leges: and the time was hardly opportune for discussing politics or formulating a constitutional definition. I doubt very much if at that time, in consultation with Sultan Hussein and the then Ministers, a serious attempt had been made to determine what form the constitution of Egypt should assume after the war, it would have been found practicable to pursue it to any solution.
But now, my Lords, the situation has changed, and the questions which it might have been difficult to answer then may with propriety be put and answered now. What, then, is the nature of our position in Egypt, and what is the task with which the Mission is charged in working out the future form of its Government? I need hardly elaborate to your Lordships the reasons for which Great Britain is compelled to interest herself in the political fortunes of Egypt, and is unable to give any encouragement to the claim of complete national independence. Quite apart from the fact that Egypt, if left to stand alone, could neither protect her frontiers against external aggression nor guarantee a strong and impartial Government at home, her geographical position at the gate of Palestine, for which it seems likely that a special responsibility will before long be placed upon our shoulders, at the doorway of Africa, and on the high road to India renders it impossible that the British Empire, with any regard to its own security and connections, should wash its hands of responsibility for Egypt. Egypt is, of course, primarily an Egyptian interest; the good Government and the prosperity and happiness of its people are the first
344
concern; but it is also a British interest of capital importance; and I suspect that there are few who would deny that it is also a world interest, and that the world interest is best secured by leaving Egypt under the ægis of a great civilised Power.
But, my Lords, accepting these fundamental propositions, which underlie the whole matter and which no British Government or Party will be disposed to dispute, there may yet be wide differences of opinion as to the form which the British interest should assume.
I shrink on the present occasion from attempting any scientific definition of the term "Protectorate," which, as a constitutional expedient known to all countries and to all periods of the world's history, has many shades of meaning, from an advanced degree of political or administrative control at the one end to little more than a sphere of political influence at the other. Common, however, to all these examples is the conception that the Protecting Power is under an obligation to defend the protected State from external attack, to secure the proper treatment of foreign subjects and property within it, and generally speaking to control its foreign and political relations. The degree to which a Protectorate carries with it the prerogative of interference in the internal administration of a State is laid down by no law and must be decided in each case on its merits.
In Egypt, however, these constitutional commonplaces appear to be in danger of being forgotten; and the British Protectorate is mistaken for a thinly-veiled form of annexation. The constitutional history of Egypt since the first grant of representative institutions after Lord Dufferin's Mission nearly forty years ago, culminating in the Organic Law of 1913 —unhappily never carried into effective operation owing to the outbreak of war in the succeeding year—should have supplied a sufficient answer to these misunderstandings. If annexation, either open or disguised, had been intended, the time to carry it out would have been in the winter of 1914. But it was not intended then, and it is not intended now. The idea that Egyptian aspirations and Egyptian nationality are to be crushed or ignored is an extravagant misconception which I cannot too emphatically repudiate. The object with which the Mission is going out has been defined in the declaration which Lord

345
Allenby, acting upon instructions from His Majesty's Government, has already issued in Cairo. It has been published in the newspapers in this and every country, and I have no doubt that your Lordships have seen it. But I may be permitted, perhaps, on the present occasion to add a few further words on the subject.
I have already spoken of our responsibilities and duties towards Egypt—responsibilities which Great Britain cannot forego or disown. Egypt depends upon them for her safety from foreign attack and her existence as a nation. But within those boundaries is a wide and ample field in which Egyptians are invited to participate, and must, as time passes on, participate in an ever-increasing degree, in the Government of their country. We recognise the legitimacy of these aspirations. We desire to provide for their satisfaction. The progressive development of self-governing institutions in Egypt is an ideal which they may share with us and we with them. It is not to be thought of that a race like the Egyptians, possessing in its upper ranks a high culture and historic memories, should be content with a rôle of passive subordination in the administration of their country.
My Lords, it will be the object of Lord Milner and his colleagues, in consultation with the Sultan and his Ministers and representative Egyptians of all classes, to devise the details of a Constitution by which all these parties shall be able, in their several spheres and in an increasing degree, to co-operate in the management of Egyptian affairs. British assistance and British guidance will still be required. Nor will any of those who have followed the history of Egypt for the last forty years and seen the astounding advance that she has made under our auspices, question the necessity of this supervision. Lord Milner's Mission is not going out to Egypt with a Constitution in its pocket. It intends to consult all parties before it even forms an opinion. It is not authorised to impose a Constitution upon Egypt. What it has to do is to undertake the preliminary work that is necessary before the future form of Government is determined. While it is engaged in this task the Mission, with the assistance of the material which Lord Allenby has already collected, should be able to form an opinion on the causes, some of them obscure but others very patent and removable, of the recent risings and
346
present discontent, and will be able, as I hope, to propound a remedy. They will doubtless hear of many anomalies and grievances, and if they are confronted with proven abuses in the administration they will, I am confident, recommend their extirpation with unflinching hand.
If these intentions are known, Lord Milner's Mission should be assured, not of an unfriendly greeting, but of a cordial welcome at the hands of all friends of Egyptian nationality and Egyptian progress. Such a reception, I am sure, they will meet with at the hands of the new Egyptian Ministry under Yussuf Wabha Pasha, which assumed office on the resignation of Mohammed Said Pasha a few days ago. The High Commissioner has reported to us very favourably on the character and composition of the Ministry which now enters upon office, sharing, as it does, the hopeful views of His Majesty's Government and resolved to co-operate loyally in their execution.
I see that the question has been raised in some quarters why the Mission, even if there were good reasons for its postponement in the middle of the summer, did not go out in the early autumn, and an impression of irresolution or vacillation is said to have been produced by the delay. We were quite willing and had made all preparations to despatch the Mission in September. But two reasons interfered with the execution of our plan. The late Egyptian Prime Minister more than once pleaded in the strongest possible manner for the further postponement of its arrival, and we were anxious as far as possible to carry him with us. Secondly, Lord Allenby was called to Europe for other purposes. We desired to profit by his advice, and we did not wish to act in his absence from Egypt. As soon as he had returned to Cairo and taken stock of the situation he advised that the Mission should start with as little delay as possible, and preparations are now being made for its early departure.
One other plea has been put forward and has found a good deal of favour in Egypt—namely, that the Mission should not appear upon the scene until the Peace with Turkey has been signed. There may have been some value in this plea in the course of last summer, when every one hoped that the Paris Conference, having completed its other labours, would turn its attention to the Peace with Turkey without delay. But these hopes were disappointed;

347
and although His Majesty's Government are anxious to take up at the earliest possible date the concluding stages of the work of the Conference and have made formal proposals to the other Allied Powers to that effect, the point has not yet been reached at which it is possible to commence the investigation of that subject or to prepare the way for the future settlement of the East. But I should like to point out that, whatever form the future peace with Turkey may take, or at whatever date it may be concluded, it can make no difference whatsoever in the solution of the Egyptian problem. The political connection of Turkey with Egypt is at an end, nor is it conceivable that it should ever be revived. It is not to Turkey that Egypt must look for the fulfilment of her aspirations or the future of her race.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Whatever be the terms imposed upon Turkey by the Powers, the recognition of the British Protectorate, already made or promised by all the Great Powers, will be an inseparable feature of the Treaty, nor can any provision in the Treaty alter in any way the fundamental principle of the inquiry with which Lord Milner's Mission is charged—namely, the progressive development of Egyptian self-governing institutions under British protection.
My Lords, it remains only for me to notice in a few sentences the unfortunate recrudescence of disquiet, disorder, and disturbance in Egypt during the past few weeks. In August, as I have already pointed out, when the delay of the Peace Conference in dealing with the Turkish question and the failure of the Zaghlul Mission to secure a hearing in Paris were manifest, the tone of the hearing in Egypt became increasingly bitter, and patriotic Egyptians were continually urged to boycott the Mission on the recommendation of the Zaghlul Party, many of whom had by this time returned to Egypt. The agitation continued to grow in intensity until it culminated in serious riots in Alexandria on October 24 and 25, and recourse had to be made to the assistance of British troops to restore order. These disorders were repeated a week later, and on November 16 were reproduced in Cairo. In both places the Egyptian police and soldiers have done their best to cope with a very difficult situation, but have
348
required the assistance of His Majesty's Forces, who have conducted themselves with exemplary self-restraint and moderation.
I do not propose at this moment to analyse more closely the reasons of this effervescence, which is a product of the events of the time, and is common to many parts of the Eastern world. The precise parts that are played in it by political agitation, by religious fanaticism, by the reaction of the war, by economic causes, or by the undisciplined forces of anarchy it is difficult to disentangle. They impose upon the Egyptian and British authorities in combination the primary duty of enforcing law and order and punishing outrage and crime. We trust to the firm and judicious handling of the High Commissioner to deal with this aspect of the case, and the new Egyptian Ministry will receive from him and from us every support in vindicating the first principles of civilised society.
But these incidents will not deter us from pursuing the path which has been mapped out for us by the highest conception of duty, both to Egypt and to ourselves. We appeal to moderate opinion in Egypt to support us in the task we have undertaken, and to co-operate with Lord Milner and his colleagues in their undertaking. The effort to raise Egypt from the misery and oppression in which she was plunged less than half a century ago, and the successful results of which have been our pride and her glory, cannot be dropped midway. Rather may we hope to guide her energies and resources into new channels of progress and influence.
Before I sit down I should like in a sentence to point to the opposite, and encouraging picture that is presented by the Soudan. Under the able rule of the Governor-General, Sir Lee Stack, the inhabitants of that country have continued to maintain perfect order and have given notable evidence of their affection towards Great Britain by the visit to this country in July of a deputation of notables who were received by His Majesty the King. Both to His Majesty and subsequently to myself they expressed their warm appreciation of the work accomplished by Great Britain for the regeneration of their country and their dissociation from the events which have happened in Egypt. Their one desire is to remain in the Empire and not to be dissevered from it. This gratifying

