Lords Sitting of 6 December 1922

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
VISCOUNT LEVERHULME.
William Hesketh Baron Leverhulme, having been created Viscount LEVERHULME of the Western Isles in the Counties of Inverness and Ross and Cromarty—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
VISCOUNT LEE OF FAREHAM.
The Right Hon. Arthur Hamilton Baron Lee of Fareham, G.B.E., K.C.B., having been created Viscount LEE of FAREHAM of Bridport in the County of Dorset—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD BETHELL.
Sir John Henry Bethell, Bart., having been created Baron BETHELL of Romford in the County of Essex—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move, That Standing Order No. 80 relative to Private Bills, with respect to the appointment of the Standing Orders Committee, be dispensed with in the present session of Parliament. There are, of course, no Private Bills this session. The Private Bills that are shortly to come before your Lordships will be deposited in the usual way under the Standing Orders, and will be considered by your Lordships in February. It is not necessary, therefore, in this session that we should have a Standing Orders Committee.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 80 relative to Private Bills, with respect to the appointment of the Standing Orders Committee, be dispensed with in the present session of Parliament.— (The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

EAST LOTHIAN (WESTERN DISTRICT) WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Bill deemed to have been reported from the Committee.
Bill read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

POSTAL CHARGES.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government if they can now say to what extent the postal revenue has increased since the recent reductions of postal charges; and whether the Postmaster-General can definitely state that the further reductions so urgently asked for by the united voice of business men in the interest of trade revival and increased revenue will be brought into operation before the close of the year.
By business men this Question is considered very important. I placed a Question on the Paper of the House before the end of last session in order that there might be plenty of time for consideration of the subject before Parliament reassembled. Since then we have had a General Election and a new Government. I hope the present Postmaster-General has had time, with the assistance of his permanent officials, to furnish himself with the necessary particulars, and that the Government will be able to give a satisfactory reply to-day.
In these days of unemployment, and having regard to the desire of the Government to provide work during the coming winter, I submit that there is no Department in the State more likely, or more fitted, to render invaluable service in this respect than the Post Office. It has a large and efficient staff, and its machinery is in working order. When I speak of machinery I do not refer to telegraphs or telephones. A further immediate reduction in postal charges would at once tend greatly to improve trade in all directions and bring about increased employment. I have often described the Post Office as our greatest commercial traveller. No other Department brings the manufacturer, producer and consumer so closely together. Therefore, the greater the facilities it offers the greater the volume of trade and employment.
Let me say how much the commercial community and chambers of commerce appreciate the great services rendered

291
by the late Postmaster-General in securing the reductions in the postal charges which they now enjoy. I do not see the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, in the House at the moment, but I should like to express my thanks to him for the practical assistance he rendered in connection with those reductions last autumn. Business men have been delighted with the recent speech of the new Postmaster-General, in which he expressed his belief in penny postage and his desire to bring it into operation again at the earliest opportunity. I am glad that he has endorsed the wise policy of his predecessor by reappointing that very able and strong Advisory Committee of practical business men.
I hope that he will have the courage of a Rowland Hill, to whom the country will ever be grateful for his splendid foresight and courageous action. The whole civilised world, indeed, is indebted to Rowland Hill for the introduction of penny postage. I urge the Government not to waste another six months but to improve trade, employ labour, and increase revenue, by at once further reducing the postal charges. I am not going into details this afternoon; I am anxious to hear the answer that will be given to my Question by the Government.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, the particular reductions in postal rates to which the noble Lord has referred were those brought into force on May 29 last. They are as follows:—The postage of inland letters, weighing not more than an ounce, was reduced from 2d. to 1½d.; that of printed papers of the same category from 1d. to ½d.; and that of postcards from 1½d. to 1d. When those reductions were made, it was estimated that they would cost the revenue £6,190,000 in a complete year, after allowing for the additional revenue to be obtained from an increase in the volume of traffic which the lower charges were expected to produce. The reduced charges have been in operation for just over six months and, except in the case of printed papers, the increase in traffic has not come up to expectations. The noble Lord rather suggests that there has been an increase in the postal revenue, but that is not the case. The sacrifice in revenue which the reductions will entail will certainly be £6,000,000, probably rather more for the complete year.
292
In his speech the noble Lord suggests a further reduction in the postal rate in order to bring it down to the pre-war rate of one penny. If that were done, there would, no doubt, be a further increase in postal traffic, but it is equally certain that a further sacrifice of revenue would have to be faced. It is, of course, too early to estimate—we have not the annual figures yet—what the cost would be, but a rough estimate is that it would entail a cost to the revenue of about another £5,000,000. The Government have not yet had time to consider the financial issues involved in the proposal, and, of course, they cannot be dissociated from the prospect of next year's Budget. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I am unable to make any further statement on the subject to-day.
LORD ILLINGWORTH: My Lords, as I was Postmaster-General from the autumn of 1916 to the end of the financial year 1921, perhaps I may be allowed to make a few remarks on this subject. I was responsible for the increase in postal charges. During that part of the year 1916 for which I was responsible, and in 1917 and 1918, the profits of the Post Office were larger than they had ever been before, aggregating a sum for the three years of about £21,000,000. Early in 1919 it was apparent that that happy state of affairs was coming to an end; that we should have to face a loss. However, I deferred increasing the rates then in the hope that the increase of cost was merely temporary and would be soon reduced. Not only that, I had to consider that a heavy increase in the cost of postage would probably cause disturbance in some industries, more especially in regard to picture postcards and mail orders, which were then recovering.
I was much disappointed when the increase, instead of being temporary, continued. The cost of living went up by leaps and bounds. Wages were the largest factor in the expenses of the Post Office—it came to about 75 per cent. of the whole charges—and it was necessary that the wages of the Post Office employees, some 200,000, should be increased. As your Lordships are aware, Mr. Asquith's Government, before leaving office in 1916, set up an Arbitration Board to deal with the whole subject of salaries and wages of civil servants. That Board, in spite of any protest I could make, increased the wages of the Post Office people considerably more

293
than was done in most other industries. Moreover, every other administrative cost of the Post Office was more than doubled. The result was—if I may take simply the penny post and leave out an enormous mass of other details—that I first increased the penny post to three halfpence and then to twopence. Business people naturally came to see me and to protest, but when they heard my case they more or less accepted the position with a better grace than I had expected.
There was another point. Newspapers had been subsidised —it really amounted to a subsidy—by giving them services at a price lower than cost. This subsidy amounted to from £1,000,000 to £1,250,000 a year, and I may add that some of the larger papers in London were getting their telephones at something like ¼d. or less per call. The Cabinet had ordered various Postmasters-General for years to do away with this arrangement. Nevertheless, they did not do it, though I do not know why they should not, because after I proposed to do it the whole of the newspapers of the country took a great interest in my career, and in a very short time I found that I was as famous and as well known in the country as though I had committed some horrible murder. I persisted in it, however, and took away a subsidy of about £1,000,000.
After these few explanatory remarks, let me point out that there were only two courses open to me, as there are only two courses open to the present Postmaster-General. It was necessary either to increase the charges or to give a subsidy to the Post Office. From the figures which the noble Earl has given it seems that the present Postmaster-General is more or less in the same position; that is to say, if he wishes to reduce the charges he will have to put on a subsidy. That is really the reply to the noble Lord, Lord Southwark, who asked this Question, though I did not understand the noble Earl to state that the course which the noble Lord suggests would mean a subsidy for the Post Office. I to not propose to address your Lordships on the well-known evil of subsidies, but it would make extraordinarily good propaganda for the Communists. And let me remind your Lordships that there are more than one hundred Communist members of Parliament at present whose declared policy is war on private enterprise and the socialisation of the means of production,
294
distribution and banking. If in one Government Department we are to keep wages at a high figure without giving the slightest consideration to the price received for the services rendered, it would be a great point to help these Communists in their propaganda and their agitation for the socialisation of industry. They would say: "Why stop at the Post Office? Why not take coal?"
I think all your Lordships will admit that as a basis of industry coal is of far greater importance than the post. It is the basis of the cost of everything that is produced or carried in the country. They could have approached the Prime Minister, and it would have been very difficult for him to reply to their demand to nationalise the collieries and pay the colliers a higher wage without any consideration of the price received for the coal. That would be the beginning of a terrible thing, and one does not know where it would stop. We all look forward —I as much as any of your Lordships to the restoration of the old charges of the Post Office, but I trust that His Majesty's Government and the Postmaster-General will see that if any further reduction is made it is made on sound economical lines, and not by simply reducing postal charges and making up the deficit by way of taxation in various other directions.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Lord who has just sat down into the by-paths of political speculation in which he indulged on this matter, though I might, I think, observe in passing that I do not quite know why he describes as Communists a Party which I understand has refused to issue its Whip to the only avowed Communist in the House of Commons.
The noble Earl who replied on behalf of the Post Office indicated that the Government could not really deal with the subject at the moment, and that it would have to be raised again. No doubt, the noble Lord, Lord Southwark, will raise it again. When that time comes, I should be glad if the noble Earl could somewhat develop the figures which he gave to the House, and perhaps in another direction. He said that time estimated loss of revenue was £6,000,000 odd, as the result of the change that was made in May, and that, so far as the Government could see at present, that loss would probably be

