Lords Sitting of 18 August 1921

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BILLS.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE)THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE) had given notice to move—" That the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills be amended as follows—
After Standing Order insert as a new Standing Order—
87A. No Provisional Order Confirmation Bill originating in this House shall be read a first time after Whitsuntide."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships will have noticed that a number of Provisional Order Bills have reached us at a very late date this year, and you have carried one Over to next session, but some others have reached us in August, when it is almost impossible to give them adequate consideration in opposed Committees. I have to thank some of your Lordships who have made special efforts, which have enabled we to hold opposed Committees during this month, but as your Lordships are a ware, opposed Committees begin to Meet in. April and go on sitting until the end of July, and it is therefore in the interest of business that we should add to the Standing Orders sonic such provision as I now propose.
It is similar to one which is to be found among tin Standing Orders of the House of Commons, and as a beginning, therefore, I ask you to make this new Standing Order, harmonising the practice of t he two Houses. At the same time, I do not conceal from myself the fact that it may be necessary, if this Standing Order is not sufficient to cause these Provision Order Bills to reach us at an earlier date, to ask your Lordships to advance the date mentioned in my motion on some future day. I think that some such Standing Order will be necessary, unless the public Departments make a greater effort to let us have these Bills at a touch earlier date.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

CORN PRODUCTION ACTS (REPEAL) BILL.
Message from the Commons: That the Commons agree to the Amendment made by the Lords in lieu of Commons Amendment to Lords Amendment disagreed to by the Lords, and to the Amendment made by the Lords to Commons Amendment to Lords Amendment to the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Bill without. Amendment.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
IRISH RAILWAYS (SETTLEMENT, OF CLAIMS) BILL.
SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) ACT (1920) AMENDMENT BILL.
SUPREME COURT OFFICERS (RETIRE-MENT, PENSIONS,&c.) BILL.
EXCHEQUER AND AUDIT DEPARTMENTS BILL.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.

STIRLINGSHIRE AND FALKIRK WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
DUMBARTON BURGH (WATER) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY (BURNT- ISLAND) HARBOUR TRANSFER) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
AIRDRIE AND COATBRIDGE TRAMWAYSM TRUST ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
GRANGEMOUTH AND STIRLING WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

RAILWAYS BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 7:
Supplementary provisions as to schemes.
7.—(1) Every amalgamation scheme and every absorption scheme shall be so framed as to come

951
into operation on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, or such earlier or later date, as the amalgamation tribunal, with the consent of the Minister, may fix:
THE EARL OF LYTTON THE EARL OF LYTTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out"with the consent of"and to insert"after consultation with." The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will remember that when we were in Committee the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, moved an Amendment to leave out"with the consent of the Minister," and after I had resisted the Amendment he explained that my speech had justified consultation with the Minister, but not giving him an equal authority with the Tribunal. I therefore put down this Amendment to meet the point of the noble and learned Lord. I hope he will feel that I have met his point.
Amendment moved—
Clause 7, page 7. line 37, leave out (" with the consent of ") and insert (" after consultation with ").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
LORD SUMNER: My point is met, and I am much obliged to the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16:
Power to make orders as to working of railway companies.
16.— (1) With a view to securing and promoting the public safety, or the interests of the public, or of trade, or of any particular locality, the Railway and Canal Commission may, on the application of any body of persons representing any such interests, by order require any railway company or companies, or the Minister may on the application of any such company or companies by order authorise the company or companies, to afford such reasonable railway services, facilities, and conveniences upon and in connection with its undertaking or their undertakings (including the provision of such minor alterations and extensions and improvements of existing works as will not involve in any one case an expenditure exceeding one hundred thousand pounds) as may he specified in the order:
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO moved, in subsection (1), after"representing any such interests", to insert"including the interests of passengers ". The noble Earl said: This Amendment is intended to protect the passengers, seeing that the noble Earl said that the Bill was the charter of the traders. I do not know whether he will accept it, and perhaps it is not necessary, as the word"persons"is in the clause.
Amendment moved—
Clause 16, page 20, line 25, after ("interests ") insert ("including the interests of passengers ").—(The Earl of Mayo.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The noble Earl has returned to a point which we have discussed once or twice before. I hope he will accept my assurance that the interests of passengers are already included.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I do not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new subsection:
"(5) Where a railway company runs a steamboat service in connection with their railway this section shall apply as if railway services included steamboat services and facilities and conveniences in connection therewith."
The noble Earl said: The noble Earl in charge of the Bill said in regard to the first new subsection that I proposed to put in. that he did not object to the drafting, and then, afterwards, he said it was nonsense. But I appealed to him and asked whether, if I brought forward a new clause which was not nonsense, he would consider it on Report. I have, therefore, drafted this Amendment. The noble Earl will remember that he said that steamboats were not included.
Amendment moved—
Clause 16, page 22, line 11, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Mayo.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I should have apologised to the noble Earl for having used so uncomplimentary an expression about his Amendment in fact. I had called it nonsense, but that is not what I said. What I said was that if his Amendment were inserted in the Bill it would make nonsense of the Bill. The Bill itself would then not make sense. No such criticism, however, would apply to this Amendment. I am not, however, prepared to accept the Amendment, and I hope I may be able to make it clear to the noble Earl why. This Bill is a Railways Bill: it deals only with railways. An Amendment was moved in Committee to make it apply also to a company which, although technically a railway company, was really a dock undertaking, and another Amendment was moved to make it apply to an actual dock undertaking. I said, on that

953
occasion, that we could not include docks in the Bill, and, equally, we cannot: include in a Railways Bill an obligation upon companies who provide passenger or cargo steamers. The Bill does not apply to steamboat services at all; and an Amendment dealing with them could not, I think, be brought within the Title of the Bill.
But even if it could technically be made to apply, it is undesirable that it should. I told the noble Earl in Committee that there was no monopoly in the provision of steamboat services, and he said that the London and North Western Railway Company had, in fact, though not in law, a monopoly of the service between Kingstown and Holyhead. The Amendment, however, would apply not only to the London and North Western Railway, but to any company running a service of steam boats across the Channel, and these companies are under no obligation to provide steamboat services. The clause with regard to reasonable facilities, which is applicable to railways, is not applicable to steam boat services, and the Amendment, therefore, would have a far wider application, and would mean that we should apply provisions which are meant to be applicable to railways also to the provision of steamboat services. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17:
Power to make orders as to acquisition of land, &c.
17. For enabling railway companies to effect alterations, extensions, and improvements of existing works in pursuance of an order of the Railway and Canal Commission or the Minister under this Part of this Act the Minister may make any such order authorising the acquisition of land or easements and the construction of works as could have been made under paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section three of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, for the purposes specified in that paragraph, and that paragraph and section twenty-nine of the same Act, and the rules made under that section, and the regulations contained in the Second Schedule to the same Act shall, so far as they relate to railways, apply accordingly.
THE EARL OF LYTTON THE EARL OF LYTTON moved, after"Act ", where that word thirdly occurs, to insert"other than the proviso to subsection (3) of that section ". The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will remember that when we were in Committee we had a discussion upon an Amendment moved by my noble friend, Lord Emmott, and I
954
told him that, if the House supported the Government in resisting his Amendment, then I should be willing to insert this Amendment when we came to the Report stage. It is in fulfilment of that pledge that I have put this Amendment on the Paper, and I hope your Lordships will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Clause 17, page 22, line 22, after (" Act insert (" other than the proviso to subsection (5) of that section ").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
LORD EMMOTT: I am Very grateful to the noble Earl for the concession he has made. I think the procedure may need watching. There has been no time, owing to the hurry with which we have had to put this Bill through, to consult the Chairmen of Committees of the two Houses. It is just possible that this alteration which we are making may throw a considerable burden on them, and, if so, it may be necessary at some future date to devise some other safeguard.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20:
Rates tribunal.
(5) Any person appointed a permanent member of the rates tribunal under this Act shall, within three calendar months after his appointment. absolutely sell and dispose of any stock, share, debenture stock, debenture bond, or other security of any railway company in Great Britain or in any industrial or other company concerned with or interested in the carriage of traffic by railway, which be shall, at the time of his appointment, own or be interested in for his own benefit, and it shall not be lawful for any person appointed a permanent member of the rates tribunal under this Act, so long as he shall hold office as such permanent member fir his own benefit., to purchase, take, or become interested in any such security as aforesaid, or if any such security or any interest therein shall come to or vest in such permanent member by will or succession for his own benefit lie shall, within three calendar months after the same shall so come to or vest in him, absolutely boll and dispose of the same or his interest therein.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY THE EARL OF MALMESBURY moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Earl said: This Amendment has been put down also in the names of Viscount Churchill and Lord Stuart of Wortley, and I would rather Lord Churchill had moved it than myself. There was some discussion on this point in another place, and there a certain Amendment was agreed to, subject to the disqualification being extended to industrial interests and undertakings.
It is sought to leave out this subsection altogether, because, first of all, it is somewhat difficult to define the word"interest", and, secondly, you will not get the best men for this particular work if very stringent regulations are applied to it. There is hardly any business man of experience or of any position at all who does not hold a considerable number of these railway and industrial shares, and if a man has acquired or inherited shares of this sort, it seems to be somewhat hard that he should he obliged to unload them at a moment when the market is very low. I venture to suggest that if we exclude the possibility of members of this Tribunal holding such shares we shall leave out a very large number of those men who know both trade and traffic in their most intimate details, and we shall end, probably, in getting the small man whose experience is very limited and who will not be of so much use in the public interests as those whom I have described. Moreover, I think the period of three months in which the holder of shares must get rid of his interest is a very short one. I hope that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will give this Amendment his careful consideration.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, lines 33 to 41, leave out subsection (5). —(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT had on the Paper an Amendment, in subsection (5), after"Great Britain ", to omit the words"or in any industrial or other company concerned with or interested in the carriage of traffic by railways ". The noble Lord said: My Lords, my Amendment is an alternative to that just moved by the noble Earl. It is very important that this new Tribunal should he impartial, and that the railway companies and the traders should feel that it is impartial. In reference to the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, I fully admit that even if subsection (5) were taken out altogether, having regard to past experience, we could trust the holders of the offices of Lord Chancellor, President of the Board of Trade and this new Minister to satisfy themselves that any persons who were appointed members of this Tribunal would be likely to act in an mpartial way.
But taking out the whole of this subsection, which has come to us from the other House, is a little different to putting such a subsection in if it had not already appeared in the Bill. I mean that our
956
action in regard to the matter might possibly be misrepresented. The essence of it seems to me to be that the members of this Tribunal cannot be in an absolutely disinterested position in regard to this matter, whatever you do. When they travel they must pay their own railway fares. The food which they eat, the clothes which they wear, every necessity and convenience of their household is affected by railway rates and charges. Therefore, disinterestedness is impossible to obtain in this case. I think it might be considered objectionable that a man with a moderate private fortune, of say, £ 50,000 or £100,000, which happened to be entirely invested in railway stock, should be a member of this Tribunal, and I do not think it would be a very great hardship to say in that case that he ought to sell his railway stock, even his railway debentures. In the same way, if the bulk of his private fortune was invested in a company whose main purpose it was to provide certain articles for a railway company I think there might be some objection.
These words which I propose to eliminate go very very much further than that. Anybody who has invested in any industrial or other company which is interested in the carriage of traffic by railways means that no member of this Tribunal could hold a single share in any industrial company, and I think that is going altogether too far, seeing that, whether he holds an odd share in any industrial company or not, he cannot, qua consumer, be entirely disinterested in any event. What I am suggesting is a half-way house in regard to the question, and if the words that I am inviting your Lordships to omit arc left in they may seriously prejudice the chances of getting the best men to serve on the Rates Tribunal.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, when we were in Committee we reached, very late one evening, an Amendment in the name of Lord Stuart of Wortley to omit this subsection. I then told the noble Lord that I could not accept his Amendment, and asked him to withdraw it. The noble Marquess Lord Crewe, however, supported the Amendment with a few words, and said he thought there was a good deal more to be said for it than I had admitted. An arrangement was come to, therefore, that the consideration of the matter should be left over to Report. I admit that the case for the retention or