349
testimony of loyalty is largely, if not entirely, due to the admirable work accomplished by the late Governor-General, Sir Reginald Wingate, who devoted his great abilities for so many years to promoting the prosperity of the Soudan and to laying the foundations of a State in which the methods of British rule have received their fullest vindication.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I think the whole House has listened to the statement of my noble friend with the greatest interest and attention. So important is that statement, so carefully balanced its different parts, so evidently the result of deep thought that I think very likely your Lordships may wish on another occasion, when we have had greater opportunities of studying what my noble friend has said, to recur to this most important subject. But I should not like this occasion to pass without making one or two preliminary observations.
I think your Lordships will all agree that my noble friend's speech was characterised by the greatest self-restraint and moderation and by a great feeling of sympathy for the legitimate aspirations of the Egyptian people. If I had any criticism to make on the earlier part the necessity for that was removed by my noble friend's conclusion. Because I thought at one moment he was not sufficiently dwelling on the great work that this country has done in Egypt within the last forty years, or sufficiently bringing to the remembrance of the world the antithesis between the present internal condition of Egypt and of its finances, and its condition in 1882.
Surely in the whole history of the Empire there has been no more wonderful work than that done by the British administrators and the great soldiers who have worked in Egypt and in the Soudan; and if now, at the end of that period, there is the appearance of a great deal of discontent and dissatisfaction among certain of the Egyptians, I think we may feel quite assured that the causes do not lie either in the motives which have actuated our statesmen or our administrators, or in the result of their forty years of administration. The causes are to be sought partly in that general turmoil of the world which has followed the four years tornado of war, and which manifests itself in the East in different ways and at different moments from what it does in the West.
350
My noble friend has told us that one of the duties of Lord Milner and his Mission will be to try and find out what were the causes of these disturbances. But there was one possible cause to which my noble friend did not allude, or if he did allude to it I was not fortunate enough to catch the sentence. It has been stated, and it has occurred to many of us, that Turkish intrigue may have played some part in those disturbances from the summer up to the present time. Now, if there is one thing on which all parties in this country are absolutely united it is in this—that in no circumstances shall Turkey have any more say in the Government of Egypt. Again, there is another subject on which all parties are absolutely united—namely, the belief that if there is one thing more proved than another in the history of modern nations it is that the Turk, young or old, is totally unfit to be trusted with the government of any human being. Therefore my noble friend and the Government may rest assured that they have the support of the whole nation behind them in letting Egyptians of all sorts and descents clearly understand from the beginning that Turkey is never again to be allowed to have any say in the Government of Egypt.
The next point to which I wish especially to draw attention is one with which my noble friend dealt fully, and I am sure he cannot deal with it too fully or too often—that is the absolute impossibility of Egypt acquiring what is called a position of complete independence. If we were by any lapse of sanity to leave Egypt to-morrow and to divest ourselves of any responsibility whatever for her future, in my judgment there is nothing more certain than that within a generation another great Power would have taken our place in Egypt. Under the modern conditions of the world, —indeed, I think if you went back into history you would find that in almost every age of the world the same story has been proved—Egypt cannot stand without the assistance of some protecting Power; and when we consider, as my noble friend said, that the Suez Canal is the gate to the East, and that behind Egypt in the hinterland and far interior of Africa there is now gradually developing the great territory of the Soudan—wholly loyal; another great monument of the courage and skill of the British administrator—it must be perfectly plain to any one who does not desire wilfully to deceive himself that this country never could allow any other Power

351
to occupy our place in Egypt. As in no circumstances can we ever give way on these two points to any feeling of Egyptian sentiment, I hope that my noble friend will never weary in trying to disabuse Egyptians of the possibility either of our allowing Turkey any re-entry in Egyptian affairs or of ourselves abandoning the task which was taken up nearly forty years ago.
Let me, in conclusion, say a word in respect of my noble friend Lord Milner. I think we are indeed fortunate that he is available at the present moment to undertake this Mission; because there is no man not only more qualified by his whole life-record of public service, but by the particularly brilliant episode of that record which began in Egypt sonic thirty or thirty years ago. He will go back to it in very different circumstances from those under which he left it; but we all look forward with the utmost confidence to his calm judgment that (if he will allow me to say so in his presence) always goes to the bottom of things and is never carried away by sentiment.

SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE, AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

COUNTY COURTS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I had not the opportunity of saying anything upon the subject of this Bill on the Second Reading, although it is a subject with which I have been all my life very intimately connected, and I think I should occupy less of your Lordships' time by saying a few words on going into Committee than by interrupting the proceedings upon the clauses as they arise. In this Bill I recognise several very familiar friends—clauses that have been very much considered in recent years, and which have been several times before you Lordships' House, but which, unfortunately, when dealt with in another place have, like
352
many other Bills, not been heard of again. I gather from the character of the clauses that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has endeavoured to make the Bill as far as possible non-controversial, and I think he has succeeded in that to a very great extent. If there are any clauses that are open to discussion, at any rate I should hope that they will not be looked upon as controversial; and for my own part I should have liked to have seen this Bill pass without amendment. But that is not to be.
The noble and learned Lord himself has put down some Amendments to meet suggestions thrown out by the noble and learned Lord. Lord Buckmaster. Lord Buckmaster suggested that the first clause of the Bill was not clear, and that it could not be said upon the construction of it whether or not those actions connected with libel, slander, and other things, which are excluded from the County Court, did or did not come in under the language of the clause. With great deference to the noble and learned Lord, I do not think that this is the construction of the words. I think it is clear that the Bill did not intend as originally drawn to alter the law as to that jurisdiction; but I see that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has tabled Amendments which will have the effect of bringing in that jurisdiction. As I myself have always been strongly in favour of the direct increase of the County Court jurisdiction, I certainly am not prepared to say anything against that, and I shall not propose to say anything more about it in this debate.
There is another Amendment which I am sorry to see put down by my noble and learned friend near me, upon a subject that also has been for many years very familiar, but it has always been regarded as a controversial subject; therefore I am sorry to see the attempt made to put it into this Bill. I do not think there can be any doubt that it is contrary to the old tradition of the County Court jurisdiction and that it must bring a further burden on the High Court of Justice at a time when we have reason to think it is suffering a good deal from overwork and arrears.
I should have been glad to see a general introduction of the extension of County Court jurisdiction, but that, of course, would not have been consistent with the character of the Bill which the noble and learned Lord has brought in. It is a curious