295
exceeded. But I think we want to know a little more than that. I think we want to know in general terms whether the Post Office is being run at a profit or at a loss, because while it may well be undesirable to subsidise the Post Office unless there were some very special reason for doing so, it is, I venture to think, equally undesirable to use the Post Office as a revenue-producing industry, as something which will produce a surplus for the purpose of general taxation. In considering this question the House ought to be told whether the Post Office as a whole is being run at a loss or not, because if it is not, it seems to me that the reduction would be well justified. I think that on the whole it would be undesirable that the Post Office should be used to add to the general revenue by way of taxation, because this is indirect taxation of a particular class and, I think, an undesirable principle. Perhaps when the noble Earl next deals with the matter, he will be prepared with figures showing the actual profit and loss made in the various postal departments that are being dealt with.
I may add before I sit down that possibly some accession of revenue might be obtained if the Post Office were run a little better than it has been run lately. I have had innumerable examples of delay, quite unprecedented delay, both to letters and telegrams. I have had a telegram sent from a place fifty miles from London which arrived three hours after the time at which it was despatched; and only last week I had a postcard postmarked 2.15 p.m. on a Friday in one district of London, which was not delivered in a neighbouring district, rather less than a mile away, until Wednesday morning. That kind of thing does not encourage an extended use of the post, particularly among business people. Although I think the post may perhaps be well run in big commercial towns like Manchester, Glasgow and Liverpool, there is considerable slackness nowadays, at any rate, in the way in which Post Office affairs are managed in smaller towns. I think that might well be looked into if it is desired to increase revenue.

RULES FOR PEDESTRIANS.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, with reference to the statement made on July 6, that the chief
296
constables of the country would be consulted upon the question of the rule of the footpath, it is the case that the Chief Constables' Association have passed a resolution to the following effect:—
"That in the interest of public safety it was desirable to alter the present rule of walking on the footpath, and to use every endeavour to cause the public to. 'Keep to the left' instead of to the right";
and further to enquire whether, a similar resolution having now been passed by—

a House of Commons Select Committee,

a Ministry of Transport Advisory Committee,

the County Councils' Association,

the Association of Municipal Corporations,

the Association of Rural District Councils,

the Association of Urban District Councils,

the Municipal Tramway's Association;

the Home Office is now prepared to deal with the matter.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a Question which has been brought up on several occasions in this House, but I make no apology whatever for returning to it to-day for two reasons:—(1) That the answers which I have received have always been of a very unsatisfactory character; and (2), that the increase in the number of accidents in the road is so great that it constitutes a problem that will have to be dealt with sooner or later. I may observe, parenthetically, that we are not yet in such a bad case as America. I observe that according to statistics taken, not over the whole of America but in certain States in America, they killed by motors last year not fewer than 20,000 persons, most of whom were children. In America they have even arrived at the stage of holding commemorative services for what are called "motor martyrs." But although we do not do things on that scale in this country, the figures with regard to this question are worth some consideration.
I observe that last year fatalities from road accidents numbered 2,815, and in London alone 581 people were killed and 49,476 non-fatally injured. If you take the average in London for the last eight years you will find that just under 700

297
people were actually killed and something like 15,000 people injured. These figures compare very unfavourably with Ore figures relating to railway accidents, because in this country last year the railways killed only 784 people and injured 19,000 odd. It is obvious that this ratio is likely to increase correspondingly with the increase of motor vehicles. We have something like a quarter of the number of mechanically propelled vehicles in this country, as compared with America, and therefore when we reach the same development we may anticipate four times as many accidents as now happen.
It cannot be denied, I think, that a large proportion of these accidents are due to the fact that we have two rules, one for the road and another for the footpath. When you come to think of it, can anything be more absurd? You cross the road, and you are confronted with a notice in the middle of the road directing you to keep to the left. You advance a few yards, or possibly only a few feet, and you are expected to keep to the right. You proceed along the street, and, if you take a tube railway, as likely as not you will find another notice inviting you to keep to the left. And we are not even consistent in our folly. I suppose the perambulator would be classed as a vehicle, but I have never observed that the perambulator paid any attention to any rule whatever on the subject.
The advantage of having a uniform rule for both kinds of traffic was recently brought home to me very convincingly. A few weeks ago I was in Constantinople. Anybody acquainted with that city knows that formerly the streets always presented a most chaotic and confused spectacle, and that it was almost impossible to make one's way without trouble, because you might encounter difficulties from anything ranging from a tramway car to a dromedary. Now, all that has been changed, because since we have been there, English police have assumed control of the traffic and enforced their rules. You now find Turkish policemen directing the traffic in the same way as it is directed by constables in London. The result is that although some of the streets are far more congested than are the streets of London, you can advance in perfect safety, because you are facing the traffic instead of having it behind you. Oddly enough, on my way home, passing through Vienna, I happened
298
to see a police notice in the papers stating that, owing to the increased frequency of accidents in the streets, in future persons who did not walk so as to face the traffic would be proceeded against.
Whenever I have brought this Question up in this House I have always received procrastinating answers from the noble Earl who represents the Home Office; he has assured me that there is some authority whom he must consult before any change can be recommended. When finally driven into his last ditch, which was on the last occasion, he said that one exceptionally important body must be consulted, namely, the Association of Chief Constables.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The district conferences.
LORD NEWTON: This important assembly, the conference of chief constables, must be consulted before a decision is arrived at. This conference has taken place. I do not know how many chief constables attended, the result of their decision is on the Paper, and it is in accordance with the decision of all the other bodies named on the Paper. I have a correction to make with regard to the list on the Paper. I believe it is a fact that the Association of Rural District Councils have not signified their approval of the proposed change, but if I have to leave them out I can add a not less important body, namely, the Metropolitan Police, who, although they have not officially declared their views, are, I am perfectly well aware, thoroughly in favour of the change.
The list on the Paper is fairly comprehensive, and it seems to me to include practically everybody concerned. If the House of Commons is not to count, and if the Ministry of Transport is not to count, and these various Associations are not to count, who is to count? What further authority is there to consult? I can only suggest to my noble friend, and I dare say he will use the suggestion as a further reason for procrastination, that he should consult the Stewards of the Jockey Club on the subject. The fact is, and it cannot be denied, that every responsible authority, with the one exception I have mentioned, and one other exception which I will proceed to mention, has expressed approval of the change. The