957
excision of this subsection is a very debate-able one. I feel certain that your Lordships would agree without any hesitation that the members of the Tribunal which is to carry out such important duties in which such large financial transactions are concerned ought to be, and must be, absolutely free from any personal financial interest. Therefore, the clause as it stands in the Bill is certainly an ideal arrangement.
But I feel very much the force of the arguments that have been put forward. The clause says that the members of this Tribunal must not be financially interested in any railway security or in any industrial or other company concerned with the carriage of traffic upon railways. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, has pointed out, that there is hardly any industrial company which is not interested in the carriage of goods upon the railway. Therefore, the effect of the whole clause would be to require t hat no member of the Tribunal should hold any railway stock or any shares in any industrial concern. I agree vita the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, that this would certainly add to the difficulties to which the Government might be put in finding men of the highest experience to serve upon the Tribunal.
Now, my Lords, there are two propositions before your Lordships, one in the name of Lord Emmott to omit certain words, and, the other in the name of the Earl of Malmesbury and two other noble Lords for the excision of the whole subsection. I am not disposed to accept Lord Emmott's Amendment., because it seems to me that it would have a one-sided effect. It would have the effect of causing us to say that a member of the Tribunal is to have no financial interest on the railway side of the Tribunal's work, but he may have a financial interest upon the traders' or railway users' side. In other words, he must have no financial interest in keeping up the rates. He may have a financial interest in bringing the rates down. I think if the clause remains in at all it must do so in such a way as to secure that there shall be no financial interest on any side, and the question for the House to decide ought to be whether the clause should stand or not.
I told the noble Lord in Committee that I could not accept the Amendment. The clause was. as Lord Emmott stated, inserted in another place. The Minister feels very
958
strongly that it was inserted with good reason, and he thinks, personally, that there are strong grounds for retaining it. I am prepared, however, to leave this question to the judgment of your Lordships, and, if you feel it desirable that it should come out, I shall not offer any opposition. After all, we must remember, first of all, that the gentlemen who are to form this Tribunal will be men of great eminence and distinction and experience, and I think we may rely upon their conscience not to take the office if they were seriously financially interested. Moreover, they are to be selected by the Lord Chancellor and two other Ministers of the Crown; therefore, we have this additional safeguard, that men would not be selected by these three Ministers if they were strongly interested financially.
I think, therefore, that we may rely both upon the members chosen, and upon the Ministers who will select them, to see that what is so obviously desirable shall be carried out, and that there shall be no financial interest on either side on the part of members who form the Tribunal. On the other hand, if we keep the clause in there is no doubt that it will greatly add to the difficulties of choosing the best men. I cannot accept the Amendment on behalf of the Government, but I a in prepared to leave it to the judgment of your Lordships.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: After what has fallen from the noble Earl, I am very much inclined to press this Amendment upon the consideration of the House. I feel that members of your Lordships' House, and the public in general, would have no sort of suspicion as to the very high integrity of those who would be selected by such a method of selection as has been indicated. I trust, that being so, your Lordships will see fit to accept the Amendment which I have put down.
LORD SUMNER: My Lords, I have no doubt at all that some clause of this kind is very desirable, but as the matter has been left to the House at large. I think it is only right that I should ask leave to be allowed to express an opinion, because, having a strong opinion about it, I should hardly feel justified in not giving the House any assistance that I can. It seems to me clear that we should have a clause of some kind. As Lord Emmott pointed out, it is

959
not merely necessary that the members of this Tribunal should be disinterested —doubtless they all will be so far as any human being can be disinterested in such a matter—but it is more necessary still that he general public should believe that the members of the Tribunal are absolutely disinterested.
My experience is that among the lower class of business man particularly it is almost inconceivable to what extent he will suspect anyone in authority of having some ulterior pecuniary motive. If he cannot find any other ground for complaint, that is always the ground which a certain type of dissatisfied person takes up. He says:"Oh, yes, we quite understand why that decision was arrived at. You know So-and-so holds a block of such and such stock." It is most important that there should be no suspicion of that kind, and therefore I should strongly urge that in any case the members of the Tribunal should be disentitled to hold any shares in any railway company. I think to make it effective that it ought to go considerably further than that, but, as has been pointed out by the noble Earl, you can find no men who, if they do not actually carry on business, are not in Some way financially interested in business, or who are not in some sense interested in the carriage of traffic by railway. It is impossible to get people to serve on the Tribunal if you strip them naked on their entrance into office of all shares in all companies of a practical character in Great Britain.
What I think must be really desired is that it should not be possible to say of them that they are interested in some company which, in its turn, is so closely connected with the traffic which they are called upon to regulate as to make it possible for that connection to influence their judgment. I think it would be impracticable to say that a man must not hold colliery shares, or must not hold steamship shares because, according as the freight on the wagons on rail is borne by the seller or the buyer, the holder of such shares will have a large interest, in the course of the year, in the freights between the pit and the bunkering port. If you said that—although it is quite true there is money in it for him somewhere—you would put out, as has been said, far too many persons. But there are persons connected with companies manufacturing wagons, or companies owning wagons, or companies letting wagons for
960
hire and that kind of thing, who may be said to be interested in the carriage of traffic by itself.
I do not think the words"interested in the carriage of traffic"really extend to cover a person who will have to pay rather more for his fare, or rather more for the rates on his produce, according to the decision of the Tribunal. I would suggest that words something like this might be adopted—" or in any industrial or other company interested in the business of any railway company." I think if words could be found which would confine the companies in which you are not to hold shares to such companies as carry on business that is itself directly mixed up with and involved ill the interests of the railway company, that would meet the case. The only other thing to point out is that there is absolutely nothing provided as to what is to happen if the clause is broken, if the permanent member does not trouble himself about it and sticks to his shares, and does not say he cannot vote and does not say his office is vacated. If he does that, it does not say that he is to be subject to fine or imprisonment. It is left to his sense of honour. That is no doubt right with regard to the particular persons appointed, but it does not strike me as perfection.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will consider, having regard to the safeguards which this Bill provides, that this clause is unnecessary. These permanent members are to be appointed on the joint recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, the President of the Board of Trade, and the Minister, who will take good care to select suitable men for the position. But if you are going to pass this subsection as it stands their choice will be very limited, and it seems to me in every way advisable that we should have the best men for this Tribunal, and the best men are always certain to be interested, as investors, in some of the securities that are named here. You might say it is to be a railway company in which stocks are not to be held, but as regards some of the other undertakings mentioned, it is extremely difficult to say where the interest in transit ceases. I do not know that any words could do what is required. Almost every undertaking is interested more or less in transit. Therefore, practically the holding of any industrial shares would debar a man from being elected a member of this Tribunal.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, regard his Amendment as having been dealt with by that decision?
LORD EMMOTT: I think after the discussion that has taken place, I must do so.
Clause 22:
procedure.
22.— (1) The rates tribunal may from time to time with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Court of Session; and the Minister, make general rules governing their procedure and practice and generally for carrying into effect their duties and powers under this Part of this Act, and such rules may, amongst other things, provide for—
(e) the right of audience before the tribunal, provided that any party shall he entitled to he hoard in person, or by a representative duly authorised in writing, or by counsel or solicitor
and; may,: subject to the consent of the Treasury, proscribe scale of fees for and in connection with the proceedings before the tribunal.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved, in subsection (1) (e), after "representative," to insert"in the employment of the party." The noble Lord said: I think everybody would probably be agreed that the words which stand at present in the Bill are too wide. They enable, for the purpose of appearing before the Rates Committee, any representative duly appointed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord. Phillimore, on the Committee stage had an Amendment down to leave those words out, but he told me that lie would be satisfied to leave the words i n if they had the limitation which I now submit to the House —namely, after the wend"representative"to insert"in the employment of the party." I trust that your Lordships will accept that, but I have to point out what has been represented to me, that, by putting in those words, a Parliamentary agent who does not happen to be either a barrister or solicitor would be precluded front being duly appointed as a representative. Under the Railway and Canal Act, 1888, the Parliamentary agents have had the right of access before the tribunal to which this new Rates Committee, to a certain extent, corresponds, and it seems hard that any one in that position should
962
be now excluded, I had the opportunity of mentioning that matter to the Lord Chairman of Committees who, of course, is very well acquainted with the Parliamentary agents, and I believe that he takes the view that myself do, that we ought to put them in. If they are put in, I think the form of words to be inserted in the clause should be as follows: after the wont "solicitor" should come the words"or any Parliamentary agent on the register of either House of Parliament." I think that is the proper way of describing them. If your Lordships agree with the Amendment that I have put down on the Paper. I would venture to hop, that you would allow me to add the words which I have just read out.
Amendment moved—
Clause 22, page 26, line 8, after ("representative") insert (" in the employment of the party ")—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I think the noble Lord has made out a case for the Amendment which is moved. I have no objection to it, on behalf of the Government. If your Lordships are willing to accept the Amendment I should agree to it.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: Including the words that I mentioned?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: You would move those afterwards.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I hope the words suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Muir Mackenzie, will be agreed to. I cannot claim to he anything like as expert in drafting as my noble friend opposite, but I think if those words were put in without the subsequent words he suggests, we should be cutting out the Parliamentary agents. I am not certain now that they are cut out. I should have thought it would be possible for parties to authorise a Parliamentary agent in writing as the clause now stands, but I agree that I like the clause better with my noble friend's two Amendments. I should not like it with only one.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: With the leave of the House, perhaps I might say this, if it is going to influence the decision of your Lordships. I ant afraid I cannot accept the second Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Muir Mackenzie, proposes