353
thing that when a Bill is introduced for dealing directly with County Court jurisdiction there is always resistance to the increase of that jurisdiction, but Bill after Bill comes up upon general subjects and you find that the jurisdiction of the County Court is increased without any hesitation. I should have been glad to see something done, either in this Bill or in the other of which the noble and learned Lord has charge, to improve the salaries of the County Court Judges, but that, again, is inconsistent with the views of drastic economy that are supported now (and certainly deserve all support), and I do not see how it could have been done.
There is another subject in which I feel a very deep interest and in regard to which I should have liked to see a clause, but I know it is quite impossible. That is on the subject of jurisdiction in divorce. Holding, as I do, that it is essential for doing justice to the poor to have some change of that sort, I should have been glad to see it brought into a County Court Bill, but the matter is so controversial that it is quite clear it ought to be dealt with in a separate measure and not in a County Court Bill. The only other matter to which wish to call attention in connection with the Bill, which seems in all respects a most valuable one, is that there are two clauses at the end dealing with the Workmen's Compensation Act. I think these are admirable clauses, but whether they ought to be in the Bill may be doubted. There are some words in the title which may be supposed to bring those clauses in, and if the noble and learned Lord thinks so I should not venture to differ from him, but I do call his attention to the point.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL Or DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Transfer of actions of contract, of tort, and for recovery of land from High Court to county court. 51 & 52 Vict c. 43.
1. The following section shall be substituted for section sixty-five of the County Courts Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as "the principal Act"):—
"In any action commenced in the High Court where—

"(1) the plaintiff's claim is founded either on contract or on tort and the amount claimed or remaining in dispute in
354
respect thereof does not exceed one hundred pounds, whether the defendant does or does not set up or intend to rely on a counter claim and whether the counter claim (if any) is founded on contract or on tort and whether the amount claimed on the counter claim exceeds or does not exceed one hundred pounds; or

"(2) the only matter remaining to be tried between the parties is a counter claim, whether founded on contract or on tort, and the amount claimed or remaining in dispute in respect of the counter claim does not exceed one hundred pounds; or

"(3) the plaintiff's claim is for recovery of land, with or without a claim for rent or mesne profits, by a landlord against a tenant or any person holding or claiming by, through, or under a tenant, whose term has expired or has been duly determined by notice to quit or has become liable to forfeiture for non-payment of rent, and the action could have been commenced in a county court;

either party may at any time apply to the court or a judge for an order that the claim and counter claim (if any) or, if the only matter remaining to be tried is a counter claim, the counter claim, shall be transferred—

"(a) to any county court in which the action might have been commenced if the amount thereof had been within the jurisdiction of the court; or

"(b) if the only matter remaining to be tried is a counter claim, to any county court in which the counter claim might have been commenced if it had been an action; or

"(c) to any county court which the court or judge may deem the most convenient to the parties;

and the court or a judge may thereupon, if the court or judge thinks fit, order the same to be so transferred accordingly."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), after "pounds" where that word first occurs, to insert "whether the action could or could not have been commenced in a County Court and." The noble and learned Lord said: This is the first of several Amendments, to which the others are consequential. It may be convenient for me to explain quite briefly their cumulative effect. The first Amendment is to insert the words "whether the action could or could not have been commenced in a County Court and," after the word "pounds" in line 12; the next is in subsection (2), to insert, after "tort," the words "and whether the counter claim if it had been an action could or could not have been commenced in a County Court"; the third is in paragraph (a), after "if," to

355
insert "the subject matter and"; and the fourth in paragraph (b), after "action," to insert "and the subject matter thereof had been within the jurisdiction of the Court."
The object of these Amendments is to deal with a doubt expressed and a suggestion made by my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster on the Second Reading. The doubt expressed by him was as to whether the result of the Bill, as drafted, was not to make certain actions for libel, slander, seduction, and breach of promise of marriage triable in the County Court. I had taken the view not that there was not a great deal to be said for the proposal that I should depart from my primary object, which was to collect into one Bill all those non-controversial clauses in the County Court Bill which, in my judgment, would be of extreme advantage to the ministration of justice, if they became law, and not, by undue ambition, share the fate of many of my predecessors in their attempted legislation; but I have consulted many of the County Court Judges and others whose opinion is of value in this matter, and they share the impression which I had generally formed, and the conclusion which my noble and learned friend had clearly reached, that it would on the whole be a great advantage if these matters were made triable in the County Court.
This class of action is of a kind which, in my judgment, may very properly be remitted. Many of these actions are no doubt substantial and they involve very serious issues of character, but many of them are purely speculative matters. They are set on foot on trumpery pretexts; they occupy a great deal of the time of the Law Courts; and, as my noble and learned friend pointed out, they fill an undue position in the columns of the newspapers; and I am, on the whole, unable to see why what has been called the ordinary "pot-house slander" should not go to the County Court. If discretion is wisely exercised, and this action does go there, it will receive the summary treatment which the experience of the County Court judges admirably qualifies them to give, instead of dragging on for several days in the Law Courts. It is expected that this modification, introduced at the last moment, will very considerably assist what is one of the principal objects of this Bill—namely, to remove the undue congestion of work in the Law Courts. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, after ("pounds") insert ("whether the action could or could not have been commenced in a county court and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: I desire to express my satisfaction that the noble and learned Lord has seen his way to extend the operation of this Bill. There can be no doubt that the class of action which can now be brought within the jurisdiction of the County Court is frequently of the most worthless character and occupies far longer time in the High Court than I think it is likely to occupy in the County Court. County Court judges are certainly of a standard well able to deal with these trumpery disputes, and I am glad indeed that the Lord Chancellor has found himself able to include this provision in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next three Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 1, line 20, after ("tort") insert ("and whether the counter claim if it had been an action could or could not have been commenced in a county court")
Page 2, line 11, after ("if") insert ("the subject matter and")
Page 2, line 16, after ("action") insert ("and the subject matter thereof had been within the jurisdiction of the court").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The three Amendments which I move on this clause should be read together. They are purely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 36, after ("Act") insert ("an order is made directing")
Page 3,line 37, leave out ("is directed")
Page 3,lines 37 and 38, leave out ("directing the issue").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5, 6, and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Default summons.
8.The following section shall be substituted for section eighty-six of the principal Act:—
"(1) County court rules may provide for the issue, under the prescribed conditions, of a default summons, in the prescribed form or to the prescribed effect, in any action for a debt or liquidated demand in money, and may provide for the manner in which such a summons is to be served and the conditions (if any) under which the defendant is to be entitled to defend the action; and, where such conditions are not complied with, it shall be lawful for the registrar to enter up judgment summarily for the plaintiff in manner prescribed by the rules.
"(2) The rules may provide for different procedure and different conditions according to the amount of the claim or the nature thereof or the position or occupation of the defendant, for the exclusion of any actions from the procedure by default summons, and for the amendments to be allowed in the case of a default summons, and the procedure consequent on any such amendment."
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, at the beginning of subsection (1), to insert "In any action in a court for a debt or liquidated demand for money." The noble and learned Lord said: The Amendment which I propose looks merely like a transposition of words, but if I rightly understand the clause—and I have very grave doubts whether I do and very great hopes that I do not rightly understand it—then they make a very great difference. At present what is called Procedure by Default Summons, an extremely drastic procedure but a valuable one where there is no defence, is applied in the County Courts for sums not exceeding£100. It is followed by a procedure which brings a case, if the defendant defends, within the jurisdiction of the County Court. If he has a defence he raises it and it is argued and decided in the County Court.
As I read this clause—I hope I have misread it—it will bring default summonses for thousands of pounds, tens of thousands of pounds, into the County Court. Can it be intended that this should be done? And what is to be done if the defendant appears and says lie has a defence? You might as well shut up the High Court of Justice altogether and send all cases in the first instance to the County Court. I cannot conceive that it can be the intention of the Government that default summonses should be issued in the County Court for tens of thousands of pounds, and, if the man does not put in a defence within eight days, judgment shall be signed against him, which, I understand, is irremediable. If he
358
does put in a defence then the County Court is thereby seised of the question and may decide a matter of the highest importance.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 24, at the beginning of the line insert ("In any action in a court for a debt or liquidated demand for money").—(Lord Phillimore.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If on a pure question of drafting the noble and learned Lord thinks the clause will be improved if the words are inserted where he wishes—
LORD PHILLIMORE: My object in inserting them is to prevent this jurisdiction; it would then leave the jurisdiction of the County Court where it is.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not at all sure whether the Amendment would produce that effect. As a matter of fact, I have not with me the section of the principal Act, and I rather wish my noble and learned friend had told me the apprehensions he entertained in putting down the Amendment. On its face it appeared to deal only with the transfer of words, and I had no reason to suppose he would bring forward any objection of substance. Therefore I am not as well prepared to deal with the point that he has raised as I otherwise should have been. My impression is that no such unlimited jurisdiction as he supposes was ever intended. Certainly at no conference which I had with experienced County Court Judges to discuss the matter was any such suggestion put forward, and I entertain little doubt that when we examine the clauses of the principal Act and the present measure these apprehensions will be removed. Before the Report stage this matter shall be carefully considered, and I will discuss with my noble and learned friend whether he or I should make substantial proposals if they are necessary.
LORD PHILLIMORE: The pressure of business prevented my communicating with the Lord Chancellor on this subject, and the Committee stage has been rather hurried. I shall, however, be quite satisfied if the matter is under his consideration.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I agree with the view of the Lord Chancellor, and suggest

