Lords Sitting of 28 June 1922

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The EARL of KINTORE on the Woolsack.

THE LATE SIR HENRY WILSON.
THE LORD SPEAKER: My Lords, the following letter, dated June 27, has been received by the Clerk of the Parliaments:—
"Sir,
I have received with the deepest gratitude the official copy of the Resolution passed by the House of Lords on the occasion of the murder of Field-Marshal Sir Henry Wilson, and would be glad if you would take the steps necessary to convey my thanks to the House.
I am, Sir,
Yours faithfully,
CECIL M. WILSON.

PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments (according to Order), and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, the Earl of CRAWFORD, I beg to make the Motion standing in his name on the Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI. be considered in order to its being dispensed with for to-morrow's sitting, and that the adjourned debate on the Question put by the Lord Harris relative to Sir Joseph Benjamin Robinson and the Notice standing in the name of the Lord Strachie have precedence over the other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Lord Hylton.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before the Motion is passed, I desire to thank the Government for proposing it. They have done so, of course, in pursuance of an arrangement that was come to by reason of the postponement of the debate upon the Peerage question from to-day till to-morrow. We are very grateful to the Government for their action, but it has the necessary effect of displacing
60
the Constabulary (Ireland) Bill which stands on the Paper now to be dealt with. I see that my noble friend Lord Crawford is now in his place. I was saying that the effect of the proposal of the Government was to disturb the Constabulary (Ireland) Bill which will go down to the bottom of the Paper. I understand that the Constabulary (Ireland) Bill raises one or two points of an important kind and is likely to lead to a certain amount of discussion, and an opinion has been expressed to me in certain quarters that it will be rather difficult to discuss it after the Peerage question is disposed of, as that is likely to take some time.
I should like to ask my noble friend, therefore, in the event of it appearing that the Peerage question will take some time when we come to discuss it, whether he would agree to postpone the Constabulary Bill until Monday. We are very anxious that the Bill should be passed, but it seems a pity that it should be passed at a time when it is impossible to discuss the points at which I have hinted. The noble Earl will remember that late yesterday evening a point connected with this subject was raised by my noble and learned friend, Lord Carson, and I think it likely that he will take the opportunity of raising it again on this Bill. In these circumstances perhaps the Government will consider what course they will pursue in reference to it.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I was detained by an episode in the street which made me late. If it appears, to-morrow, that the discussion is likely to continue on Lord Harris's Question until a time when the Constabulary (Ireland) Bill could not conveniently be taken, I suggest, as Lord Salisbury proposes, that we should postpone it until Monday, but if your Lordships would like we could take it as the first Order to-morrow.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Oh! no.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: We must leave it then at this—if, to-morrow evening, we find that we are not likely to have sufficient time to discuss it, providing that we adjourn at a reasonable hour, we will put it off until Monday.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL, [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Older).
Clause 1:
Termination of tenancies of allotment gardens.
1.—(1) Where land is let by a local authority, an association, or any other person, for use by the tenant as an allotment garden, the tenancy of the land or any part thereof shall not (exempt as hereinafter provided) be terminable by the lessor by notice to remove or by resumption of possession, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, except by—
(b) resumption of possession after three months' or longer notice in writing to the tenant, under a power of resumption contained, in the lease, on account of the land being required for building, mining, or any other industrial purpose, or for roads or severs necessary in connection with any of those purposes, or in the case of land let by a Government department or a town, county, or parish council, or a corporation carrying on a railway, dock, canal, water, or other undertaking, on account of the land being reasonably required by the department, council, or corporation for any such purpose as aforesaid or for a purpose (not. being the use of land for agriculture) for which it was acquired or held by the department, council, or corporation, or has been appropriated under any statutory provision; or
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved to leave out all the words in subsection 1 (b) after "in connection with any of those purposes." and insert:
"(c) resumption of possession under a power of resumption of possession contained in the lease in the case of land let by a corporation or company being the owners or lessees of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking on account of the land being required by the corporation or company for any purpose (not being the use of land for agriculture) for which it was acquired or held by the corporation or company, or appropriated under any statutory provision."
The noble Lord said: This is the Amendment which the noble Lord in charge of this Bill said he would accept, subject to verbal alterations, which have now been incorporated at the request of his Department. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 23, leave out from ("or") to ("or") on page 2, line 5, and insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2:
Compensation on removing from allotment gardens.
(2) Compensation under this section shall be recoverable only if the tenancy is terminated by the lessor and terminated, either—

(a)between the first day of May and the first day of November; or

(b) by resumption of possession at any time under paragraph (b) of the immediately preceding section of this Act.

(8)—(a) The compensation under this section from the lessor on the termination of a tenancy to which this section applies, and such further compensation (if any) as is recoverable from the lessor under the lease, shall in default of agreement, be determined by an arbiter appointed in default of agreement by the sheriff having jurisdiction in the place where the allotment garden is situated.
(9) This section shall not apply to any tenancy which has terminated before the date of tin passing of this Act, or where a notice to remove has been given, or possession has been resumed, or proceedings for resumption have been commenced before that date.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 44, after ("of") insert ("subsection (1) of").—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STANMOEE LORD STANMOEE moved, at the end of subsection (8), to insert "upon an application by letter from either or any of the parties addressed to the Sheriff Clerk." The noble Lord said: These words are to show that the application for the appointment of an arbiter is to be made informally, by a letter addressed to the Sheriff Clerk, and not by a Petition or formal application in the Sheriff Court. This Amendment was foreshadowed when the words on which it follows were inserted in the Bill in Committee, on the motion of my noble friend, the Duke of Buccleuch.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 39, at end insert ("upon an application by letter from either or any of the parties addressed to the Sheriff Clerk").—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STANMORE LORD STANMORE moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new subsection:—
"() For the purposes of this section and the immediately preceding section of this Act—

(a) Where a tenancy comes to an end at the expiry of the stipulated endurance of

63
the lease or at the expiry of any renewal of the lease by tacit relocation, the tenancy shall not be deemed to be terminated by the lessor by reason only of any notice given by the lessor to the tenant in order to prevent renewal or further renewal of the lease by tacit relocation.

(b) Where land is let to a local authority or association and is sublet by the authority or association, notice from the lessor to the authority or association shall have effect also as notice at the same time to every sub-tenant of the authority or association affected thereby, but it shall be the duty of the authority or association forthwith to serve by post intimation of the notice upon each such sub-tenant."