963
to move. If, without that Amendment, your Lordships are not disposed to accept the first, I think you ought to know that I am not prepared to accept the second, when we come to it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I now beg to move the words that I have mentioned to the House already, that in line 9, after the word"solicitor," should be added"any Parliamentary agent on the register of either House of Parliament."
Amendment moved—
Clause 22, page 26, line 9, after (" solicitor ") insert (" any Parliamentary agent on the register of either House of Parliament "—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, as I indicated to the noble and learned Lord, I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. I would ask your Lordships to consider that this Tribunal is a practical Tribunal, which has to deal essentially with practical matters, and the Parliamentary agents are not in any way specially qualified to argue the matters with which this Tribunal will have to deal. There would, of course, be nothing to prevent the Tribunal giving audience to a Parliamentary agent, if they desire to do so, but the Amendment which the noble Lord asks your Lordships to accept would compel the Tribunal to listen to him if the parties selected a Parliamentary agent to plead their case. That I think is going further than we ought to go, and when I undertook to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, I did not know he was going to bring up this second matter. I am afraid, on behalf of the Government, I could not accept it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 24 (Additional members of Tribunal):
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I have a manuscript Amendment on this clause. It is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Clause 24, page 27, line 15, leave out (" chairman ") and insert (" president ").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 71 (Powers of Councils to give guarantees):
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I have a drafting Amendment in Clause 71. This will
964
give a more correct description of the"Borough Fund. Acts, 1872 and 1903."
Amendment moved—
Clause 71, page 60, lines 4. and 5, leave out (" Borough Fund Act, 1872 "), and insert (" Borough Fund Acts, 1872 and 1903 ").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 72 (Powers of charging by light railway companies):
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I have another drafting Amendment in Clause 72, page 61, line 5. I beg to move to leave out the words"twenty-six"and insert"twenty-eight."
Amendment moved—
Clause 72, page 61, line 5, leave out (" twenty-six'') and insert (twenty-eight) —(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

CHILDREN OF UNMARRIED PARENTS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I am in rather an awkward position with regard to this Bill, because it was a private Bill in the other House of Parliament and it would be natural that some private member should undertake it in this House, and those who are responsible for it in the other House asked me if I would submit it to your Lordships. But I had the satisfaction of seeing on the Paper this morning that my noble friend, Lord Onslow, would take charge of the Bill, and as there are undoubtedly great difficulties connected with it, I need scarcely say that I proceeded with my breakfast with more appetite than that with which I sat down. Still, in spite of that error having been made, I will do my best with the Bill as it stands.
A further difficulty that I personally had in the matter was this. I suppose there is no one in your Lordships' House who has a stronger objection than I have to proceeding with a Bill with undue haste and without proper consideration, and the only

965
possible excuse I can have for dealing with this Bill is the strong sympathy I feel with members of the House of Commons, who, under great difficulties, have succeeded, probably at the last moment, in getting their Bill through that House and sending it up to your Lordships. If we had the advantage of an autumn session, which so many of your Lordships desire, we should have been able to deal with it in a proper manner.
It happens that I have the strongest sympathy with what really is the main object of the Bill, and I do not think it is necessary for me to trouble the House with arguments upon it. It is not like a subject which recently came before your Lordships, where the House naturally rejected a proposal of a novel kind, very unfamiliar, which ought never to have been considered at all. Hare is a case with which every one is familiar. There is no one in this House who has not an opinion as to whether legitimation would be a good thing or not. The Scottish members of your Lordships' House are familiar with it, because it is the law in that country.
The Bill is called the Children of Unmarried Parents Bill. In that respect, and in many others, I should have been glad of an opportunity of dealing with the drafting of the measure. Clause 4 is really the Bill. It deals with the legitimation of illegitimate persons by the marriage of their parents. That is really the important proposal in the Bill. The other clauses deal with matters of administration, and need no explanation because they are obviously and evidently right. This proposal of legitimation is naturally one in which your Lordships will take great interest if you are willing to proceed with the Bill at the last hour of the session, I should like to recommend it on its merits very strongly. I would go so far as to say that, difficult though the language of Clause 4 undoubtedly is, partly through the drafting and partly through the nature of the case, as far as I am entitled to express any opinion on such a subject, the drafting works out right.
What I should like to suggest about the Bill, if your Lordships will give it a Second Reading, is that we should not proceed under the powers we now have by the abominable suspension of Standing Order No. XXXIX, but that the Committee stage should be taken to-morrow, and that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack
966
will then allow me to ask whether, in his opinion, the drafting and effect of Clause 4 is, as I venture to say, right. If the noble and learned Lord will assure the House that it is, I think your Lordships might accept the clause on that authority. If any noble Lord desires to ask a question upon either of the other clauses, which I think may be read a second time. I shall be happy to do my best to answer him.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a— (Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, the promoters of this Bill in another place are to be congratulated on the fact that their sponsor in this House is a member for whom your Lordships entertain great respect, but not, I think, upon the zeal or warmth which he has brown into the presentation of this particular proposal. He has made it plain that he is dissatisfied with the drafting of what I may call the less important proposals of this Bill, but, nevertheless, he asks your Lordships to enter upon the consideration of this Bill at this stage of the session and to apply your minds to the controversial points involved in Clause 4. As far as the other proposals in the Bill are concerned—the issue of summons by justices, the amount to be paid by fathers under affiliation orders, the duration of orders made in proceedings instituted by Boards of Guardian—I am unaware of any objection in substance in any quarter, and having read through the various clauses I should have thought the drafting was neither better nor worse than that on which we daily feast.
But, undoubtedly, graver issues arise on Clause 4. As to its drafting I take no responsibility. I am informed that it was placed before the Law Officers and they did, in fact, make themselves responsible for the form. But more serious questions arise here than those relating solely to form. Since I applied my mind to these matters, I have been strongly in favour of the rule which is recognised in the law of Rome and in Scotland—legitimatio per subsequens matrimonium. But it would be foolish to deny that a proposal effecting such a change in our system is one in respect of which reasonable difference of opinion, and considerable controversy, may be looked for. I have never known any considerable proposal which appertained directly or indirectly to our Marriage Laws which did not immediately invite

