Lords Sitting of 29 June 1920

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past, four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND BILL. [H.L.]
  LIFE ASSOCIATION OF SCOTLAND BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 2a.
PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
PORT OF PORTSMOUTH FLOATING BRIDGE BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this is a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order giving validity to marriages celebrated in the parish church of St. Margaret, Halstead. The original church, built in 1854, was pulled down in 1880–1 and a new church was built. Through omission no order for substitution was made at the time, and the new church never, therefore, became a place where marriages could lawfully be celebrated. This omission was only recently discovered, when to remedy it an order of substitution was made on November 13, 1919. At the request of the various parties interested the Home Secretary made the Provisional Order referred to in order to remove the doubt as to the validity of the marriages solemnised between 1881 and November, 1919. No objections have been received, and the Order is in the usual form and similar to numerous others made in previous years.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITHE RENTCHARCE (RATES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LEE OF FAREHAM): My Lords, this is a temporary Bill introduced by the Government to give partial relief to incumbents and ecclesiastical corporations from the rates now payable on their tithe rentcharge. It will be remembered that in the year 1918 a Tithe Act was passed which fixed the value of tithe rentcharge at the figure at which it then stood—namely, £109 and a few odd shillings—until the end of the year 1925, and that Act prevents tithe rentcharge rising, as it otherwise certainly would have risen in consequence of the prevailing high price of wheat, barley and oats at the present time. It would probably have risen, for example, in the present year to something in the neighbourhood of £140. There is no question, therefore, that the Act of 1918 involved considerable sacrifice on the part of the Church, with corresponding benefit to agriculturists and landowners, and at the time was accepted by the great majority of incumbents chiefly on patriotic grounds It is true also that the Act in question contained a provision as to ascertaining tithe rentcharge after 1925 on a 15 years' average instead of a 7 years' average, and this will eventually give the Church some advantage from the present current, prices. But in spite of this I think it is generally acknowledged by landowners and occupiers of agricultural land that they obtained a very valuable concession from the Church with respect to that Act.
Since then circumstances which no one had foreseen at the time have arisen, and the position has changed very materially and very seriously as against the interest of the incumbents by the rapid and enormous rise in rates throughout the country, which has every appearance of becoming even more serious and also has been aggravated by the great increase in the cost of living. If the Act had not been passed and if the tithe rentcharge had been allowed to rise in a natural way, the increase of the income of the incumbents would have been available to meet this increase in the rates, but that is now stopped by the Act of 1918. Therefore a very strong case has been made out for some relief whilst this artificial restriction
974
On the amount, of tithe rentcharge continues—that is, to the end of the year 1925. The Bill, which only professes to afford temporary and partial relief, proposes, that during this limited period of restriction up to the end of 1925 the rates on ecclesiastical tithe rentcharge shall be levied at the same rate as in 1918–that is, at the time when the restriction on the amount was imposed—and that the provision shall operate as regards any rate which has been made on or since April 1 this year.
The proposals of the Government in the original Bill have been extended in another place by an Amendment giving entire exemption from rates on tithe rentcharge to incumbents with incomes not exceeding £300 a year, and half exemption to incumbents with incomes within the limits of £300 and £500. This will be quite consistent. with the principle of the Bill, which was to maintain the status quo in 1918. In view of the undoubted and extreme poverty of many of the clergy at the present time it is hoped that the modification in the original proposal will commend itself to your Lordships' House. I am aware that in this connection many anomalies may arise in the case of incomes which are very close to the limits that are suggested, but that is always the case in exceptions of this kind, and I am afraid cannot, be avoided.
This Bill has been criticised on the ground that it does not go far enough, but it will at any rate give relief to incumbents to the extent of something in the neighbourhood of £150,000 this year, and will give an even greater relief in future years. The relief to ecclesiastical corporations will also. be substantial. It is obvious that payment of the rates from which relief is given must fall upon other ratepayers, but the total amount will be quite insignificant, averaging well under some small fraction of a penny. No opposition has been seriously voiced to the proposal upon those grounds, for it is obvious that by the restrictions imposed in the Act of 1918 very great benefits were conferred upon landowners and others at the expense of the poor clergy; indeed, the only serious objection that has been so far advanced against this Bill in another place has been as to its temporary and partial character.
I am aware also that in your Lordships' House earlier in the session there was a discussion upon a Motion dealing with the

975
broader question of rating of tithe rent-charge, but I think there is nothing in this Bill which is inconsistent with the Resolution, which was then discussed by your Lordships, and which I believe was not pressed to a conclusion. On behalf of the Government, may I say that we feel every sympathy with the grievance of the clergy with respect to this broader question as to whether tithe rentcharge should be rated at all or not. It is certainly a very anomalous thing that the clergy should be selected from among all other classes of the community and rated on their professional incomes. I believe the position is unique, and the Government has every sympathy with the protest which has been expressed very forcibly by those who are authorised to speak for the Church in these matters. But the view of the Government is that it would be quite impossible to deal with this grievance, great though it is, as a detached matter, apart from the whole question of legislation for the general reform of local taxation. This broader question undoubtedly calls for the attention of Parliament and perhaps is much overdue, but owing to the great pressure of public business, and also to the great complexity of the question, it has not hitherto been possible to find Parliamentary time for the purpose.
I wish to emphasise that the acceptance of this partial and temporary measure by your Lordships and by the Church will in no sense prejudice the claims of the Church to have this broader question dealt with hereafter in a fair manner. Though the relief which is proposed to give incumbents under the Bill is not all that may be their due, the relief to them is at any rate a substantial one, and I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading and favourable consideration in its subsequent stages.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am grateful first for the very clear exposition which has been given of a somewhat technical and even unattractive subject by the noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Government; and second, and still more so, for the exceedingly cordial and sympathetic way in which he has recognised what I believe to be a real, long-standing, and remediable grievance. It is not a
976
small thing that we should have recognition now publicly given to certain large principles and facts that are often forgotten or ignored.
We have a combination of things at this moment which accentuates whatever difficulty this Bill is intended to meet. We have, first, the rising of rates in many parts of the country pressing upon everybody in its degree, but not upon everybody alike, because it presses most upon some particular classes. Then we have the fact that the clergy are really quite disproportionately rated. They are the only men whose earned income is subject to rates, and their position in this matter is unique. As the noble Lord has said very clearly, it would have been perfectly fair and in consonance with our general legislalation in these matters had the Bill gone much further than it does, and had it been possible to obliterate altogether the rating of people on their actual earned income.
There is a third fact beyond the rise of rates and the disproportionate rating of the clergy. The third fact is that the clergy belong to a class which at this moment is far more than any other being hit by the post-war cost of living in all its aspects. As in the case of other men with fixed incomes—not salaries which can be raised half as much again, or trebled sometimes—the cost of living presses upon them far more than it does upon those who are able to go to some paymaster, be it the country, or a corporation, or an individual, and say "It is impossible for me to live upon this; my salary must be raised in proportion to the present cost of living." They belong to the class which is, therefore, hit quite out of proportion to other people by the present costs. And the sense of that is made far more acute to them by the fact, to which the noble Lord alluded and explained so clearly, that the clergy are, by the Act of two years ago, barred from what would have been the natural increase of their income by the automatic rise of tithe. I do not say for a moment that at the time that Bill was passed it was wrong to pass it in the form which it took; on the contrary, I supported it, believing that it was the only mode in which we could meet the then difficulties. The clergy generally acquiesced with loyal patriotism. Your Lordships will all understand how the acuteness of the difficulty is accentuated for men who, had there not been that legislation, would at this moment have been receiving, not £109, but £140, which in some sense

977
may be said, according to precedent, to be legally theirs.
Put all these facts together, and the result is that the position is an exceedingly grave one for the clergy, and the outlook for them is a very dark one. The Bishops day by day have to go into these matters and try t o deal in such way as they possibly can with the terrible problem of the poverty of clerical homes. The clergy are in this position, that they can neither go on living at the present cost with any possibility of educating their children properly or of doing that which is ordinarily expected of them, nor can they resign and take up other work. The resignation would, in itself, involve a great payment on dilapidations of houses that are much too large, which they have inherited, and, besides that, they are barred to other professions and other means of making a livelihood which are open to their brethren in other fields.
In these circumstances I am simply amazed day by day by the quiet courage, the persistent, brave acquiescence in extreme difficulty, and the plucky way in which men are trying to live. It is evident all over the country, and I am quite sure that it is entitled to recognition on the part of all those who observe and understand the situation. I will give an example of what I mean—some of your Lordships may probably have means of knowing it at first hand. I have had conversation lately with some of the directors of the insurance office in which the clergy insure their lives, and I hear pitiable stories of men coming to appeal for leave to charge their policies with £5 or £6, because, without that, they simply cannot go on. When they are reduced to the condition that they have to go to the insurance office to raise a £5 note we see the straits to which gentleman in that position, with families to educate, have been reduced. That is a single example of the kind of things which come daily before us, showing the way in which brave men are struggling with extraordinary difficulties. We come on their behalf to ask that such relief as this measure can give should, at least, be given to them. There never was a time when the need was greater, there never was a time when the pressure was so hard upon these men, and I cannot help hoping that, even yet, it may be possible to extend somewhat the benefits which this temporary Bill will give. That, however, is a question which, I suppose,
978
would arise on the Committee stage. But we welcome this relief, even such as it is, and reserve any criticisms or questions as to whether it may not go further until that later stage.
It was to me a source of real satisfaction to hear the noble Lord say that the fact of this temporary relief being given will not, if the Government can help it, be used hereafter as an argument against some other form of relief should the occasion arise for bringing that about. It would be very hard if you said, "You accepted this arrangement as a satisfactory solution of your difficulties; therefore we do not listen to your appeal for something wider." The noble Lord has made it perfectly clear that this is a temporary relief, but that the granting of it will not bé regarded as prejudicing future action, should Parliament decide to take future action, on a larger and more generous scale. Meanwhile, I desire, on behalf of those for whom I have the right to speak, to thank the Government and the noble Lord for what they have so far done in this matter, and to say that the relief given by this Bill is sorely needed, and will be greatly prized, and we should be grateful if it were possible to extend it further.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I think that this Bill must be regarded partly as a temporary Bill, but at the same time one cannot put out of sight the general principles which underlie the whole of this rating question, so far as tithe rentcharge is concerned. As regards these temporary matters it stands in this way. The Act of 1918 has operated very hardly on the owners of tithe rentcharge used for spiritual purposes. It has already been pointed out that the effect of that Act is to reduce by from 27 to 28 per cent. the income which clergymen would now be receiving if the Act had not been passed. In other words, they are receiving £109 now instead of £140. I understand that when the Act of 1918 was passed it was' in contemplation that there would be a considerable redemption of tithe rentcharge. I admit I was rather sceptical at the time as regards that effect, and I expressed that view, but that was the underlying motive with which the Act was passed. I do not know—I was not here during the whole of the noble Lord's speech—if the noble Lord gave any information to the House as to whether redemption has proceeded

979
to any large extent under that Act, because, if it has not, it stands in its naked reality as a very large deduction from the income of a hard-worked and hard-pressed class. So that, looked at as a temporary measure and in reference to the Act of 1918, the proposal in this Bill would, I think, hardly give fair justice, and it does not go far enough. Because I am quite sure that the reduction in rates will not be equivalent to the reduction of 28 per cent. under the 1918 Act. In other words, it is only a partial remedy for the evils then created as regards the spiritual income chiefly of the incumbents of this country.
I think it is generally acknowledged that the rating of tithe rentcharge in any form is an anomaly; because we know that under the Common Law "spiritualities" (as they were called) were not subject to rating at all. Whether that is owing to the terms of Magna Charta, as I think Lord Cope suggested, or from any other cause does not matter; but so far as Common Law is concerned they were not regarded as rateable property but as an income paid for spiritual purposes. No doubt as long ago as the Statute of Elizabeth words were introduced under which, by Statute, it was held that the tithe rentcharge was rateable; but, as a matter of fact, although that was said to be the law in some cases, it was not very generally operative. I have no doubt that the noble Lord who introduced this Bill has cognisance of the fact that, although under the terms of that Act the tithe was rateable, in a very large number of parishes and under a large number of what were called modices no rates were in fact exacted.
Then we come to the Tithe Rentcharge Act of 1834. What passed after that? The question was raised whether a parson, being rated on his tithe rentcharge, was not in effect rated on his income. In other words, whether, so far as he was concerned, the rate was not in the form of a local Income Tax. A very learned and well-known Judge, Mr. Justice Bailey, held it was so; and the result was that, according to his dictum, either the rates imposed on the clergy would have to be foregone, or you must rate profits generally; you must have that which we have often sought to introduce but without suceess—namely, an Income Tax for local rate purposes. I am not saying anything as regards the benefit of an Income Tax at that time, but in fact
980
it has never been introduced. Yet the effect of that decision was that in 1840 an Act was passed by which persons were not rated. In other words, the principle of rating income was put on one side because it was considered to be difficult and unfair, and according to the principle after 1840, there ought not to have been rating of the tithe rentcharge at all. The same principle that applied to other profits ought to have been applied to the tithe rentcharge. I dare say your Lordships are aware that the provisions of the Act of 1840 are only kept in force from year to year; the Act is renewed from year to year in the Acts extended under the General Act dealing with the necessary renewal of Acts of Parliament. That is so, because we have had constant discussions as to how rates ought to be applied and levied as between land and business undertakings.
That being the state of things, in 1899 a Report was made by the Royal Commission on Local and Imperial Taxation. I had the honour to be on that Royal Commission, which sat for four or five years under the chairmanship of Lord Balfour of Burleigh. The effect of the recommendation of that Royal Commission was this, that the rates payable on tithe rentcharge were halved. There was some difference, which is not always appreciated, between the terms of the concessions for agricultural land and the concessions for the payment of rates on the tithe rentcharge. I think my recollection is right in stating that the average rate of the gross tithe rentcharge at that time was about 2s. 6d. in the £. So that the result was to reduce the charge from 2s. 6d. to 1s. 3d. As a matter of fact, I think I am also right in stating that for a large number of years, I think even up to 1917, that Act operated in this way, and the half rates which were left payable by the parson on his tithe rentcharge amounted in the average—though it was different in varying cases—to about 1s. 3d.
I want now to ask the noble Lord a question. At the present time the actual amount that a parson is paying on the average of his tithe rentcharge is about 3s. 9d. Taking that figure for the moment, if I may, I want to know what is the actual effect of the proposal contained in this Bill? If I understand it, it is this. The poundage rate is to be the same as in 1918–not to be enhanced. Therefore, so far as the poundage rate is concerned, you will have no higher rate per £ than in 1918. Is the