359
that if the noble and learned Lord pursues his Amendment in the Report stage in the form in which it now stands, he will reintroduce the difficulty he suggests.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I cannot see that the Amendment would achieve the object of the noble and learned Lord, but if there is ground in the language of the Acts for believing that unlimited jurisdiction will obtain, undoubtedly some Amendment ought to be introduced. This clause will depend mainly upon the framing of the rules under it. It is one of those clauses—there are several others—in the Bill where large powers are given of making rules for carrying the clause into effect, and I should like to take this opportunity of saying what a very great loss County Court jurisdiction has lately sustained by the retirement of Sir William Lucius Selfe, who is one of the best Judges who ever sat in any Court. He was chairman of the County Court Rules Committee; almost every existing rule of the Court was drawn by his own hand. I cannot conceive how the Lord Chancellor will be able to get on without him with his immense knowledge of every detail of County Court practice, and his extraordinary skill in drafting.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Amendment to this clause is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 36, after ("tort") insert ("than"). —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, after Clause 12, to insert the following new clause—
Section one hundred and twenty of the principal Act shall read as if after the words "any evidence" the following words were added, "or upon the facts if the amount in dispute exceeds fifty pounds."
The noble and learned Lord said: I have had an opportunity of pressing on the Lord Chancellor my view on this matter. It
360
is one of very great importance and gravity. It is a proposal to give an appeal on facts as well as on law in cases of considerable importance which come into the County Courts. When the County Courts were originally established their jurisdiction was so petty that it was not thought worth while to give any appeal from them. They were intended to be cheap—as old practitioners used to say, "cheap and nasty." They are not nasty, and I am not so Sure that they are always cheap; but as their jurisdiction was extended, an appeal has been given and is now given on points of law, but no appeal on points of fact.
If a High Court Judge sits and tries an action, as very often he does, and as I have done myself during my sixteen years experience in the High Court, involving sums of fifty pounds or less, there is an appeal from his decision on fact to the Court of Appeal, and in some cases even to your Lordships' House. Why should a County Court Judge sit and try sums up to one hundred pounds, give judgments for sums of one hundred pounds or more —and under this Bill give judgments for sums considerably more than that—and be utterly exempt from correction or examination by any tribunal? My noble friend beside me has told me that in Ireland the corresponding Court always has an appeal on fact, and whereas I believ there is no appeal from the Sheriff in Scotland there is an appeal from the Sheriff's Substitute—who occupies much the same position as the County Court Judge—to the Sheriff. I believe it is in England alone that the County Court Judge is allowed to be sovereign, unexaminable, when he decides questions of fact, which as I say may now amount to several hundreds of pounds.
It may be said that this is a very controversial matter, and that we do not want controversial matters in this Bill. The Bill becomes controversial if this clause is not put in. It becomes in my judgment, and in the judgment of other people, of eminence and worthy of respect, extremely undesirable to increase the jurisdiction of County Court Judges unless there is some power of reviewing their decisions on fact in important cases. All of us who have been in the profession have as advocates before County Courts, and I at any rate sitting in the King's Bench Division of the High Court to which County Court appeals are usually brought, and I and others sitting in the Court of Appeal, have been accustomed

361
to instances of the greatest injustice owing to some mistake having been made by the County Court Judge and his judgment on questions of fact not being open to review. We are all aware of the temptation—all of us are fallible—to a County Court Judge to support his decision on law, as to which he may have some doubt, by saying that he finds the matter as a question of fact. One has even known, in moments of judicial irritation, a County Court Judge throw out the threat or taunt to the advocate that he has the power of finding the matter as a question of fact, and that as a question of fact he will so find it. I am making no imputation upon County Court Judges. If a Judge of the High Court had the same power he would do the same thing in moments of bunion weakness. What I complain of is that County Court Judges are put in a position of great superiority to Judges of the High Court. You do not trust Judges of the High Court to decide questions of fact without appeal, and why should you allow Judges of the County Court to decide sometimes very important questions of fact without appeal?
Before I sit down I should like to deal with one suggestion which has been made. It is asked upon what evidence, and upon what materials, will the Court of Appeal act when it reviews a decision of a County Court Judge. The County Court Judges can take notes as well as the Judges of the High Court, and they have often been told that they ought to take notes, at any rate in all cases of importance. I have sat in the Court of Appeal on many appeals from County Court Judges in Workmen's Compensation cases. We always had a note, and generally a good one, and quite a sufficient one to enable us to see what the witnesses had said. Of course, there is always power to have a shorthand writer, and when a case involves some hundreds of pounds there is no reason for not having a shorthand note taken. But the materials before the Court of Appeal when dealing with questions of fact on appeal from the County Court judge may be just as good as the materials before the Court of Appeal when dealing with questions of fact on appeal from the High Court; and after my long experience as an advocate and a Judge I am convinced that it is necessary that there should be this power of appeal front County Court Judges. I therefore move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Insert the Said new clause.—(Lord Phillimore.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: The noble and learned Lord who has just sat down was kind enough to send me notice of his intention to move this Amendment. I regret the more that I find myself quite unable to support his Motion that it should be inserted in the Bill; indeed I feel very strongly the other way. There are, to my mind, three great difficulties which one always has to encounter in the administration of justice. One is the delay in litigation; the second is the uncertainty of judgment; and the third is expense. Those are the great reproaches to which our present system of administering the law is open. So far as delay is concerned it has been practically removed. So far as expense is concerned, in the County Court it is subject to strict and severe limit, which has not been altered although the whole scale of expense has changed during the last few years. So far as expense in the High Court is concerned, it is beyond control. So far as uncertainty of judgment is concerned we have been unable to settle that, and for this reason —that in the High Court it has hitherto been regarded as impossible to bind a man by the finding of one Judge, either on fact or on law, but the Courts of Appeal, and notably your Lordships' House, have gone a long way to secure that by considering as sacred the verdict of a jury on questions of fact. Once a jury has decided a question of fact, however severely it may have been contested, from that moment a person is secure in his verdict unless there has been misdirection or fault in law.
In the County Court, up to the present, an appeal on a question of fact has always been refused on this ground, as I understand: The normal litigants in the County Court are poor people, and to allow one of these parties to obtain in his favour the judgment of the Judge, and then to be dragged by the other side from Court to Court, in order that it may be ascertained whether other people would have regarded the facts in a light different from the light in which they were regarded by the County Court Judge, has been regarded, and I so regard it, as an oppression. I think it is far better that in cases of mistake, and mistake must always arise, the decision should be final, and that people should not be subject to the hazard of appeal, than