299
only responsible opposition conies from the City Commissioner of Police. I think it would be worth while paying his expenses and sending him to Constantinople, in order that he may learn a little elementary common sense.
There is a certain class of people in this country who invariably resist any kind of change, whether beneficial or otherwise. I am not quite old enough to remember the controversy as between sailing vessels and steamboats, or the fight put up in this country by certain soldiers in favour of muzzle-loaders as against breech-loaders, but I have a recollection of the controversy as to the colour that should be worn by soldiers, when it was laid clown that bright scarlet was least distinguishable and therefore the most practicable for military purposes. I am bound to admit that this reactionary City Commissioner of Police finds supporters amongst the general public. Gentlemen write to the Press and denounce this proposal as vigorously as if it were something in the nature of a capital levy. Others write to me occasionally and suggest that it is an insidious attempt on my part, and on the part of my friends, to introduce Bolshevism into this country. Still others write as if a very grave constitutional issue of policy was involved, and as if what we are proposing was little short of a constitutional outrage !
Personally, I am not clever enough to appreciate these arguments, and I am utterly unable to see what objections there are to the proposal. In the first place it is not going to cost anything, and that ought to be a recommendation to some people. It does not involve the sacrifice of any principle, so far as I am aware. It does not involve any loss of dignity, or self-respect, and it is actuated solely by a desire to promote the safety of the public. I do not wish to repeat the arguments used on several occasions before, but the fact remains that every single responsible authority, with the exception of the Association which I have named and the City Commissioner of Police, has reported in favour of the proposal. Nearly every local authority has said that it is perfectly ready to put it into operation as soon as unanimity is obtained, and all they require is a lead.
The lead obviously must come from the Home Office, and however reluctant they may be to act—for I have very little
300
doubt that my noble friend (Lord Onslow) will say that the Home Office is not vet prepared to consider favourably the subject without further consultation. I do not hesitate to say that this extremely modest and sensible change will take effect some day. Whether I shall be alive to witness it I do not feel quite sure. But I hope that, by dint of continually bringing the subject before the Home Office and before the House, some impression may eventually be made, and I hope almost against hope that on this occasion the noble Earl's reply may not be quite so unsympathetic as on the previous occasion.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I supported the noble Lord before, and I wish to support him again. I think he has made out his case. What is that case? He says the Chief Constables' Association have passed a resolution to the effect that in the interests of public safety it is desirable to alter the present rule of walking on the footpath and to keep to the left, instead of the right. That is a very important body. I have no doubt we shall be told that some members did not agree to this. Perhaps they did not, but the fact remains that they passed this resolution, and they are, I imagine, men to be treated with respect in such a matter. Then the noble Lord mentioned his visit to Constantinople, and told us that you can now pass with safety along the streets in that city because the public have been made to keep to the right. I know what Eastern cities are like, and I can realise the importance of that change. As he said, in Vienna the police are going to do the same thing.
The six important bodies mentioned by my noble friend which have passed similar Resolutions—the House of Commons Select Committee, the Ministry of Transport Advisory Committee, the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Association of Urban District Councils, and the Municipal Tramways Association—went into the question thoroughly. You cannot wave their opinion aside, for they have gone into the matter with care and deliberation. In this great city the pace of the traffic is increasing every day and in a most dangerous manner. The truth is that when you step off the pavement on the right, with your back to the traffic, and a heavy motor omnibus behind you, if a person gives you a jolt you are very likely to be thrown under the wheels of the omnibus. The Home Secre-

301
tary must walk about the streets like any other person, and must therefore know as well as I do that the dangers are real and terrible.
The statistics that my noble friend has given show how many lives are lost through this cause, and that the traffic is getting faster and faster. With such facts before us I think it is evident that the public should be protected against itself. Is the Home Office going to do nothing at all, or is it going to take the lead? After the case has been made out by Lord Newton as clearly and convincingly as it could possibly be, you cannot take up anon possumus attitude.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I strongly support what my noble friend has said with his customary force and conviction. My reason for speaking on this point is that I was the first President of the London Safety First Council, a body which has done a great deal of very useful work, and which has been criticised for bringing this question to the front. The council in my time took no public steps in this direction, but very carefully analysed all the accidents in the streets of London, and it found that a very considerable proportion of them occurred from stepping off the pavement to the right with the traffic coming up behind.
Such accidents naturally happen as the result of the present custom of the footpath in London. But if you step off from the left you not only see the vehicle which is immediately coming, but you get a chance of seing the vehicle which is coming up behind that, and it is that which is very often the cause of fatal accidents. There is no question in this case as to what is right and what is wrong; theory and practice are in complete harmony. Walking to the right is obviously wrong, and there is no reason why you should walk to the right; walking to the left is obviously right, and it may save you from an accident. Now that we have at last got a progressive Government I hope that this question will be filially settled.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, my noble friend in his interesting speech said that on the last occasion when he raised the matter he drove me into the last ditch, which was that defended by the Association of Chief Constables. I must beg leave to correct him. It was not the Association
302
of Chief Constables to which I referred on I hat occasion. What I said was that the Home Office would take the opinion of the district conferences of chief constables. That is a different thing. The Chief Constables' Association is an unofficial body, and it represents only city and borough chief constables. The district conferences of chief constables are eight in number, and this question has only been considered by three of them. At those three meetings there was considerable diversity of opinion as to the advisability of adopting the recommendation of my noble friend. One of the difficulties which would be experienced in endeavouring to effect this change is that it is not a matter in which uniformity can be enforced by legislation. All you can do is to endeavour to change the rule of the road for foot passengers by exhortation's addressed to them.
LORD NEWTON: That is all we want.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Quite so. And any attempt to do this could only be partially effective because you cannot enforce your exhortation. Therefore, if you attempt to make a change you will, at most, only succeed in obtaining a partial change, which will make a state of confusion worse than the present system. Then there is another difficulty. Noble Lords who have addressed the House on this subject have, I think, confined themselves to the dangers which are found in stepping off the pavement in cities. Supposing, therefore, you were able to introduce this change it would only apply to places in which a pavement existed. In the country the old custom would remain. There are no pavements and no footpaths in country lanes and the old custom would prevail. Therefore, you would still have a diversity of practice.
Since I last replied to my noble friend on this Question, as your Lordships are aware, a change has taken place at the Home Office and a new Home Secretary presides there. Since this Question was placed upon the Paper by my noble friend it has, I may say, received the attention of my right hon. friend the Home Secretary, and he is of opinion that the advantages of the proposed change which have been so ably put forward by my noble friend and other noble Lords are not so clear as to justify him in taking any action in the matter.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I listened with some regret to the conclusion of the speech of the noble Earl who has just addressed the House. The matter seems to me to be one in which the public is very deeply interested, and perhaps the House will not think it amiss if I plead not only as one of the public but as a member of a particular class— a class composed of those persons who can walk about but are obliged to use a stick and depend a good deal upon the treatment that they receive from their fellow subjects who happen to be on the pavement at the same time. A short time ago the pavement was covered with inscriptions to the effect that we were expected to keep to the left. I, being an obedient and law-abiding sort of a person, immediately set myself to obey what I conceived to be the inspired instruction thus written on the pavement. The result was disastrous. I found I was driven not into my last ditch but into the gutter by other persons who were not so disposed to comply with orders as I was.
The noble Earl said that the result of any intervening in this matter would be to create confusion; but can any confusion be greater than that which prevails at this moment? There is an immense amount of traffic, and I would ask any of your Lordships to take a walk in any quarter largely frequented by people who are going out Christmas shopping. You will then see that nothing could be worse than the confusion which already at this moment prevails upon the pavement. I hope, therefore, that, after further consideration, His Majesty's Government may see their way to do something.
I would like, if I may, although it is not quite relevant, to correct or qualify a statement winch was made by my noble friend Lord Newton. He spoke of the perversity of high officials and he cited in particular a case in which what he called the War Office pundits years ago had expressed a preference for the red uniform on the ground that it would be the least conspicuous colour which you could exhibit in the landscape. I have at various times been one of what my noble friend calls the War Office pundits, and my recollection is that the red was preferred not because it was inconspicuous but, on the contrary, because it was a very conspicuous and distinctive colour and found particular favour with the nursery maids and other young ladies whose company the members
304
of the military forces were disposed to frequent. For that reason, and because it was thought that the abolition of the red colour would be detrimental to recruiting, a good many gallant soldiers were in favour of retaining it.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the noble Marquess remarked that he had listened to the noble Earl's reply with some regret. I have no hesitation in saying that I listened to it with extreme regret. My noble friend has displayed a certain amount of ingenuity because he has drawn an elaborate distinction between a conference of chief constables and district conferences of chief constables. Will he give me an undertaking, as he is evidently bent upon retiring into further ditches, that when the district chief constables have been consulted the Home Office will consider the propriety of making this change?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I will not fail to bring the suggestion of my noble friend before the Home Office.