981
result of that this, that assuming in 1918 the poundage was, we will say, 3s., does it mean that 3s. in the £ is to be the highest poundage rate apart from special circumstances, and that one-half of that will be remitted under the Act of 1899? In other words, that under those conditions a parson rated would pay 1s. 6d. in the £. I desire, to know whether that is the operation of the Act generally. I find some difficulty, although I have had a great deal of experience in rating questions, to know what the exact operation is; and perhaps the noble Lord in reply to my question will tell me whether I am right or not.
This brings me to another question which is a very important one. For my own part I do not desire this Bill to be placed on what I call eleemosynary grounds; I want to discuss it as a pure act of justice and rather as a bare act of justice. So that, in addition to what I have already said with regard to poundage—which was the only provision in the Bill when it was first introduced into the House of Commons—there is a further provision as regards parsons whose total income (as it is called) does not exceed £300 or £500, as the case may be. I cannot understand any principle involved in this at all. I think it ought to be that, where the total income from tithe rentcharge in any individual case is not above £300, you ought to make a special allowance, in fact no rate should be payable at all. That, I think, would be perfectly in accordance with principle. You are really dealing with a source of income which is not rated in any other way, and it is perfectly right that a man who receives from a source of income of that kind so low a sum as £300 a year should not be charged as a ratepayer at all. That is one of the things indicated in the Report of the Royal Commission in 1899 by some of the members who signed a separate memorandum. Also I can understand that if the tithe rentcharge income is not above £500 you should have the reduction of one-half. That is logical and right. But how can the rest of the man's income be introduced? If you introduce the rest of his income in order to decide whether he is rateable or not, in substance and in truth you rate income directly. In the case of a man who has (we will say) £100 from other than tithe sources, so that his total income is £400, what you really do in this provision is to rate him on that £100. How can you justify a provision of that kind? If you are going to have a new principle of general
982
Income Tax for the purposes of rating, of course I can understand it.
I have dwelt at some little length on this point because I hope that in Committee the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will consider an Amendment which will be put down in order to limit the effect of this £300 and £500 actually to tithe rentcharge itself. If you are going to introduce the principle that the rate a man pays on particular classes of property is to be adjusted because of his private means from other sources, you introduce what appears to me to be a very dangerous and wrong principle. That is what is done here, and I am sure I shall have the assent of the noble Lord so far. It is beyond my comprehension how a provision of that kind can be justified in that form. I quite agree that it was not in the Bill in the first instance; it was introduced, I think, by a Standing Committee in the House of Commons.
I protest against it for two reasons. First of all, I think it is unfair; secondly, it is quite wrong to introduce a special rating provision of this kind. It is inconsistent with the fundamental basis on which our rating is carried out. I am not one of those who object to the idea of Income Tax for rating purposes, if it can possibly be carried out. I dare say the noble Lord knows, and Lord Balfour will know, that the great opponents of it were some Scottish Judges who found, when they took holiday somewhere in Scotland, that they were rated on the income they were paid as Judges of His Majesty's Court in Scotland, and being Scotsmen they naturally objected to that very strongly and very properly. Yet you are introducing that same principle here as regards poor men. I hope that a principle of that kind will not be adopted.
There are one or two other matters, more or less of detail, which I would ask the noble Lord to consider. Would it not be fairer to take the year 1917 rather than the year 1918? I do not want to press that point too much. I dare say the noble Lord has had to consider it. It really arises from this point of view, that, so far as you make a calculation for tithe rent-charge purposes, you make it for the future. It is to my mind a question of less importance than some others which are upon the face of the Bill, but still it has some importance. These are the particular matters to which I want to call attention. I am extremely anxious that this Bill shall not

983
be passed in a form which cannot be supported on general principles, because if it is, I am sure the time will come when what will be said to be an exceptional privilege in favour of parsons—though I do not think that is so at all—will be used as a ground for interfering with our Church endowments and for introducing against parsons matters to their exceptional disadvantage. I think the Bill gives bare justice for temporary purposes, and for permanent purposes it might be a step in the right direction.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, the legal knowledge and historical equipment of the noble Lord who has just spoken show how strong is the case upon which this Bill might have been made even more comprehensive than it is; but, temporary or permanent, complete or incomplete, this Bill is a welcome instalment of that which is no more than justice, and this justice is meted out to a class who deserve our sympathy beyond all words to describe. For, in truth, the Act of 1918 deprived the clergy of the automatic operation of an economic influence which, had the law been left alone, would have brought them just the increase in income that would have given them relief against the rise in the cost of living; so that really the old law, so far as it was an academic se of injustice—which it really was not—became something of the most acute and concrete kind.
I am glad to think that the Government have had the courage to introduce and pilot through another place a measure which, in other and certainly no better days, would have encountered opposition of an old-fashioned and now, I am happy to be able to say, perhaps an out-worn kind, for the day has gone by when you can put off or defeat a measure of this kind by putting to any House of Parliament what may be called dialectical dilemmas about whether or not the clergy are indeed or in fact State officers. The fact is that while you are wasting time in finding an answer to those dialectical traps you are allowing a most deserving class to go on suffering a most undeserved injustice; and that, I am happy to find, was the sentiment which permitted the other House of the Legislature to send up this measure of relief to this House.
There is one point I could wish that this Bill had dealt with more courageously. The fundamental principle of the Bill is
984
that you must not levy rates, and never do levy rates, upon the income which a man receives as a consideration for his intellectual or manual labour, and the parson's tithe is not the only property of which that can be said. That is not the only form of property the enjoyment of which is tightly tied to the obligation to discharge certain definite legal duties. In the same way as the parson's tithe is tied up with the performance of spiritual duties connected with the cure of souls in his parish, so is the property in tithe held by ecclesiastical corporations, such as the capitular bodies who have the management of our cathedrals, the conduct of their services and the maintenance of their fabrics, tied up with these duties only less important than those of the parochial clergy. This Bill, I am glad to say, recognises that there is a close analogy between the two cases, because it gives to the ecclesiastical corporations—that is to say, the capitular bodies, the Deans and Chapters—when owners of tithes, the same relief against the increased poundage rate which has, unhappily, become an incident of the payment of rates since the Act of 1918. It gives them the same relief in that respect as it gives to the parochial clergy.
But it would have been possible for this Bill to go further than that, because this Bill does not stop at giving the parochial clergy relief against the increase in the poundage rate owing to the increased expenditure of local authorities. The Bill does entirely re-open in another direction what some people might have called the settlement made in 1899, for it gives, on the ground of poverty, the right to a clergyman to escape not merely the half-rates from which that Act exempted him, but also to go further and claim exemption from the whole rate. Therefore, if it should be found later that an Amendment is put down to enable the Deans and Chapters, the capitular bodies, who are finding the maintenance of their fabrics and the conduct of their services a matter of extreme difficulty under modern economic conditions, to have the same relief from the half rates which the Act of 1899 gave to the parochial clergy, I hope it will not be said that this would be a reopening of the controversy about the Act of 1899, which is undesirable and might imperil this Bill.
I have already shown that the settlement, so far as it is a settlement, is open in

985
a far more important direction already by the terms and proposals of the Bill itself. There is no mere sentimental connection between this kind of property and this kind of duty. It is a firm, legal nexus of the most positive and recognisable kind. There is no sort of doubt that this property is held by the clergy, the discharge of whose duties is a condition of enjoying that property. It is held on conditions upon which it is quite certain, if those duties were not rendered and discharged, the connection between the duties and the enjoyment of the property would cease. It would not stop at spiritual censures. I have very little doubt that deprivation and the mundane process known under the name of mandamus, and compulsion in other forms, would be the result.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I see that there is such general support for this Bill that what I say will be more in the way of criticism than with any intention to divide the House. This Bill is supported on two entirely different grounds. The noble Lord who has just spoken laid it down that you must not levy rates on salaries for labour. If that is so, you ought to exempt glebes from rating. If the endowment of the Church is a salary for labour—which is, of course, taking the extreme State-official view of the clergy—and you must not rate salaries for labour, then I would point out that there are counties in England where the clergy are very largely endowed by glebe and not by tithes. The county of Northampton, for instance. In the great period of agricultural distress in the eighties and' nineties, I remember how the clergy of Northampton were especially hard hit because their great glebes, consisting of hundreds of acres, were thrown on their hands, and they had not the capital to farm them and suffered very much in consequence. If you take the line that the income of the clergy derived from tithes is a salary for labour and ought not to be rated, you ought to exempt the land held by the clergy.
But the moment you take up the line that you are going to exempt a person from a tax on income because that income is coupled with duties and ought to be enjoyed free of tax, other considerations come in. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, will accept the argument of a salary or wages for labour.
LORD PARMOOR: No.
LORD SHEFFIELD: The noble Lord will not accept it. He took the other line that the rating of tithes was really an anomaly in the history of our law, and he went back to the Middle Ages to prove it. But I think he is right to admit that in what is really antiquity for us, the time of Elizabeth, tithes had been rated, and have been rated again by numerous Acts since then. I should like to point out—I ask the noble and learned Lord to correct me if I am wrong, because he is more familiar with these things than I am—that when the Tithe Commutation Act was passed those Commissioners who assessed the commutation were ordered to take into consideration, and did take into consideration, the fact that tithe was subject to rates.
LORD PARMOOR: I assent, if I may say this—that the rates then levied were infinitesimal as compared with the new rates which have been put on since.
LORD SHEFFIELD: Rates fluctuate, and I am not concerned with that. They might have gone down but, as a matter of fact, they have gone up. The point is that this is property which was rateable in law before, and was determined to be rated in future, and when the Commissioners were ordered to take into consideration that liability to be rated in determining what should be the commutation value of the tithe, the parochial clergy and others got the benefit of a more liberal commutation because they were to be liable to pay rates That being so, you cannot say it is an outrage that they should pay rates on account of the special type of property they hold when, in fixing the rate of commutation, the fact that they pay rates upon that property was taken into account. I think the noble and learned Lord also brought into question the modus, which is just a little antique, although I think that every tithe payer would be only too thankful if he could have a modus. The modus existed in the Middle Ages but in the course of time has, in many cases, gone by the board.
The point I want to press is that if tithe is a particular kind of property which ought not to be rated, then, as in the former Act, which let off the parochial clergy one-half of the tithe, you have not now to deal with the tithe on account of its particularity as property, but on account of the character of those who own it. You did

987
not exempt the Ecclesiastical Commissioners then; you did not exempt Deans and Chapters then; and you do not now exempt them. The only thing you say is that they shall not be rated on a higher poundage than before. But you do not deal with the lay tithe owner. It is quite clear that you are not dealing with this particular type of property; you are dealing with it, as the noble Lord indicated, from the character of the men who enjoy from three-fourths to four-fifths—I do not know exactly what the proportion is—of the tithes of this country, which are held by the parochial clergy. You are dealing with a section of tithe-owners and not with the principle of tithe. Nobody disputes that clergymen, especially those with a small living, are very hard hit. But the clergyman is not the only man who is hard hit. Is not the dissenting minister hard hit? Is not the small annuitant, with money in the funds, hard hit Is not everybody with a fixed income of less than £1,000 a year—and in some cases even those with income of over £1,000 a year—hard hit? Are not the hospitals hard hit? They have large duties but they have to pay their full rates. Everybody is hard hit in these days.
I can sympathise with every straightforward man who is hard hit, but if you select this particular type of person and subsidise him—I will not use controversial words and say because he is a State official, for many of them say they are not State officials but ate in enjoyment of ancient statutory property earlier than the statute —you are subsidising him because you say he is in fact performing a service for the State. Therefore, this Bill is simply reaffirming the principle of Church Establishment. You are giving to these people because they perform State services a subsidy out of the rates, which the noble Lord who brought in the Bill said would be £150,000 this year on the top of the Act of 1899, which gave hundreds of thousands of pounds a year to relieve the pressure on people who are State servants. I object to the State subsidising any particular form of religion, and I object also to this inconsistent and entirely different argument. One man says "Do not rate the tithe because it is an ancient possession which only by recent Acts, passed in the time of Elizabeth and onwards, was made subject to rates," and the other says, "Do not tax the clergymen, because you ought not to tax any man on an earned
988
income"; but I say you are doing it because you wish to perpetuate the principle of an Established Church.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, I wish to say how grateful I am to the Government for introducing this Bill, and how much I hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading. Perhaps it would not be improper for me to interpose at this stage for a few minutes. First of all I come from the great county of Norfolk, which is rich in its churches and rich in the ability and goodness of its clergy, but singularly poor in its endowments; and in the second place, when the subject was under discussion about two years ago in your Lordships' House I used these words—
"Whenever we speak to the clergy on the subject of tithe, the first question that comes forward is the question of rates. The clergy say they are the only class in the community who pay rates—they should say half rates—on their income."
At the time of which I am speaking nothing could be done, although of course I received a moat courteous reply from the Government, but I am very glad indeed to find that although the Government on that occasion said that the question of these rates could not be discussed apart from the question of rates in general, now they have come forward in a most gracious manner to help the poor clergy.
The clergy are indeed curiously unfortunate just now. The noble Lord who has just sat down said something about the history of the rates and their original incidence, but I think he has failed to observe that the clergy were originally liable only to pay rates like other inhabitants of the parish. It is an intricate subject, and I ought not to waste your Lordships' time. in going more fully into it; but, if I am not under a misapprehension, in the year 1885 so great a Judge as Lord Lindley, the last of the Serjeants, who I am afraid is never able now to take his place in your Lordships' House, although I have the personal pleasure of seeing him from time to time, made it clear that through the course of the centuries these rates which the clergyman was originally liable to pay, as other inhabitants, became mixed up with the other rates with regard to which the noble Lord who has just sat down has made his recent remarks. These rates may be distinguished from the rates paid upon