363
that you should enable people to complain of findings of fact and use the power, which is undoubtedly possessed and exercised by people of wealth, to drag poor litigants from Court to Court in the hope that they may be able to tire them out.
Therefore I sincerely hope that your Lordships will not alter what I regard as a most useful and salutary rule of the County Court. I speak as a man who for years of his life practised in these Courts. I doubt if any member of your Lordships' House has ever had as close and intimate experience of the methods of the County Court as I have had, and I say with assurance that I should regard it as the greatest misfortune for my clients had it been possible for me, at the end of a case which had been decided against me, to advise them that there was an opportunity on appeal to overthrow the verdict. Finality is kindness to the litigant, and I doubt if any one is more convinced than the occupant of the Woolsack that what we want to secure is the highest standard of men upon the Bench—upon every Bench—in order that their judgments may carry the greatest possible weight. Having secured those men the next thing you want to do, within all reasonable limits, is to secure that their judgments shall be final. It is multiplication and not repression of appeal that is part of the scandal Of our litigation, and I hate often wondered what the feeling of the litigant must be who has found that the scale has swung alternately from Court to Court, only ultimately to rest it may be on a majority of one in your Lordships' House.
LORD SHANDON: I should be very slow to interfere in the discussion of a Bill if it applies only to England and to English jurisdiction, but the remarks which fell from the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down open up a question of principle as to which I certainly do not feel myself altogether in agreement with him. As a practical matter I quite admit that poor litigants should not be harried by oppressive appeals, but all this, as was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord who proposed the Amendment, arose in Ireland where certainly we cannot say that we have wealthy litigants. On the whole I should think that they were rather poorer than even here, and their system—which is much older than the English system, going back to the eighteenth century—after it had been over a century in use, showed that it was desirable to give a practically unrestricted
364
right of appeal from a County Court Judge. In practice these appeals are not found oppressive, because the rules that are made under the Act restrict the costs which can be paid to a very small sum indeed. And they are restricted not only in the Civil Bill Court, as we call it, but they are restricted on appeal. I should add that the appeal is not to the High Court but is only to one High Court Judge. There are very many cases indeed, owing to the difficulties of poor litigants especially getting their witnesses to these places, where—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Would my noble and learned friend tell me—I am ignorant about Irish appeals—how far an appeal can go? Can it go beyond the one Judge?
LORD SHANDON: Only to the one Judge, and no further on questions of fact, but he may state a case for the Court of Appeal in some cases, and for the King's Bench in others. This has worked well, and I suggest that it might be worthy of imitation as the jurisdiction is proposed in this Bill to be extended to £100 and, as I understand, it is only in the big cases that an appeal is suggested. The difficulty with regard to the poor litigant would not really arise in practice, and by adopting some such method as we have found workable in Ireland I think that a compromise might be effected between the views of the noble and learned Lords.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Lord who introduced this Amendment in a weighty speech was replied to with very great vigour by my noble and learned friend who sits opposite, and I cannot help thinking that the circumstance that two Judges of such experience should hold views so diametrically diverse and should be prepared to state them in terms of such sharply contrasted argument is the best justification that I can bring forward of my omission to make any such proposal in the Bill, the only justification of which, every one is agreed, was that it was to be a measure which did not contain any controversial matter.
If I may express an opinion upon the point which has been raised and so much disputed, I am bound to say plainly that I agree entirely with my noble and learned friend who spoke from the other side of the Table, and I am bound to point out

365
to the noble and learned Lord who spoke last that it is not really accurate to say that this Bill increases the jurisdiction of the County Court. It does nothing of the kind. It is only in one utterly immaterial particular that the jurisdiction of the County Court is increased. I am sure that my noble and learned friend the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland knows that in the Act of 1903 the jurisdiction of the County Courts was extended to £100. All that the present Bill does is to penalise those persons who might have brought actions in the County Court and who insist on bringing them in the High Court by depriving them of costs if they do not recover a certain proportion of their total claim. Therefore the only question before us is, Has the experience gained in the sixteen years since 1903 been such as to render necessary the granting of an appeal on fact in cases in which no such appeal has hitherto been allowed?
LORD SHANDON: I took it that the Amendment to Section 1 did create a new jurisdiction, and in a class of case to which possibly it might be very desirable to have an appeal.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am speaking of the statement that I understood the noble and learned Lord to make, that this Act did increase the jurisdiction of the County Court.
LORD SHANDON: I am wrong.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is the only statement that I was controverting. The other actions of which I have spoken—cases of slander, libel, and so forth—would be remitted in proper instances and with proper securities, and therefore the effect of this Bill would be to penalise those persons who did not avail themselves of the facilities afforded by the Act of King Edward VII. The real question and the only question is, Has the experience of the last sixteen years been such as to render it necessary to grant an appeal in cases where hitherto no appeal has been allowed?
I listened with great care to the speech of the noble and learned Lord who introduced this subject to your Lordships, and I really could not see that he made out any real case at all in experience of the past. The noble and learned Lord did indeed argue that in common sense and
366
in consistency of judicial system one ought not to allow an appeal on questions of fact from a Judge of the High Court and deny it in the case of a County Court Judge. I am bound to say, in answer, that that distinction was deliberately faced many years ago. It was faced in deference to the considerations just urged by my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster, that the one thing that was fundamentally essential in these matters was to get a decision and to get finality of decision. We ought not, I think, to forget that in a great many cases in the County Court—many of them relating to comparatively trivial and small matters—you have a powerful and wealthy person on the one side and you have a small and humble person on the other, and to allow the wealthy person, to whom the cost of repeated suits is of no consideration, to take such a matter first to the Divisional Court, then perhaps to the Court of Appeal, and then to your Lordships' House, is to render possible a practice which, whether it be theoretically defensible or not, was certainly never in the minds of those who first of all framed the regulations under which our County Court system came into existence.
I agree that you can, if you chose to draw a logical dilemma close, argue the case that my noble and learned friend did in reference to the contrast between the High Court system and the County Court system, but I am sure that the balance of advantage in this matter must be, not on the side of those who are perhaps most strictly logical, but on the side of those who would still maintain the safe character and advantage of our present County Court system. I am quite sure that the passage of this Bill into law will effect an enormous improvement in this system, and that the introduction into it of the noble and learned Lord's proposal, which is so much resisted by many of the most experienced of our County Court Judges, would imperil greatly the prospects of the Bill in another place. I hope, therefore, that these considerations will disincline my noble and learned friend to pursue his Motion.
LORD SUMNER: This may be a non-controversial Bill, but it is at any rate proposed to introduce a not uncontroversial change into the existing law, and I should have thought that any changes which became desirable in consequence of this alteration were changes that it was

367
proper to ventilate and perhaps press upon your Lordships at this stage. I would not have entered upon this discussion but for two things. As I agree with the Motion of my noble and learned friend Lord Phillimore, I hardly think it right to see him demolished without endeavouring to come, however feebly, to his assistance, and my own experience, such as it is, has led me to believe that either rumour has been more than usually a lying jade or there have been County Court Judges in the past—I should say they are not in the present—who have misused this power of finding facts so as to preclude any question of their own decisions being upset.
I do not think that it can be assumed—I do not wish that your Lordships should assume—that those of us who have some little legal experience all think one way upon this point. And I greatly deprecate that upon a question which is, after all, a dry one of legal reform, the test should be hastily resorted to of assuming that there is the conventional poor man seeking justice in the poor man's Court and being resisted by the conventional rich man, who is always in the wrong and who avails himself of his riches to drag the poor man from Court to Court, until he exhausts him.
I think the argument pressed by the noble and learned Lord Lord Buckmaster really amounts to this, that if the poor man manages to get a wrong decision on the facts, no one has a right to take, it away from him. That does not appear to me to consist with ideal justice. And, if it rests upon the conjecture that there is a negligently small number of such cases, quite a small number of such cases go a good way to make the public dissatisfied with the Courts, in which they ought to have every confidence. I am quite sure, though my experience of County Courts cannot hope to rival his, that every one of us who knows much about County Courts and has sat without a brief there waiting for the day when perhaps there might be a brief, will have observed plenty of cases in which the rough and tumble manner of conducting an inquiry into the facts was not at all likely to lead to a conclusion satisfactory to both sides.
I have not one word to say against County Court Judges—a body of men of whom all those who know them will be glad to speak in the highest terms—but at the same time it does seem to me that, when you are to have an amendment in
368
the law framed for the purpose of increasing the number of actions between £50 and £100 which will be tried in County Courts and not in the High Court, you ought not to refuse to consider as being too controversial an Amendment which endeavours to preserve the situation, as far as the merits and justice of the case are concerned, which exists at present, namely, the possibility of having the facts—which, after all, are the foundation of the case—revised in case there has been any error in finding them. And therefore I personally would lend whatever weight my experience enables me to offer to the support of my noble and learned friend's Amendment.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I should like to say a word in reply to the two Goliaths who have been trying to slay David on this Occasion. If my noble and learned friend opposite had been kind enough to study the whole of the short Amendment that I proposed to introduce he would see that I had not left the poor man earning a small sum or recovering a small judgment to be haled from Court to Court. I had limited the case of appeal to cases where the sum of £50 was awarded, a sum which is in excess of that which the County Courts could originally decide at all, and up to the amount which the County Courts could decide for a very considerable time. I had not made small cases appealable.
If my noble friend will permit me, I should say that his argument was an argument against appeals altogether. He spoke of the desirability of settling the case once for all. Why then give an appeal in law? Why give an appeal on fact and law in the High Court? If it is so desirable to have one final decision that you trust the County Court Judge gladly, why not trust a Judge of the High Court with it? And if it is so desirable to have a final decision that you will not allow the question of fact to be raised again, why allow the question of law to be raised again? O sancta simplicitas! The noble and learned Lord spoke as if he did not know that County Court cases on points of law had been brought from the County Court to the House of Lords. They can go as of right to the Divisional Court, they can go by leave to the Court of Appeal, and, when they have once got there, they can go as of right to your Lordships' House. I have known County Court cases so brought and so fought.