NAVAL DISARMAMENT.
LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government—
1. Whether the naval disarmament Treaty has now been ratified by all the Powers concerned.
2. What steps have been taken by the ratifying Powers to carry out Articles III and IV, Part 2, of the Treaty.
3. Whether a Return can be given to Parliament showing the names of all British ships which have already been rendered "incapable of further warlike service."
4. Whether, in accordance with the requirements of the Treaty, two capital ships will be laid down this year.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid that some of my Questions may seem a little belated after what has happened in another place, but I sent them to the Admiralty at the beginning of the session before any attention had been drawn to these matters, and the noble Marquess, most wisely, I think, asked me particularly to postpone them for a time. My object

305
is to try to make clear how the proceedings under the Treaty of Washington, and our battle fleet, now stand. I am sure that the Admiralty must be very anxious that the actual facts in regard to these two matters should be made as plain as possible.
As your Lordships know, the Treaty of Washington is a very precise, though somewhat complicated, instrument. We are allowed to retain for present purposes 22 capital ships; the United States may have 18, and Japan may have 10. All other ships are to be made unserviceable in six months and to be totally scrapped in eighteen months. There is also a limit to the total tonnage assigned to each Power, and in future no ship is to be over a tonnage of 35,000. There is a further limitation to the 16-in. gun as the maximum of the armaments of the future. It must be evident that the most important point at the present time is the offensive power and the nature of the design of the ships which are allowed to be retained under the terms of the Treaty. The battle of Jutland, with the terrible tragedy which occurred to three of our battle cruisers, revealed certain defects of design. These defects were remedied in all post-Jutland ships, which have their vitals much better protected and are better guarded against torpedo attack. It follows, therefore, that the number of post-Jutland ships must be at least one gauge of naval strength at the present time, and the battle fleet which possesses plenty of the post-Jutland type must have a great advantage over one which does not.
How do we stand at the present moment in this important respect? We have only one ship, the "Hood," which is of 41,200 tons and was classed at Washington as post-Jutland. The great size of the "Hood" was due, of course, to the effort to give her the high speed of 36 knots. But the "Hood" does not embody some of the improvements in design which were introduced subsequently to the great war, and she is not really a post-Jutland battleship at all. She is far inferior to some other ships which were designed later. Against our so-called post-Jutland battle cruiser, our one ewe lamb, the United States have three capital ships—the "Maryland," the "West Virginia" and the "Colorado." All of those ships are much superior to the "Hood," except in point of speed. The United States have two more ships—the "Tennessee" and the "California"—which are fully post-Jutland in design except that they have twelve 14-inch guns
306
instead of eight 16-inch guns. It is quite arguable that these ships have more offensive power than those fitted with the larger types of guns; but that is a question which I must not discuss at the present time.
The fact remains that the United States battle fleet, with five post-Jutland ships and a total of eight ships of 31,400 tons and over, is distinctly more powerful than ours, with only the "Hood" and the "Tiger" which are above 28,000 tons. The potential superiority of the United States battle fleet would be still larger unless they have fully carried out all the scrapping which is prescribed under the terms of the Washington Treaty. This marked superiority on the part of the United States causes me no anxiety. I do not believe for a moment that we shall ever be at war with the United States, and if it were not for the strenuous exertions of the enemies of the British Empire to create friction between us, I believe our mutual relations would always be of the most friendly character. But the late Government proclaimed that henceforth we were to maintain a One Power standard. My point is that we have not nearly got a One-Power standard at the present time, and that Parliament ought to be made aware of this great deficiency.
Japan is allowed ten capital ships, of which two are post-Jutland, the "Mutsu" and the "Nagato," and six are of 30,600 tons or more. It was the disastrous Dreadnought policy of 1905 which first started the competition in monstrosities, led to enormous expenditure, and finally made our battle line weaker in the great war than it would otherwise have been. It is a curious thing that that policy has now let us down badly, because the larger number of heavier ships is possessed by the United States and Japan, and not by us. Looking ahead, the terms of the Treaty allow the United States in 1925 15 pre-Jutland ships and 3 post-Jutland ships, but in reality there will be 5 post-Jutland ships, as I have already explained. We are allowed in 1925 17 pre-Jutland ships and 3 post-Jutland ships. Unless, therefore, we lay down our two new battleships at once we shall still have one indifferent post-Jutland ship against five efficient American ships, and we shall remain nowhere near the One-Power standard.
Last week I tried to explain the dangerous situation which might arise, in the event of war or threat of war, in consequence of

307
the Irish Constitution—the dangerous situation, I mean, from a naval point of view—and, taking this in conjunction with the figures that I have already given, I think your Lordships will see that never since the eighties of last century have we been so weak at sea as we are at this moment. I note the agitation which has been raised against the laying-down of these two ships. The distinguished Admiral, who relies confidently on the opinion of a midshipman, has again been on the warpath, and has a number of supporters who maintain that the battleship is now absolutely useless. I am quite prepared to argue that question, but I am sure that the Admiralty considers that all these theories are premature at the present time. I hope the noble Marquess who is to reply will be able to say that the two new battleships will be laid down as soon as possible.
I should like to point out that no equal expenditure would give so much employment of the kind that is most needed at the present moment. Everything about a warship entails skilled labour—skilled labour in every single trade—and there is a real danger that if these two ships are not constructed some special skill of a particularly high order may be permanently lost to the country. Of course, the construction of the Forth and Clyde Canal is a most excellent project, which would give a certain amount of employment, but not nearly so much of the kind that is most needed as would the work to be done on these two battleships.
A controversy has recently been raised in America as to the extent to which our scrapping policy has been carried out. My own information is that the Admiralty has most loyally carried out all this part of the Treaty, and I hope the noble Marquess will give us the Return for which I have asked. I think it is essential to put an end to any controversy of that kind. There is one other Question, of which I gave the noble Marquess private notice. Can he say when the Jutland charts, which were promised last session, will be made available to Parliament and the public? I beg to put my Questions.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW): My Lords, the noble Lord who has asked this Question amplified a little in his speech the points as they appear on the Paper, but I think it will be most convenient if
308
I deal first with the Questions as they appear on the Paper. The first Question was whether the naval disarmament Treaty has now been ratified by all the Powers concerned? The position is as follows. The Treaty of Washington has been ratified by the United States of America, Japan, and this country. It has not yet been ratified by France or by Italy.
The second Question reads: What steps have been taken by the ratifying Powers to carry out Articles III and IV, Part 2, of the Treaty? Articles III and IV, Part 2, of the Treaty, deal entirely with the matter of replacement of tonnage, and I think my noble friend must have been referring to a later part of the Treaty —namely, Sections III and IV, Part 2, Chapter II.
LORD SYDENHAM: It is Chapter II.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: Those are the scrapping provisions, and it is to those that I will address myself. In this matter I am able to tell your Lordships' House that, so far as is known, the United States and Japan have not yet disposed of any ships, except possibly some ships of an obsolete type which would be disposed of in the ordinary course. But your Lordships, at the same time, will have in mind the fact that no contracting Power is legally bound to dispose of any vessels until all the contracting Powers have actually ratified the Treaty. With reference to our own action under the Treaty, I think I can best make that plain by answering, as fully as I can, the next Question of the noble Lord—namely, whether a Return can be given to Parliament showing the names of British ships which have already been rendered incapable of further warlike service.
Let me first read through the list of completed capital ships which fall to be scrapped under the Treaty—"Commonwealth," "Agamemnon," "Dreadnought," "Bellerophon," "St. Vincent," "Inflexible," "Superb," "Neptune," "Hercules," "Indomitable," "Temeraire," "New Zealand," "Lion." "Princess Royal," "Conqueror," "Monarch," "Orion," "Australia," "Agincourt," and "Erin." Having regard to the importance of this subject, if I am not wearying the House, I think it right to tell your Lordships, so far as it lies in my power to do so, precisely how far