The noble Lord said: The insertion of this new subsection is proposed in order to avoid doubt as to the effect of Clauses 1 and 2, and to secure that they have the same effect as the corresponding provisions of the English Bill. Paragraph (a) is due to the Scottish rule of "tacit relocation," whereby a lease does not come to an end automatically at the date specified in the lease, if neither landlord nor tenant gives notice of non-renewal. Clauses 1 and 2 apply only where the lease is terminated by the lessors. This paragraph is to make it clear that they do not apply where the lease is in effect terminated by effluxion of time, even though the lessor has given the necessary notice in order to prevent renewal.
Paragraph (b) is designed to make clear what happens where a local authority has leased land for allotment gardens, and receives notice from the lessor of the termination of their lease. In Scotland, as in England, a sub-tenant can have no better right than his immediate lessor; his sub-tenancy necessarily ends with the principal tenancy. But in this case it is thought right that the local authority should give individual notices to the allotment garden holders.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 18, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Stanmore.)
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: As your Lordships will see, there are no fewer than six pages of Amendments on this Bill in the name of my noble friend opposite, and they only appeared on the Paper this morning. Your Lordships will realise that it has been quite impossible to go through these proposed Amendments, and see whether or not they meet the case that
64
we made in Committee. I am under the impression that my noble friend and his advisers have done what they can to meet what was brought forward on Committee stage, and therefore I have no complaint to make, except that it is quite impossible to discuss the Amendments at this sitting because we have not had time to go through them. I have already informed my noble friend opposite that and those who are acting with me will probably have to put down a certain number of Amendments on Third Reading, on account of our not having had time to consider the Amendments now. I understand that my noble friend is going to take the Third Reading at a convenient date so that we can have time to put down Amendments, if necessary. In view of that I shall not now discuss any of the Amendments.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I am, of course, very' glad to accept my noble friend's suggestion that discussion, if it be necessary, should take place on Third Reading, but I should like to point out that of the six pages of Amendments nearly the whole of them are in response to requests made by the noble Duke and his friends.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Application to Crown lands.
3. The foregoing provisions of this Act shall apply to lands vested in His Majesty in right of the Crown, and to land vested in any Government department for public purposes.
LOED STANMORE LOED STANMORE moved, at the beginning of the clause, to insert:
"The foregoing provisions of this Act shall not apply to any land of which possession was taken by or on behalf of any Government department under the enactments relating to the Defence of the Realm or the regulations made thereunder, and possession of which has been continued by virtue of any enactment; but save as aforesaid."
The noble Lord said: These words will bring Clause 3 into line with Clause 6, the corresponding clause, of the English Bill.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 4, line 19, at the beginning insert the said words.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STANMORE LORD STANMORE moved, after Clause 3, to insert the following new clause:—
".—(1) Where land is acquired on lease by a local authority for use as allotments:

(a) The local authority may let to one person an allotment or allotments (not being an allotment garden or allotment gardens) exceeding one acre, but, if the laud is taken on lease compulsorily, either not exceeding in the whole four acres of pasture, or one acre of arable and three acres of pasture, or not exceeding four pounds in annual value.

(b) The local authority may permit to be erected on an allotment (not being an allotment garden) a stable, byre or barn; provided that such stable, byre or barn shall not, unless erected with the assent in writing of the landlord, be the subject of compensation, but may be removed by the tenant on the termination of the tenancy.

(c) The local authority shall not, without the assent in writing of the landlord, break up or permit to be broken up any permanent pasture on the land acquired on lease, unless entitled by the lease so to do; provided that, in the case of land so acquired after the date of the passing of this Act, the board may authorise the local authority without such assent to break up or permit to be broken up permanent pasture thereon, if the board are satisfied that no other land equally suitable for allotments is reasonably available.

(d) If the land acquired on lease shall at any time during the tenancy thereof by the local authority be shown to the satisfaction of the board to be required by the landlord for the purpose of working the mines, minerals or surface minerals thereunder, or for foiling for building, or for any road or work to be used in connection with such working or winning or feuing, it shall be lawful for the landlord of such land to resume possession thereof upon giving to the local authority twelve months' previous notice in writing of his intention so to do, and upon such resumption the landlord shall pay to the authority and to the holders of allotments on the land for the time being such compensation for the loss of the land for the purposes of allotments as may be agreed between the landlord and the authority, or in default of agreement determined under and in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908

Where land is let to a local authority for the purpose of being sublet for use as allotment gardens, the foregoing provision shall have effect subject to the provisions of this Act relating to the termination of tenancies of allotment gardens and to compensation on removing therefrom, and to determination of questions arising on resumption of land;
66

(e) In this subjection the word 'landlord' means the person for the time being entitled to receive the rent of the land acquired on lease by the local authority.

(2) Where land is acquired by a local authority for use as allotments under an order for the compulsory leasing of the land:

(a) The lease shall be for a period of not less than ten nor more than thirty-five years;

(b) On the termination of the tenancy of the local authority, the compensation (if any) due by the landlord for improvements, or by the authority for depreciation, shall be determined in default of agreement, by arbitration under and in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908;

(c) The order shall not authorise the compulsory taking on lease of any mines or minerals or confer the right to take, sell, or carry away any stone, gravel, sand, or clay;

(d) The paragraphs set out in the Second Schedule to this Act shall be substituted for paragraph (b) of provision (6) of the First Schedule to the Act of 1919.

(3) Nothing in the Allotments Acts contained shall authorise a local authority to acquire on lease for use as allotments any land which is already owned or occupied as a small holding within the meaning of the Small Holdings Act, 1892, or under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1880 to 1919.
(4) The Board shall in their annual report include a statement of any proceedings under this section."
The noble Lord said: This new clause, as well us the next proposed new clause (relating to common pasture), with several consequential Amendments following, concluding with the proposed new Schedule II., all hang together. They are the result of an appeal made in Committee by Lord Elphinstone, for the simplification of Section 26 of the Act of 1894, as that section now stands, or will stand if this Bill passes. That section was amended by part III of the Land Settlement Act of 1919, and the First Schedule to that Act; it was extended to town councils as well as to parish councils, and the procedure for compulsory leasing was modified. Further Amendments of the section are contained in this Bill, particularly in Clause 4.
It is recognised that, in the result, the section becomes difficult to follow, and an attempt has been made to set out the effect of the section at length in this Bill, for clearness, and in order possibly to facilitate any future consolidation. Section 26 of the Act of 1894, while it deals mainly with

67
compulsory leasing, contains provisions also which apply to all lands taken on lease for allotments by local authorities. Further, it contains a few provisions relating to common pasture, as to which local authorities possess powers under Section 12 of the Allotments Act, 1892.
In dealing with Section 26, care has been taken to preserve the substance of its provisions as these were amended and are amended by this Bill. Certain provisions are left out which have been superseded. Thus, in subsection (1) of Section 26, the general power to take land on lease by agreement is now contained in the Act of 1892 as amended by the Act of 1919, and in the Act of 1919 itself. In subsection (1), paragraph (c) of the first new clause, effect is given to the Amendment to Clause 4 subsection (4) of the present Bill which was inserted there in Committee on the motion of the Duke of Buccleuch. The words then inserted have not been used, because they did not seem apt to effect their purpose as explained. The inclusion of their substance in the new clause must not be taken to indicate the acceptance of that substance by the Government. In the second proposed new clause, relating to common pasture, which embodies Section 12 of the 1892 Act as since amended, provisions relating to preliminary procedure have been left out, which are in part superseded by Clause 12 of this Bill, and for the rest seem of no practical value.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 4, line 22, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STANMORE LORD STANMORE moved, after Clause 3, to insert the following new clause:—
".—() Where a local authority are satisfied that having regard to the wants and circumstances of the population of the burgh or parish it is desirable to acquire land for affording common pasture, the authority may, subject to the provisions of this section, by purchase or leasing acquire land suitable for that purpose whether within or without the burgh or pariah, and the provisions of the Allotments Acts, shall, so far as applicable in that behalf, and with the necessary modifications, apply as if the word 'allotments' in those Acts included common pasture, and as if the word 'rent' included a charge for turning out an animal:
Provided that—