369
And, with all respect to the Lord Chancellor, the ground on which I justified this Amendment was that you are extending the jurisdiction of the County Courts by this Bill. Not only by the Amendments which he has made to-day but, unless I am mistaken, in the very first lines of the Bill—I may be wrong—jurisdiction is given where the plaintiff's claim is founded either on contract or tort and the amount remaining in dispute does not exceed £100. I may be wrong but I thought that the limit in tort was £50 and that we have extended it now from £50 to £100. I do not know that it is of very much importance, but I think sub-clause (3), which gives a right to a landlord to recover against his tenant, is also a clause in which the jurisdiction has been extended. There was also my fear—which I am glad to hear is a nugatory fear—with regard to Clause 8. There are two or three other minor cases, and this Bill all through is a Bill extending the jurisdiction of the County Courts, and it is because it is a Bill extending the jurisdiction of the County Courts that I think this corrective should be administered.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not desire to attempt to answer the two speeches that have been delivered—both the noble Lords are admirably qualified to offer counsel upon such a matter—but I do rise to remind your Lordships of this, because some were not present here when this Bill was discussed on the occasion of its Second Reading. I described in detail on that occasion the deliberate and the most careful steps which had been taken to elicit from all those who are most highly qualified to give guidance on this measure an expression of their opinion as to those reforms which in the past history of attempted legislation had excited the least controversy—for all those proposals failed in the course of their Parliamentary history —and at the same time those which were the most universally admitted to be demanded in the cause of the improvement of the administration of justice in this country. This Bill is the result. After all, I have the responsibility for securing its passage into law both here and elsewhere. It is produced as the result of discussion not only with the judicial authority in this country but also with those who are as responsible for passing this Bill into law in the other House as I am for passing it through its stages in this; and I would most earnestly appeal to your Lordships not to withdraw support
370
from the Minister who, after all, has the responsibility.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Power to registrars to act for more than one court, and place of residence of registrars.
15. Notwithstanding anything in section twenty-five of the principal Act—

(a) the same person may, with the consent of the Lord Chancellor and subject to such conditions as the Lord Chancellor may impose, be appointed registrar of more than one court; and

(b) the registrar of a court may, with the consent of the Lord Chancellor and subject to such conditions as the Lord Chancellor may impose, reside outside the district of which he is the registrar.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in paragraph (a), after "conditions," to insert "(including conditions as to salary)." The noble and learned Lord said: This is an Amendment to meet a point taken by the Treasury, and the proposal here is made in order to meet a case where a registrar is appointed for three or four Courts which between them have a very small business, and in those cases the salary, reckoned by aggregating the minimum of £100, it is thought by the Treasury might be excessive. This Amendment is made with the object of giving the Lord Chancellor discretion.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 30, after ("conditions") insert ("(including conditions as to salary)").— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 24 agreed to.
Clause 25:
Rules as to examination and discovery, &c., in workmen's compensation cases. 6 Edw. 7, c. 58.
25.Rules under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, may provide for conferring on the judge or registrar of a county court the like powers of—

(a) making orders for the examination of witnesses and persons, and for discovery, interrogatories, and inspection of documents and for further particulars; and

(b) of granting a new trial

in proceedings under that Act as are exerciseable as respects actions in county courts.
LORD SHANDON LORD SHANDON moved to insert the following new subsection—
(2) Rules made under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, relating to proceedings in the County Courts in Ireland, may provide for conferring on the Judge similar powers to those which may be conferred under this section on a Judge or registrar in England.
The noble and learned Lord said: With your Lordships' permission I will deal at the same time with the two Amendments I have put down—the insertion of this new subsection and the insertion of a new clause after Clause 26. Unfortunately I was not able to be here on the, Second Beading or I should have mentioned the matter at the time, and I have to apologise for having put down these two Amendments without having previously indicated what was in my mind. The whole of this Bill down to Clause 25 would apply, of course, only to County Courts in England; but Clauses 25 and 26, especially the latter, deal with matters which might affect, and perhaps ought to affect, the jurisdiction under the Workmen's Compensation Act which, of course, is the same in the two countries, ruled by the same principles of law, and for the most part ruled by the same procedure.
There is a difference between Clauses 25 and 26 in this respect. Clause 25 proceeds on the assumption that the Court in respect of which rules have to be made is regulated by the English County Court Act referred to in Clause 27, and that I take it could hardly in any case apply to a proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act in an Irish County Court. It refers to rules under the Act of 1906 and to "making orders for the examination of witnesses and persons, and for discovery, interrogatories and inspection of documents and for fruther particulars; and of granting a new trial in proceedings under that Act as are exercisable as respects actions in county courts." In our Irish County Courts, except possibly on what may be called the Equity side, there are no powers of interrogatory, and discovery, and so forth. That, however, is a matter of procedure, and it is possible that we may get along in the future as we have in the past without those special powers; though I must say that when framing the rules at present in force in Ireland I myself noticed that it would be desirable if some such powers existed.
With regard to Clause 26 the matter is more important. That clause provides for a special method of distributing compensation
372
on the death of a dependent. If the clause were taken simpliciter it would be taken to apply to any County Court, because "County Court" in Ireland is defined by the Definition Act as "Civilian Court" in Ireland. Clause 26 says—
"In the event of the death of any person entitled as a dependant to money paid into a county court under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, then, if no direction has been given as to the disposition thereof for the benefit of other dependants"
certain distribution is to be made. That, if I may say so, would be a most beneficial alteration in the law with regard to the distribution of these sums under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and it certainly ought to apply in Ireland as well as in England. However, it would be a debatable matter because—although Clause 27 exempts the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, in these words, "This Act may be cited as the County Courts Act, 1919, and this Act, except so far as it amends the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, shall be construed as one with the principal Act"—I thought on reading it at first somewhat hastily that possibly the effect of Clause 27 would leave Clause 26 to operate in any County Court either in England or in Ireland; but on reflection I remembered that a somewhat similar question arose under the Land Transfer Act. Part I of the Land Transfer Act is in general terms, and deals with real estate vesting in executors for special purposes. A question was raised as to whether it could possibly refer to Ireland or whether under the Irish law it was altered, and I think it was held that Part I did not apply because the words were general, and that Parts II and III dealt only with land in England. As the matter would be doubtful, I would press on the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill that, as it would be most desirable certainly with regard to Clause 26 for the law to be the same in England as in Ireland, some such Amendment as I have put down is necessary.
With regard to Clause 25, I hardly think that would apply in Ireland owing to the fact that it deals solely with English County Court Acts, and Clause 27 provides that the Act has to be read with the English County Courts Acts. It is a matter I could certainly have wished to have brought to the attention of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack at an earlier date, and, as I have said, I apologise for not having done so;