989
actual glebe, because the rates there would be paid by the clergyman in his capacity as a landowner, and that, I think, makes a very considerable difference.
But a difficulty in which the clergymen are is that they are in a very awkward position for gaining any real justice as to their rates. May I read a few words from what I said two or three years ago—
"I consider it very unfortunate that at the present time assessment committees are far more inclined to raise the rates on tithe than on land. No doubt in part this comes about because tithe goes up and the assessment committees are aware of it, and can easily re-assess it. In the case of land it is naturally much more difficult to deal with the issue,"
The result is that the rates which the clergy pay rise out of proportion to the rates which their neighbours pay. There is in the nature of the ease no reason why reassessment of the rates payable by the clergy should not come hand in hand with the rates which others pay, but it is in fact easier to reassess the clergy, and I imagine that the assessment officers, holding unpopular offices, delay making reassessment all round and content themselves with making a reassessment of the clergy. I have no doubt whatever that that is what takes place in a great many instances.
The rates, as we all know, are rising by leaps and bounds at the present moment, and I would like to give one or two figures. In one parish the rates in 1899 were 1s. 10 d., and in 1919–20 8s. 8d. In another parish they have risen from 3s. 6d. to 9s. 2d; in a third from 2s. 8d. to 9s.; and in another from 6s. 10 d. in 1918 to 15 s. 8d. now. We who are bishops can indeed sympathise with the clergy in their troubles, and we know from the inside something of what all this means to them. We all have to pay rates on vast mediæval houses, and we know something of the difficulty of meeting the demands that the rates make upon ourselves. I am glad to say this not only for the information of your Lordships' House but because I think it is important that the clergy should recognise that the Bishops take a personal, true, and sympathetic interest in their troubles at the present time.
The noble Lord who has just spoken to us seemed to forget that the Tithe Bill was passed two years ago, and that that introduced to our consideration a special claim by the clergy at this time. No one was able to prophesy how prices would go.
990
I have here a paper which shows that taking the index figure of food at 100, in May last the price stood at 329; and in the case of materials, taking the index figure at 100, the price was 317. The clergy suffer both in regard to food and materials, because, as the most rev. Primate has pointed out, they have to meet serious dilapidations of their all too big houses. If we had left the. clergy alone two years ago they would have had no complaint to make, because they would merely have been in the position of others to whom the noble Lord referred who simply are feeling the high prices of these difficult days. No one would approve the Act now, but it was impossible, two years ago to prophesy. I thought at the time the recent Act was passed that it was a wise and reasonable compromise between the rival interests, and one cannot blame oneself for taking the facts as they then stood, and not being able to foresee that prices would go on rising after peace had been signed.
The whole question seems to me to have been put into a nutshell in a recent article in The Times, which pointed out that the clergy stand apart from the rest of the community in that an artificial check has been put upon their stipends during the time When high prices have been at least as difficult for them to sustain as for other persons. All this leads me to welcome the Bill, but I would like to echo a word which I think was used by the noble Lord, Lord Stuart of Wortley, when he spoke of the Bill as an instalment. I cannot believe that the situation will ever be dealt with quite satisfactorily without reference to the Tithe Act of two years ago, and I would venture to ask the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill whether he will be kind enough to say that his sympathy would extend so far as to contemplate something that would go further than the mere reduction of the rates to be paid by the clergy. To repeal the Tithe Act would be going too far, and it would be impossible at the present time to re-introduce the septennial averages scheme, but by an alteration of one figure in that Act I believe we could reach a situation that would at once be satisfactory and fair to all the interests concerned. The Act contemplates that there should be a fifteen years' average after 1926, and this would mean the clergy would climb up bit by bit towards the position that they will hold in 1926. I regard with some little alarm the situation that will occur in 1926 when suddenly the leap is made up to

991
the highest average, and I believe it would be a wise policy to introduce a gradual slope up to the highest point that will ultimately be reached. That, however, is not the question before the House at this moment.
I believe this Bill is thoroughly in accordance with public opinion. The public have regretted to see the clergy singled out for special treatment by the imposition of a check upon the natural rise in their income. It may be that the clergy are not men of business, or that they are too unselfish to bring their needs before the public. Hitherto they have not disclosed the straits under which they have been living, but now that has come out, and the most rev. Primate referred to their terrible afflictions, especially in their complete incapacity to do anything for the education of their children. We shall never get the best work out of a man who is daily anxious as to whether he can make ends meet. No one who follows the gracious and heavenly work that our clergy actually do but must approve of this Bill. The spiritual forces are the greatest forces in the world, and the clergy stand for those. It is their work that brings the touch of the eternal into the things of this life. I am very glad, therefore, to have an opportunity of supporting this Bill.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: My Lords, it is only with your Lordships' leave that I can reply to the questions which were addressed to me by noble Lords who have spoken, but I think it would only be courteous if I replied briefly to the specific points which would not properly arise on the Committee stage. A good many of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Parmoor will be dealt with in Amendments that will come up naturally on the Committee stage, and I will not trouble your Lordships with them now. But he asked two specific questions. The first was whether the redemption of tithe rentcharge has proceeded very far. I could not without notice give him the actual figures, but I know as a matter of fact that as many applications for redemption have come in, in a single week recently, as were received in a whole year before the Act of 1918, and undoubtedly the redemption is proceeding very fast.
He asked also with regard to the poundage. The position is quite clear. We propose in the Bill, as a matter of justice following on the Act of 1918, that as we
992
have stopped for a period of seven years the rise in the value of tithes so for the same period we should stereotype the rates at the poundage at which they stood in 1918. In the case of tithe rentcharge which is attached to a benefice or to a cathedral chapter, the poundage shall be the same as in the year 1918. Take the figure of 1s, 6d. If it was 1s, 6d. in 1918 it will be 1s, 6d. in 1920.
The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Norwich asked a question with regard to the 15-year period. I am sure he will recognise that this would be entirely outside the scope of the present Bill, and could only be dealt with by withdrawing this Bill and introducing a new one. That, I am sure, would not be your Lordships' wish. I can only say that if the Government should receive any representations indicating a general desire to modify the terms of the Act in the direction indicated by the most rev. Prelate, we shall be very glad to give as much consideration as possible to those representations, but it will require fresh legislation, and I cannot hold out any prospect of any legislation on these lines, at any rate at the present time. Other points to which attention have been called will doubtless arise on the Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POOR LITIGANTS EXPENSES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, the Preamble of this Bill states very clearly the reasons on account of which it has been introduced. According to an old Scottish custom poor litigants have certain privileges. Those privileges date back to the time of King James I, and if your Lordships care to see a specimen of the Scottish language of the day you will find it printed in tile Schedule to the Bill. It is now a custom which has lasted nearly 500 years, and it seems to me one which ought to be preserved. The Preamble of the Bill recites the facts, but by the Act of King James, confirmed and extended by sundry subsequent Acts of Sederunt of the Supreme Court of Scotland poor litigants have certain privileges, and are awarded costs if they win their case. But a practice has grown

993
up by which, by the rules of your Lordships' House, these costs have been refused. It seems to me just and equitable that appellants to the House of Lords, suing in forma pauperis, should have the right granted to them in accordance with the Scottish custom, and the object of this Bill is to restore the Scottish system in those cases.
As a fact, the Bill has been passed by another place absolutely without opposition, and on that representation I undertook to bring it before your Lordships. Since the Bill was printed my attention has been called to an Order under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, which gives the Appellate Court power to make proper rules for matters which come before them. It occurs to me it is quite possible that this Bill, passed by another place, may not technically be the right way to remedy what is a real grievance. If that is so, I shall be told by noble Lords learned in the law who know much more about the matter than I do. But I do put before your Lordships that there is a grievance, and I know, as a fact, that certain very hard cases have happened under these Rules during the last few years. I could very easily quote two of them, but I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time with details of that kind unless it is absolutely necessary.
I think it is a hardship that those who sue in forma pauperis should be prevented from getting costs, if they win their case, and there is this safeguard against that power being abused, that there is a Court in Scotland which looks after the probable cost of litigation, if any one wishes to sue in forma pauperis, and there is no power to bring the case under those ciremnstances before the Scottish Courts unless that tribunal has certified that there is a probable chance of success. If this grievance is continued it is likely to give rise to real social discontent. I cannot imagine anything more harmful to order, or good feeling, or to social agreement titan that the idea should get abroad that, because an individual is poor, he is therefore handicapped in his right to appeal to the law. It is simply to give those who are poor the same privileges as those who can afford to pay for them that this Bill is introduced.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): This matter is extremely technical, but, although technical, I think I can explain its substance reasonably shortly. The Bill owes its existence, I imagine, to a decision of the House of Lords in a case known as McAlinden v. Nimmo & Co., where this House refused expenses to a successful appellant suing in forma pauperis. In so deciding the House was following its rule made in 1892 under the powers conferred by the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, section 11. That section is in these terms—
"After the commencement of this Act error shall not lie to the House of Lords, and an appeal shall not lie from any of the courts from which an appeal to the House of Lords is given by this Act, except in manner provided by this Act, and subject to such conditions as to the value of the subject-matter in dispute, and as to giving security for costs, and as to the time within which the appeal shall be brought, and generally, as to all matters of practice and procedure, or otherwise, as may be imposed by Orders of the House of Lords."
Standing Order X, made pursuant of these powers, concludes with these words—
"When the payment of costs is so ordered to a successful appellant in an appeal in forma pauperis, the taxing officers shall not on taxation allow the fees of the House, nor the fees of counsel, but shall allow to the solicitor his costs out of pocket, with a reasonable allowance (such allowance to be taken as three-eighths of the solicitors' charges in 'Dives' appeals other than out of pocket costs to cover office expenses including clerks, etc."
The position, therefore, is that the matter has been dealt with by your Lordships. It has been dealt with under statutory powers, by those members of this House to whom these matters by long practice are committed. I do not think it is desirable at this moment to discuss the merits of this proposal, but I will point this out. It is obvious from what I have said that what is involved is fees to counsel and five-eighths of the solicitors' fees. That may be a good proposal or a bad one, but what is abundantly plain is that the method of this Bill is wholly wrong. What it means is that the House of Commons is to send up to your Lordships a proposal which, in form as well as in substance, repeals a Standing Order of the House of Lords. I could never be a party to such a thing.
As to the merits of it, I am well content that they should be considered when a proper application is made by your Lordships, sitting in the capacity which is committed to them, and it appears to me on

995
the merits that there is something—perhaps a good deal—to be said for the Scottish contention. In the Quarter Sessions of Scotland a pauper litigant is entitled to obtain a decree for expenses, if successful. He then states the counsel's fees (which, of course, are not found de facto), his own fees, which are in the same position, and also Court fees, which equally are not actually found. These Court fees, when recovered, have to be paid to the ordinary Court official. If the pauper litigant is unsuccessful, a decree may be pronounced against him, and this decree would be available if the pauper succeeded to funds within the prescribed period, which is forty years. A decree for money against a pauper is not, I believe, usually looked upon in Scotland as a popular investment, and it is certainly not often asked for, but it is the right of the adversary of the successful litigant to get it.
I have always taken the view very strongly that the House of Lords is to be looked upon in Scottish cases as the Supreme Scottish Court, and therefore I approach the proposal of the Bill with the prima facie impression—without committing myself to a final conclusion —that, being the Supreme Scottish Court of Appeal, where habit and inveterate custom have developed a certain rule and practice, it is very convenient that this House should give expression to such a rule. I reserve any final opinion, but upon one point I speak with the utmost explicitness—it would be impossible to give the slightest encouragement to a Bill proceeding from the House of Commons to prescribe to your Lordships the methods and rules by which it should conduct the business of this House.
VISCOUNT FINLAY (who was indistinctly heard): My Lords, I was glad to hear the remarks of the Lord Chancellor with regard to this Bill. If the matter is to be dealt with, I think it will be obvious to every one that evils may be created by dealing with it rashly or crudely. The Bill proposes in the first clause that any one suing in forma pauperis in the House of Lords on appeal shall have the same right to a judgment for costs as if he were not suing in forma pauperis. These are costs which, in fact, have not been paid; and the proposal in the Bill is to my mind a very striking one. Then it is said, on the other hand, that if he fails in his suit there is to be judgment given against him for costs. Of what use is it to obtain such a judgment against a
996
Pauper? That provision could not be of the slightest service except in the rarest cases. Upon the whole, I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has said as to the propriety of this matter being dealt with by your Lordships' House. There is power to deal with it, but in dealing with it great caution is certainly needed. It will be necessary in providing for anything similar in this House to the Scottish practice that it should be done in such a way as to prevent the House being flooded with a good deal of heavy work which otherwise would not come, but which might be brought with the prospect of getting costs if the case succeeded. The whole matter requires very temperate and cautious handling. The framework of the Bill seems to me to be extraordinarily crude. For the reasons I have given, I hope the noble Lord will not press your Lordships to read the Bill a second time.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, with the statement of the Lord Chancellor I find myself in entire agreement. It appears to me to be quite inappropriate to ask your Lordships by this process to revise and change the standing procedure of your Lordships' House. But having said that, I should like to add that the statement made by the noble Lord who introduced this Bill, and also the statement made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, lead me to think that there is outstanding a matter which requires immediate attention. I do not think that the urgent warnings from the noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down, as to the necessity for proceeding with grave caution in this matter, need deter your Lordships from considering what those questions are. As I understand the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, a pauper litigant in this House is bound to pay the fees of this House. If that is the case I think it ought to be altered at once; because the whole basis of proceedings in forma pauperis depend upon this.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble and learned friend's premise is faulty. I did not say that.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I am sorry I misunderstood the noble and learned Lord. As long as it is plain that there are no fees payable in connection with the litigation, part of the objection of the noble Lord