(a) The regulations made by the local authority under the Allotments Acts may extend to regulating the turning out of animals on the common pasture, to defining the persons (being persons
68
resident within the burgh or parish) entitled to turn them out, the number of animals to be turned out, and the conditions under which animals may be turned out, and fixing the charges to be made for each animal, and otherwise to regulating the common pasture;

(b) The land acquired by a local authority by compulsory leasing for common pasture and held by the authority for that purpose at any one time shall not exceed twenty acres."

The noble Lord said: This is consequential on the last Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 4, line 22, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
Amendment of statutory provisions as to compulsory acquisition of land for allotments.
4.—(1) (a) Paragraph (6) of the said schedule (which relates to orders providing for the compulsory acquisition by leasing of land for allotments) shall be amended by the addition thereto of the following provision:—
"(b) It shall not be necessary for the order to incorporate any provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts or of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845, other than such provisions as may be prescribed by the Board under subsection (7) of section twenty-six of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894."
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section twenty-six of the Act of 1894 as amended or applied by any subsequent enactment, any question or difference arising on the termination of a tenancy created by a compulsory lease, or on the resumption of possession of any land the subject of such a lease, with respect to the amount due for compensation for improvements, or for depreciation, or for the loss of the land, or otherwise, shall in default of agreement be determined by an arbiter appointed in default of agreement by the Board.
(4) Paragraph (c) of subsection (5) of section 26 of the Act of 1894 (which restricts the breaking up of permanent pasture on land taken on lease for allotments) shall apply to land so taken on lease after the date of the passing of this Act, only if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland that no arable land which is equally suitable for the purpose, is reasonably available.
LORD STANMORE: The two Amendments on this clause are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 23, to end of line 2 on page 5, leave out subsections (1) and (2).
Page 5, lines 8 to 15, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 5:
Establishment of allotments committees.
(2) An allotments committee established under this section shall comprise persons other than members of the council, representative of the interests of occupiers of allotment gardens in the burgh, and being themselves occupiers of such allotment gardens provided that such co-opted members shall be less than one-half but shall not be less than one-third of the total number of the members of the committee.
LORD STANMORE: The Amendment to Clause 5 is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, lines 25 and 26, leave out ("such co-opted") and insert ("the number of such representative").—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 (Determination of questions arising on resumption of lands):
LORD STANMORE: These Amendments are also drafting.
Amendments moved—
Clause 7, page 8, lines 22 and 23, leave out ("landlord") and insert ("lessor")
clause7, page 8, line 37, after ("Holdings") insert ("Scotland").—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 9 (Time limit for serving notice to treat for compulsory acquisition of land):
LORD STANMORE: The two Amendments to Clause 9 are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Clause 9, page 9, line 10, after ("where") insert ("under the Allotments Acts")
clause 9, page 9, line 13, leave out ("of the said order") and insert ("after the making of the said order, then the order").—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD STANMORE LORD STANMORE moved, after Clause 10, to insert the following new clause:
".It shall be the duty of a local authority providing allotments to make provision for access thereto by suitable roads or paths, where such means of access are not already available, and by regulations made under the Allotments Acts to require that access to the allotments shall be had only by such roads or paths."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment has been put on the Paper as the result of an Amendment moved in Committee by the Marquess of Linlithgow. It is very f desirable that allotments should have
70
adequate means of access, for the convenience of the allotment holders, and the protection of neighbouring property— fences and so forth—which may be damaged by people crossing it. Local authorities have ample powers in this behalf, but there may be cases where these are inadequately used.
Amendment moved—
Clause 10, page 9, line 2b, at end insert the said new clause.— (Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15:
Interpretation.
15.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
(2)—(a) In the Allotments Acts, except the provisions thereof hereinafter specified, unless the context otherwise requires, the expression "allotment" includes an allotment garden.
(b) The excepted provisions referred to in the foregoing paragraph are—

In the Act of 1892, subsections (3) and (6) of section seven and subsection (2) of section eight.

In the Act of 1894, provisions (a) and (b) to subsection (5) and subsection (9) of section twenty-six.

LORD STANMORE LORD STANMORE moved, in subsection (2) (b), to leave out "In the Act of 1894, provisoes (a) and (b) to subsection (5) and subsection (9) of section twenty-six." The noble Lord said: This is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 33, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 35.—(Lord Stanmore.)
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: Perhaps this would be a convenient time for me to ask a question of the noble Lord, of which I have given him notice. When the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill was before the Joint Committee a good deal of discussion arose as to the meaning of the word "allotments." In fact, it seemed difficult to know what was an allotment and what was not. I understand that the noble Lord intends to bring in a Consolidation Bill with which the same Committee will have to deal next session, and I think it is very desirable, if it be possible, to put us into a position to avoid the same kind of difficulty arising. I should be very glad if the noble Lord could inform us whether he has considered that subject at all, and whether, in his definition clause, which is Clause 15, he has put in, or will put in, any

71
words that may be likely to save us from that difficulty when we come to consolidation.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer that Question, which I understand is really, to put it bluntly: What is an allotment, and what is not an allotment? By Section 26 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, which has now been more or less incorporated in this Bill, we find that a parish council can take land on lease, for allotments not exceeding 20 acres—I am, of course, taking the compulsory clause—for common pasture. That is all it can take for that purpose for a whole borough. Then, under Section 26, the county council, in the event of disagreement, can come in, and can take by compulsion land for a period of not less than ten years and not more than thirty-five years, so far as the land is necessary. That matter, however, is now in the hands of the Board of Agriculture. It is not in the hands of the county council, though it is covered by Section 26. One person can have as much as four acres under that section—that is to say, one acre of arable land and three acres of pasture, or four acres of pasture. The chief point is that the value of the whole is not to exceed £4 annual rental. That is quite clear.
I am not, of course, dealing with allotment gardens, which are specifically dealt with in this Bill. I suspect the noble Lord's arithmetic is better than mine, and he will probably remember that one-eighth of an acre is the quantity allowed to be taken for allotment gardens, so far as land that can be taken by compulsion is concerned. Otherwise, where land is let by agreement, it does not seem necessary, so far as I can see, to tie either side as to size or value, when there is a free agreement by both sides. There is no proposal to limit the specific size, where compulsion is not resorted to, and I do not really see why we should go further. I have informed the noble Lord of the size of allotments that can be taken by compulsion, which, I think, is the main point to which he is addressing himself at the present moment. I hope my reply is satisfactory.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I am very-much obliged to the noble Duke for having taken so much pains over his answer. We shall have to consider that next year.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STANMORE: I should like to add to what the noble Duke has just said that ever since Lord Elphinstone asked this question on the Committee stage, the subject has been very carefully considered by the Scottish Office, and they will be very ready to consider any suggestions that may be made. My remaining Amendments are consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 33, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 35.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Schedule:

ENACTMENTS REPEALED.