373
but if there be (as I conceive there is) a good deal in my point, I would ask him to give the matter further consideration, and that, if he cannot accept my Amendments now, they might be dealt with on Report.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, after line 23, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Shandon.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I fully accept the explanation of my noble and learned friend with regard to the late stage at which his proposal is brought forward, he equally will realise that this circumstance makes it impossible for me to accept the proposal. I communicated with the Irish Office as soon as I read the terms of my noble and learned friend's Amendment, and until last night they had not heard anything about them. They professed themselves as quite unable to sanction in any way the insertion of these words until they had consulted the Irish authorities.
LORD SHANDON: I accept that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is another difficulty which will have to be carefully considered. This Bill was really designed to be an English Bill. The Title does not limit it to England, but on reading it through I myself entertained no doubt that it was intended to apply only to England—the framework of the Bill seems to me to suggest that very clearly. The first twenty-four clauses are, by Clause 27, to be construed as one with the principal Act—that is, the County Courts Act, 1888, which, of course, is a purely English Act. I am not at all sure that on the technical sides these Amendments would not be held to be, or ought not to be held to be, outside the scope of the Bill. However, I agree with what has been said by the noble and learned Lord—though I am sorry to say I know little of the Irish County Court system—that the proposal contained in Clause 26 is one which one would expect to find would be equally beneficial in the case of Ireland.
Until I have considered the matter more carefully I cannot give the noble and learned Lord my final answer as to the point about the framework of the Act being English, but I will consider that and give him a clearer opinion between now and the Report stage; and it is possible that I
374
may by then be able to obtain some authoritative expression of opinion from Ireland. In any case, if this Bill becomes law this session (as I have cause to hope it will) there is no reason whatever why a small and non-controversial Bill, introducing both this change and one or two others which I have reason to know are desired, should not be the subject of legislation.
LORD SHANDON: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

RATS AND MICE (DESTRUCTION) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LEE OF FAREHAM)THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LEE OF FAREHAM) moved, after subsection (1) of Clause 5, to insert the following new subsections—
"(2) A local authority in the exercise of its powers under this section, shall as far as possible, take or secure collective action for the destruction of rats or mice.
"(3) The powers of a local authority under this Act may be exercised by any committee of the local authority to which the exercise of those powers may be delegated."
The noble Lord also moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following new subsection—
"(2) In any proceedings under this Act a notice purporting to be signed by the clerk of a local authority shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to have been signed by the clerk with the authority of the local authority."
The noble Lord said: These Amendments are put down to meet the representations made by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe during the Committee stage, and I think they carry out the pledge which I made to your Lordships on that occasion. I do not think they require any explanation. With regard to subsection (3) in the first Amendment, this authorises the County Committee to delegate its powers to one of the sub-committees which will be set up under the Agriculture (Councils, etc.) Bill. I thought on the whole it was better that this should be done, as it will conduce to prompt and effective action.
Amendments moved—
Clause 5, page 3, after subsection (1), and page 4, after Clause 7, to insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: I should like to thank the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture for his courtesy in meeting in so large a measure the criticism which I made during the Committee stage of the Bill. There is one word of which I should rather like to obtain the interpretation from the noble Lord. That is the word "collective." It is perfectly true that I argued on the Committee stage that the local authority should have the right to deal, not with the individual who had been remiss in the destruction of rats but individuals occupying a large area which should be scheduled for the purpose. It has occurred to me that possibly this word may also apply—and I venture to hope that it will apply—to collective action between various local authorities. If, on full legal construction of the clause, it would not apply to common action between adjacent local authorities, I would suggest that on Third Reading the noble Lord might add words to make the matter clear. It is desirable, where there is a large centre of population, such as Bristol for instance, on the borders of two contiguous counties, Gloucester and Somerset, where there is a particular danger of the extreme prevalence of rats, that we should have common action.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: The word "collective" was selected because we thought it was the widest possible term to be employed. I am not a lawyer, but I imagine that it clearly covers the case to which the noble Lord refers.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The only collective action which a local authority can take is obviously with another authority.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I hope the noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I point out the true object of this. When I argued the matter in Committee it was with a desire that there should be collective action between various individuals upon whom notices were served. If the noble Lord is prepared to say that that would extend to collective action not merely with the local authority in question but with other local authorities I am more than satisfied.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord in raising the point only expressed that part of his anxiety which deals with the question as to whether a local authority can act collectively with another local authority. I think that is the meaning, and I think it is the only meaning of this clause.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 9:
Application to Scotland.
9.—(1) This Act shall apply to Scotland with the following modifications:—

(a) The Board of Agriculture for Scotland shall be substituted for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.

(b) The section of this Act relating to the enforcement of the Act shall not apply, and in lieu thereof the following provisions shall have effect:—

(i) The local authority for executing and enforcing this Act shall be the local authority under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897: Provided that where a port local authority has been constituted under the said Act, the local authority for executing and enforcing this Act, within the district over which such port local authority has jurisdiction shall be the port local authority;

(ii) The expenses incurred by any local authority under this Act shall be defrayed in like manner as expenses incurred by a local authority, under the Public Health (Scotland) Act., 1897.

Application to Ireland.
(2) This Act shall apply to Ireland with the following modifications:—

(a) Any reference to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries shall be construed as a reference to the Local Government Board for Ireland:

(b) Subject to the exercise of the powers of delegation given to a county council by this Act, the local authorities for the purposes of this Act shall be, as respects so much of any administrative county or county borough as is not included in a port sanitary district, the council of the county or borough, and as respects any port sanitary district the port sanitary authority:

(c) The expenses incurred by a local authority under this Act shall be defrayed, in the case of a county council, out of the poor rate as a county at large charge; in the case of a port sanitary authority as part of their expenses as such authority; and in the case of any other local authority as expenses incurred in the execution of the Public Health (Ireland Acts, 1878 to 1919.

LORD STANMORE LORD STANMORE moved to omit from paragraph (b) (i) the words "Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897: Provided that where a port local authority has been constituted under the said Act, the local authority for executing and enforcing this Act, within the district over which such port local authority has jurisdiction shall be the port local authority," and to substitute "Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1914." The noble Lord also moved, in paragraph (b) (ii) to leave out "Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897," and insert "Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1914."
The noble Lord said: These Amendments have been put down to meet the wishes of the Association of County Councils in Scotland, who wish to enlarge the area of administration as proposed under this Bill. In the Bill as it stands, the local authority in Scotland, for the purpose of executing and enforcing the Act, is the local authority under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897. This means the town council in burghs, and in the non-burghal areas the district committee where, as is usually the case, the county is divided into districts for local government purposes. For this it is proposed to substitute the authority responsible for the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1914. In this case the authorities are the county council for a whole county, including all police burghs therein, as also Royal burghs with a population under 7,000. The argument in favour of this is that only by conducting schemes over large areas can the rat plague be dealt with satisfactorily.
Amendments moved—
Clause 9, page 4, line 19, leave out from ("the") to end of line 24, and insert ("Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1914")
Clause 9, page 4, line 28, leave out ("Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897") and insert ("Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1914").— Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

COUNTY COURT JUDGES (RETIREMENT PENSIONS AND DEPUTIES) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.

TERRITORIALS IN INDIA.
LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is the case that Territorial officers in India are being paid
378
for their war bonus and war gratuity ten rupees to the £, whilst the men for their war bonus are being paid at the rate of sixteen rupees to the £; and, if so, what is the justification for this difference.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the first part of the Question, I am aware, has been satisfactorily answered in another place, but I put down, and intentionally put down, a further Question as to what justification there is for the difference which I understand was in the first instance made between the rate of exchange at which the gratuity was paid to men in the Territorial Force in India and to Territorial officers. It is the fact, I believe, that for a time the officers were paid at the rate of only ten rupees to the £ whilst the men were getting fifteen rupees—a difference of 10s. in the £. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give some justification for the difference, which seems to be manifestly unfair.
I would urge him to give an explanation whether it is justifiable or not, because I can assure him that it is extremely unpleasant for any one who has had anything to do with the administration of affairs in India to read the things which one reads in one's private correspondence with reference to the treatment of the Army by the Government in India. Extremely unpleasant things are being said as regards injustice and indifference to hardships, and where the case seems, on the face of it, so manifestly unfair I think the reasons for it should be published. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will not hesitate to say what the actual facts are.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD SINHA): My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for giving me this opportunity of explaining the reason for the difference such as it originally existed. The Question deals with two matters which stand on a somewhat different footing. First of all, there is the subject of the war bonus, and then there is the question of the war gratuity. With regard to the bonus it was always considered that it was a sterling addition to the pay both of officers and men. With regard to the officers, their initial pay is fixed in rupees, but this bonus was a sterling addition, and was therefore paid to them at the current or official rate of exchange—1s. 6d. for some time, and afterwards 1s. 8d. The period extended only for five months—namely, from February 1 to June 30, and