967
protracted controversy the moment it was put forward, and it seems extremely unlikely that this particular proposal will be more fortunate. There are obvious collateral matters presenting great difficulty. There are such questions as the position of the child so legitimated in relation to other children which may be born in the interval, the effect of the change in the law on proprietory settlements and a number of complicated questions, and I see little prospect of these matters being satisfactorily dealt with in the short time indicated by the noble and learned Lord.
The suggestion I have to make will, I think, recommend itself to everyone. It is, that without embarking on any detailed discussion of the disputable matters contained in Clause I we should give a Second Reading to the Bill, upon the understanding, which the Government will do their best to make effective and which the noble and learned Lord must fully understand, that there will be no further progress with the Bill, or at any rate with Clause 4, unless full agreement is reached, which I think is unlikely, with those members of the House who at present are not prepared to give their assent to these proposals. On that understanding, I think that most of your Lordships may be ready to agree to the Second Reading.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I have listened with great satisfaction to the last words of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, because it seems to me that though we have had a good many startling proposals as regards the time allowed for deliberation during the last fortnight, I do not think we have had anything equal to this. This is, admittedly, a Bill which affects the home life of a very large number of people in this country. I am not hostile to this Bill, so far as I understand it. But. I do not understand it. The Bill was put in our hands this morning for the first time. One of its clauses contains a vast amount of legal language, which will obviously require a very great deal of thought and exposition.
I understood that it came here as a Government measure, because it appeared on the Paper in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. I hurried to get a copy and to see what was proposed. I now find, however, that it is not a Government measure—that was a mistake on the Order Paper—and the proposal is taken in hand
968
by a noble and learned Lord—no human being could do it better—who has admitted to us that he has not seen it before and would have liked to have to do with its drafting. It follows that it is not a measure for which he would desire to claim paternity in any form. I turned then to see whit; passed in the House of Commons, and I learnt front the OFFICIAL REPORT, which was circulated only to-day, dealing with the proceedings of the night before last that an important Amendment was introduced, and when the Question was raised whether it should be properly considered, the proposer said—" I would be very willing to explain it, but it has been agreed to by the promoters of the Bill, and it is now half past twelve." That was the explanation given for an important change which was proposed in the measure, and which was agreed to.
I think that we have reached a point of rushing matters which requires a protest, notwithstanding what the noble and learned Viscount has said. I entirely accept the suggestion he has made, as being in some degree, at least, satisfactory, or, at all events, as lacking the disadvantages of going forward with the Bill to-day. But. I am a little at a loss to know what we should mean by giving a Second Reading to this Bill. Are we to commit ourselves to a measure which I, for my part, do not understand, and which I honestly admit I have tried in vain to understand, with the extremely technical language in the very long clause about legitimation, succession, and to forth. It may be all right; very probably it is; but. I have no means of knowing that. When I look to ordinary sources of information, I cannot find enlightenment. It may be said that we should do no great harm by passing the Second Reading of this Bill, if we stopped there. But shall we gain, if we commit ourselves to something which is not understood? Shall we not be in an equally good position if we do not give the Bill a Second Reading, and if it comes before us when we have a little more time to consider it?
Let it be understood that I am not opposing this Bill on its merits. I knew that to some extent, though perhaps not exactly, it would be making the law correspond to the law of Scotland. I am a Scotsman, and I have never opposed the custom which has been the law there for many years. But I have never had occasion to consider the matter in this form, and there is a great

969
deal more here besides, which we are asked to consider. I venture to urge that we should consider what we have to gain by giving this Bill a Second Reading. If I were to assent to the Second Reading tonight, should have no justification for so bring in comprehension or intelligent understanding of an exceedingly technical and, as it seems to me, very complicated matter. I venture to hope that we may not go forward with this Bi because it does not seem to me that we shall lose anything by not giving it a, Second Reading now, while, if we do give it a Second Reading, we Might find ourselves committed to what many noble Lords in this House may, as I do, find sonic difficulty in understanding, particularly as regards the very complicated clause to which I have referred. If so, we shall find ourselves being committed to giving a Second Reading to the Bill without having had it explained.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With your Lordships' permission, I might be allowed to say that this is not a proposal in which the Government is specially, interested itself, or in which we ask your Lordship; to do anything. But the other proposals contained in the Bill are undoubtedly useful, though perhaps not of the first importance. It is entirely for your Lordships to say but I should have thought that we might have given a Second Reading to the Bill on the clear understanding that it is given to the Bill as a whole, arid that no noble Lord is pledged to the approval of the principles contained in Clause 4. This would give us an opportunity of dropping Clause 4 and proceeding with the rest of the Bill, if that course were thought proper. I do not urge this, but it seems to me that it is not objectionable.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I can follow the protests made by the most rev. Primate against asking the House to commit itself with regard to this Bill. It is quite obvious that the provisions of Clause 4 are highly disputable, because, even though, in a general way, a great many of your Lordships might be disposed to favour the legitimation of children by a subsequent marriage, yet, as the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack pointed out, there are a great number of by-products attaching to that process in relation t o property and different forms of succession, which must require close consideration. But I realize that it is possible
970
that the House might be so impressed by the desirability of passing the first three clauses of the Bill, and dropping the fourth, that your Lordships might be persuaded to proceed with the Bill to-morrow in that Sense.
I am assuming, of course, that, so far as we know, Parliament is to be almost immediately prorogued. If the course which I ventured to suggest some time ago had been followed, and an Adjournment had taken the place of a prorogation, it might surely have been possible to adjourn the debate or the Second Reading, in order that the Bill might be considered again when your Lordships had more time at your disposal. Failing that, it seems to me that there is nothing to be done but either to drop the Bill altogether now, or to adopt the course which, I understand, the noble and learned Viscount on the 'Woolsack favours, and take the chance of passing what may he regarded as the non-controversial part of the Bill to-morrow.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps the noble Marquess will move that further consideration of this Bill be adjourned, because it is the fact—I cannot. let the observation of the noble Marquess pass without adding this— that the nature of the situation and of possible developments in Ireland may very easily, even at this moment, lead to a modification of what, up to this moment, has been the intention of the Government. I, myself, should support the noble Marquess in such a Motion.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for stating the possible modifications in the plans of the Government which events may easily bring about, and I will therefore move that the debate on this Bill be adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.— (The Marquess of Crewe)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, this Bill follows the normal custom where capital is required for the development of the telephones, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Bill read 2a. Committee negatived:
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived:
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3a, and passed.

SPENBOROUGH GAS ORDER.
LORD SOMERLEYTON LORD SOMERLEYTON had given notice to move: "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Spenborough Urban District Council which was presented on the 15th August (Cmd. 1475), be approved."The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. The draft Order is exactly on the same lines as other Special Orders.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
IRISH RAILWAYS (SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS) BILL,
LORD KILLANIN: My Lords, before the House adjourns, I should like to ask, with the permission of the noble Earl in charge of business, what exactly is the position and prospects of the Irish Railway (Settlement of Claims) Bill. Last evening I tried to find out for myself, and so far as I could ascertain it had not reached this House, but I understand that this afternoon it has received a First Reading. A number of noble Lords from Ireland are interested in the matter, and would be glad if the Second Reading could be taken this afternoon, for the purpose of leaving an interval between the Second Reading and the Committee stage, so that criticisms offered on the Second Reading might be
972
considered by the Government in the interval.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: In the discussion that we have had on another subject, the most rev. Primate talked about startling propositions with regard to procedure, and I think it does require justification to the House that we should read a second time a Bill which has only to-day been read a first time, and has not appeared on the Order Paper. I think, however, that there is justification in this case, and if your Lordships, after hearing what I have to say, would agree to take the Second Reading this afternoon, the Government would be prepared to assent to the proposition, made by Lord Killanin. This Bill, I am glad to say, is a very different kind of Bill from that which we have recently been discussing. In principle, I do not think there is any matter upon which there is likely to be a Second Reading dispute.
It is primarily a Bill to settle with the railway companies in Ireland as to the allocation of a sum of money, which has been agreed between them. There is, however, one point in which Lord Killanin is interested, on Clause 3 of the Bill. If the Bill is read a second time, to-day, we can take the Committee stage to-morrow, and the noble Lord's Amendment can then appear on the Paper, and there would be time to discuss it, and to consider it beforehand. If the Bill is not read a second time to-day, we should have to take it through all its stages to-morrow. In the circumstances, although I frankly admit that it is an extreme proposition, I think it would be for the convenience of all those interested in this small, and I think generally speaking agreed, Bill, that we should do what is suggested and take the Second Reading now, and the subsequent stages to-morrow.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, am not quite sure that the proposal of the noble Earl is not very likely to lead to greater inconvenience, because after all what is done on this Bill might be urged as a precedent for another Bill, and as the noble Lord suggested when he rose, it is a very strong order that a Bill which has never been printed, or brought before us in any way, should be given a Second Reading on the first day. Would it not be practicable, on the Motion for the adjournment of the House, for the noble Lord to raise the point which he desires to

973
raise, and allow the discussion to be taken on the Motion for adjournment, as if it were on the Second. Reading That would have the advantage of enabling the Government to consider the point to-morrow, so that they may be ready to reply when the time comes. 1 would also like to ask the noble Earl at what hour it is proposed we should meet to-morrow. There is, I understand, an important discussion pending on the Motion of the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury), and also a number of Bills are to be brought. up with Amendments from the Commons.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I feel very strongly that this is only a veil), small Bill, and I hope the House will agree to the Second Reading being taken to-day. Otherwise, we shall have to run through all its stages at once to-morrow. We in Ireland do not want that. We want the Amendment to be considered, and if it is put on the Paper the Government can consider it, and we can consider it, before, we meet, and the matter can then be arranged or disarranged as the case may be. I hope the House will agree to take the Second. Reading at once. A matter of £3,000,000 is to be divided between -the Irish railway companies, and we want the Bill to go through as speedily as possible. There is a time limit for this money, and we shou1d like the matter to be settled at once. I speak in this matter not only for myself hut, I am sure, for the directors of the railway companies and people interested in the Bill.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I should hope that it is possible to conciliate all views. I am very reluctant to take the Second Reading of a Bill which, although it has been circulated, is not on the Paper. Lord Killanin's Amendment, I understand, is merely to leave out Clause 3, and is not a long technical Amendment.
THE EARL OF MAYO: It does not affect the principle at all.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That makes it all the more simple. If Lord Mayo and his friends can accept the proposal of Lord Midleton, that a general debate should take place on the Motion for adjournment, and that as early tomorrow as we can we should take the formal Second Reading stage, followed by the
974
subsequent stages, we should have the equivalent of a Second Reading debate to-day on the Motion for adjournment, and although the Amendment would not be on the Paper, it would be in the possession of your Lordships to-morrow. If that will suit your Lordships I think it would be better than taking the Second Reading now. It is possible, I think, that in those circumstances your Lordships will agree that, with a view to conversations upon the Motion for adjournment, the noble Lord might have permission to circulate his Amendment to omit Clause 3.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as a mere matter of formal arrangement, I think it is quite unacceptable that we should take a Bill which is not on the Orders of the Day. It is a precedent unknown to your Lordships' house, and might lead to the very greatest abuse, because it means that business is to be taken of which Peers who are not present have no notice whatever. I think that is a thing which is quite unacceptable. To the other arrangement, although it is not very regular, if it be done with the leave of the House, I see no objection. Perhaps also the noble Earl will answer the Question about the hour of meeting to-morrow.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Your Lordships are perfectly entitled to authorise a debate on the adjournment on any subject, actual or prospective, and I understand that two Peers desire to address the House on this limited point, and I think probably that would be the best course to adopt. I understand there is to be an Irish debate to-morrow, but there is no Notice on the Order Paper about it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There will be.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: None has been handed in at the Table, so I do not know what form the debate is likely to take—whether it is to be a Question, or whether it is to be in the form of a Motion of censure or not. But we have a considerable number of things to deal with to-morrow—the Safeguarding of Industries Bill, the Irish discussion, and the observations of the Commons on the Lords Amendments to the Railways Bill; and your Lordships will remember that an undertaking was given that, except by consent, the Irish discussion should have priority