997
who introduced this Bill is met. For the rest, I think this needs consideration. If I understood the practice aright, counsel is assigned to a pauper litigant upon condition that he neither asks, nor has any right to ask, for fees. If those be the conditions, no harm is done when an order is made which prevents his recovering those fees from the other side. Indeed, in such a case the literal language of the ancient Statute is obeyed to the uttermost; because all that this Statute provides is that the pauper is to be held seathless against expense— and so he would be. If those be the circumstances, it may be that the provision is not as necessary as I thought it was. But the noble Lord who introduced the Bill evidently has in his mind certain cases of hardship, and if those cases, on examination, depend upon matters that are remediable, I sincerely hope he will take further steps to bring them up in the proper quarter. To my mind there is nothing more distasteful than the thought that a man is barred from access to the Courts of Justice by inability to provide the necessary costs.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With the leave of your Lordships I desire to say this, and I ought to have made it clear when I spoke before. It is my purpose to bring this matter up for consideration at an early date before those of your Lordships who are specially concerned. Perhaps that may satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The pledge of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is, of course, entirely satisfactory; and after what has been said I will not press for the Bill to be read a second time now. if some noble Lord will move the adjournment of the debate no date need be fixed; and I shall have served my purpose by drawing attention to the position. I am satisfied, by what has been said by the Lord Chancellor and by Lord Buckmaster, that this matter will not be lost sight of, and I will not go into the particular cases that have been brought to lily notice. I do not think there was any demand made for fees, but it was impossible to find any one in London to take up the poor litigant's case without some guarantee as to costs, and a very real injury to the persons who won their case would have been incurred if it had not been for the philanthropic conduct of a Scotsman in London, and of a Scottish counsel who pleaded the case and won it
998
before the House without, of course, any hope of getting fees. Perhaps some noble Lord would now move the adjournment of the debate.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope that on reflection the noble Lord will not think that is the most convenient cours to adopt. This is a proposal coming from the House of Commons, but I do not think that your Lordships would in any circumstances give effect by legislation in a Bill of this kind to a rule made by those of your Lordships who attend to legal business in this House. The purpose of the noble Lord has been fully obtained, and I will discuss the whole point with my colleagues.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I came down to the House with the intention of moving the rejection of this Bill. I am not going to make a speech, because I cannot compete with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack or with the other noble and learned Lords who have spoken; but I think it would be convenient to the House and carry out the purpose of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack if I move that the Bill be read this day three months.
Amendment moved—
Leave ("now") and insert at the end of the Motion ("this day three months").—(Lord Saltoun.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am reminded that the noble Lord who moved the rejection of this measure must give notice.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Of course, if the Bill is rejected there is an end to it, and I simply ask permission to withdraw my Motion. I think that would probably be the better course. It would, I suppose, leave it technically possible to renew the Motion on another occasion, but, after what has been said by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I should not think of taking that course.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MAYOR'S AND CITY OF LONDON COURT BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve i self into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Registrar and other officers.
5.—(1) The registrar, clerks, and other officers of the Mayor's Court and of the City of London Court, shall hold and exercise their several offices in the Court:
Provided that—

(a) the Common Council may combine or amalgamate any two or more offices in one office;

(b) the Common Council may abolish the office of any such officer whose office as held before the commencement of this Act they deem unnecessary, subject to the payment of such compensation as may be mutually agreed or, in default of agreement, as the Lord Chancellor or any person nominated by him may determine.

All compensation so payable and any costs incurred in determining the amount thereof as aforesaid shall be paid by the Common Council out of the Mayor's Court Fund.
(2) If the Registrar of the City of London Court at the time of the commencement of this Act resigns within six months after the commencement of this Act, the Common Council shall accept his resignation, and he shall be entitled to compensation in all respects as if his office had been abolished by the Common Council under this section.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of subsection (1), after "the Mayor's," to insert "and City of London." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is necessitated by an oversight.
Amendment moved—.
Clause 5, page 3, line 16, after ("Mayor's") insert ("and City of London").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Court moneys and treasurer.
7. All moneys payable under the Acts relating to the Mayor's Court and the City of London Court or under this Act or under rules, regulations, or orders made under any of those Acts, and all moneys standing to the credit of the Mayor's Court Suitors' Fund or the General Fund of the City of London Court respectively shall be paid into one fund to be called "the Mayor's and City of London Court Fund," and all the remuneration of any assistant or additional
1000
judges of the Court and all outgoings and expenses of or connected with the Court shall be paid out of the said fund; and the Chamberlain of the City of London shall be the treasurer of the fund, and shall deal with the fund and account for the same to the Common Council in manner directed by the London (City) Small Debts Extension Act, 1852:
Provided that, notwithstanding anything in the Acts relating to the Mayor's Court or the City of London Court, any deficiency arising in the said Mayor's Court Fund in any one financial year shall be chargeable to and made good from the general rate of the City of London made in the financial year following that in which such deficiency arose, and any surplus arising in the said fund shall be applied in aid of such rate.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in the proviso, after "the said Mayor's," to insert "and City of London." The noble and learned Lord said: The observation I made on my first Amendment applies also to this one.
Amendment moved—
Clause 7, page 4, line 3, after ("Mayor's") insert ("and City of London").—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8
Procedure in causes within jurisdiction of High Court.
8. For the purposes of all causes and proceedings within the jurisdiction of the Mayor's Court and not within the jurisdiction of a county court, so much of the procedure of the High Court shall be adopted and be in force in lieu of the procedure which at the date of the commencement of this Act was in use in the Mayor's Court as shall by rules, regulations, or orders to be made from time to time under section forty-five of the Mayor's Court of London Procedure Act, 1857, be determined to be applicable to the Mayor's Court.
Provided that the scales of fees and costs now in use in the Mayor's Court shall continue to be in force for all such causes and proceedings as aforesaid, subject to any rules, regulations, or orders to be hereafter made.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to omit Clause 8 down to but not including the proviso, and to insert—
"All causes and proceedings in the Court shall be commenced by plaint, but in the case of any cause or proceeding which could not, previously to the commencement of this Act, have been brought in the City of London Court, but which could have been brought in the Mayor's Court, any party to such cause or proceeding may in manner prescribed by the rules of the Supreme Court apply by summons for directions as to the subsequent procedure to be adopted and in regard to any such cause or proceeding, the procedure of the Supreme Court shall be adopted and be in

1001
force in lien of the procedure which at the date of the commencement of this Act was in use in the Mayor's Court."
The noble and learned Lord said: This is an Amendment about which it is not necessary that I should say much. When the Second Reading of the Bill was before the House my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster made some criticisms of a very friendly nature and some suggestions, and I promised that I would attempt to give effect to almost the whole of his suggestions, which seemed valuable in this connection. I have been at some pains since to see if I could give effect to that assurance. and I am not without hope that the Amendment I have put on the Paper carries out in the main the purpose of my noble and learned friend. I have no doubt he has read the Amendment, and it would perhaps be convenient that he should tell me whether, in his opinion, it carries out his purpose.
Amendment moved—
Clause 8, page 4, leave out lines 9 to 17 inclusive, and insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: I am sure the noble and learned Lord will not think me intentionally tiresome if I ask him to give a little further consideration to this Amendment. I am afraid the matter deals with legal, technicalities which can never be made pleasant, but I think that in a few sentences I can make them plain. At the present moment the procedure in the County Court is instituted by a plaint, upon which the plaintiff endorses his claim for relief, and no further procedure of any kind is wanted before the hearing, excepting in cases where special technical defences are going to be raised. The result is that the case comes before the Court with the Court entirely unembarrassed by pleadings and the real issue can readily be determined by the Judge and decided. In the High Court, on the other hand, of course, you proceed by your writ, then by a statement of claim and then by a defence, and when your dispute has been formulated in these documents it comes on for hearing before the Court.
This Amendment of the noble and learned Lord proposes that all the proceedings in this amalgamated Court, which will exercise both the jurisdiction of the County Court and the far more extensive jurisdiction of the Mayor's Court, shall be com-
1002
menced by plaints. So far so good; but, in any case where the subject matter of the suit is one that would be outside the jurisdiction of the County Court, the Amendment proposes that either party may apply to the Court for directions as to pleadings and that in such a ease the Court shall direct that pleadings shall be issued. It is that to which I object. I want the noble and learned Lord to consider if he cannot extend it by providing that when application is made the Court may in its discretion direct that pleadings shall be delivered, and not that they must be delivered.
After all, it is not always the question of amount that determines the question of complications. You might very readily, have an amount outside the jurisdiction of the County Court that really does not need pleadings at all, and it is a pity in those circumstances that the Court should be bound to direct that pleadings should be issued, remembering, at the same time, that when that it done you have put into the hands of any litigating party who desires to obstruct and impede the course of justice an opportunity of prolonging the hearing of the case. Times have to be fixed and if the pleadings are not delivered within that time another application for an extended time can be made, and everyone knows that if you have a reluctant litigant there is nothing that enables him so effectively to prolong the period between the issue of the writ and the hearing of the case as what are known as interlocutory proceedings associated with this class of matter. I am most anxious wherever that can be avoided that it should be avoided.
At the present moment I thoroughly believe that there is no system of justice where the preliminary steps are so plain and unambiguous as our own. I feel that very strongly. At the, same time, I feel that there is an innumerable number of cases where even those proceedings might be materially shortened with great advantage to the litigant and increased facility in the administration of justice. I trust the noble and learned Lord will not think me too persistent and that the House will not think I am wearisome in attempting to explain why it is I want the Amendment given further consideration.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Discussions of these highly technical matters in an assembly of laymen must always, as I

1003
think my noble and learned friend will agree, be somewhat unedifying. In fact, I do not read my Amendment as involving pleadings at all. In my judgment, you can go, and without any pleadings at all in such a case, for the direction of the Court. It is in the complete discretion of the Court. I am not sure that it has not escaped the recollection of my noble and learned friend that in the High Court at present, if the direction is given pursuant to relevant orders, you can proceed with litigation without any pleadings at all I have little doubt that I can satisfy my noble and learned friend in a few moments of conversation that this view is well-founded, but I do not want to discuss this across the Table. Our object is fundamentally the same, and between now and Report, if he will discuss it with me, I am sure that if there is any leak in my present proposal we can stop it between us.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

HARBOURS, DOCKS AND PIERS (TEM PORARY INCREASE OF CHARGES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I desire to ask the noble Lord in charge of this Bill a question on Clause 1. At the bottom of page 1 it says—
"… the charges to be made by the undertakers shall be authorised which is more than sufficient, so far as can be estimated, to enable the undertaking to be carried on without loss."
I should like to ask what is the meaning of the words "without loss." I suggest—I will not press it if the noble Lord has a doubt about it—that there should be added, after the word "loss," the words "and to maintain its financial stability." I suggest that for this reason, that so far
1004
as the authority stands, it does not seem to me to enable the Minister to increase dues sufficiently to enable a dock authority to carry forward a balance large enough to meet short-dated loans; nor would the words cover sufficient revenue to maintain an adequate margin for payments to reserve funds. I believe these questions were raised in another place, but the proceedings of the Committee were not reported, and therefore there is no record of what the opinion of the Minister of Transport is in regard to them. My attention was called to these questions only this afternoon, or I would have given the noble Lord notice beforehand. If it suits him, I am quite prepared to wait till the Report stage of the Bill for an answer I leave it entirely to him.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I should be obliged if my noble friend would pursue that course. The point is new to me, and I am not sufficiently instructed to answer it. But between now and the Report, stage of the Bill I will make the necessary inquiries and let him know.
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
As to applications for an order.
4. An application to the Minister of Transport for the purposes of this Act shall be accompanied by such information, certified in such manner as the Minister may require, with respect to the financial position of the undertaking in question; and before making an order the Minister shall require the undertakers to give public notice of the application for an order under this Act, and as to the manner in which, and the time within which, representations to the Minister may be made, and the Minister shall consider any representations which may be duly made.
THE EARL OF LYTTON THE EARL OF LYTTON moved, at the beginning of the clause, after "An application," to insert "by the undertakers." The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment, and the words I propose to insert are required in order to make the meaning of the clause clear.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 4, line 26, after ("application") insert ("by the undertakers").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