Session and chapter

Short Title.

Extent of Repeal.

55 & 56 Vict. c. 54.

The Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1892.

In section two, subsection (1), from "and that such allotments" to "for the same," and subsection (2).

Subsection (1) of section seven.

In section sixteen, the definition of "allotment."

57 & 58 Vict. c. 58.

The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894.

Subsection (4) of section twenty-four, so far as not already repealed.

In section twenty-six—

in subsection (1) the words "as respects confirmation or otherwise";

in subsection (5) the words "and also the allotment managers," and proviso (c).

10 & 11 Geo. 5, c. 76.

The Agriculture Act, 1920.

Section eleven—subsection (5) of section thirty-four.

Amendments moved—
In the Schedule, page 14, line 9, in the third column, at end insert ("section twelve")
In the Schedule, page 14, line 15, in the third column, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 22, and insert ("section twenty-six").—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, after line 2, insert the following new Schedule:

SECOND SCHEDULE.
("() Provisions to be substituted for paragraph (b) of Provision (6) of the First Schedule of the Act of 1919.

(b) The official arbiter shall have power to determine any question—

(i) as to the terms and conditions of the proposed lease; or

(ii) as to the amount, of compensation for severance; or

(iii) as to the compensation payable to any tenant in respect of the land taken forming part of any existing tenancy; or

(iv) as to the apportionment of the rent between the land acquired by the local authority and the laud retained by the tenant; or

(v) as to any other matter incidental to the taking on lease of the land by the authority, or the surrender thereof at the end of their tenancy:

but the arbiter, in fixing the rent, shall not make any allowance in respect of the lease being compulsory.

(c) Any compensation awarded to a tenant in respect of any depreciation of the value to him of the residue of his holding caused by the withdrawal from the holding of the land taken on lease by the local authority shall, as far as possible, be provided for by taking such compensation into account in fixing, as the ease may require, the rent to be paid by the authority for the land taken on lease by them, and the apportioned rent, if any, to be paid by the tenant for that portion of the holding which is not taken on lease by the authority. Provided always that during the unexpired period of the tenant's lease the sum in cumulo of the apportioned portions of rent shall not be less than the rent formerly paid by the tenant.

(d) The award of the arbiter or a copy thereof, together with a report signed by him as to the condition of the land taken on lease by the local authority, shall be deposited and preserved with the public books and papers of the authority, and any person interested shall at all reasonable times be at liberty to inspect the same, and to take copies thereof.

(e) The order may incorporate or apply, with any adaptations which may be prescribed by the board, such of the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts (including those relating to the acquisition of land otherwise than by agreement) and of sections seventy to seventy-eight of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845, as appear to the board sufficient for carrying into effect the order, and for
74
the protection of the persons interested in the land, and of the local authority, and those Acts shall apply accordingly; but it shall not be necessary for the order to incorporate or apply any other provisions of those Acts.")—(Lord Stanmore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OP BUCCLEUCH: Can my noble friend say on what day he will take the Third Reading?
LORD STANMORE: Would Wednesday or Thursday of next week be convenient to noble Lords?
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: Wednesday.
LORD STANMORE: Very well.

PARTY FUNDS.
LOUD CHARNWOOD LOUD CHARNWOOD rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will obtain and publish information as to the legislation now in force in the United States (whether Federal legislation or legislation of any of the several States) requiring publication of the names of donors to Party funds and of the amounts of their subscription; and whether, if similar legislation exists in any of His Majesty's Dominions, they will at the same time publish information in regard to it.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the comparatively mild and innocuous Question which I have put on the Paper was, of course, intended at first as a sort of appendix to the braver Questions which originally appeared in front of it. The fact that those Questions have now been postponed until to-morrow does, in a way, leave me high and dry, but I do not suppose that, in any case, any very weighty contribution to the grave matter to be discussed to-morrow would have been expected from me by your Lordships. I do not think that the Question I now ask, or the benevolent answer which, I know, it will receive, need at all have the effect of precipitating the serious debate of to-morrow.
As many of your Lordships know, there have been for some years Statutes in the United States, both Federal Statutes and a Statute of New York City, and, I believe, some others, of which the intention is to secure to Party funds and contributions

75
to them that sort of publicity which generally attaches to subscriptions to hospitals, or the like, and which by law attaches to subscriptions to joint stock companies. It has, I think, for some time presented itself to the minds of many people in this country that it might be a good thing if a similar publicity attached to Party funds here. There is, of course, nothing in that idea which is hostile to the existence of Party funds. There is no reason in the world why people who act munificently towards a Party which they honestly support should be more nervously modest about their munificence than they generally are when they subscribe to any work of charity. On the other hand, it is, I think, fairly obvious that such publicity, if it could be secured, must act as a safeguard against those accidents which do occur from the coming together of Party funds and of some share in the bestowal of honours in the same hands.
I ought, perhaps, to explain that the motive for which publicity of this kind is required in America is not precisely identical with that which I have indicated. There, of course, the intention is rather that the influence exerted upon the policy of the Government or the Legislature by big moneyed corporations with an interest of their own in tariff questions, or in the, granting of public franchises, and the like, shall, so far as it is exercised by gifts to Party funds, be exercised above-board and in the sight of all men. Without going further into the matter, I may suggest that that object is one which might easily be of importance in our country, too. It is well, when questions, for example, such as that of a tariff, are being fought out in public, that the political influence exercised by the wealth of great moneyed interests should similarly be an open and undisguised one.
Frankly, I suppose that most of us will be inclined to think that legislation with that intention would be extremely difficult to draft in such a manner as to make it effective, but such information as I have got—it is, I confess, not very much—leads one to suppose that the American legislation docs really answer its purpose, and that up to date, at any rate, the right-method of evading its operation on any large scale has not been invented. Consequently, I think that information of the exact terms of all such legislation in America, and in the Dominions also if it happens to
76
exist in any of them, which I do not know, is very likely to be of very considerable use in considering the question of effective legislation of the same sort in this country. If this information, which I have no doubt the Government will secure for us, should prove to have the interest which very probably it may have, perhaps I may be permitted to recur to this subject on some later occasion; but if I may trouble your Lordships with one word more it is this: I very earnestly hope that some noble Lords opposite, with greater experience and of greater authority than myself, will give their serious consideration to the element of practical suggestion which does, I think, lurk in my Question.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, the Government would be very glad to supply the information asked for by Lord Charnwood as regards the United States. I am not sure if any legislation of this kind exists in the Dominions, but immediate inquiry will be made, and if it does Papers will be presented, corresponding with those relating to the United States of America.