975
to-morrow. Under those conditions I think it would probably be most convenient to invite your Lordships to meet at midday. It is a matter on which I offer no opinion myself.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As regards the actual time of meeting of the House, that is a matter for your Lordships' convenience, and whatever view recommends itself to your Lordships, I should be glad to fall in with. I think I owe an explanation to the House why the terms of the Notice do not appear on the Order Paper. The reason is a. very simple one. Up till yesterday I was under the impression, as the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack knows, that the Government were going to start the discussion, and therefore it was not possible for me to put a Notice on the Paper, but it was intimated to me yesterday that that would no longer be the case, and that it was for me to draft a suitable Notice. I need not say I have not been idle. The Notice is almost ready, and it will be handed in directly, but I hope your Lordships will forgive me for my apparent neglect of your Lordships' convenience. It was not my fault, in any case. I was obliged to wait for the Government decision. I may say that my Notice will not take the form of a Motion, but of a Question, which will give rise, I imagine, to a prolonged debate.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: May I take it that your Lordships will meet at mid-day to-morrow?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Perhaps I might make one suggestion to the noble Earl. He spoke of there being several questions which might take some little time to-morrow, and among them he mentioned the return of your Lordships' Amendments to the Safeguarding of Industries Bill. I understand that those are being considered as the first Order of the House of Commons to-day, and that the opinion of the House of Commons upon them could be returned probably in less than an hour from now. I would like to ask the noble Earl, as it is clear that the discussion of the House of Commons' decision cannot take very long, whether it would not be worth while to adjourn during pleasure now, and get that business over and done with before to-morrow, as I suppose that the Question which the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury) is going to
976
ask will occupy some considerable time, and it is, I understand, to be taken as the first Order to-morrow.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I hope Lord Crewe is well founded in his optimism that the debate in another place may only last an hour or so. For all I know, it may last two or three hours. But if your Lordships desire that we should adjourn during pleasure now. I am quite agreeable to do so. I should rather regret if it precluded the Irish Peers from speaking on the Irish Railways (Settlement of Claims) Bill. I suggest, therefore that I move the adjournment—and that that Motion should itself be adjourned subsequently—in order to let the Irish Peers speak. I move, therefore, that the House do now adjourn.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn. —(The Earl of Crauford.)
LORD KILLANIN: My Lords, I do not know whether it is for the convenience of the House that I should make a short speech on a Bill that has not been given a Second Reading, and which has not been described to the House. It would he natural for me to get up after the Bill has been introduced and described, but I am anxious, if possible, that something should be done to remedy a grievance which I want to lay before the House, and, if the House will bear with me while I make my point to the Government, I shall be very glad to do so now.
An Irish railway Bill, which has been described by the noble Earl just now as an agreed Rill, is going to come before this House. The expression"an agreed Bill"is becoming a very common one in this House, and it is rather an acceptable expression very often. It means that certain parties, and it may possibly mean the most important parties, have come to an agreement: but it very often also means that there are many other parties interested in the Bill, who haze not been consulted at all, and who do not agree with the Bill as it stands. The noble Earl has described this as an agreed Bill, and in so far as it is an agreed Bill, I should like to tell him that I do not propose in any way to criticise the Bill. I recognise the importance of the agreement that has been come to, and, as it is a very great thing to get agreement on anything in Ireland at present, I should be very sorry to do anything that would upset the agreement witch has been come to.

977
But there is one portion of this Bill on which there has been no agreement, and the most interested parties have not been consulted at all. I would direct the attention of the noble Earl to Clause 3 of the Bill. The history of that clause is this. About thirty years ago a small railway line was made in Ireland by a certain company, and was afterwards leased for fifty years to a big company, and became part of a large system of railways— the Midland arid Great Western Railway of Ireland—and there were certain conditions of that agreement. The large company, the working company, agreed to Walk this railway and to find all the expenses of working it and maintaining it, on condition that they retained 55 per cent. of the gross receipts from that small railway, while the remaining 45 per cent. of the gross receipts was to be paid to the company which had made the railway.
On the other hand, the local people who had been anxious to get this railway, in order to get it made had guaranteed that the shareholders were to receive 5 per cent. on the capital of the company. Therefore, if this 45 per cent. of the gross receipts that was handed over to the Owning company was not sufficient to meet the dividend if 3 per cent. on the capital of the company, a local body, consisting of a certain number of ratepayers in the district, guaranteed that they would meet the deficiency. They did that out of public spirit, and as patriotic people, for the purpose of developing that part of the country. Of course, it was only a guarantee, and they hoped they would never be called upon to meet this financial liability.
That was thirty years ago. For twenty five years this little railway was run. The 45 per cent. of the goes receipts was not sufficient, as a matter of fact, to meet the 5 per cent. dividend, and the local authority had to find what was necessary to make up the deficiency. This resulted in taxing the ratepayers to the extent of something over £1,000 a year for the last twenty-four years. That was the position. The ratepayers stood by their contract. They met this liability of £1,000 a year which they said they would pay and on the faith of which the line was made. They fulfilled all the conditions of their contract at great loss to themselves.
Then came the war and, with it, the period of control, and a very curious arrangement was made during that time.
978
As soon as the railways were taken over by the Government, the whole question of finding Wit what were the gross receipts of this particular little line was completely I overlooked for three or four years; money was asked for, and the whole thing was in a great muddle, as the noble Earl will remember. In 1919 we had great trouble in extricating it front the position it had got into and we came to an understanding —I represented the county council of Galway and those particular ratepayers by which the Treasury paid down the money which had not been collected from the local bodies because it had never been asked for and there were no figures on which it could be based. Therefore, the Treasury cleared up the matter by paying cash down. They also got us to agree that during the period of control we would lake a datum year, namely, 1913, and would agree as ratepayers to levy the amount of the deficit for that year in every year during the control.
Control has now come to an end and this Bill proposes that the datum year should be continued and that the ratepayers should pay, regardless of what the gross receipts of this line may be, what they had to pay in 1913. What have I lie ratepayers to say to that? They say that on account of the rise in fares and in freights the gross receipts will have gone up very much, that if the contract remains in force the 45 per cent. of the gross receipts will meet the dividend, and there will be no necessity to levy a rate on the district. They ask, therefore, that the contract should be adhered to. The whole clatter was rather speculative on the part of the railway company originally and the ratepayers.
The railway company said:"We will run the line. We will say nothing about-the working expenses, because we cannot differentiate. This is only a little bit of line, nine miles long, in a system of hundreds of miles, and we cannot possibly find out what are the working expenses over this little bit of line. We will speculate on the matter. If you give us 55 per cent. of the gross receipts we will give you 45 per cent, to meet the dividends." That was a speculation on their part, whether it paid them or not. The speculation on our side was that we hoped that the 45 per cent. of the gross receipts would meet the dividend that had to be paid and we speculated on the fact as to whether it