379
the rate was 1s. 6d. up to May 13, and 1s. 8d. from that date to the end.
So far as the men were concerned their pay always was in sterling, and in 1917 the Government of India considered it would be extremely hard if their back pay were paid in sterling at the current rate of exchange. A concession was made, by reason of the special circumstances, that they should get, not the current rate of exchange when the rate rose to more than 1s. 5d., but that they should get a fixed rate—one rupee for every 1s. 4d. which, of course, was a little bit favourable to them and enabled them to pay for necessaries which, with their small pay, it would have been otherwise difficult for them to do. So far, therefore, as the bonus is concerned I think my noble friend will be satisfied that there is good reason for the distinction made between the men and officers. A further reason for that distinction is that the officers were entitled to exchange compensation allowance until the rupee rose to 1s. 6d. while the men were not. I do not think the officers would grudge this little concession in favour of the private.
As regards the gratuity, that was to be paid in a lump sum. The rates vary according to years of service and rank, and, as an illustration, it is enough to say that a private who served throughout the war would get £29, and a captain, with the same service, would get about £90. That illustrates the rates according to rank and period of service. Originally, it was intended —this being a lump sum which was to form a sort of "nest egg" to be remitted to England as a saving—that both officers and men should get this gratuity at the current rate of exchange, otherwise they would get more than the sterling amount which it was intended to give them. By reason of the misapprehension of a cable which was sent to the Government of India a private got a better rate. As in the case of his bonus, so in the case of his gratuity, he got a fixed rate; that is, 1s. 4d. for every rupee. The result was that he got more rupees than he would otherwise have received, and he was able to remit more than the £29 to which he was entitled. It was a mistake; it was not intended that he should get it, but the mistake continued, and when it was discovered it was too late to remedy it and payment was continued at that rate.
So far as the officers were concerned, however, it continued to be paid at the current
380
rate—that is, 1s. 6d. to 1s. 8d., as the rate varied. The Secretary of State afterwards decided that there should not be this inequality in respect of the gratuity and the officer now gets the benefit of the mistake made in favour of the private—namely, that whereas he got the rupee previously at 1s. 8d. he now gets it at 1s. 4d.; so that he is far better off by reason of the mistake than he otherwise would have been. I do not think there is any reason for grievance on the part of the officers either with regard to the bonus or with regard to the gratuity. I hope that my noble friend will be satisfied that when the difference was originally made it was not done with any intention of favouring the men at the expense of the officers, and that the officer has had the benefit of a mistake which was made in favour of the private.
LORD HARRIS: I am much obliged for the full explanation of the noble Lord. As regards the latter part of his remarks they seem to be quite satisfactory from the officers' point of view, because they get the benefit of the mistake made with regard to the men. I do not quite follow his explanation with regard to the bonus. It seems to me to be a little complicated, but I will consult with some of my friends who understand the subject better than I do.

BRITISH MUSEUM GALLERIES.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY rose to call attention to the continued occupation of Exhibition Galleries in the British Museum by the clerks of the Registry of Friendly Societies and by other persons, and to ask for information as to the arrangements which can be made for the restoration of the Galleries to their proper use.
The most rev. Primate said: My Lords, this is a matter which I think is of real public importance. During the war the authorities of the British Museum co-operated with the utmost readiness in the desire expressed by the Government that the Galleries which were available for public purposes should be utilised for the staffs of those public offices which were called into existence or removed from their ordinary places. The two Galleries of special importance which were given over by the British Museum to the Office of Works for this purpose were the Gallery of Prints and Drawings, greatly frequented

381
by the public and containing things of extreme interest and value, and the Gallery of Antiquities, especially Egyptian Antiquities, not sculpture but mummies. The very value of these articles made it necessary that they should be hidden away elsewhere for safety during the War, and these Galleries being empty we readily acceded to the request that they should be used for public services. Originally it was requested that we should allow the authorities of the Air Force to have some quarters there, but this was objected to on the ground that, being a combatant force, the Museum would be a legitimate object of attack. That proposal was withdrawn and the Galleries were occupied by the clerks of the Registry of Friendly Societies—about 120 young women—who are doing their work there, and no doubt doing it exceedingly well.
There was a most strenuous and imperative demand on the part of the public that these Galleries should be made available for the public as soon as possible. There are few things in the Museum which attract both students and public from all parts of the world more than the contents of the Gallery of Egyptian Antiquities. They are of priceless value and during the war were necessarily stored in places of safety underground. The Prints were not of the same antiquity but of the same general interest, and these, too, were stored away in safety.
Since the war ended we have made inquiries as to how soon we may expect to be able to admit the public to these Galleries in reply to their constant demand, and we were told by the First Commissioner of Works as long ago as November 15, 1918, immediately after the conclusion of the Armistice, that he was as anxious as any one to see the Museum completely restored as soon as possible. As nothing was done the Trustees called attention by correspondence to this reply, and were told on January 20 that everything possible would be done to meet their wishes. Again nothing whatever occurred, and the Galleries continued to be occupied by the estimable clerks doing their work there day by day. When May came an announcement was made that in releasing buildings priority would be given to hotels and museums. Museums and galleries were therefore pat in the front line. This sounded satisfactory, and when the question was raised shortly afterwards in this House an answer was given that steps were in progress, and
382
that it should be possible to give possession of the occupied premises at an early date.
Nothing whatever happened. The Galleries remained in occupancy, and when students from abroad or from this country or the general public interested in the matter, and above all soldiers from the Colonies and America, who were most anxious to see the British Museum, came there, they were told that the Galleries were closed and that the objects which they came to see were not available, having had to be packed and stored elsewhere. When October came we wrote again reiterating our request and the pledges which had already been given. Up to this time we have received no reply whatever to that communication. No one can feel more strongly than I do the proprietry of using great Galleries like these during the war for the purpose of housing large numbers of persons for whom accommodation was not available elsewhere. That necessity, however, has now passed, and it does seem almost inexcusable that no steps have been taken to re-admit the public to these Galleries of Prints and Drawings, and to the Egyptian Galleries.
We have now reached a point in which we feel that we have a right to call public attention to this matter. It does not seem, if one looks at it from outside, that the clerks of the Registry of Friendly Societies are a body for which it should be impossible to find other accommodation. A whole year having passed, and nothing having been done, it does seem that we are entitled to call attention again to the matter and to ask that some reply may be given which will enable the Trustees to meet the criticism which is not unnaturally constantly being levelled against them, and to give to the public the opportunity which the public should have of seeing the treasures which are in their keeping. It is not the fault of the Trustees, for they have reiterated their demands, and the Government after giving a courteous reply have taken no steps whatever. I hope that the noble Lord who will reply for the Government will be able to tell us that steps are really being taken which will enable us again to open the galleries to the public. I am certain that the matter is one of wide interest to the public. I know how great is the disappointment which is inflicted upon those who expect to find what they look for in the British Museum. I understand that a similar question arises

383
in regard to other public buildings, but they are not covered by this Question of which I have given notice, and to which we hope to-night to receive a more favourable answer than before.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, there are two bodies at present who are occupying parts of the Galleries of the British Museum. One of these is the Medical Research committee of the War Office, who occupy at present about three-fourths of the space in the sub-ground floor of the Extension Building—a total area of about twenty thousand square feet. I am glad to be able to tell the most rev. Primate that in this case other accommodation has recently been found, and this Department will be moved as soon as the new premises are ready for occupation, which I expect will be about the end of January. In the case of the Registry of Friendly Societies, who occupy the top floor of the Extension Building, which includes part of the Prints and Drawings Galleries, I regret to say that at present it has been found quite impossible to find any accommodation elsewhere for so large a body of clerks. Every effort has been made and is now being made to find such a building. It is not possible for them to return to their own offices, as these have been requisitioned for the use of the Headquarters staff of the Ministry of Pensions. Of course they
384
will return there in due time, but so far it has not been possible to arrange it. I should like to add that the effects of the prisoners of war, which were stored in a part of the basement, were removed in September last.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The noble Lord has given an answer which relates to certain places in the basements, which have nothing whatever to do with the Galleries. No single square foot of the Galleries has been opened to the public which was closed during the war. The return of the storage space in the cellars, to which the noble Lord refers, is no doubt to our advantage, but the public grievance relates to ale Galleries, and as to the Galleries I gather that he can hold out no hope that they will be restored until the Registry of Friendly Societies is able to return to its own offices. The Ministry of Pensions is likely to last for a great many years, and therefore apparently both the Egyptian Galleries and the Galleries of Prints and Drawings may not be available until years have passed. I do not think the position is one which the public will think to be very satisfactory.
House adjourned at half-past six o'clock.