STATUS OF MANDATED TERRITORIES.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government how they reconcile the inclusion of mandated territories in the scope of the Empire Settlement Act with their statement that these territories do not form part of His Majesty's Dominions. I think I can best make my point clear if I read two short extracts from the OFFICIAL REPORT. The noble Duke representing the Colonial Office said, on June 21—
"Broadly speaking two important distinctions should be drawn between British Colonies and territory a Mandate for which is entrusted to His Majesty. First, no such territory is part of His Majesty's Dominions. Secondly, the Government exercising the mandatory authority does so on behalf of the League of Nations."
I would ask your Lordships to compare that statement with the statement made by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, who introduced the Empire Settlement Bill, and who, on May 30, said—
"Clause 2 extends it to mandated territory or to territory under His Majesty's protection—in fact, to a Protectorate—and I think it would be a great pity if that power were withdrawn from the Government. In no ease can it or would it be exercised without the assent, and the cordial assent, of the Oversea Government concerned."

77
There is no mention there of the League of Nations. The noble Earl continued—
"There are certain portions of Africa which are eminently suitable for settlement, notably, portions of what was German East Africa"
The position appears to be this. These territories are not part of the Empire but administered on behalf of the League of Nations, and yet the Government proposes to fill a portion of them with British settlers wider the Empire Settlement Act. I know a great many people who think that the whole mandatory system is nothing more than a solemn farce, and from these two statements I can only conclude that the Government are of the same opinion.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, the status of mandated territories was explained by me on June 21, and I do not think that that explanation is in any way inconsistent with the terms of the Empire Settlement Act. If the noble Lord will look at Section 2 of that Act he will see that it expressly recognises the fact that mandated territory does not form part of His Majesty's Dominions. Section 2 says—
"His Majesty may by Order in Council direct that this Act shall apply to any territory which is under His Majesty's protection, or in respect of which a mandate is being exercised by the government of any part of His Majesty's Dominions as if that territory were a part of His Majesty's Dominions, and, on the making of any such Order, this Act shall, subject to the provisions of the Order, have effect accordingly"
Section 2, therefore, makes it quite clear that by Order in Council mandated territory may be treated as part of His Majesty's Dominions purely for the purposes of migration or settlement schemes.
It may, of course, be desirable that it should be possible to apply certain legislation in respect of mandated territory in the same manner as in respect of His Majesty's Dominions. The noble Lord will find instances of legislation framed on this basis in the Finance Act, 1919, and the Administration of Justice Act, 1920. The reasons for the adoption of this course in the case of the Empire Settlement Act were explained very fully to the noble Lord by my noble friend the First Commissioner of Works, who conducted this Bill through the Committee stage in my absence on May 30. There; is nothing in this Act that conflicts in any way with the Covenant of the League of Nations. They have no locus standi at all in this
78
matter. Nor is there anything that will conflict in any way with the Mandates which have been issued, or which will be issued. For instance, take German East Africa, or Tanganyika Territory as it is now called. It is mandated territory and a very strong case in which migration under the Empire Settlement Act might be most desirable and necessary.
LORD RAGLAN: I am afraid the answer of the noble Duke leaves me still in doubt whether these territories are His Majesty's Dominions or not.

GAMING BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendment.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment be now considered.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 of Gaming Bill:
Repeal of 5 & 6 Wm. 4. c. 41. s. 2.
1. Section two of (he Gaming Act, 1835 (which makes money paid to the indorsee, holder, or assignee of securities given for consideration arising out of certain gaming transactions recoverable from the person to whom the securities were originally given) is hereby repealed. No trustee, executor, or other person acting in a representative or fiduciary capacity shall be under any obligation to make or enforce any claim under the said section in respect of any transaction completed before the passing of this Act, or be liable for any breach of duty by reason of any failure to do so. No action for tie recovery of money under the said section shall be entertained in any court.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The reference is to Bill No. 63.]
Clause 1, page 1, leave out from the beginning of line 11 to ("No") in line 16.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I think I must give the House a short explanation of the situation with regard to this Bill, The Bill went down to the other House with words in it providing that no trustee, executor or other person, and so on, shall come to grief because he has not taken advantage of the Act which we all believe; ought to have been repealed and which will now be repealed. Words were introduced in this House at the end of the clause saying that
"No action for the recovery of money under the said section shall be entertained in any court."

79
When the Bill went to the House of Commons it appears to have been thought by some persons there that those words covered all cases, including that of the trustee, and that therefore the trustee need not be put in. They were successful in moving that Amendment, but since they did so they have changed their minds, and they have come to the conclusion that the words are of importance. The words were left in deliberately here, and, holding the opinion—and I believe it is an authoritative opinion—that the words are of importance, I think it will be best for the Bill that I should move that we disagree with the Commons Amendment and restore the words.
What is to be said on the other side as to that course is that here is the Bill safe; it is a bird in the hand, and there may be some risk in sending it down to the other House. But I have been assured as strongly as one can be assured, or can believe any assurance nowadays, that, as far as that goes, the Bill is safe if it goes down with the words restored. And, therefore, if no one sees any objection, I shall move that your Lordships disagree with the Commons Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth disagree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
LORD PARMOOR: The effect of that would be that if, when the Bill goes back, it is not agreed to, it falls altogether.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: Such a matter is generally referred to a conference, or something of that sort, and the difficulty is got over. I do not think it is absolutely certain that the Bill would be lost. As I said before, I have been given assurances that the Bill will be in no danger.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That a Committee be appointed to prepare a Reason for the Lords disagreeing to the Commons Amendment; the Committee to meet forthwith.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1919 (DRAFT RULES).
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (VISCOUNT PEEL)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (VISCOUNT PEEL) had given Notice to move, That the Draft Rules under the
80
Government of India Act required to give effect to the notification of the Governor-General in Council constituting Burma a Governor's Province under the Act, namely, the Burma Electoral Rules, amendments to the Council of State and Legislative Assembly Electoral Rules, the Burma Legislative Council Rules, and amendments to the Devolution Rules, which were presented to Parliament on the 25th day of May, 1922, be approved, subject, however, to the following modification in the Draft Burma Electoral Rules, namely—
Page 4, rule 4, first proviso, leave out "of the following constituencies, namely—
"The Rangoon General Constituency;
"The Rangoon Indian Constituency;
"The Mandalay Urban General Constituency,"
and insert "plural-member constituency."
Rule 4, leave out the second proviso.
Page 24, Schedule I, column 3, against the entry "Tavoy" in column 1, after "Tavoy District" insert "excluding Tavoy Municipality."
Schedule II, page 25, rule 2, in sub-rule (2), after "Thaton" insert "general rule."
Schedule II, page 26, rule 4, in clause (a), after "agricultural year" insert "as head of the household and liable to pay thathameda-tax."
Schedule II, page 27, rule 7, line 3, leave out "member of the State, or an Honorary Fellow or a Fellow of the University or a graduate of the University of not less than three years' standing," and insert "Fellow or an Honorary Fellow or a registered graduate of the University."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution which appears on the Paper. I can deal very rapidly with the previous history of these Rides, and with the discussions and negotiations which led up to the new Constitution for Burma. In the Montagu-Chelmsford Report the question of developing self-government in Burma was left out, mainly on two grounds, I think. One was that the authors of that Report had not had an opportunity of visiting Burma and studying these questions on the spot; and the