309
this scrapping has proceeded. According to the terms of the Treaty there have been rendered incapable of service in the Royal yards, the following ships—"Neptune," "Orion," "New Zealand," "Monarch" "Conqueror," "Princess Royal." The "Agincourt" and the "Erin" are in the hands of the Royal yards, and are being rendered incapable of service at this moment.
The following capital ships have already been sold to ship-breaking firms for breaking up—the "Commonwealth," "Dreadnought," "Bellerophon," "St. Vincent," "Inflexible," "Hercules," "Indomitable," "Temeraire" and "Neptune." The noble Lord will observe that the "Neptune" appears in the first list and in the second as well, and this is explained by the fact that having been rendered incapable of service in the Royal yard she was subsequently disposed of to a private firm.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Has the noble Marquess the information in figures so that we could follow it more easily?
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: I am afraid I have not the numbers. I will count them up if you like.
LORD BUCKMASTER: No, no. But I thought if he had the numbers it would be more convenient to follow the information.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: I wish I had provided myself with the figures; I agree that the subject would then have been much easier to follow, but a list which I shall presently give will, I think, show the situation in full.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Perhaps he can tell us how many are left?
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: I shall come to that in a moment, and I will also read a subsequent Return which perhaps will satisfy the noble and learned Lord. With regard to the fourth Question of the noble Lord, his whole argument was really addressed to the importance of laying down these two capital ships. I am very disappointed that I cannot give him a definite answer this afternoon. He was good enough to give me early private notice of this Question, and also to postpone it at my request, in the hope that I might be able to give a definite reply. I am sorry to have to disappoint him. The position
310
is that the matter is at present being considered by the Cabinet and a definite announcement will be made before the end of the present session.
The list which I now propose to read will, I think, satisfy the noble and learned Lord, as it covers the figures in general and in a clear manner. I thought your Lordships might wish to have a precise statement as to the relative strengths of the Navies of the United States of America, Japan, and Great Britain, in capital ships, if the Washington Treaty is ratified and if it is not ratified, respectively. Let me first give the strength in capital ships, assuming that the Washington Treaty is ratified. The United States of America would have 18 battleships and 2 building, a total of 20 capital ships. Japan, assuming that the Washington Treaty is ratified, would have 6 battleships and 4 battle cruisers, a total of 10 capital ships, and. Great Britain, under the same assumption, would have 18 battleships and 4 battle cruisers, a total of 22 capital ships.
If the Washington Treaty is not ratified the United States of America would have 20 battleships of the Dreadnought type, 6 battleships of the pre-Dreadnought type, 9 post-Jutland battleships building, 4 battle cruisers building, and 2 battle cruisers which are now being converted into aircraft carriers; a total of 41 capital ships. Japan, assuming that the Treaty is not ratified, would have 7 battleships of the Dreadnought type, 4 battleships of the pre-Dreadnought type, 4 battle cruisers, 2 battleships building, 2 battle cruisers building, 2 battleships projected and 2 battle cruisers projected; a total of 23 capital ships. Great Britain, assuming the Treaty is not ratified, would have 18 battleships and 5 battle cruisers, a total of 23 battleships.
VISCOUNT LEE OF FAREHAM: Can the noble Marquess give the figures separately of post-Jutland capital ships in the three cases? They are very important.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: The noble Viscount knows that as regards this country thee is one post-Jutland battle cruiser. I have not been provided with any precise analysis of the position of the United States of America, except that in the event of the Treaty not being ratified that country would have 9 post-Jutland battleships building and 4 battle cruisers building.

311
With regard to the final Question of the noble Lord, of which he was good enough to give me private notice, the Jutland charts and the narrative have been sent out to Lord Jellicoe in New Zealand. He has promised to return them with his comments as soon as he can. These will be made available as soon after we receive them as possible.
VISCOUNT LEE OF FAREHAM: My Lords, I have no desire to embarrass His Majesty's Government on any question, and least of all on such a question as the state of the Royal Navy, which has always been treated as being apart from and outside any kind of purely political consideration. Still less do I desire to embarrass my noble friend the new Civil Lord of the Admiralty, whom I should like to congratulate upon having attained a most interesting position—a position which was the first that I ever held in official life and of which I always retain the most pleasant memories.
But I cannot but express deep disappointment at the reply which he has given this afternoon, or rather the absence of a reply, to the main Question addressed to him by my noble friend Lord Sydenham. The attitude which lie indicates that the Government is adopting with regard to the question of laying down these ships is one which, frankly, fills me with alarm. I have no desire, of course, to hurry the Government unduly, but I would remind the noble Marquess who is leading the House that this session is likely to be extremely short, and I earnestly trust that the announcement of the Government's policy with regard to a question of this importance is not going to be postponed until the last moment of the session, when it will be impossible to raise a debate upon it. I hope that at any rate the answer, whatever it may be, will be given in time for a discussion to take place in your Lordships' House as well as in another place.
I am naturally deeply interested in this question, for two reasons; not only because I have recently laid down the great office of First Lord of the Admiralty and am thoroughly familiar with everything that took place up to the time of my handing over my duties there, but also, in a very special sense, as being one of the signatories to the Washington Treaty. I can assure your Lordships that when Lord Balfour, Sir Auckland Geddes and myself appended
312
our signatures to the Treaty of Washington. we, together wit h the Dominion representatives, did so in good faith that our signatures would be honoured. We had a definite and categorical assurance, in taking over our plenipotentiary powers, that our signatures would be so honoured by our own Government and by our Sovereign. Certainly, we would never have put our hands to that document had we supposed for a moment that one of the most vital considerations which led its to accept the drastic scrapping proposals that were made at Washington would be held as a matter of doubt, possibly a matter involving a consideration as to time, means and so forth, by a British Government, after its accredited representatives had placed their signatures upon it. That was a consideration which was altogether outside our purview at that time.
If that be not a sufficient reason for asking His Majesty's Government to proceed without further delay with the laying down of these ships, perhaps I might be permitted to give one or two others, or rather to amplify some of those which have been already advanced by my noble friend Lord Sydenham. What I want to make plain, if I can, is that there was something in the nature, not only of an honourable understanding, but almost of a treaty obligation between the Government and the Board of Admiralty and the whole Naval Service in this matter. The only consideration which enabled the Board of Admiralty to agree to this scrapping, as the noble Marquess has shown, of 19 of our capital ships, was that the other signatories who ratified the Treaty were naturally expected to fulfil their corresponding obligations in the matter, and that on our part we should have the countervailing advantage of the new ships which would embody the lessons of Jutland, and would form, in fact, the spearhead of our Fleet.
As has been shown by the noble Marquess, the Fleets of the other great Powers, and notably the United States and Japan, possess such a spearhead. He showed that in actual fact at the present time the United States have three of these post-Jutland ships, Japan has two, and we have only the "Hood," which is admittedly only a hybrid, and does not fully embody those lessons. He further showed that if the Washington Treaty could not be ratified we should be in a position where the United States would have 16 of these post-Jutland ships, Japan would have 10—