979
did or not. It did not pay for thirty years, and we suffered thereby, but we stood by our guarantee and paid whatever was necessary to meet the deficit. The gross The receipts have gone up and there will be no deficit; so why should we not get the benefit of the contract into which we entered? That is the main point of this matter.
The noble Earl may say: "You must take into account the fact that the expenses of the railway company have gone up." So have the receipts gone up. What the company said was: ''Give us 55 per cent. of the gross receipts and we will give you 45 per cent.'' In the past the company was run cheaply. The gross receipts were comparatively small, because fares were then comparatively cheap. The working expenses have now gone up; so have the company's receipts. Therefore, the position is exactly the same. What I want to do, therefore, is to delete Clause 3 (Continuance of provisions of agreement as to worked lines) which, to my mind, most unfairly and most unjustly to the ratepayers of this area, carries on the datum year arrangements under which there would be a deficit of some £1,600, and under which they would have no chance of benefiting from the fact that the 45 per cent. of the gross receipts which is handed over to the owning company would probably meet the dividend, and there would he no necessity to levy any rate on the people at all.
I think I have placed the Government and the House in possession of our case. I would only add that the Government themselves have recognised that this is an injustice, because the provision in Clause 3 is subject to a time limit for what, I suppose, they think is a short period. At any rate, they say that it shall last until the Council of Ireland decide otherwise. They, therefore, contemplate that it requires to be looked into and to be changed and are in agreement with me that as it stands in the Bill it is an unfair proposal and requires revision. What is the point of referring it to the Council of Ireland? Who is the Council of Ireland? Where is the Council of Ireland? When is the Council of Ireland to meet? It is a mythical body. Is it part of the old Home Rule Act? If so, it has been scrapped as regards a portion of the Government of Ireland Act, at any rate. Is it in Mr. Lloyd George's pro-
980
posals? I saw no reference to the Council of Ireland in those proposals. Is it in Mr. de Valera's proposals? I have seen nothing about the Council of Ireland in Mr. de Valera's speeches. Therefore, I think it is a monstrous thing to admit that there is a grievance here, a matter which should be looked into and decided, and then to leave it in an unjust position and to say that at some day or other it shall come into operation when the Council of Ireland comes into existence. That is too much a counsel of perfection for me to agree with.
There is another body referred to in the Bill called the Tribunal which is to deal immediately with some complicated matters in connection with this measure. It is possible that that would be the better body to which to refer this matter, because at least it will come into operation at once. But my object is to delete this clause entirely front the Bill, and to give the ratepayers who fulfilled then contract in the past, when it was to their disadvantage, whatever benefit might possibly arise from continuing the contract during the next fifteen years during which the lease lasts.
LORD SHANDON: My Lords, I was quite unaware of the particular question which the noble Lord has raised until the matter came up here. But speaking with a strong sense of what seems to me to be fair, I would press the Government, through the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, to consider very carefully the position of this little line. From a technical standpoint, this clause does not affect the vital principle of the Bill, but it is not quite fair. I am perfectly certain that in framing it there was no intention of doing anything unfair, but unfair it is, and I will show your Lordships in very few words how it is unfair. This mere trifle of a line is only about nine miles long. The ratepayers who are affected possibly do not extend over a very large area. That would seem to me to be the strongest reason in the world for having left the matter undealt with altogether.
I do not know whether there are any other lines in the same position as this small line of railway, which has been leased to the Midland. But certainly none of them seem to have been consulted; and it is not at all in accordance with the ordinary principle of fair play which, I think, still remains characteristic of our Legislature.

981
It is not considered right that you should extinguish a contract with a person who has never discussed with you what his position is, whether it is fair or unfair, and, simply because he has not got a loud voice, and because of his smallness, to treat him as if he was of no account. If this Amendment, which will be moved, affected to the slightest degree what has been an agreed arrangement with regard to a most important Bill. I should hesitate to press your Lordships to accept it. But it does Lot affect it, and it cannot affect it.
This is the position. In 1886, transport being in a shockingly backward condition in the small outlying districts of Ireland such as this, an effort was made by one of the Light Railway Acts to encourage local bodies, by guarantees to be given, to carry out the construction of these light railways. In some cases they assumed total responsibility. In other cases they leased tae lines to the larger railway companies upon guarantees such as we have here. As a result, I remember quite well that all over Ireland a great many of these lines were constructed. They did not turn out as profitable, as mere business propositions, as one would wish, but, beyond all question, they enormously assisted the development of these remote districts. The reason they came into existence was because there was Government sanction, contained in the Act of 1886, or the prior Act, to enter into certain contracts with the baronies, as they were then called, and the railway companies, and others, with regard to guarantees. The local people gave those guarantees, and entered into these agreements, honestly relying upon the law of the land, and, without their consent, I should say that it is only common sense and common justice that they should not now be deprived of the benefits of their contracts.
What is the exact position? The arrangement which was made in consequence of the war was that the year 1913 was taken as an artificial datum line, simply and solely because the Midland Railway Company had got their accounts into a shocking mess. That was a purely transitory arrangement, and any person, lawyer or layman, would assume that when the purposes for which that special arrangement was made had been fulfilled, the original contract would naturally continue to control the relations of the parties. I do not think that it would enter into the head of any living person, lawyer or layman, that anything else would happen.
982
It is quite true that the cost which is cast on the Midland Railway of working this nine miles of line has increased, but so have the traffic rates increased, and it is not because the Midland Railway in its mightiness cannot segregate what they receive from this particular line that you should deprive the original contracting parties of the benefit of their contract.
The peculiarity of these light railways was this. The people who guaranteed the light railway were those who used it for the transit of goods, and paid for it; for the essence of the idea was that people, by this arrangement, got a market in remote districts for their goods. Undoubtedly, expenses have gone up, but so also have freights gone up, and the guarantors will have to pay the increased freights. That is not fair. They are not to get the benefit which they conceive they would have got, and probably would have got, under their original contract. There is the whole position. I do very strongly urge the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill to consider between now and to-morrow the common justice and the common fairness of the situation.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, T do not rise to add anything to the argument which my, noble and learned friend bag addressed to the noble Earl, but I would ask the noble Earl, if I may, to consider this matter, and, if possible, remove this grievance. No one knows better than the noble Earl how many questions there are pending between the Imperial Government and the local authorities of various counties in Ireland, and it is highly undesirable to add what seems to me to be a legitimate grievance in the case of the two counties of Mayo and Galway to the other difficulties, especially when the whole amount at issue is one which will not materially affect the prosperity of the guaranteeing railway. It will, however, be felt by the ratepayers, who already are extremely heavily burdened, and it would be a serious attack on their privileges if these words were inserted. I do not think that anybody can doubt that the guaranteeing railway from the first regarded the expense of working the line as infinitesimal. They would not even go into it. The ratepayers have a right to regard the share which they had of gross takings as being a permanent share. This discussion is altogether informal, and I am certain my noble friend will do his best to meet the difficulties.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I do not quite know what part I can take in this rather curious and, as the noble Earl has called it, informal discussion. I ventured a short time ago to suggest to your Lordships that it might be convenient to take the Second Reading discussion of this Bill to-day. The Bill, I still feel, raises no difference of opinion on matters of principle. I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, that I did not speak of the Bill as an agreed Bill. He will remember that I specially referred to the point in regard to which he and those he represented did not agree with the clause of the Bill as it now stands. I did say, so far as the Second Reading was concerned, that I believed there was no one in this House, or outside this House, who wished to reject the Second Reading of the Bill. Therefore, for the purposes of Second Reading discussion, I thought I might claim that we were all agreed, and that it would be a convenience to take the Second Reading to-day, and go into Committee to-morrow, when the Amendment of the noble Lord would be on the Paper, and, therefore, Notice would be given to those who are not here to-day that the discussion will take place.
However, your Lordships have decided otherwise. You have decided instead to have a Committee stage discussion on one clause of the Bill, which has not yet been read a second time, and with which your Lordships, unless you have read it outside, are in no way familiar. I confess that have some difficulty in dealing with such a situation. I cannot enter into the arguments which have been raised by the noble Lord, because they are Committee paints which we will discuss when we get into Committee; but, as this informal discussion has taken place, there are two things that I would like to say with regard to the subject.
The noble Lord said that he took exception to Clause 3 of the Bill, and then he asked: "What is the history of this clause? ''He said," I will give your Lordships the history of Clause 3." Then he proceeded to give to your Lordships the history, not of Clause 3, but of the baronial kind of railways in which he is interested. He assumed that Clause 3 had been put into the Bill solely for the purpose of dealing with that particular railway company. There are many railways in Ireland to which this clause refers, and this is only one of the undertakings of that kind to which the clause would
984
apply. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Shandon, said he did not know if there were any other railways, but he did know that at any rate they had never been consulted. That seemed to me to be a very strange piece of knowledge, because he did know that parties, the existence of which he was unaware of, had not been consulted. But I can assure the noble and learned Lord that; there are other undertakings in Ireland to which this clause will apply, and I cannot hold out any hopes whatever of being willing, when we get into Committee, to agree to the excision of the clause.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, said that the Government had shown that they recognised this clause was an injustice, because they had referred the matter to the Council of Ireland. But we have done nothing of the kind. The Bill does not refer the matter to the Council of Ireland. The Bill makes a settlement, and it says the settlement shall continue until, through the operation of existing law, the Council of Ireland, acting on behalf of the people of Ireland, decides to discontinue it. It is not a question of referring the matter to any other body, still less an admission that it is an injustice. It is a safeguarding of the future rights of the people of Ireland under the Government of Ireland Act to whom the administration of the railways will be handed over if they so please to change the policy. The noble Lord said he could not find the Council of Ireland in the speeches of Mr. Lloyd George, or of Mr. de Valera. I would suggest to him he should not look for it there, but in the Statute. At the present moment it is the law that if and when the Government of Ireland Act comes into operation a body called the Council of Ireland will deal with this matter of the administration of railways, and, therefore, that provision is put into the Bill in order to safeguard the right: of the Irish legislative body, should it ever function. If it does not come into existence and does not, function, then the provisions of this Act will continue.
I will only say, in conclusions that I will do what the noble Earl who spoke last has asked me to do. I will consider very carefully, with those who advise me, the case which has been put forward by the two noble Lords from Ireland. May I say that, so far as I am concerned, this informal discussion has been of great assistance It is not usual that a Government has the