81
other was that they thought, at any rate at that time, that the Constitution as applicable to India might not be applicable to the peculiar circumstances and conditions prevailing in Burma.
There was much discussion on the subject, and certain proposals were put forward for a new Constitution for Burma, but ultimately it was decided, about two years ago, that the Constitution as applying to India should also be applied to Burma. Your Lordships may remember that a Bill was introduced on this subject, passed your Lordships' House, and was sent to the Joint Committee of both Houses on Indian Affairs, which approved of the Bill. But, owing to considerations as to time and other reasons, the Bill was not passed through another place. Now we are proceeding, not by Bill but by Resolutions, because, after the assent of your Lordships' House and the Joint Committee had been obtained to the proposals for the new Constitution, a very strong Committee, under the presidency of the President of the Legislative Assembly in India, was set up to deal with the application of new Rules and thoroughly investigate on the spot in Burma both the views of the inhabitants and the application of the Constitution. That Committee reported, and these new Draft Rules are very largely based upon the Report of that Committee.
Under the Government of India Act Burma was notified to be a Governor's Province towards the end of last year. These Rules are to give, effect to that notification, and to lay down the Constitution for Burma. Under the Act it is open to the Secretary of State to adopt one of two different procedures—either to lay these Rules on the Table so that they may become law after a certain time, unless an Address is presented by either House to the contrary; or to proceed by affirmative Resolution, and ask your Lordships' House definitely to sanction the new Rules. In a matter of this importance, and especially as the matter had been introduced by Bill last year, I thought it was advisable that your Lordships should give definitely an affirmative assent to the new Constitution.
I should add that these new Rules and certain modifications went before the Joint Committee of both Houses and were approved by them. I desire to move these. Rules, with certain Amendments that have been made to them, en bloc.
82
There are two small modifications of the Rules as approved by the Joint Committee. Broadly speaking, the result of these Rules will be that the Constitutions applicable to the different Provinces of India will, so far as possible in the different circumstances, also be applied to Burma. But there are certain very important differences, on some of which I should like to say a few words.
The first is the, question of woman suffrage. In the Provinces of India women are debarred from the suffrage; they cannot vote for the Provincial Councils, but they can obtain the vote if a Resolution is passed by those Provincial Councils. Those Resolutions have not yet been passed, but, as those who take an interest in these matters are well aware, the position of women is very different in Burma from what it is in India. They have acquired quite a different status from the women in India, and they take a far more active part in affairs—outwardly, at any rate—than women do in India.
The result is that it was thought better that we should not wait for the Resolution of the Provincial Council, which was certain to be passed, but that they should be enfranchised on the same basis as men from the start. I think there are great advantages in this course, because the preliminary work of dividing up the constituencies is a very heavy one, and it would be a waste of time to go through that process twice over—first, when the men were admitted to the franchise, and secondly, when the women were admitted. But they are still under one disqualification: they cannot sit on the Provincial Council; they are barred by sex as candidates until a Resolution has been passed by that Council, and the Governor has to approve.
The transferred subjects will be the same as in the rest of India, but with certain additions. One of those additions will be the question of European education. The reason for that is that European education is not separated, as it is in most parts of India, from native education, but in the different elementary schools the distinction is rather by curriculum than by nationality. It would therefore have been inadvisable to suggest that one Minister should have charge of the native schools and another Minister should have charge of the schools for Europeans.
The other and more debatable point is the question of the forests and of making them a transferred subject. Your Lordships are aware that the question of the forests is a very important one indeed in Burma. They have very magnificent forests there, and something like two-sevenths of the revenue of the Province is derived from those forests. Only in Bombay, among the other Provinces of India, have forests been transferred. Substantially, the, decision on this point was arrived at for two reasons. First of all, it was taken rather as a test on opinion in Burma of the reality of the reforms which had been conferred upon Burma; it was maintained that the question of the administration of the forests entered so closely into the very life of the people that they would not consider they had any real extension of self-government unless they had the management of these forests. It could be urged, of course, that the management of the forests is one of those points which require almost more foresight than any other matter, and those who arc; not satisfied with the management of woods and forests either in this country or in the United States of America may point to the deficiencies in that respect in much less advanced and civilised States. As against the two countries I have mentioned, you have a very highly skilled forest service in Burma which, no doubt, will be able to advise the Minister upon all these matters.
The third main point of difference is the question of the franchise, and the basis of the franchise. It was found after very careful investigation that it was not possible, as in India, to base the franchise upon revenue payments, and a totally different system was adopted—that of the Thathameda or Household Tax in Upper Burma and the Capitation Tax in Lower Burma, in addition, of course, to the municipal franchise in the big towns. There is one slight change which has been made, or rather one slight Amendment which has been placed upon the Paper, on the decision of the Joint Committee.
It was intended that only the heads of households should be enfanchised by this scheme. But it appears that a certain number of other persons besides the heads of households appear on these Thathameda Rolls. The result of that system of franchise is that the vote will be obtained at an earlier age in Burma than it will be in the
84
rest of India. In India the age is 21, but here the age is 18. The reason for that is that the names of these people are placed on the Thathameda Poll when they reach the age of 18 and they then pay their Household Tax. I am advised that owing to certain difficulties in discovering ages it would be practically impossible to make a distinction between the ages of 18 and 21, and that the simpler plan is, therefore, to treat as the people capable of voting those who also are capable of paying the Household Tax and of being placed upon the Thathameda Roll.
The other important matter is in reference to the question of communal representation. That matter, of course, was very much discussed by the Committee, and it is one of the points in respect to which we have departed from the advice of the Committee, because they preferred the system of reserved seats to the system of communal representation. It means, of course, that persons belonging to a particular race or religion should vote for their own candidates and over a larger area, possibly. The argument in favour of the system of reserved seats is that it may more easily disappear when the system either of reserved seats or communal representation is thought to be no longer necessary. But I think as between the reserved seat system and the communal system there can be no doubt that the latter is by far the better. In the case of the reserved seat system persons who are not of the same religion or race as the candidate they may wish to elect will be voting for that particular person, and if you have three seats, say, and three of the persons on the general list, as it were, are elected for those three seats, it seems to be harsh to displace the third man because that seat has been reserved for a particular man who has not been elected. Therefore, if it is necessary to adopt the communal system of election, I think it is far better to adopt that system than the reserved seat system. Under this system a certain number of seats—I think about fifteen—have been reserved, and special representation is given to the extent of one seat to Europeans, one to Anglo-Indians; altogether, fifteen seats, out of a total number, if you take in the Indians and the Karens, of, I think, seventy-nine.
There has also been another modification in the Rules as to which I put down an Amendment, which is calculated to meet certain difficulties about University repre-