313
counting those built and building—and we should still have only the one hybrid, the "Hood." I venture to say that that is a perfectly impossible and unthinkable position for the British Empire to contemplate.
On the other hand, if the Treaty be ratified, as I confidently believe that it will be effectively ratified by all the Powers concerned, even then the comparative strengths, as shown by the noble Marquess, are sufficiently alarming in themselves, and show that we shall maintain only by a considerable stretch of the imagination that principle of bare equality with the United States which was the whole basis of the Agreement to which we came in Washington. That being the position, I cannot believe that the Government are going to hesitate for more than a few days, possibly, to carry out what is not only an honourable obligation but a debt which they owe, not merely to their negotiators at Washington, but to the Navy, to the country and to the Empire, which is so vitally concerned in this matter. I cannot suppose that, after having taken whatever time is reasonable to consider this matter—and I think that already there has been more than sufficient time—they are going to reverse a decision which was deliberately come to not merely by the late Government, but by Parliament. This whole matter was debated in Parliament during the last session; these proposals were heard, and Parliament decided that these ships were to be built. Money was provided in the Estimates, and the Board of Admiralty, of which I was the head, took the consequential action of proceeding to call for tenders and to take all steps to have these ships laid down in the course of the present year.
My noble friend, Lord Sydenham, referred to an ancillary consideration, that of unemployment. Surely, at a time when the Government is naturally being pressed from every direction to do whatever it can to find useful employment for the large numbers who are out of work, it is not, for some reasons which I am wholly at a loss to understand, going to deprive of this work the districts concerned, which are dependent to a quite abnormal extent upon this class of work and where the keenest distress prevails at the present time. It was estimated at the Admiralty before I left that the building of those two ships would give employment for a period
314
of three years to an average of over 20,000 men, rising in the course of the winter of next year, which is likely, I believe, to be an extremely difficult time so far as unemployment is concerned, to 30,000 men, and, the winter after, that of 1924, to over 25,000. That, of course, is only a secondary consideration, but I venture to say it is an extremely important one, because if these men are not employed upon useful work of this kind they will have to be supported by doles and other undesirable methods, and there will be very little gain financially.
The point I wish to emphasise particularly at this moment is that there is no Parliamentary authority either for abandoning or varying the decision to build these ships. It would, if presume, be necessary, if such a disastrous decision were reached, to ask the new Parliament to reverse the decision of its predecessor last session, and if such a proposal were made I trust it would be made in sufficient time to be amply debated and resisted, as in many quarters it would be resisted to the uttermost, in the course of the present session. There is a good deal in the way of detail that I could urge in order to indicate the necessity of laying down these ships if the One-Power standard is to be maintained. But it would be sufficient if I mentioned only one consideration, which I am sure will impress your Lordships. It may be said that you cannot always expect to have the newest and the best, but there is this difference between the newest and the less new in the case of capital ships. The post-Jutland capital ships possessed by the United States and Japan are capable of outranging any capital ship which we possess in the British fleet, the result being that it would be possible, in the case of a fleet action, for those capital ships of other Navies to lie off at a safe range and destroy our best capital ships without the latter having any means of reply.
That is an intolerable position to contemplate when you consider the moral effect that such a position must have upon the personnel of the Fleet. It is surely our duty to provide the officers and men of the British Navy, who are the best in the world, with the very best weapons, if they are to maintain their pre-eminence and efficiency. To ask them, in sonic unhappy event, to go into battle armed with weapons inferior to those of the adversary is

315
asking of them something which we have no right to ask, and I cannot believe for one moment that any Conservative Government, which has always done its best to maintain the strength of the British Navy, would be responsible for anything of the sort.
I do not want to say anything on this occasion with regard to the technical implications of the Treaty and its schedules, but it is perfectly plain to me as one of those who signed the Treaty, and it was perfectly plain to the Board of Admiralty when I was associated with it, that it is not open to us under the terms of the Treaty to postpone the building of these ships. We have either to abandon them altogether, to tell the world and the Empire that we cannot afford to keep up the One-Power standard, and to be content to fall to the third rank of Naval Powers, or we must build these ships. Of course, it is open to this country to say that we cannot afford to keep up the One-Power standard, if it is so desired, but we are not able to postpone the building of these ships.
The schedule which was drawn up, and which formed the subject of prolonged negotiations and consideration at Washington, was based upon actual dates, and for this reason—unless the dates on which various Powers might lay down ships were fixed, it might be open to any Power to postpone, and to take advantage of that postponement in order to introduce even greater development of naval science, and to produce ships winch would not in fact bear any relation in strength to the ships of other Powers of which they were supposed to be the equivalent. If once you start upon a system of trying to postpone, in order to get better ships later on, you will be not only breaking the Treaty but arousing the suspicion of every Admiralty in the world, and, I think, giving ground, and good ground, for suspecting the good faith of the British Government and the British Admiralty in this matter.
Therefore, it is really a question either of abandoning or of commencing building at once. As regards the idea of abandonment, I can only say that I am quite unwilling to believe that this Conservative Government can be contemplating for a moment such a disastrous surrender, which would amount really to a betrayal of our whole position as the principal sea-power of the world. If that is an issue which is
316
under discussion, or even in contemplation, at the present time, then, as I have said, it will be necessary for the Government to make a full and frank confession of the position to Parliament, the country and the Empire, with all the consequences which may ensue, and to make it at a time and in circumstances which will enable it to be challenged.
I can only appeal to the noble Marquess who leads the House to take these facts into his most earnest consideration, believing, as I am sure he will, that I am not pressing them in any kind of factious spirit, but that it is a matter in which I feel a peculiar responsibility, for I make no secret of the fact that if it had been decided in another sense while I was a member of the late Government, I should have left that Government immediately. I feel sure that he will recognise that it is not a matter that can be postponed indefinitely, and I hope he may be able to give some supplementary reply, even to-night, which may allay some of the apprehensions that I genuinely feel, and which disturb me more than anything I have heard in this House.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, if what I say may seem to bring down the discussion to a lower level than that attained by the extremely grave speech to which we have just listened, it is not my fault or the fault of those on whose behalf I propose to speak. I know we cannot build capital ships for the purpose of giving men employment, and that we cannot build capital ships such as those mentioned in the fourth part of the Question if it is against our Treaty obligations to do so. I understand that the building of these two ships is not only permitted but even in a sense may be required by our Treaty obligations, though it is not likely that we shall embark upon the building of two capital ships which are not required by national safety.
There remains the question of unemployment, which concerns certain great communities, the names of which probably occur to some of your Lordships. I know of one such community, where war conditions had the effect, in the interests of the Government, of bringing a large abnormal increase to its ordinary population for the purpose of making munitions. But that large temporary increase of population still remains in that community, and is reduces to a state of unemployment by the mere cessation of the war. I am told—

317
and it was stated in another place the other evening—that in that large community at the present moment 167 persons out of every thousand are in receipt of relief of some kind, that is to say, money for which they do no work, because they must be kept alive; and that in that community, since the beginning of the operation of what was called the Trade Facilities Act, or, indeed, since the beginning of this specially created unemployment, no assistance of any kind has been given or promised from the Government for the relief of that unemployment. I hope that these facts will be borne in mind by His Majesty's Government whenever they come to a decision, and that, when they do come to that decision, they will give us an opportunity of discussing what they have done or not done, or what they propose to do.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, the noble Lord on the Cross Benches who brought this matter before your Lordships' notice may, I think, congratulate himself upon the importance of the speeches which have been delivered this evening. We entirely and fully recognise the spirit in which the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Lee of Fareham) has addressed your Lordships. Nothing was more gratifying than to hear him making the statement, in which we entirely concurred, that all these matters which belong to the welfare of the Royal Navy are outside ordinary political and Party considerations. That is absolutely the case. The speech which he delivered in that spirit was a very valuable contribution to the debate. He was afraid that there would be no opportunity of discussing this matter in certain eventualities, but I think the course which he took was the best one; having that apprehension, he made a sort of hypothetical speech at once.
I do not complain of it for a moment. He was able to convey to us many considerations which are of great importance, and which, I can assure him, will be very properly weighed by His Majesty's Government, and reported in the Office which he so lately adorned. He is quite right in saying that there is a necessity for an immediate decision under the Treaty. These ships must be begun, if they are to be begun at all, in the course of the present year. But he must not presume for a
318
moment that there is any question of a doubt. What was said just now by the noble Marquess next me (Lord Linlithgow), whom I am very glad to welcome as a colleague on this Bench, is merely that the matter has not yet come under the consideration of the Cabinet. That is true. The noble Viscount was surprised that that was the case, and I could not help wondering what must have been the method of managing the business in the Cabinet to which he belonged. My experience is simply overwhelming in the very few weeks in which I have been in office. And in no matter is that more true than in this vital question of national defence. I have personally consumed many inadequate hours in considering it already, and have totally failed to get up to date, if I may say so, in the proper consideration of some of the most vital matters which affect national and imperial defence. And therefore it did not surprise me in the least that we have not yet reached the point of discussing in the Cabinet the question of these two ships.
But I hope he will not presume for a moment that there has been any adverse decision. Very much the contrary. My noble friend stated what was absolutely true. Though, of course, it must have been very carefully considered in the Department, it has not yet reached the Cabinet table for consideration. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister has answered a Question in another place only to-day, and he says a decision will have to be come to before the close of the present session; that is, within the next week. I enter into an absolute assurance to the noble Viscount that I will take care that he is informed at the earliest possible moment of when that decision will be announced, in order that he may take whatever course he sees fit, but I hope that he will not find that upon a matter of this kind there is any difference between any members of your Lordships' House as to what the national safety requires.
VISCOUNT LEE OF FAREHAM: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess very much for his reply, which, so far as it goes, is entirely satisfactory to me.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Marquess for the clear answer he has given. He has given information this evening which is of the very greatest importance, and which clears up certain matters which were obscure. But