PALESTINE.
LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM rose to ask His Majesty's Government (1) By what means, under the mandate which has been accepted for the government of Palestine, it is proposed to safeguard the rights of the immense, non-Jewish majority of the population, while setting up a "National Home" for the Jewish race; (2) Whether the term "National Home" implies the exercise of governmental authority over the whole or part of the population of Palestine; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, every one of us must thoroughly sympathise with those Jews who wish to make their home in Palestine. Although their rights are based upon a particularly ruthless conquest we respect, and wish to take into full account, their strong sentiment inherited from the five hundred years during which they were a ruling people. We cannot, however, go back three thousand years, and we must consider the equal rights of the present inhabitants of Palestine.
In November, 1917, Mr. Balfour expressed the sympathy of the Government with the aspirations of the Zionists, but he stated that it must be "clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." It is because it seems that this just and necessary reservation has been forgotten that I venture to raise this Question in your Lordships' House to-day. For reasons which can easily be understood it is only in your Lordships' House that a strong plea can be raised for justice to the immense non-Jewish majority of the population of Palestine.
We went into the country to end the Turko-German menace against the Suez Canal and Egypt, and to rescue the people from the centuries of oppression by the Turks. After General Allenby's brilliant campaign we were regarded by the people as their saviours, and the British prestige—using the word in its best sense—never stood so high among Syrian Moslems as it did then. Numbers of those Moslems served in our Armies, while others deserted from the Turkish cause and joined us. We then had a clean slate on which we could write, and I have no hesitation in saying that the problem of Palestine was, perhaps, the easiest of solution of those which had been left to us as the aftermath of the war. But now the situation has completely
1006
changed. Moslems, Christians, and many of the old Jewish 'inhabitants distrust and dislike us, and would welcome almost any other Mandatory Power to rake our place. The Moslems say openly that they would prefer to return to Turkish rule, which was at least roughly impartial, and under which the various elements lived in general harmony.
I hope, my Lords, to be able to explain the cause of this great change. But I want first to draw attention to the conditions of Palestine at the time of the Armistice. The population consisted, roughly speaking, of 515,000 Moslems, 62,500 Christians, 65,300 Jews, and 5,050 others. But the percentage of each of the communities employed in agriculture was— Moslems, 69; Christians, 46; and Jews, 19. Thus, the Jews in Palestine about the end of the war were playing an infinitesimal part in what is the only industry of that country. The recent Jewish colonies are prospering in viticulture and in citrons fruits, but some are not yet on an economic basis because they are supported by outside capitalists. No one could object to the setting up of more of such colonies. The Jews, as a rule, do not cultivate cereals, and many of them are employers of Arab labour or the labour of a particularly depressed class of Jews who come from the Yemen. Then there are a large number of Jews in Palestine who do no useful work but live on mendicancy or on remittances from their wealthy co-religionists.
Palestine has an area only twice that of Cyprus. It is not a naturally fertile country, as Mesopotamia is, but it could support a larger population if irrigation were resorted to, and if trained labour were available in sufficient quantities. The socalled Arab population contains strains of many races which have conquered and ruled in that country, and among those strains doubtless there is that of the followers of the Crusades. They are a fine people, far ahead in many way of their co-religionists to the East and to the South. They are a people who, I believe, would be very easily ruled by anybody who could win and hold their confidence. Jerusalem ranks next after Mecca amongst the holy places of Islam, and the agitation which has been engineered in India over the Khalifate question gives one an idea of the greater agitation which could be raised if it could be represented that the holy places of Islam were to pass under Jewish control. I need say nothing of the many places in Palestine

1007
which the whole Christian world holds in devout reverence.
Under such conditions as I have attempted to describe our first proceedings in Palestine required most careful handling. Now, what has happened in Palestine? A self-constituted Zionist Commission settled down in Jerusalem under the shadow of our military protection and quite close to our barracks. It began at once to interfere with the administration and showed an arrogance extraordinarily impolitic from the point of view of public interest. In March last I drew attention to a most significant performance on the part of that Commission. The Administration had arranged with the Anglo-Egyptian Bank to make sorely needed loans to cultivators at the rate of 6½ per cent.; of course, Jewish cultivators being included. The Zionist. Commission objected to the arrangement, and orders were sent from London to hold up what was really a great boon to some very poor people. Then Dr. Weissman proceeded to Palestine, and found this was going a little bit too far, and so he graciously withdrew the embargo and the loans were permitted to be made, after considerable delay.
But the most ominous part of this story was the answer to me with which the noble Earl, the Chancellor of the Duchy, was supplied. He said there was no evidence that the Anglo-Palestine Bank (a Jewish Institution which lends at double this rate) was concerned. Naturally there was no evidence. It was only necessary for someone to go from the bank to talk with the Zionist Commission over the way. He also said—
"This question was the key to the future and especially the Zionist future of the country, and the Zionist organisation maintained that it should not have been settled without previous consultation with them."
It is a little difficult to believe that this temporary loan was really the key to the future of Palestine, but this answer seems to mean that the Government of Palestine, which was bound at this time, at least, to follow Turkish customs, had no right to act without consulting a self-constituted body, largely composed of aliens. Nothing could have been better calculated to create alarm among Moslems and Christians than this, and some of the other statements which the noble Earl made.
Several things followed this assertion of authority by the Zionist Commission. The
1008
military administrator at the time, a most able and experienced man, found that his position had become impossible, and then a most capable Indian Civil Servant, appointed by the War Office as financial adviser, and specially commended for good work, was suddenly dismissed. His sole aim had been to be impartial, as his Indian training had taught him to be, and no attempt was ever made to show that he had been otherwise than impartial. He was condemned unheard, because it was stated that he had adopted "an attitude inconsistent with the Zionist policy of the Government." As a subordinate he was only carrying out the orders and policy dictated by his superiors. Much more has happened since that, and I should particularly like to draw your Lordships' attention to the speech made by the Bishop at Jerusalem at a meeting at the Church House, and reported in the Guardian and Church Times. The Bishop said plainly that the present troubles were "largely due to the actions and behaviour of the Zionists" who settled in Palestine since the war. He then pointed out that—
"The Zionist Commission had been a very strong body; but it was not strong enough to control all its members, many of whom were extremists … They had behaved and spoken as if the country had already been given to them and was theirs to dispose of as they would. in ordinary conversation among Zionists at Jerusalem it had been asked. 'What shall be done with the Church of time Holy Sepulchre? Shall it be burned or razed to the ground?' It did not occur to them that Christians and Mohammedans had as much right to Palestine as they had. … The idea seemed to be to equalise the population and then demand full control of the Government. The emigrants so far brought in did not include many respectable English Jews; but they did include a great number of Russians, Poles, and Rumaniana, many of them thoroughly Bolshevistic in their attitude to the Government."
The Bishop added—
"The attempt to intimidate the inhabitants had led to a deplorable state of things. … All this had been brought about by the injudicious attitude of Zionism, by the ill-advised behaviour of its members, by the definitely Bolshevist and in many cases anti-British attitude of some of them, and by the intolerance of many of its followers."
This important speech throws a painful light upon the present position in Palestine, and gives us a serious warning. The Rev. G. Napier Wittingham, who has lately returned from Palestine, tells me that the Zionists demand rights of pre-emption on all sales of land in Palestine, and possession of all uncultivated lands, even if there are

1009
customary rights over those lands, which we always recognise in India. A number of Australian soldiers wished to settle in Palestine but have been prevented from doing so by the protest of the Zionist Commission. Lately the Government, at the instigation of the Commission, offered £150 for some land adjoining the Sacred Mosque of Omar. This is Wakf land, which anyone who has served in India understands. The proposal, of course, caused the bitterest resentment among the Moslems in the country, and Mr. Wittingham writes—
"All the various sects of Christians, all the Moslems are at one. A Society has been formed called the Moslem and Christian League, and I had a long talk with its President, his Excellency Aref Pasha. Be did not mince matters but said quite plainly that he and his friends had been deceived. They fought on the side of the British against the Turk because they believed in British justice, bat they would never have fought, their co-religionists had they imagined for a moment that a British victory meant Jewish domination."
The Moslem Christian League is surely a most remarkable development in the land of the Crusades, and the unanimity of all Christian Churches in Palestine seems a portent when one remembers the antecedents of the Crimean War. The League has branches all over Palestine, and the President of the Jaffa Branch has sent me a copy of this appeal, in which these words occur. It is addressed to "the Loyal Members of the British Parliament, to the ardent members of the House of Lords, to the British Liberal-Labour Party, to the Anglo-Saxon Churches, to the Professors and students of British Universities and Colleges, to the noble and just British Nation," and it says this—
"Since Mr. Balfour's announcement to make our country, Palestine, national home for the Zionists, the Zionists began treading upon our National Rights, monopolizing influences, appropriating every thing to themselves and insulting all that is sacred to us. Though their number hardly equal one-tenth of the population and the land they own hardly amounts to one in four hundred parts, yet they have nearly monopolised commerce and industry, tightened the clutch upon the natives causing miseries and discontent amongst Moslems and Christians, the original inhabitants of the land; and all this thanks to the money poring on them from outside and the privileges given to them. What will be the result if the Zionists influx of immigration, permitted by the British Government, continues? Now they are coming by hundred and thousands, but what will be the result later on? Will it not be the destruction of Moslems and Christians together? Who is to blame for this fearful result? Surely we are in a dangerous situation menaced by vanishment; that is why we appeal
1010
for a helping hand to protect us from this horrible end. To allow Palestine to be a Jewish national home would be to condemn us to death."
This language may be Oriental in tone, but the main facts are real, beyond dispute, and the League has not funds enough to make its cause known in this country. The zionissts are demanding a monopoly of the railway concessions, and of port, developments and public works generally, and are insisting that Jewish labour and presumably capital should be employed in those services. They are also trying to substitute Hebrew for Arabic, and it is not surprising that many inhabitants are already trying to leave the country.
We have had a plain warning of what is before us. There have been two great demonstrations in Jerusalem. Then followed the Easter riots, of which we have heard very little. The Zionists have not hesitated to say that the riots were either encouraged or not disapproved of by the Government. It is an unworthy suggestion, but, I think what happened was that the Military Governor did not take sufficient precautions to prevent rioting. On Good Friday there was a Moslem procession from Jerusalem to the Tomb of Moses. It was played out by a British military band, and the processionists while the band was playing were shouting in Arabic, "To Hell with the Jews, down with the Mandate, down with the British." That does show a dangerous feeling which has arisen in a country where we were received a short time ago with open arms.
We have no official information regarding the riots at Jerusalem, but it is clear they might have been most serious. It appears that the Moslems came without firearms, which seems to show that they did not intend any harm to the Jewish population. On the other hand, the Jews had firearms, which were provided for them by Lieut. Jabotinsky. As they fired rather wildly from the roofs of the houses, I believe they killed or wounded some of their own people. Lieut. Jabotinsky was sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment. That was immediately reduced to one year, and I believe they are now demanding his immediate release. There were many Moslems also sentenced at the same time, but I do not know if anyone has demanded their release.
If I have succeeded in conveying any impression of the prevailing excitement among the inhabitants of Palestine, your Lordships will imagine the utter consterna-

1011
tion which prevailed when the announcement of the appointment of a Zionist Governor for the country was made. Nothing could have been more unfortunate at this moment. I am perfectly certain that Sir Herbert Samuel will do his utmost to be completely impartial, though the forces which will be brought to bear upon him might be too much for a stronger man. But is it reasonable to suppose that the Moslems and Christians of Palestine will ever believe that we can be impartial, and must it not be thought that this appointment was designed to pave the way for a complete Zionist Government of the country? I cannot think that His Majesty's Government had full and accurate information of the conditions in Palestine when this appointment was made.
Whatever happens, our responsibility to the people whom we have not consulted must remain. Who will regulate the influx of Zionists, which Dr. Max Nordau says will reach 8,000,000 or 10,000,000, or much more than twice the number that this little country will ever support? He also says that half-a-million Zionists are to be settled in the next few years. I wonder what the people of Scotland would say to such a prospect as that? The Zionists of Jerusalem say that 600,000 Russians are waiting to be admitted. Will the character and the antecedents of those people be thoroughly investigated before they become citizens of the land, and before we become responsible for them and for their actions?
The Arabs of Palestine are a prolific people, and under a just Government, and when they get the help of our doctors to beat malaria they will multiply very fast. Are their children to be barred out of the land of their fathers by Russian Bolsheviks? The military administration of Palestine was a very cheap one, and paid its way, but not of course the expenses of the troops. The immediate result of the advent of a Civil Governor with a large staff must be to increase largely the expenses which will fall upon the cultivators or upon the British Exchequer. The worst is that we shall have to maintain a large force permanently in that country where a small force with a well-organised native gendarmerie might have sufficed. Many of the Moslems and Christians of Palestine will give their lives rather than see their country overrun by a motley mob of Zionists. We shall then have to
1012
use British troops against people who will have the right to believe that they are defending their national home.
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem said this to Mr. Whittingham—
"Your country has such a reputation for taking the side of justice that I still believe it will not allow us to suffer. I trust that once England really knows the facts of the case, how the Moslems and Christians alike are bitterly opposed to the whole idea of Zionism, she will act fairly towards us."
That is the question at issue, and it seems to me that there can be only one answer consistent with our national honour. In the second chapter of the First Book of Esdras there is a description of a situation which is curiously like that at the present moment. Jerusalem was then, just as it is now, a centre of intrigue. From that chapter your Lordships will gain an insight into the possible workings of Zionism in Palestine, and you will note the ruling of Artaxerxes which contains a lesson that we may have to learn.
There is one more grave matter on which I will say a few words. I believe that throughout the world Christianity is at stake at the present moment. In Russia, where it has been stated that 90 per cent. of the Commissaries are Jews, there has been a determined attempt to root Christianity out of the land. The Eastern Church has suffered persecution Unparalled since the days of Nero. Bishops and priests have been murdered and tortured. Churches have been defiled, and a generation of children is growing up in utter atheism and immorality. It is the soul of Russia that Lenin and Trotsky have done their best to destroy. India is not a Christian country, but the administration of India has been inspired since we went there by a good Christian spirit. That is all to be changed. We shall now have in place of it a reactionary Brahmanism, and the Christian missions which have been doing fine work in the past will find their activities most seriously curtailed. But here at home, and in other countries, there are socialist bodies at work endeavouring to destroy the Christian religion. Some time ago I drew attention in this House to the Socialist Sunday schools which had been at work in the country for about forty years. What they have accomplished we do not know, but I think we can see some fruits of their vile teaching. Some of the wisest of our English Jews do not tolerate and do not approve the attitude of the political projects