85
sentation and to place University representation in Burma as nearly as may be on a par with the system which has been adopted for University voting in India. Your Lordships may, perhaps, regard with some surprise the fact that in some ways more self-government in reference to transferred subjects has been given in this Constitution to Burma than to some of the Provinces of India. But all observers with whom I have come into contact—anyhow, all those competent to speak—are very much impressed by the extent of what I may call the development of political self-consciousness and the interest in these questions in Burma during the last four years, and testify to the great rapidity with which the political education of that country has gone on. That, I think, is one of the principal reasons why the change as regards transferred subjects is rather greater in respect of forests and one or two other matters in Burma than it is elsewhere.
There is only one other subject on which I should like to make an observation, and that is the Civil Service in Burma. I am sorry to say that I am not in the position I had hoped to be, of making an announcement about certain proposed changes in the period during which it would have been open to the Civil Services in India and Burma to take advantage of the system of proportional pensions, and also the point of the declaration to be made before they took advantage of those pensions. The only point I wish to mention here is that a certain time had to elapse in India under the reforms before officials were able to take advantage of this proportional pension. There was a delay period; but there will be no delay period in the case of Burma, and immediately after the Constitution has been set up—and it is hoped that the first Elections may be held in October— it will be possible for the members of the Civil Service there to consider their new position. But though, this will be open to them, I need hardly say we hope they will not be in any hurry to take advantage of these; new proportional pensions, and that they will lend their great services, their impartiality, their ability and their training for some, time at least in order to do their best for the new Constitution which is being set up in Burma. I beg to move.
Moved, That the said Draft Rules be approved, subject to the proposed modifications.—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I have learned by very painful experience that it is hopeless to protest against anything that we do in India. But as this question is rather complicated, might I explain to your Lordships in very few words that to which we are being committed as regards Burma The Burmese, as my noble friend said, are a very intelligent people, but not more intelligent than the Chinese, probably less so, and certainly less hard-working. Now, as your Lordships know, China, ever since it began to play with democracy, has been almost continuously at civil war. The Burmese people were an exceptionally contented and happy people until the late Secretary of State developed his policy of "deliberately disturbing"—these were his words—their contentment. Since then, of course, there have been troubles in Burma, though not very serious troubles, engineered by agitators from India.
What we are now going to do, as my noble friend has said, is to give the franchise to both sexes at the early age of eighteen. But what he did not say was that Burma has a population of only 13 millions, and it is to have an electorate much larger than the electorate of Bengal with 46 millions. That may have the effect of creating a great deal of discontent in Bengal, which has always believed itself to be the most intellectual Province in India. Other Provinces also are much in the same position, and they may quickly demand a large increase in their already, in my opinion, too large electorates. Further, this franchise might even give rise to a fresh suffragette agitation here. It might fairly be said: "Why should a Burmese woman have a vote at eighteen when an Englishwoman only gets it at thirty?" and that a gross injustice to women here is being done. The Legislative Council at Burma is to be empowered to admit women at the age of twenty-five, and undoubtedly the Burmese women are extremely able and capable, and are quite as fit to be admitted to the Legislative Council as are the men.
Burma has 64 per cent, of its area in forests, and that forest area is among the finest resources of that country. We have decided, against the wishes of the Burmese, to apply the preposterous system of diarchy to Burma, although that system has proved itself unworkable in India, as I said at the time it must do. Forests are to be made into a transferred subject, and to be put under a Burmese Minister, who is