319
I confess that he has left upon my mind a rather depressing impression. If I counted rightly he told us that we had nine capital ships already disabled, and that ten more have been wholly scrapped. But I understand that the United States have not scrapped any ships at all. It does, therefore, seem to me that our large scrapping operation must have been somewhat premature. I assume, though the noble Marquess did not say so, that the United States have at least stopped further building on the ships they had on the stocks when this Treaty was made.
But the worst of it is that, as has been pointed out, if the Treaty is not carried out, the United States will have an enormous naval superiority over us—a superiority that we could not overtake, even if we desired to overtake it. Further, if the Treaty is not carried out, the Japanese, with ten post-Jutland ships to our one not very satisfactory "Hood," will have a more powerful fleet than ours. All that can be done is to build those ships. I am certain from what the noble Marquess has said that we shall get a decision from the Government very soon, and that it will be the only decision which to my mind it is possible for the Government to take.

THE LAW AND RENT INCREASES.
LORD ABINGER LORD ABINGER had on the Paper the following Question—To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are aware that in many cases of small landlords great hardships are arising owing to a recent decision under the Rent Restrictions Acts by virtue of which demands are being made for repayment of increases of rents which were hitherto understood to be valid under those Acts; and whether they can see their way to grant a moratorium in such cases, pending the introduction of final legislation on the matter.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put down this Question because I have been given to understand by many small householders that they are at present put into a position of very great difficulty owing to a recent decision that has been come to in His Majesty's Law Courts. I think the case itself began in Scotland, but it is understood to be also applicable to England. Briefly the position is this. Before the war men in an ordinary sphere of life who displayed thrift and energy in
320
very many cases put their savings into house property in the shape of cottages, which was considered a most satisfactory form of investment; they could always see it. They did not get a large rate of interest, but they always looked forward to obtaining a sufficient amount as a subsistence allowance in the shape of revenue when they arrived at an older age.
The war intervened, and, owing to the exigencies of the war, the Rent Restrictions Act was duly passed. That Act put these little men in this position. They were not able to raise their rent and they were not able to eject a tenant. Their savings, such as they were, are now completely at a discount, because, not being able to get possession of property of that sort, they are not in a position to sell it. Therefore, very large amounts have had to be written off their capital which it has taken them, perhaps, a long time to earn. That position, I understand, was recognised as a hardship and, since rates, taxes and repairs had increased enormously, it was decided that these people should be allowed to raise their rent by 30 per cent. I think that another 10 per cent. was afterwards allowed. I am not talking about the big landlords who can look after themselves quite well, and have lawyers and various other people to advise them, but of the small landlords. In very many cases throughout the large towns in England these little landlords approached their tenants. No objections were made and the increases of rent were paid. There were no protests, and everything appeared to be going on swimmingly until this decision was arrived at in Scotland which seems to have altered the position entirely, because now these unfortunate small landlords are inundated with solicitors' letters demanding the refund of the excess of rent that has been paid to them for more than a year.
It must, of course, be obvious to all your Lordships that many of these unfortunate landlords are not in a position to pay. If they were big landlords it would not really matter; the sums could be transferred from the debit side to the credit side and adjustment come to hereafter. But their position is that they are suddenly met with these demands and they are receiving these solicitors' letters. They understand Parliament is going to adjourn, and they want to know what their position is going to be between now and February; because in very many cases I am afraid it will be

321
a very awkward one so far as they are concerned. Therefore I placed my Question on the Paper in the form suggested, simply to impress the matter upon His Majesty's Government, and to ask them whether, in the circumstances, they could take any steps to remedy the grievance. Grievances of that nature have been remedied. Before, I believe.
I am given to understand that most of this trouble has come about through the very bad drafting of the Act. I am further informed that some of His Majesty's judges have said that it is an exceedingly badly drafted Act. I do not know whether that is so or not, but from personal experience of this House I can recall something which Your Lordships will remember quite well—that a similar, or morn or less similar, case arose during the tenure of office of the late Government. The noble Viscount who so ably addressed the House this afternoon on naval matters, brought in an Agriculture Bill and we talked about it and debated it for a considerable time. A good many of the clauses were intended to benefit certain tenants. The Bill was duly passed. No sooner was it passed than we were told that it would not benefit those tenants at all; that the Bill was, in fact, so badly drawn that the tenants would not receive any benefit. As a consequence an amending Bill was brought in. If the present position of these unfortunate small landlords is due to any fault in the drafting of the Act I sincerely hope that the Government will see their way to help these unfortunate people. They have been put in this position entirely without fault of their own, and owing to the fact of their having been told, or it having been generally understood, that they were empowered to raise the rents.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount replies to this Question, may I express the hope that he will be able to give your Lordships some indication of the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to the continuation of the Rent Restriction Acts? The operation of those Acts has been most unfortunate. In the particular instance mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Abinger, I understand that the unfortunate decision was arrived at by a majority only of the Judges who were present, and that those who were most conversant with Scottish procedure and /or Scottish circum-
322
stances were entirely opposed to it. Therefore, it is very hard indeed that these Scottish landlords should be muleted in the way in which it is possible they will be if the decision is given effect to in Scotland.
There is another point to which I should like to call attention. The noble Lord said that the Act was passed owing to the exigencies of war. I never could understand that. These Rent Restriction Acts did not increase in any way the supply of houses in this country, and there is nothing to show that the ordinary law of supply and demand would not have been operative during the war. The whole of this difficulty has arisen owing to the discouragement of building by private enterprise. Now we have reached a position in which those houses that were built by means of the Government grant are let at a rent of perhaps one-third and in some cases one-fourth of their true economic value, while other people who were able, owing to their own energy and self-denial, to build houses are not allowed to get anything approaching an economic rent. Thence it is that the present shortage of housing accommodation in the country has arisen. I hope that the noble Viscount in his reply to this Question will give your Lordships some indication that these Acts, if they do lapse, will not be renewed, and that the law of supply and demand, the most just law there is, will be permitted to become operative.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Lord who has just sat down is aware that the Rent Restriction Acts do not expire until June next and that, of course, it will be necessary to consider in the meantime whether they shall be renewed, and if so, with what changes. A Committee has been appointed to consider and advise upon that matter and is engaged upon its duties. Until that Committee has reported it is impossible to say what decision the Government will recommend Parliament to take.
With reference to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Abinger, I agree that it is a very serious question. The position is exactly as he stated it. The Rent Restriction Act, speaking generally, forbade the raising of the rents of houses of a certain size. The Act of 1920 provided