1013
of the Zionists, and unless the Government now cry a halt there will be a rush of Bolsheviks from Russia and Central Europe which might drive Christianity out of the land of its birth. In any case, Palestine is to be governed under Mandate, and that Mandate will lay it open to the greatest possibilities of intrigue in all countries where a paid propaganda is a power.
I hope that the noble Earl will clearly indicate the policy of the Government If it is to facilitate the settlement of suitable and carefully-selected Jewish colonists, then I feel sure no one will object to it. I thought that was what was meant when Mr. Balfour's original pronouncement was made. But if it is to permit irresponsible Zionists to manipulate the Government and ultimately to control the country, then it will certainly lead to very grave disaster. The permanent military charges will be very heavy. There will be continuous troubles throughout the country, checking its progress and reacting dangerously throughout the whole of the Middle East. I think that the most rev. Primate, who has had the advantage of seeing the Bishop of Jerusalem, as I have not, will support me in the earnest plea that the Holy Land which has come under our protection shall not be allowed to fall into alien and anti-Christian hands. I beg to move for the Report of Sir Herbert Samuel on the conditions of Palestine after his visit there, and also for the Report of General Lord Allenby on the Easter riots at Jerusalem. I think that both these documents ought to be in the possession of Parliament.
Moved, That there be laid before the House the Report of Sir Herbert Samuel on the conditions of Palestine after his visit there, and the Report of General Lord Allenby on the Easter riots at Jerusalem.—(Lord Sydenham.)
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on having asked this Question. This is a subject that I have wished for a long time to bring to the attention of the House, but at the request of the noble Earl it has been put off because it was inconvenient or because a critical time of the settlement of affairs was upon us. I was therefore prevented from putting a Question. I should like to preface my remarks by saying that I must not be taken to be anti-Jewish in feeling. A short time after Mr. Balfour's famous declaration there was a great Zionist meeting held in
1014
the London Opera House which I attended, and I had the honour of addressing an overflowing meeting on that occasion. Therefore I am not naturally antipathetic to the idea of Zionism and the establishment of a Jewish home in Jerusalem.
But since that time I have been in Palestine and Syria, and I have learnt how extraordinarily intricate is this problem of the future Government of those parts. I was also not then aware how repeatedly we have given pledges to the Arabs that they should enjoy their independence in that part of the world. The other day when the question of Mesopotamia was under discussion I mentioned this fact, and the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, then said there were certain reservations—and I quite admit there were —reservations with regard to Baghdad, Basra, and, I think, Jerusalem, which should be under international control. I think those were the main reservations, certainly Palestine as a country was not included.
Under the stress of the war we entered into various undertakings which undoubtedly clashed with one another. There was the Sykes-Picot Treaty as regards Syria, there was this declaration of Arab independence, and, finally, the undertaking given to the Jews to establish a national home in Jerusalem. The result, at the present time, is that we are accused of having broken faith with the Arabs, and on the face of it I cannot see that the accusation is an unjust one. I may quote the words of Bishop McInnes in a speech made about a fortnight ago. He said he was grieved to find how the Arbas and the Moslems are learning to disbelieve our British word, and how entirely convinced they are that, while the Government may be in name British, it will in fact be mainly entrusted to Jews. That is the present feeling that has been created in Palestine.
I should like to show how we as a country have absolutely no interest in Palestine, nor indeed in Syria. We have no commercial interest there, except Thomas Cook & Son's tourist agency, I do not believe there is a British trader to be found in either of those countries. Of course, we sell our goods through the ordinary channels of trade, but that is all. I mentioned the other day—though the noble Earl did not give me any answer on the subject—a scheme to make a great port at Haifa, which would be the terminus of a railway across to Damascus, and then across the

1015
Desert to Basra or Baghdad— I do not know where, but at all events, the scheme was adumbrated in that direction. I protest most strongly against any such idea. Such a scheme should not be even thought of. As we ought to work in harmony with the French, I am fully convinced that by the utilisation of the Baghdad Railway, which is almost completed, you would have the necessary railway communication to establish a connection between the shores of the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf. With the exception of that possible scheme I do not believe that we have any commercial interest whatever in Palestine and Syria. Therefore it is not to our interest to go there. Some Zionists advance the argument that our being in Palestine is essential to the security of the Suez Canal and Egypt. I cannot mention my authority — the highest military authority—but I am told there is no value in such an argument, and that Palestine is not essential from a strategic point of view.
Thus, we have in the first place these declarations to the Arabs, secondly, there has been a general statement, reiterated again and again, that we have made this war partly to secure the self-determination of small communities, and, as was pointed out in a letter to The Times the other day, it is, I believe, entirely contrary to so-called international law that we should at the present time be making any serious departure in the government of Palestine. Article 354 of the Laws and Usages of War lays down that in occupied enemy territory (which, of course, it is, because we have not made peace with the Turk) it is not permissible to alter the existing form of administration, to upset the constitutional and domestic laws, or to ignore the rights of the inhabitants. That is what we are doing now. Therefore, we have violated. the very principle with which we entered the war, we have violated the pledges given to the Arabs, and we have violated technically the laws and usages of war.
We have done this undoubtedly to support the Jews. Some time ago there appeared an article in The Times saying that the arrangements made at the Peace Conference in Paris were really the work of the Jews. In this country some of our chief offices of State are now held by the Jews, and we are undoubtedly under a great debt to those of the Jewish persuasion for carrying on the usages, customs, and government of civilisation. Therefore
1016
we cannot disregard them, or treat them in the way that other countries have done. I should be very sorry to see us do it. Still, we are now undertaking a distinct burden of government on behalf of the Jews, and not on behalf of British interests. That must be remembered, and the country should realise it, whenever there is any declaration of our policy in Palestine.
The position in Palestine has not been made any easier by the claims of the extreme Zionists, which have already been alluded to by Lord Sydenham. I do not think he mentioned one fact, that one of their leaders has said that all the present good land under cultivation, or land that could be cultivated without some extensive scheme of irrigation, is already held by owners, and, inasmuch as they are not making the best possible use of that land, three-fourths of it should be taken away from them and handed over to Jewish settlers, and only one quarter left to the present holders, who are not tilling the land properly. Lord Sydenham has also told us that they claim all uncultivated land. And if I may quote again Bishop McInne's speech, they go further and claim all Crown land and, in addition, say that all the German lands, colonies, and buildings should be give to them—possibly at a price, but they should have the right to take them over—besides railways and monopolies. Lord Newton may be interested in that because on two occasions he has inquired on what pretext the Germans are interned in Egypt, and perhaps there may be some connection with that fact. The idea is that their lands and properties in Palestine should be acquired for the benefit of settlers—at all events that is the statement made by Bishop McInnes. If you are to make Palestine a Jewish country it is right that the Jews should claim to go east of the Jordan, not merely on the heights behind the Jordan but to have the Hedjaz railway south of Damascus down to Maan.
What would be the effect of that upon the poor Syrian kingdom it is proposed to set up? To describe it briefly, the place is like a long, bare backbone from Aleppo in the North to Mecca in the South, without any vitality in it; and if this Zionist demand is acceded to that would be cut with regard. to the portion of the railway from Damascus to the Maan. The Syrian kingdom would have no vitality whatever,

1017
which would be in contravention of the declarations which, I must repeat, have been made again and again. The noble Earl the Leader of the House was not responsible for the various negotiations that took place during the war; he is, I think, rather the victim of circumstances, and he must find himself faced with a problem which to my mind is insoluble on peaceful lines.
There are two comparatively minor points in regard to which I think the Government have lately made a great mistake. The first is that pressure was brought to bear on the Emir Feisul to return to Europe and discuss the position. The Emir Feisul was recently crowned king in Damascus, I think in March last, with the approval of the notables to be found in that city. The conception of the idea of bringing a responsible ruler over here at a time when his country is in a disturbed state shows how entirely out of touch the Government arc with the real conditions. The Emir Feisul was here twice last year, and it would be fatal to his rule in Syria if he had to come here again now. If you lose the Emir Feisul you lose the one man who can give peace and security to the country. He is the one man in whom we can have confidence to carry out any agreement we might make with him. The other point in regard to which I think His Majesty's Government have shown themselves out of touch with the feeling in the Near East is in connection with the appointment of Sir Herbert Samuel. I freely echo all that is said to Sir Herbert Samuel's personal credit; indeed, I think it is a most self-denying ordinance on his part to go out to Palestine at such a moment as this. But, at the same time, I think his appointment was most injudicious. I believe that the Arabs will regard it as a distinct challenge to them that you should send a Jew to Palestine at the present time. In my opinion it was a most unfortunate selection. The best solution—I do not say it is an adequate one —is that you should give some confidence to the Arabs by saying that the administration of the country will be carried on in some degree by Arabs, Jews, and Christians as far as possible in proportion to the number of those different creeds in that country, and that the administration will be conducted under the suzerainty of the Emir Feisul. That is the only possible chance of peace there. If you do not do that I should look with dismay on what may happen to Palestine in the future. If
1018
you do it, you will be redeeming the pledges you have made time after time.
I know the Emir Feisul. I have had frequent conversations with him and his, representatives, and I am confident that they will faithfully discharge any agreement you enter into with the Jews and others as to their special rights and prerogatives; but it is impossible to conceive that you will have peace in Palestine so long as there is the idea prevalent that the whole of that country is going to be under Jewish control. If you do not mean that, what do you mean? A "Jewish home" is too narrow a term to convey any other meaning, I believe it to be the views of eminent Zionists that they should obtain practical control of Palestine. Ever since I went out to Syria I have regarded with dismay the idea that we should become responsible for the Government of that country, or of Palestine. To think that we are going to establish British control in Palestine seems to controvert the very principle on which our Empire has been built up. Our Empire has been built up by the individual enterprise of the British; but here we go to a country where we have no interests to establish a rule which I cannot see will have any practical benefit to us, and which will be in defiance of almost every instance in which we have extended our rule over the world. The Government have had to follow the enterprise of our trailers and others, and have had, reluctantly, to give them protection. This will not be the case in Palestine. We shall go there on a strictly artificial basis Hence I regard with alarm our ticking any course which will lead to disaster in that country and, at the same time, bring us no good as an Empire.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I rise only for the purpose of asking my noble friend when he replies whether he will deal with the question I have twice brought before the House without receiving any information whatsoever. I am alluding to the presence of 400 or 500 men, women, and children, of German origin, who were formerly colonists in Palestine and who, have now been interned in Egypt, incredible as it may sound, for something like two years. On the last occasion when I questioned the Government upon this point my noble friend Lord Peel agreed that I was justified in raising the question, and he added that in his opinion it was most emphatically necessary that an early

1019
decision should be given and early action should be taken with regard to it.
Hitherto I have not been able to ascertain from any one in this country why these people were ever deported from Palestine, why they are interned in Egypt, and why they are forbidden to go back to Palestine. No one here seems to know anything whatever about it. I have applied to the principal Departments concerned, and each of them rather gave me to understand it was the business of the other, with the result that I am no wiser now than I was in the beginning. No one has ever alleged anything against these people, but it has been suggested to me in a somewhat vague manner that they are confined for military reasons. If it has really been necessary to confine them for military reasons for something like two years it is to me rather an astonishing fact that a large proportion of them, if I am correctly informed, consist of old men, women and children. I cannot help pointing out that these particular people must be in a singularly unfortunate position, because, as they do not want to go back to Germany (Germany being the last place to which they desire to return), the German Government, I presume, takes no interest in them whatever. Therefore, so far as I know, nobody is looking after their interests.
I am quite aware that in many quarters it is extremely bad form to take any interest in former enemy aliens. In many quarters the opinion is entertained that these people ought to be considered as vermin and treated as vermin. That is a theory to which I have never been able to subscribe, and I do not mind confessing that with my experience of the war and of prisoners in general, I have a profound sympathy for any civilians, whether they be of British or German or any other nationality, who have to undergo two years' internment for no ostensible reason that I am able to ascertain. I should like to add this. So far as my experience goes, in connection with prisoners and interned civilians—although I did not always agree with that Department—the attitude of the War Office, which is the Department I believe to be directly concerned, was always, in the main, not only reasonable but humane, and it seems to me singularly unfortunate that a case of this kind should have attracted the attention of a neutral body such as the Committee of the Red Cross at Geneva which brought the facts originally to my notice.
1020
My noble friend opposite, Lord Lamington, suggested that there was a somewhat sinister explanation of this apparently inexplicable circumstance. He suggested that in the opinion of certain people these Palestinian Germans are being detained by the desire of the Zionists in order that their property in Palestine may be acquired. I should be very sorry to think that that was true, and I should be ashamed to believe—I cannot believe—it possible that His Majesty's Government would countenance any action of the kind. I prefer to believe that it is a blunder of some stupid subordinate and that it will be put right. My noble friend Lord Peel, when he last made a statement on the subject, gave me a promise that the matter would be brought to the attention of the new Commissioner, Sir Herbert Samuel, and I trust that my noble friend will be able to assure me that Sir Herbert has been given express directions to deal with this question without further delay.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, before my noble friend replies I should like to make two brief observations. I think the debate to-day—especially the speeches of my noble friend Lord Sydenham and my noble friend Lord Lamington—has shown the very serious situation in which we find ourselves in Palestine. The situation is one that may have issues of the utmost gravity, and may result in great dangers to our interests, both locally there and throughout the East. I think it is another illustration, and a very conspicuous one, of how far afield we have gone from our Parliamentary system of Government. We are told to-day that this system, for better or for worse, is now established; that a Zionist system of government is there; that it is unwelcome to large sections of the population; and that we have undertaken very serious responsibility in connection with that system. And this, I think, is almost the first debate that has taken place in this House with regard to it since it has been done. We are rapidly allowing ourselves to abrogate our Parliamentary position in matters that are of the most vital concern to every man, woman and child in this country and to our whole position in the East.
We have undertaken in this scheme to ensure internal order and external security. That means that we have to employ a force to meet those possible, and one almost fears probable, contingencies that may