985
advantage of seeing not only the Amendment but the argument of those who put it down. in advance, before they have to prepare their reply. Owing to this unusual procedure I have that advantage, for which.I am thankful. I can assure the noble Earl that though I certainly will never agree to the excision of Clause 3, if I am unable to do anything to meet the case of this particular railway which the noble Lord has referred to, I will at least submit to your Lordships my answer to his case and make the best justification I can for the provision of the Bill.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I hope when the noble Earl deals with this question he will mention the other baronial railways that are affected by this clause, because that is a very important thing to have considered. I gather from the cause, and from what the noble Earl has said, that the subsidy goes on until the Home Rule Bill, and the Council mentioned in the Home Rule Bill comes into existence. Is that the case?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The clause will or crate until the Council of Ireland comes into existence
THE EARL OF MAYO: I agree with Lord Killanin when lie says that it is all in the air and he has not the slightest idea when t hose circumstances are to come about. A great many things have happened since we passed that Bill. As far as I can make out from what the noble Earl has just said, he refuses to allow the deletion of this clause in any way, and therefore I really do not see how he is going to meet us with regard to this particular railway, because he cannot possibly make an exception of one baronial railway and not deal with the others. Therefore I consider that so far as it has gone, the answer of the noble Earl to the request of my noble friend Lord Killanin, and my noble friend Lord Shandon, and my noble friend Lord Midleton, is not, as far as we have heard it, satisfactory.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I presume this Bill will be put down on the Paper before the discussion to be begun by Lord Salisbury to-morrow, because if any Amendment should be made it will certainly require to go back to the House of Commons, and it might be very inconvenient if it were done at a late hour.
THE EARL OF LITTON: As regards procedure. I understand the Bill will appear on the Order Paper for its Second Reading. I think it was understood, in an informal discussion that took place, that, contrary to our usual practice, although the Bill has not been read a second time, the Amendment of the noble Lord. Lord Killanin, in will also be circulated. If that is so, it will be known to all those who receive their Papers, who are not in the House to-day, that the Bill will be taken. It is also understood that the Government, the Standing Orders having been suspended, will ask your Lordships to take all the stages of the Bill to-morrow, and that will also appear in the OFFICIAL REPORTS of these proceedings to-day, which will be circulated with to-morrow's Papers.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: With regard to the special question raised by the noble Earl behind me, I thought that it was a. definite understanding that Lord Salisbury, on his Motion, should have precedence of ail others. It was for that reason that I suggested your Lordships continuing to sit this afternoon in order that the Safeguarding of Industries Bill, and the House of Commons' decision on our Amendments to that Bill, should be cleared away to-day. But if Lord Salisbury's Motion is not to be the first measure. I should be disposed to ask that at any rate the House of Commons' decision on the Safeguarding of Industries Bill should have at least an equal chance with the Amendment of my noble friend.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: There is no misunderstanding on that point. The undertaking with Lord Salisbury was that his Motion should be the first Order, subject to anything that was uncontroversial being put before his Motion, for mutual convenience. If the debate on Clause 3 to-morrow does not occupy more than five or ten minutes, Lord Salisbury, I imagine, would not object to its being taken in order that an Amendment, if any, should go down to the House of Commons. If, as is quite possible, the Irish Bill will only occupy a minute or two, it will be looked upon as a matter which could be taken in front of the Motion of the noble Marquess in order that if any Amendment is made in the Bill it could go to the other House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Of course, I have no objection to anything of that kind, but I take it that it would be nothing more than two or three minutes conversation.
LORD KILLANIN: The particular clause I wish to delete only applies to two lines, and I mention it now because it may simplify our procedure to-morrow.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If your Lordships will forgive me for rising again, may I say that if the Irish Bill is to take an hour or so —
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That is out of the question. If it is to take anything like that time, it cannot come first. I think half-an-hour would be the outside limit, but I hope, in view of the undertaking I have given to the noble Marquess, that we shall not be pressed to take the Bill if it occupies more than a quarter of an hour.
LORD KILLANIN: That depends on the noble Earl opposite.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES BILL.
Message from the Commons: That they disagree to the Amendments made by the Lords to the Safeguarding of Industries Bill for the following reason: Because they infringe the sole and undoubted right of the Commons to impose taxation, and the Commons consider it unnecessary to offer any further reason, hoping that the above reason may be deemed sufficient.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reason for disagreeing with the Lords Amendments be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships do not insist upon your Amendments. I understand that when the House of Commons disagree on the ground of privilege it is the usual
988
practice of your Lordships not to insist on your Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendments.—(Viscount Peel.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount is quite right in stating that where an objection is taken in another place to Amendment made here, on the ground of privilege, it has not been the habit of this House to insist upon its Amendments. Perhaps I might just say this—that in declaring that these Amendments constitute a breach of the privileges of the Commons that House is pursuing a course which it has pursued during the whole of Parliamentary history, and their action has no relation whatever to the Parliament Act. I think that may be taken as beyond any possibility of dispute. It is quite true that some Amendments which we send down do, technically, constitute a breach of privilege, or, at any rate, the one for which I was responsible would undoubtedly have increased to some extent—nobody could say to what extent —the charge on the public revenue; that is to say, that certain sums which would have been brought in by the proposed taxation would not have been brought in if my Amendment had been accepted. Consequently, the Amendment technically —as I was well aware all the time—constituted a breach of privilege.
But that does not by any means imply that your Lordships' House was wrong in carrying that Amendment. To admit that no such Amendment should ever be carried would mean that where, in another place, a course had been taken which we believe to be wrong, or wrong-headed, that course must always be persisted in, whatever arguments may be adduced in favour of its reversal. The House of Commons is well aware of that, and many instances could be named in which, when there has been what technically constitutes a breach of privilege, the House of Commons has waived its privilege and admitted an Amendment made here. Consequently, I am very glad that we have had these discussions. I only wish that the arguments which we used, and which impressed the great majority of your Lordships, had had a similar effect in impressing the majority in another place. That, however, has not occurred, and it is clearly impossible for us to complain formally of that, or to

989
pursue the matter further. Therefore, I have no objection whatever to offer to the noble Viscount's Motion that your Lordships should not insist on your Amendments.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords. as I was responsible for having asked your Lordships to insert one of the Amendments with which the Commons disagreed, I desire to take the opportunity of emphasising what has just fallen from the noble Marquess. I had the privilege of a seat in the House of Commons for twenty-six years. During that period I heard continually eases arise at the end of the session in which the Speaker of the day had to advise the House of Commons as to whether or not a breach of privilege had been committed. The wise decisions of Mr. Speaker Peel I commend to the noble Viscount who is in charge of this Bill. On many occasions he took the opportunity of impressing upon the members of the House of Commons that while certain Amendments made by the Lords might technically be a preach of privilege, they were in accordance with the spirit or the policy of the Bill, and he advised that privilege should not be pressed on such occasions. And on many such occasions—several of them I recollect—the Leader of the House took the advice, and the House of Commons followed it.
That was not the procedure of Mr. Speaker Lowther. He used privilege as against this House to an extent that no other Speaker has ever done. I could give instances on the Old Age Pensions Bill, and. on other measures at that time, which were largely responsible for the difficulties which arose between the two Houses afterwards. And I deeply regret that the present Speaker is following in the same course. No member of your Lordships' House has risen to justify the Certificate which was given that this Bill, which is not in any sense a Revenue Bill, was a Money Bill. Not a figure has been given us, not a suggestion has been made that the resources of the country are in any way going to be jeopardised by the action we have taken. And what the pretensions of the House of Commons now amount to is that this House should not merely be debarred from dealing with questions of taxation, but that we should be elbowed out of all powers with regard to commerce and trade. And still more do those observations apply in regard to this particular
990
Amendment dealing with agriculture, about which subject there is a degree of knowledge in this House to which the House of Commons has never been able to pretend.
I think that the course which has been pursued is a most unfortunate one. I am very glad that the Amendments were put in by your Lordships in order that we should bring the question to a head; because, unquestionably, when, as was promised by the Government, in the next session of Parliament we are to consider the constitution of this House and the relations between the two Houses, the entire absorption of all questions which have to do with the trade, commerce, and agriculture of the country in one hand must be considered and, as I hope, must be repaired. I agree with the noble Marquess that under the system of procedure which your Lordships have followed in the past it would he unwise to insist on these Amendments, and I certainly shall not ask your Lordships, with regard to the one for which I am responsible, to take that course. At the same time, I think it would be impossible to allow the occasion to pass without entering our earnest protest at the way in which the House has been treated.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTOX): My Lords, I should not have said any word in this brief discussion, more especially as the noble Marquess and the noble Earl following hint have advised this House to take the only action which is, I think, wisely open to them in the circumstances of the case; but I must rise to say a word of deprecation of the, as it seems to me, most unusual course which the noble Earl has just adopted. He is entitled, of course, to have his own opinion of the action that has been taken by high authorities in another place, but I do think it is a novel and, in my judgment, a most undesirable precedent to set that a noble Earl of the authority and position of Lord Midleton should rise in this House and speak in the language that he did of the judgments that have been given by the highest officers of another House.
He was good enough to throw the agis of his approval over that great speaker, Lord Peel, under whom he and I sat for many years. But he spoke of the decisions of his successor, Mr. Speaker Lowther—certainly one of the greatest in a long line