323
that rents might be raised within certain limits on giving a notice, of which the form is contained in a Schedule to the Act. But it is also provided that rents should not be so raised unless a landlord would but for the Act have been in a position to obtain possession of his property by the time fixed for raising the rent. Some landlords or their advisers read those two sections together, as they have been read by the House of Lords in a recent decision, and they instructed their agents to give, or themselves took the course of giving, notice to quit, and with that notice to quit a notice to raise the rent when the time for quitting arrived. They followed what has now been held to be a right course.
Other owners of houses, large and small, took another course. They were advised, or they came themselves to the conclusion, that all they had to do was to give a notice to increase the rent, and they gave that notice. I believe, in many thousands of cases, that notice was accepted by the tenant as being sufficient. The tenant thought his rent was lawfully increased, and he paid rent at the higher rate. That went on in some cases for a year, or for more than a year, and during all that time these higher rents have been paid without complaint by the tenants. But some time ago the point was raised, first in England, and then in Scotland, whether that was enough, and after litigation it has been held by this House that the mere notice to raise rent was not effective. To be effective it should be accompanied by a notice to quit. Therefore, in accordance with the Act, all rents paid in excess of the previous rents merely on a notice to increase must be repaid by the landlord to the tenant, or, if not repaid, may be set off by the tenant against future instalments of rent.
I have not a word to say about the decision. I was not a party to it. I accept it as laying down what would be the effect of the Statute. Of course, it is true, as the noble Lord says, that for these landlords, and especially the small landlords, who took what has been held to be a wrong course, a very serious position has arisen. I have made special inquiry as to whether the landlords affected are the big men or the small men, and I am told by the authorities in the West of Scotland, where the point is specially important, that the majority are small owners—owners of one or more small houses. To them, I agree, it is a serious matter. It is very strange that,
324
although there are cases in England—the noble Lord seems to know some—where the point has arisen, there has been little complaint from England. I think that is due to the fact that the English Courts decided this point some time ago. Landlords took warning, and at once resorted to the proper steps, and no real crisis has arisen south of the Tweed. Oddly enough, in the East of Scotland, in Edinburgh and the district round Edinburgh, the same course has been followed, and, although there are exceptions, there are not very many cases of hardship in that district. It is in Glasgow, and in the district round Glasgow, and in the West of Scotland, that the decision has come as a surprise, and has produced something amounting to a crisis.
As to what course the Government is going to advise Parliament to take, the matter requires investigation. There are points that still require to be cleared up, such as the effect of the decision on rates, and matters of that kind. It has to be considered what course is to be taken, and whether it is right to alter the Statute because the effect of it has been misunderstood. With a view to arriving at a decision, His Majesty's Government have referred the matter to the Cabinet Committee for consideration and report. It is hoped their Report will be received before the commencement of the new session. I am afraid it is impossible to deal with the matter earlier, but an announcement has been made that if that Committee should recommend legislation then the matter will be taken in hand at once, and that, if legislation is proposed, Parliament will be asked to make it retrospective so as to date back to the present time.
It is thought probable that that announcement, which has been made and published throughout the country, will lead to this position— that tenants, who at present have this legal right, will not be induced to press it beyond what is reasonable, because they will know that if legislation is passed later, and if Parliament agrees that it shall be retrospective, it will date back to the present time. I am afraid that is the only answer I can give to the noble Lord, but I can assure him that the matter is thoroughly understood by the Government, and that they will do their best to find whether a grievance exists, and if it does, to suggest a remedy.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I am bound to say that I think the answer of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack is as satisfactory as could be expected in the strange circumstances of this matter. I should have regretted greatly if he had acceded at once to the demand that was made by the noble Lord who asked the Question, and, out of compassion, had promised that something should be done in a set of circumstances which, upon investigation, may not prove to be quite so meritorious as at first they seem. I admit that I am not greatly impressed with the statement about the person who has put his savings into houses, and who, it is suggested, has been greatly injured because he has not been allowed to use the peculiar position that the possession of small house property enables him to be placed in for the purpose of extracting the last farthing out of the wretched people who have to live in his houses.
After all, what have the owners of these houses suffered as compared with people who have put their money into other investments? Suppose that, instead of putting their money into cottages, they had put it into Government stock, they would have been worse off, because they would not be able to get as much as they got before the war. Or suppose that they had put it into industrial undertakings, unless they had put it into something that made a great profit during the war they would have found themselves much worse off indeed. All that has happened is that they have been restricted to that percentage on their investments that they received before the war broke out. It does not appear to me that that is a hardship at all, though I agree with what Lord Lamington said, that it is of the utmost consequence that you should allow free play to the laws of supply and demand.
But he will admit, I think, that you must allow the free play of the laws of supply and demand only when economic conditions are normal. To allow the free play of the laws of supply and demand when you have artificially restricted the output of houses, and consequently caused immense pressure upon the poorer population, does not seem to me to be a doctrine that is consistent with humanity, even if it is with economy. The result will be that you let unrestricted powers be placed in the hands of these landlords over the poor people who have to live sometimes in single
326
rooms and sometimes in very tiny houses. That will be conceded. There is no doubt about it, for one knows that at this moment the accommodation for the poorer people of this country is wholly and shamefully inadequate. Nobody disputes that.
I am glad, indeed, to hear that this matter has been the subject of very careful consideration, and I sincerely hope that the noble Viscount on the Woolsack will not think that everybody is in agreement as to the desirability of removing from these poor people this small safeguard which at present this Act affords. I have only to add this, that the noble and learned Viscount himself will, I am certain, recognise that the legislation he is proposing is of a most unusual and drastic character, and that if it be proposed to introduce an Act of Parliament which is to enable people to be deprived of the legal rights that they at present possess merely because somebody has misunderstood what an Act of Parliament provided, it is a novel process in the history of legislation and one which may be productive of very grave mischief indeed. I trust that that matter also will be taken into consideration by this Committee.
LORD ABINGER: My Lords, I desire to thank the Lord Chancellor for the full reply he has given to my Question. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, seems to object rather strongly to the idea that any of those people are suffering. Before the war they were earning small incomes; since the war they have earned nothing at all. We have discussed this question for years and the noble and learned Lord and myself would never be at one. The reason is plain. During the last Parliament he got up one day and apparently thought he was speaking for the whole House when he said: "I suppose all of us are more or less Socialists." All I can say is that a great proportion of the people of this country, and of Europe, are anything but Socialists. 1Ve strongly object to all these schemes.
The noble Lord who sometimes sits beside him, speaking yesterday on the Irish Bill, said that the stability of this country rested on the freedom and trust placed in the people. Certainly, and you cannot have freedom and trust unless you cease to penalise industry. The noble and learned Lord would like to see every industry and every person penalised. He would like to sit down in a beautiful law

327
court and make the people subject to the law. If he took any part in any industry—I do not believe he knows much about trade—if he, for instance, was selling a pair of boots he would cut the foot to fit the boot, not cut the boot to fit the foot. The answer given by the Lord Chancellor will be appreciated by many people in England and Scotland who do not desire such socialistic measures.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate my forbearance when I tell him that I could have pointed out that the whole of his speech has been out of order. I might have drawn attention to that a little time back.
LORD ABINGER: I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon. I thought I had a right of reply. I hope your Lordships will forgive me.

ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDERS.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to move that approval be given to four Special Orders under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922. They are purely formal, but if any noble Lord desires information on any of them I shall be quite prepared to give it.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Scunthorpe and Frodingham, in the Parts of Lindsey, in the County of Lincoln, which was presented on the 28th day of November, 1922, be approved.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parish of Chudleigh, in the rural district of Newton Abbot, in the County of Devon, which was presented on the 30th day of November, 1922, be approved. (The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the borough of Hemel Hempstead and the parishes of King's Langley and Bovingdon, in the rural district of Hemel Hempstead, in the County of Hertford, which was presented on the 30th day of November, 1922, be approved—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the county borough of Bootle and the urban districts of Litherland, Waterloo-with-Seaforth and Great Crosby, all in the County of Lancaster, which was presented on the 4th day of December, 1922, be approved.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past six o'clock.