1021
arise in that part of the world. We are always being urged to gird ourselves to these great enterprises in the East, because, we are told, it is our destiny and our duty as a great world-power to undertake them. If I may I would like for one moment to make an observation on that point. Is it the British Empire that is undertaking these responsibilities, and therefore placing itself in the position of having to bear the possible subsequent burden? Is it the British Empire that is undertaking, as it did during the war, and co-operating both in regard to the decisions upon and the discharge of, these responsibilities which we have assumed through the Middle East? I say emphatically it is not.
It is Great Britain by herself who assumes these responsibilities. Our Dominions have no participation in any of these undertakings, and I would venture to say that if they were asked they would not feel very disposed to co-operate in any way in them. It is Great Britain who, at the bidding of an international tribunal and not on the authority of Parliament, is undertaking these responsibilities, whether in Palestine or especially in Mesopotamia which we discussed last week. Great Britain has to bear the financial burden and every day brings evidence of how almost impossible Great Britain finds it to bear. How is it that Great Britain alone—and I would ask your Lordships' earnest consideration of this point—can cope with this increasingly heavy military obligation imposed by these commitments in the East? We are doing our best to supply troops for this purpose in these different areas, but it is only to a partial extent that those troops can be supplied from these shores. If I am credibly informed, there is increasing difficulty in regard to this matter as the obligations become more numerous.
Where are the rest of the troops coming from that are undertaking the garrisoning of these centres in the Middle East? They are all coming from India. They do not come from our Dominions. India supplies the bulk of the troops to-day in the independent State of Persia, the protection of which, apparently, we are undertaking. India supplies the great bulk of the troops in Mesopotamia. India supplies a large number of the troops in Egypt, in Palestine, and around Constantinople. During the war India came forward, like the rest of the Empire, and gave magnificent support to the extent of over 1,000,000 men to fight
1022
the battles against our enemies, but I would ask this— How long in time of peace will the present policy be pursued which entails a demand upon India for a supply of troops to garrison our territorial commitments lying far outside India throughout the East? These troops in many instances, as your Lordships are well aware, are posted in countries and in many places quite unsuited to the characteristics and the traditions of Indians. This is conspicuously so in Palestine, and I venture to say, in the interests both of the Indian troops and also of India, that those troops should be withdrawn from Palestine at the earliest possible date.
But it is on the broader aspect that I venture to ask the noble Earl if he would give us some enlightenment in regard to the question of the disposal of these troops and their employment; how long and to what extent His Majesty's Government propose to employ the Armies of India, to garrison countries far outside their Own borders. This is a quite new policy, anyway to the immense extent that it has now developed. It is, in my judgment, a most dangerous policy. It is a wrong policy, both in regard to the Middle East and its future, and in regard to India; and it is one that I fail to see can be reversed as long as the present policy is pursued by His Majesty's Government in these countries.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, following the cherished and traditional practice of your Lordships' House, the noble Lords who have so far addressed you have claimed for themselves no small measure of licence in the range of the questions which they have asked. Indeed, some of the questions that have been put to me have only the remotest connection, if indeed they have any connection at all, with the Question that is in print upon the Paper. I am, however, much too old a hand now to protest against this form of traditional digression. I meekly bow my head, and will do my best on this, as on all occasions, to give such information as I can.
First let me take the noble Lord who has just sat down. I hope, even after the dictum which I have just pronounced he will excuse me from going into the exceedingly important, but also the exceedingly complex, question of the methods which we are likely to adopt, or which

1023
we ought to adopt, for the future garrisoning of those great territories in the Middle East for which we have assumed, for the time being at any rate, some measure of responsibility. Nobody knows better than he how grave are the issues involved in the discussion, and, much more, in the decision of such a question; and if at some other time he likes to raise that question upon its merits, it is a matter upon which, of course, I should conceive it my duty to consult the views of my colleagues and to give such information to the House as I can. Clearly, it cannot be tagged on to a Question relating, at any rate so far as the words on the Paper are concerned, exclusively to the civil administration of Palestine at the present time.
I pass to my noble friend Lord Newton, whose incurable suspicion about anything concerned with enemy aliens it is, I am afraid, quite impossible for me or anyone to allay. However, on the present occasion I am, perhaps, in a position to give him a little more satisfaction than he appears to have derived from my noble friend the Under-Secretary for War on a previous occasion. Let me answer quite simply and directly the questions which I understood him to put. He asked, in the first place, "Why were these Germans and Austrian originally in Palestine interned?" They were interned for the ordinary reason for which, while a war is going on, you exclude, as far as you possibly can, from the area where your forces are operating—which is necessary under military law—persons who, either by birth or otherwise, are connected with the enemy. They were accordingly removed from Palestine to Egypt. Very well. Then they were offered the choice whether they would prefer, at the close of hostilities, to go to Germany or to go back to Palestine. Some of them chose Germany, and they were sent there. As soon as they arrived we received indignant protests from Germany that these gentlemen— and, as I understand it, ladies also—were not wanted because they were unsuitable or destitute persons. Others of them chose to go back to Palestine, and to Palestine it is our firmest intention to repatriate them. Noble Lords must remember that even now Palestine is technically a military country, and it is only with the arrival of Sir Herbert Samuel this week that we are in process of setting up a form of Civil Administration. Even as regards the Mission of Sir Herbert Samuel, my noble
1024
friend Lord Newton could not abate his ineradicable suspicion, because, as recently as June 8, he said in this House, "I do not imagine that there is the remotest prospect of his starting for a month or so."
LORD NEWTON: Well, it is a month ago.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Three weeks have not elapsed, and Sir Herbert Samuel as to whom there was "not the remotest prospect of his starting for more than a month," has not only started but is so far on his way that he will land in Palestine to-morrow or the next day.
LORD NEWTON: I was only a week too long.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The Instructions which are given to him provide for the repatriation of these persons who want to return to Palestine as soon as it can conveniently be done. The only other thing that remains for me to say upon that point is that for the particular suggestion, or imputation, contained in one of the speeches preceding mine—I forget whether it was Lord Lamington's or not—namely, that they were being kept away in order that their houses or property might be acquired by the Jews or by others—there is not a shred of foundation.
I pass on to the speech of my noble friend Lord Lamington. I think that he is imperfectly acquainted with what has happened in respect of the Emir Feisul. With what he said about that potentate, about his loyalty and his good faith, I am in close agreement. I know the Emir Feisul, as does my noble friend, and I have always found him animated not merely by friendly sentiment towards this country but by a high sense of personal honour. And when my noble friend suggests that we have been unwisely and unduly pressing the Emir to come to this country, he is really speaking in ignorance of the facts. As far back as March 28, the Emir of his own accord announced his willingness to. come to Europe—this was after his nomination or election to the Throne of Syria—as soon as he received recognition of his independence. It was mindful of that expression on his part that, when we met with our Allies at San Remo, we agreed there— and I think I was largely responsible for that agreement—to recognise Syria as an independent State. Having done this,

1025
we again tendered officially to the Emir Feisul the invitation to come to Europe, conceiving that, having satisfied his own condition, he would carry out his undertaking.
A NOBLE LORD: As an independent ruler?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: As head of an independent State. Twice since then the Emir, in correspondence with us, has discussed the question of his coming, and he has by no means given it the negative which my noble friend seems to suppose. As recently as June 4 he was in correspondence with us about the matter, and on that occasion, so far from saying that in no circumstances could he come here, the words he used were that he had to delay his departure because of the conditions in his country, which my noble friend has correctly described as those of a good deal of disquietude. It may be that for the time being his services are more important there than they would be here, but I should be loth myself altogether to dismiss the hope that we may see the Emir in Europe, and for this reason, that it surely is to the interest of all of us, the Allied Powers as much as ourselves, to regularise his position. My noble friend spoke of him as having been elected to the Kingship of Syria. That is quite true, but it was a very irregular election, and nobody is more anxious than ouselves, if he is to continue there, as it seems very likely he will, as the country was conquered by his forces in conjunction with our own, and as it is going to be taken away from Turkey by the Allies by a Treaty made by the Allied Powers, that his position should have the sanction of the Allied Powers behind it. Therefore it is that I hope that at some time not too distant we may see the Emir in Europe.
There is one other portion of the noble Lord's remarks to which I cannot help devoting a few passing words. He recapitulated more than once, with great emphasis, that in his view Palestine is no British interest. It is true that he rather narrowed down his own definition by saying that we had no commercial or industrial interest in the country. My Lords, our interest in Palestine never has been, and I venture to say never ought to be, measured in terms of £ s. d. It certainly has not been the view from which English-
1026
men have ever looked at Palestine, from Cœur de Lion to the present day. Our interest is historic, traditional, religious, and perhaps to some extent sentimental, but when we went there in the early stages of the war we went there for another reason, for distinct military and strategic objects—namely, to protect the flank of Egypt, which was threatened by the direct menace of the Turkish arms. Anybody who was familiar with the views of Lord Kitchener will know how serious was the importance, and, as it appeared to some of us, exaggerated importance, which he attached to that danger, and it was on military grounds that we found ourselves advancing into the Holy Land.
And, my Lords, when the noble Lord rather dogmatically laid down that Palestine has no strategic value for Egypt now, I doubt very much, if he went to the War Office and put the proposition in this form, "Would you, the authorities at the War Office, be willing to see another Power, and possibly a hostile Power, in the future in possession of Palestine? Would you consider your position in Egypt safe in these circumstances,"— I doubt if he would get an affirmative reply. However that may be, we were drawn in for military reasons, and conquered Turkey, and there then remained the question—what was to be done? Broadly speaking, the question which, we had to put to ourselves was, Should we go? I do not know whether it is a tribute to our sincerity or to our powers, but nobody wanted us to go. Everybody insisted upon our remaining. Lord Islington asked what voice the Dominions had in this, and whether they are going to provide troops to hold Palestine in the future? No. I should not dream of asking them. But no body of men was more insistent that the duty remained upon us than were the Dominion representatives who came to this country. That view was almost universally shared, and it was as the result of the practically unanimous request of all parties that we, by no means eagerly or joyously but very reluctantly, accepted a mandate for Palestine which we could not refuse. It was thought by almost common consent that we were the nation best calculated to hold the sacred places in trust and to act as guardians of that which is regarded as holy ground by so many millions of people throughout the world. So much for the circumstances in which we went to Palestine.

1027
Now I come to the speech of my noble friend Lord Sydenham, who introduced this matter this afternoon. He drew what was a very gloomy picture of the present position of affairs in that country. I cannot help thinking that it was a somewhat one-sided picture. I would not accuse a man of such natural impartiality as my noble friend of taking a prejudiced view in any racial or religious matter. Still I do think that in the whole of his speech there was evidence of a strong anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist feeling—I will not say bias, but feeling. It is true that in that country passions have been aroused. There is a great deal of explosive material lying about. Many foolish things have been said, and some of them have been quoted here tonight. Many unwise things have been done. The Holy Land seems to have the peculiar faculty—it has had it at all periods of history—of arousing passions which provide scope for the wildest enmities and bitterest feuds, and it is only too true that under the new conditions Palestine has not settled down to perfect harmony and unity. And indeed there seems a tendency to resume some of the unfortunate habits and traditions of the past. I would add this, that the mistakes, which I admit, are not mistakes exclusively confined to one side. The noble Lord himself quoted things said and done against the Jews quite as violent as any which he cited as having been done or said by them. Ought we not to try ourselves to place the whole matter in a rather wider perspective and form some idea of the best way in which, having undertaking the mandate, we now ought to discharge it in the best interests of all parties concerned?
My Lords, what are the essential facts of the case? Palestine was conquered by one of the most brilliant campaigns of which we have any knowledge in our annals. I need say no more about that. What did we find when we had absorbed the whole country up to and beyond the Syrian border on the North? We found a country which, owing to the long and pestilential blight of Turkish administration, had become depopulated, impoverished, and relatively poor. Many of your Lordships have travelled in Palestine, and I believe that you will, broadly speaking, accept my account of the situation. Whatever your views about the potential resources of the country, there cannot be any doubt that Palestine is a country where there is scope for more people, for more scientific cultiva-
1028
tion, for the construction of more railways, for better sanitation, for afforestation on a more scientific scale, and for development of all the resources of the country, whether great or small. Where is that development to come from? The Turks were quite incapable of doing it. The Arabs are equally incapable. There is no friend of the Arabs who will claim that they have the resources, wealth, or energy to do it on the scale at which, at any rate, we should like to see it done. It was in these circumstances that an opportunity was afforded to the Jews to undertake this task in their old home.
It seems to have been assumed this afternoon that the Jews or Zionists, if they are to be so called, are in necessary and increasing antagonism to the Arab population of the country. I wonder if that is altogether the case. The Jewish colonies were mentioned, many of them well-to-do and flourishing communities, who, I believe, have long lived in perfect amity with their neighbours; and indeed, by reason of the wealth they brought into the country and the means of developing it that they have provided, they have been extremely popular. I have known of cases in which Arab sheikhs—and important Arab sheikhs—have been on terms of the closest friendship, and are still so, with the heads of the Jewish colonies. There was nothing, therefore, inherent in the circumstances of the case—the juxtaposition of Jews on the one side and Arabs on the other—to lead one to think that they were incapable of getting on in the future. Indeed, are not the two races really essential to the salvation of the country? The one, the great majority of the people, the Arabs, between 500,000 and 600,000 strong—are they not by virtue of their indigenous character, their local interests, their patriotism, essential as one factor in the problem? On the other hand, do you not want the enterprise, the wealth, the resources, the tremendously fervid spirit of the Jews or Zionists to help the country along? I ask your Lordships not to regard the situation as one involving any natural or necessary antagonism between the two. I would far rather regard them as two facets of one and the same problem.
As regards the arrangements that have been made, the famous Declaration of Mr. Balfour of November, 1917, has been quoted. That Declaration was then accepted successively by all the other Great Powers, and when we came to San