991
of Speakers, a man of exceedingly balanced judgment as well as of great courage—in tones of animadversion by which I was exceedingly surprised. And, passing on from that, he went to the present occupant of that great Chair, a man who has recently taken up that office, and he endeavoured be his remarks to shake the public confidence in him, to discredit him in what, I doubt not, has been the perfectly honest discharge of his duties. I deprecate that language, and I hope the practice will not be perpetuated in this House, if we disagree with any ruling that has been given by the Speaker in another place, of taking advantage of the great liberty that we here enjoy to express those sentiments with the freedom and want of restraint which the noble Earl has exercised.
As regards the question itself, I will not, of course, raise the question as to whether your Lordships were right in the action that you took. I have no doubt that you satisfied yourselves, and that the noble Marquess satisfied himself, that you and he were acting entirely in the best interest. I am quite ready to believe that. To-day he has accepted the position that this is a breach of privilege, having been so declared in another place. He has yielded to what, I believe, will be the general sentiment of the public in the matter, and I think, my Lords, that the matter had now better conclude.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the matter would have concluded just now had it not been for the speech of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My speech would not have been delivered at all had it not been for the speech of the noble Earl.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to continue my observations. The noble Marquess leading the House has thought fit to reprove my noble friend, the Earl of Midleton, for a perfectly legitimate protest which he made on behalf of the conduct of this House. The noble Marquess seems to think that because the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, has risen to differ with the conduct of business in another place, and with a decision of the occupant of the great office of Speaker, he is speaking disrespectfully of the Speaker Nothing of the kind. We desire in your Lordships' House always to
992
speak of him with profound respect, and the fact that we do not quite agree with the Speaker is surely not a matter for which we need apologise. After all, this is public life. Everybody, of course, is open to criticism—not in their private character, not in their reputation, but in their judgment. I do not desire to yield, for a moment, to the noble Marquess in my appreciation of the great qualities of Mr. Speaker Lowther. He has been a very great Speaker, but he is not infallible. Is it to be the practice, when there are differences of opinion between the two Houses of Parliament, that a decision of the Speaker in another place which affects your Lordships is always to be passed over in absolute silence? Why should that be so?
Let me put a case to the noble Marquess. He is, or ought to be, the guardian of the privileges of this House. Supposing the Speaker—I will not say the present Speaker, for whom I have very great personal regard, or the ex-Speaker—were to extend by successive rulings on privilege the authority of the House of Commons as against your Lordships' House—are we to say nothing? Are we to allow privilege gradually to advance further and further until our usefulness and our responsibility to the country are sapped by those decisions? The noble Marquess will rise in his place, and in his most magnificent manner will reprove us, I suppose. Now, my Lords, we are Peers here. We are not to be treated like schoolboys by the noble Marquess, and if we think it right to make our respectful protest it is not because we do not treat the office of Speaker with reverence, or that we want for a moment to say one word against the late Speaker or the present Speaker, for whom we have the highest regard. Least of all do we want to do anything lacking in proper feeling towards the House of Commons, which we acknowledge to be the greatest Assembly in the world. Nothing of the kind. But we do think that it is our responsibility and duty, when we consider that the doctrine of privilege is either too far extended or is exerted in a manner which is not conducive to the interests of the country, respectfully to say a word in reference to the fact.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, my recollection does not go back to Mr. Speaker Peel in the House of Commons, only to Mr. Speaker Gully, but in the absence of

993
Lord Ullswater, I am probably the only member of your Lordships' House who as locum towns for the Speaker had occasionally to deal with similar matters from the Chair of the House of Commons. I have not infrequently had to say whether an Amendment sent down by this House was a privileged Amendment or not. I would venture to suggest to the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, and to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that it would probably be a not very wise departure on the part of the Speaker of the present day, or not a very wise action on his part, to give any opinion in the House of Commons which, by its character, would appear to be an attempt to influence the House on a subject of controversy between political parties.
I would venture to ask whether the Speaker is not doing his duty in the best possible way by stating whether, according to the rules of the House and according to previous precedents, the actual Amendments which he has to consider are or are not privileged. I know, on the few occasions on which I had to deal with such matters —and I dealt with them occasionally without having spoken to the Speaker at all; I was simply sitting for him and had to act for hint at the moment in the best way I could during the period of storm and stress that always comes at the end of every session, do what we will I had to decide whether these matters were privileged or not, and my duty seemed to be entirely discharged by simply saying whether the Amendment was privileged. For the Speaker to go further than that, and to give any kind. of hint as to whether the Amendment should be accepted or whether privilege should be waived, or not, would bring him, I think, into very great danger of appearing to adopt a political role, which certainly would be most unwise in the occupant of an office that, because it has been so impartially carried out for so many years, has heroine a very great office in the State.
On the particular matter before your Lordships, may I say that I am very glad of the discussions that have taken place in this House. Whether of malice prepense or not, I do not know, but this Bill was drawn in a form which led to its being certified by Mr. Speaker in another place as a Money Bill. Yet though in form a Money Bill, it marks, so far as it goes, a new departure in regard to foreign and internal trade. Even the Preamble of the Bill—it is not before me at the moment,
994
but noble Lords are perfectly familiar I with it—says that these taxes are being imposed for the purpose of protecting industry. That goes far outside a mere taxing purpose and, as the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, said, with the greatest of justice, we in this House are being elbowed out of any chance of dealing with commerce. All we can do is to draw attention, as we have done in this case, to certain injustices that will happen as between industry and agriculture in a measure of this kind.
May I say, in reference to other debates that have taken place in your Lordships' House, that in spite of the Parliament Act, although I am a comparatively young and humble member of this House, I would venture to say that the reputation of this House has not often stood much higher than it does to-day, and I finely believe that in our discussion of this Bill we have done a real service to the State.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, at the risk of detaining your Lordships for a few moments longer, I would like to say one word from the point of view of the industry which has been affected by this decision of Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, I was unable to be present last night, when Amendments were moved by my noble. friend opposite. Had I been present, I. should have voted for them. What I want to say is that I have not observed from those two members of the Front bench on this side who represent the Government—namely, time noble Viscount and the noble Marquess who leads the House— one word of sympathy for the industry which, in my opinion, has been adversely affected by the ruling of Mr. Speaker, which does not allow us to submit these proposals for the consideration of the House of Commons. I see from time OFFICIAL REPORT that my noble friend Lord Peel last night, on the Motion of the noble Marquess opposite, remonstrated with my noble friends on the other side of the House. Why, he asked, should the agricultural industry expect to get its plant below the cost price?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Or any other industry.
LORD HARRIS: Why, he asked, should it expect, more than any other industry, to be able to procure its plant below cost price in this country?
VISCOUNT PEEL: From a foreign country—that makes all the difference.
LORD HARRIS: I will take the cost price in the foreign country. The noble Viscount has only to cast his mind back a very short time, and he will remember the disability under which agriculture was put during the war. It was compelled to take less than the world price for what it produced. At any rate, it is a cause for sympathy that you are forced by Mr. Speaker's ruling to withdraw the Amendments moved by the noble Marquess opposite. In this situation not one word of sympathy is expressed for the agricultural interest; not one word of sympathy was expressed last night, if I have read the journals aright. Why should not the agricultural industry have the advantage of world competition? You are not pretending, I suppose, that this is a key industry. Do you pretend that the manufacture of agricultural machinery is a key industry? The key industry is agriculture itself, not the machinery which the agricultural industry uses. You are refusing for that key industry the advantage of world competition. Let it go out to the agricultural industry what you failed to do last night. It is within your power to express some word of regret for the ruling of Mr. Speaker, and you do not do so. Mr. Speaker has done what he thought was right, but there is nothing to prevent you saying that you regret very much the effect of that opinion.
I have been nearly fifty years in Parliament, and my experience of the professed interest in, and sympathy for, agriculture of every Party is that it is absolute humbug. I have never known any Government, except one of which the late Lord Salisbury was the head, which gave half the rates back to the land, that has done anything for the land. With all their professed anxiety, mouthed abroad in the loudest terms by Mr. Lloyd George, what have this Government done for the agricultural industry? Here is the end of it all. We have the dropping of the Agriculture Act which was to encourage agriculture to do its best to produce the most necessary food for the people; and then every disability possible is put in its way.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I do not know whether, as I have been so unfairly attacked and so terribly misrepresented
996
by the noble Lord, I may be allowed to say one word in reply. I was astounded to hear my noble friend speak in this way. As a very old member of this House, he has often protested when speeches have been made which were wholly irrelevant to the subject matter under discussion. The only question now before your Lordships is whether or not you disagree with the attitude of another place. Instead of confining himself to that, the noble Lord has thought fit to make, at the beginning of his speech, a personal attack upon myself, on the ground that I had not expressed any sympathy with the agricultural industry. What sympathy does the noble Lord extend to the agricultural industry? Why does not he come down here at the proper time when the matter is being discussed, and reply to me then, instead of attacking me at a time when my hands are tied. Why does he not come down into his place when there is some opportunity for voting or speaking? He leaves your Lordships in the lurch when the question of agriculture is being discussed, and comes down here when he knows his actions can have no influence whatever on the course of this Bill.
LORD HARRIS: What Notice was given?
VISCOUNT PEEL: The usual Notice. I must say one word on the misrepresentation, by the noble Lord, of what I said. I never said that the agricultural industry in this country was only to depend on supplies in this country. What I said was that neither the agricultural industry nor any other industry could be permanently successful by relying, or could expect to rely, on the supply of goods coming from other countries at less than the cost of production in those particular countries, and that they would have far greater security if some opportunity at least were given to the industries in this country to produce machinery not at an unfair price, but at a price which would not be cut to pieces by this dumping competition from other countries. As to my not expressing one word of sympathy with the agricultural industry, I expressed myself at great length, I thought, in sympathy with that industry. But, after all, perhaps I need not show any indignation on that point. The noble Lord entered into a general disquisition on the attitude of Governments to agriculture. My small

997
personal share in the conduct of this Bill becomes diminished almost to nothing when the noble Lord attempts to charge all Governments, whether Conservative or Liberal, with gross inattention to the agricultural industry. Under the shadow of that general attack, I think I may return to my own humble position.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AUTUMN RECESS.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I beg to give Notice that I shall put on the Paper this evening, and that there will appear on the Order Paper to-morrow morning, a Motion similar to that which I moved, and which was carried in your Lordships' House, on
998
August 16 last year, providing for the occasion in which it might be necessary to call Parliament together in the course of the recess. The terms of the Motion are identical with those with which your Lordships are familiar.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Can the noble Marquess tell me to what date he proposes to move the adjournment of the House?
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: No, I have not yet fixed a date. I have to consult with my friends on the matter, and it will be on the Paper to-morrow morning.
House adjourned at five o'clock until twelve noon, to-morrow.