1029
Remo, in April last I think it was, it was embodied verbatim, in the terms of the Turkish Treaty. This was what we put in the Treaty, not yet of course signed, still less ratified, about Palestine—
"The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the principal Allied Powers, to a mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government and adopted by the other Allied Powers in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights mid political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
With reference to the particular point about religious communities, we went on as follows—
"The mandatory undertakes to appoint as soon as possible a special Commission to study and regulate all questions and claims relating to the different religions communities. In the composition of this Commission the religious interests concerned will be taken into account. The Chairman of the Commission will be appointed by the Council of the League of Nations."
In the Mandate, which is in course of being drawn up for submission to the Council of the League of Nations, we are taking seeps to ensure that this Commission shall secure that the holy places, religious building or sites regarded with special veneration by the adherents of one particular religion, are entrusted to the permanent possession and control of suitable bodies representing the adherents of the religion concerned. The selection of the holy places, religious buildings, or sites to be so transferred is to be made by the Commission subject to the approval of the mandatory.
As regards the actual Questions put upon the Paper, my noble friend Lord Sydenham only asked them by implication, and did not put to me the specific points which are here in print, but he will, perhaps, expect me to give a direct reply to the Questions in the form in which he put them. His first Question is as follows—
By what means, under the mandate which has been accepted for the government of Palestine, is it proposed to safeguard the rights of the immense non-Jewish majority of the population, while setting up a "national home" for the Jewish rats.
My answer to that is quite simple. We hope to do it by the institution of civil government, and by the provisions which
1030
that civil government will make for the internal security and development of the country. His second question is—
Whether the term "national home" implies the exercise of governmental authority over the whole or part of the population of Palestine.
1 would say, "Yes," if the exercise of governmental authority refers to governmental authority by the mandatory—that is to say, the British. I would say "No" if my noble friend means authority to be exercised by the Jewish minority over the non-Jewish majority. The actual conditions under which these provisions will be secured will, of course, be contained in the Mandate which has to he submitted to the League of Nations, but I may say that Sir Herbert Samuel, who arrives in Palestine in the course of the next day or two, will, immediately upon taking over the civil administration, make a statement regarding several points connected with that civil administration which he has been authorised by His Majesty's Government to lay down, and as that will occur within a day or two it would, I think, be unfair on my part if I were to anticipate this evening anything he may say.
There is, however, one remaining point about which I think the House is entitled to something a little more precise, and that is the point which was raised by certainly two of the preceding speakers—namely, about immigration. I would ask the House not to be unduly frightened by the colossal and really extravagant figures that are bandied about. My noble friend Lord Sydenham quoted front sonic document about hundreds of thousands of persons already pouring into the country.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I thought be said hundreds and thousands.
LORD SYDENBAM: Yes.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I gladly acquit my noble friend if it was the more modest figure that he used, but in another part of his speech he spoke of some authority who anticipated an immigration in a few years of eight millions or ten millions of persons.
LORD SYDENIIAM: That was on the authority of Dr. Max Nordau.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: For my own part I am content with much more

1031
modest estimates. As regards our general policy, which is what the House is much more concerned with than with speculative conjectures as to the future, I should like to say this. Our general policy is that no man or woman shall be admitted whom the country is incapable of supporting, and that indiscriminate mass immigration, whether of Jews or non-Jews, whether of Jews from Russia or from other parts of the world, will most certainly not be permitted.
There was another point about which I was asked. Non-Jewish landowners will. not be expropriated or compelled to give up their property for the benefit of Jews. The Administration will reserve to itself the right to develop the natural resources of the country on such terms and conditions as it may think best. It will be left to Jewish enterprise to secure in the open market and on equal terms with non-Jewish purchasers such areas as are undeveloped but are capable of development. For the development of those areas it will be left to the purchasers to secure their own labour, and it is only if His Majesty's Government has reason to suppose that any organised effort is being made to prevent the establishment of the Jewish national home that it may be found necessary to take special steps to secure this object. I ought to add also that I agree with my noble friends in thinking that we must be very careful about introducing into the country the right class of immigrant and, as I have before remarked, about not introducing too many at a time. I think it is very likely that among the Zionist Commission, to which reference has been made, there may be hot-heads who have said, and perhaps clone foolish things.
You have now got at the head of the Administration a judicially-minded and sensible and experienced man. Although it is true that no remarks have been made this evening disparaging to Sir Herbert Samuel himself, very grave doubts have been expressed as to the wisdom of sending a Jewish Administrator to the country at this moment. That is a perfectly tenable view. It is a perfectly tenable view to say that—an Arab, of course, not being available, and the Zionists, as representing the minority, being disqualified—you ought to have sent somebody else. That was not the view taken by the Government, and in their search for someone who would loyally
1032
carry out the policy to which Mr. Balfour had committed us, with the consent of our Allies, it was thought that no more competent person could be found than Sir Herbert Samuel. I had the honour of serving as a colleague with him in Mr. Asquith's Administration for a year and a-half, and, though I do not think any of his then Liberal colleagues are now in the House, I am sure all will agree with me in saying that lie takes to the discharge of his duties there a mind of singular impartiality and fairness. I have had many opportunities of discussing the matter with him, and, while it may be true that when he goes there he will for a time find himself in I somewhat difficult circumstances with the Arabs, a great authority on the country told me the other day that six months later lie was quite certain he would be equally unpopular with the Jews. That was a testimony to the character of Sir Herbert Samuel which, I expect, is not unlikely to be borne out by the facts.
As regards the future, there is no part of the world at the present moment where it is more necessary, I admit, to go slowly than in Palestine. I do not think going quick is ever a wise policy in the East—pretty soon you get tripped up, and you very likely have a bad fall. But if there is a part of the world where your pace should be extremely staid I would name Palestine. The fact is that, owing to the conditions which I have described, resulting from all those centuries of Turkish misrule, there is a terrible lot of back way to be made up. You want a policy of steady progress in building, in irrigation, in the scientific combating of malaria—everybody knows that the Jordan Valley is an absolute pesthole in which European peoples, at any rate, cannot live or work—you want a cadastral survey of the country, you want facilities of banking, in fact, you want all the machinery of administration. I think we must trust Sir Herbert Samuel to carry out the broad principles of policy which I have laid down,, and which I believe, the mandate having been accepted and the national home having been taken as one of the principles of our action, will be broadly endorsed by both sides of your Lordships' House.
The only other point which I must allude to is the Motion, with which my noble friend concluded, for Papers. I had no idea to what Papers he was going to refer until he spoke, and then lie told us

1033
that the two Papers he wanted were Sir Herbert Samuel's Report and Lord Allenby's Report on the circumstances at Jerusalem. As regards Sir Herbert Samuel's Report I had no idea until this moment—in fact, I have not now—that it had any official character at all. Sir Herbert Samuel went out really in a private capacity to Palestine, at the suggestion of Lord Allenby. He went round the country and wrote a Report, which he afterwards allowed me to see, but I do not think it was written for publication. There was nothing in it in the least unsuitable for publication, but I certainly could not undertake to lay it as a Parliamentary Paper without his consent, and I would far rather wait for the results of his administration, after he has been there three or four months, than rely upon the results of his journey three or four months before he took up the post. The other Paper, Lord Allenby's Report, on the unfortunate events at Jerusalem, it is impossible to lay, for this reason. The matter is sqb judice at the moment. A Court of inquiry was appointed to go into the circumstances of the case. Whether its investigations have been completed I do not know, but the report, at any rate, has not reached us. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not feel it necessary to persist in this Motion for Papers, and I hope he will allow that I have done, my best to answer the greater part, at any rate, of the questions which he addressed. to your Lordships' House.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord who opened the debate referred to me as likely to contribute something to the discussion this evening. I admit this is a matter in which I take the very keenest interest, not only owing to some personal knowledge of the localities and successive visits there over a prolonged period,. but also because I have been during the past year in very close touch with very many of those who know the facts on the spot—not ecclesiastical friends only, though I have those belonging to different sections of the Christian Church, but civil friends as well. I therefore came here to-night with a very anxious hope for the elucidation of the subject, which I admit, to me and to most other people, was exceedingly perplexing.
The terms which have been used—the term "Zionism" itself, or the term "A Jewish Home"—are equally elusive, and
1034
it is extraordinarily difficult to find out what those who use those terms really mean by them, either when they emanate from government authority or from the critics of that authority. To some extent we have had enlightenment on that subject to-night. The noble Earl has given us perhaps as much as we had any right to expect of detailed information as to what is at this moment happening. I will not conceal from your Lordships that I have had exceedingly anxious forebodings as to what are going to be the results of the present movements in Palestine, and those are based not on conjecture but on a great deal of detailed information which has come into my hands. There were certain points on which I should have desired to make critical observations, but it seems to me, after what the noble Earl has told us, that it would do nothing but harm for us at this moment to indulge in further criticism or discussion of the details, which are to some extent going to be revealed to us when Sir Herbert Samuel speaks a few days hence. It is too late now merely to criticise, as I think some of the speeches did overmueh, what has been done, because those criticisms, unless they are really necessary for something that is going to happen, seem to me to tend rather to embitter than to smooth things. And therefore I should not at all desire to criticise things, even if they seem to me to have been said, which are already fails accomplis.
On the other hand, if we are going to learn in a few days' time—what must have already been settled, if it is going to be announced by Sir Herbert Samuel himself—about his work, surely we should wait until then, before we can usefully criticise the things he is likely to say and to have planned. I am prepared to expect a great deal. My own knowledge of Sir Herbert Samuel, which is limited as compared with that of some of your Lordships', has been, in two or three different fields of interest and of common work, such as to make me feel the greatest confidence in his judgment, his common sense, and his largeness of view in matters of this kind, and what I have heard as to what has passed between him and some of those who have been his critics, now that he is appointed to go to the East, has reassure me on some of the very points on which I have felt anxious I have no desire whatever to criticise in

1035
advance that which we are likely to hear, but I shall feel that we are all at liberty to open this question again, because it is an anxious and important one, when we are better informed, when we have read what we are told Sir Herbert Samuel is about to say.
The interest of this matter in the minds of the British people was not in the least exaggerated by my noble friend who spoke for the Government. Lord Lamington said that we had no really British interests in Palestine, but I entirely agree with what was said by Lord Curzon that there is no subject in which—using the word "interest" in another sense—interest is so wide in this country. For one person who cares about what is happening this moment in Asia Minor there are at least 10,000 who care immensely to know and to understand as far as they can what is happening in Palestine. That is due to other grounds altogether than those of present political interests. But the interest is keen and will need to be satisfied; and I have great hopes that before long we shall be able to understand better than we do now what is planned, and to feel more complete satisfaction in its prospects than some of us have been able to feel as yet.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I feel that a great deal of mischief was done by using ambiguous words at the start such as "National Home." "National Home" might be interpreted in a harmless way, but it has also been interpreted as giving priority to a small minority of Jews over the mass of people in Palestine. It is idle to propose that preference should be given to one-tenth who have gone to the country only lately over the nine-tenths who have been there, from father to son, for generations.
The noble Earl is, perhaps, too busy to read a publication which I have been reading for two years and which throws a light on the view of Zionists. I refer to their official organ called Palestine. That publication is not written by Bolshevists; it is written in England for English people and, therefore, intended to be as moderate as possible. All I can say is that if some subordinate of the noble Earl in the Foreign Office makes it his business to see that organ he will perceive the very wide claims that have been systematically put forward for two years on behalf of the Zionists, claims which are entirely incon-
1036
sistent with a mere "place in the sun"—claims for priority and preference. If Jews go back in reasonable numbers and show by their ability, industry and character that they can take the lead, they will take the lead and no one will object; but it is the duty of the Government to hold an absolutely fair balance and not to consider that there should be a balance of equality between one-tenth and nine-tenths. Claims have been put forward by the Jews that the Jewish language should be put on an equality with the national language of the country. I have seen claims put forward also by them that the Sabbath should be observed as a day of obligation, whereas it is only such a day for a small section of the people. I remember what happened when it was proposel to send a number of workmen from Malta to make a pier at Haifa. The claim put forward was that any immigration to Palestine must be pre-erupted and demanded for the Jews.
The Government are under suspicion by many people of trying to smooth the way so that when things ripen the Jews can step in and take possession of their "Promised Land." That would be a thoroughly vicious principle. The Government should administer Palestine under the mandate for the benefit of all the people there. The Jews comprise only one-tenth of the inhabitants. They are not an important part of the people. They have raked up an ancient name with which the present-day Jews have nothing whatever to do. The noble Earl said they would not allow Palestine to be the dumping ground for all the rowdies of Europe. Respectable Jews should come in as other people, but there should be no attempt to prevent others from coming in. There ought to be perfectly fair play. No doubt Sir Herbert Samuel will try to be perfectly fair, but there is no doubt that the people of the country, when you select a man of the religion and race of only one-tenth of the inhabitants and send him to rule the whole country, must feel suspicious. I hope that Sir Herbert Samuel will disappoint the hopes of his co-nationalists and co-religionists. When the noble Earl talked of Jewish energy and enterprise coming, he seemed to thing, to develop this country part passu on equality with the Arabs and the other people there, I thought he, wanted to give too much of a push to the Zionist movement. I trust that the Government will take care that nothing will be done against the wishes of the mass of the people of that

1037
country to pamper the expectations of people spread all over the world who are being pushed forward to intrude themselves where they are not wanted.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I think that the speech of the noble Earl the Leader of the House will reassure many people who have felt anxiety in this matter. He has told us plainly that there is to be no Zionist Government in Palestine, that the antecedents of immigrants will be scrutinised, and that no rush of unruly people into the country will be allowed. The noble Earl has also said that there will be no preferential treatment with regard to the purchase of land. All those things will do
1038
away with a great deal of the alarm which is being felt in that country. I beg to with draw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I beg to give notice that to-morrow my noble friend Lord Curzon will move that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered with a view to its being suspended in respect of the Rents Restriction Bill.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eight o'clock.