87
not under the control either of the Crown or of Parliament. The Government of Burma has strongly objected to this change, but they have been brought over. I do not think that the reasons which the noble Viscount gave are sufficiently adequate for so great a change as that. Forestry is a purely western science which we are only beginning to introduce into the East, and it is a science of which the East at present knows nothing whatever. It is surely a dangerous thing to put the control of this very great asset of Burma under an ignorant Burmese Minister. That will almost certainly lead to corruption and oppression, because there are great opportunities of both in the administration of the forest service, as everybody who has been in India knows so well. It may also lead to a fresh crop of grievances in India, because it is only in Bombay that forests have been made into a transferred service.
We are really going almost the whole hog of democracy in a country which is entirely unfitted for it, and within a few years we are certain to see corruption, confusion, and inefficiency where at the present time there is a most excellent administration at work. Beyond that, and what is more important—my noble friend hinted at this—we are sure to see a crumbling of the European Services which have done so much for Burma. That crumbling is steadily going on in India at the present moment, and the results in future will be of the utmost gravity to India. Meanwhile, we have not done the one thing which the Burmese most want, and the one thing which perhaps would be the best for their prosperity—we have not separated Burma from India while there was yet time. I hope your Lordships will pardon me these few and perfectly futile words.
There are two points, of which I have given him private notice, to which I desire to draw the attention of my noble friend. Do the Rules provide that candidates for election should make a deposit which will be forfeited if a reasonable number of votes are not obtained? I ask that question because in the General Elections in India the most gross scandals arose. Perfectly illiterate sweepers and in one case an illiterate seller of sweets, whose election address was one of the most amusing things I have read, were allowed to stand. If this guarantee of bona fides is thought necessary in this country—
88
and I understand it was applied in the new Constitution for Malta—I do not think it would hurt the amour proper of the Burmese intelligentsia if it were applied in Burma. I ask my noble friend if he will see that it is provided for in the Rules, and if not, can it still be provided?
My second humble request is on behalf of retired native officers of the Indian Army. Will they have votes for the Legislative Assembly and for the Council of State? I raised this question in relation to the Rules under the Government of India Act on July 26, 1920, and the noble Lord who was then Under Secretary of State said that everybody agreed with the principle, and everybody would support it, but it was too late, and that on the first opportunity it should be done. Now, another opportunity has arisen, and I hope that this time I am not again too late. I am sure your Lordships will remember the almost indecent haste with which the Government of India Bill was thrust through Parliament. It was so stage-managed that it was impossible in either House to give full consideration to this most important measure, and in your Lordships' House especially it was quite impossible to introduce Amendments. I hope that my noble friend, who cannot have approved of his predecessor's Parliamentary procedure in this respect, will be able to give me a satisfactory answer to my two humble requests.
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, it is not necessary to go in detail into the many questions which have been so clearly elucidated by the noble Viscount in charge of the Motion this afternoon. Neither will I attempt to follow the noble Lord who has just sat down in his remarks in reference to the Rules and their effect upon Burma and Burmese national life and development. We are all aware in this House of the strong views which the noble Lord holds upon these points, and it is only possible to agree to differ. There is, however, one remark that he made which I, at all events, cannot allow to go without protest, and that is the assumption, which he seemed to make, that the Burmese Minister appointed under the new Constitution will be ignorant, and also something perhaps even worse than that.
LORD SYDENHAM: I merely said ignorant of forestry.
LORD CLWYD: I accept the noble Lord's explanation of that, but I understood, at all events, that he also indicated the possibility of something in the nature of corruption.
LORD SYDENHAM: I alluded entirely to corruption in the subordinate service of the Forest Department.
LORD CLWYD: Of course, I accept the noble Lord's explanation. I am very glad that at last these Rules are going to be considered, and I hope they are going to be passed, by this House. The noble Lord who has just addressed your Lordships seems to think that we are in the habit of rushing through these matters, and he complained that the Government of India Bill had been carried through with undue haste. I do not know whether I should have many in this House to agree with me upon this, but in my judgment it would have been a very good thing if the Government of India Act could have been passed at an earlier date. I might also say the same thing with reference to the new Constitution of Burma. Time in these matters is of the essence: of the contract, so far as the effect upon the political situation is concerned. I feel that it would have been a very advantageous thing had it been possible to come to a decision with reference to conferring these new self-governing powers on Burma at an earlier date. There is no doubt that there is in Burma at the present time a considerable amount of dissatisfaction and indignation with the Government amongst the extreme sections of the population, and it is, on all grounds, necessary that something should be done in order to show the Burmese that they are to be treated upon the same footing as the Indian Provinces.
I am very glad that the Secretary of State has been able to follow in the main the recommendations made by the Joint Committee. I attach great importance to the provisions with regard to the voting powers of the women of Burma. Everybody who has even a superficial knowledge of the conditions in Burma knows the important part played by the women of that country in the development of their national life. I am very glad, too, that the recommendations of the Committee have been adopted in regard to forestry being made a transferred subject. I know well, as the noble Viscount knows, that there is in Burma a very skilled forestry
90
service, and we can leave in their hands without fear the powers which it is proposed to confer upon them.
There is one further observation I should like to make. I have referred to the feeling of unsettlement which prevails in Burma, as it prevails everywhere else throughout the world to-day. There are two things necessary for us to do. The first is that in passing these Rules, which will render operative the Constitution it is proposed to give to Burma, we should do it in such a way as to show that we are conferring these powers cordially and with a full feeling of confidence as to the ability of the people of Burma worthily to carry them out. The second thing is that we should do this necessary thing with as little delay as possible. Let us make it clear that we desire that nothing shall prevent the Elections taking place in October. In this way the new Council can be set up in time to enable the people of Burma to realise that this instrument of self-government which we are placing in their hands is a reality in their national existence. I have no doubt that in time the fitness of the people of Burma to exercise these powers will be proved. They are a notable people, and in the main are characterised by a sanity of judgment and shrewdness. I have no doubt that this new Constitution, and the new powers they will receive, will be effectively and wisely exercised, and we shall, as a House and Parliament, never regret having assented, I hope cordially, to the powers of self-government given them on this occasion.
LORD MACDONNELL: My Lords, I rise to say a few words on these Rules. I was for some time the Administrator of Burma, and although many years have passed since I left that country I still retain sufficient knowledge of its circumstances to enable me to support with all my heart the remarks of Lord Sydenham with regard to its forests. They are the most valuable property of that country. In the course of years we have trained up a forest service which is rendering the most admirable service to the Empire. But it is a service which is largely controlled by Europeans, and from all I have heard in regard to the European Services in India and in Burma I am afraid we cannot place the same amount of reliance upon them that we could before the new legislation was passed.

91
I have hopes that in the years to come the legislation will justify itself, but we ought not to throw upon the shoulders of the natives too many burdens all at once. Particularly, in regard to Burma, I press upon the noble Viscount to have some patience and some restraint in regard to the question of transferring the Forest Department. If you transfer it I feel that it will be lost before many years, and it will be impossible to re-establish it again. A few years are but a short time in the history of a nation, but in a few years you may do irreparable damage, and I know no part of the, Burma administration in which greater damage could be caused than in the Forest Department. I suggest to the Secretary of State that, at the present time, the forests should not be made a transferred service. It will always be possible to transfer them when we have sufficient knowledge that the Burmese electorate will give a sufficiently educated and sane administration. But the, forests of Burma call for officers who have been trained in Western knowledge. I have nothing more to say on these Rules, except to repeat that in the interests of the Burmese it would be better to postpone the transfer of the Forest Department. It may be done at any time afterwards when you are satisfied that the circumstances are ripe for the transfer.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I have been asked some questions by several noble Lords, and particularly by Lord Sydenham. He made some criticisms upon the new Rules, and particularly upon the diarchy system, against which he said the Burmese had protested. That is true. They have protested, and I have received many telegrams. But the nature of their protest was not only that some subjects should be transferred but that all subjects should be transferred to native Ministers. I gathered from the tenor of Lord Sydenham's observations that he was in favour of limiting the number of subjects transferred rather than of increasing them.
I listened with respect to Lord Mac-Donnell's observations on the question of forests. He is an old administrator in Burma. Lord Sydenham was rather more limited. He was not attributing general ignorance to Ministers in Burma but only possible ignorance on the subject of forests. One has heard, of course, even in this country, the suggestion made that Ministers
92
appointed to the head of Departments are very ignorant of the subjects which they have to administer, and I think that would, perhaps, be an unfortunate subject to pursue very far. He also suggested, I think, that some jealousy or competition might be excited in different parts of India by the transfer of forests to the Minister. I think that, if that were likely to happen, the transfer of the forests in Bombay, which is, after all, a Province of India, would have been far more likely to excite emulation in the other Provinces of India than the transfer in Burma. But, so far as I know, there have not been any representations upon that subject.
The next point with which the noble Lord asked me to deal was the question of a deposit for candidates, which would be forfeited unless they obtained a certain percentage of votes. I think I must remind my noble friend that some centuries of our Parliamentary history passed before this system of a deposit was instituted, and I think the general view has been—and the matter has been very carefully gone into in another place—that Burma is as yet hardly ripe for so advanced a democratic institution. The difficulty is, perhaps, rather the other way; that, if you were to impose a severe penalty upon candidates in case they did not obtain a certain number of votes, there might be a dearth of candidates, and it would be better to encourage candidates than to dissuade them from coming forward, by threatening them with a loss of money if they did not get a certain number of votes. My noble friend referred to the question of "freak candidates"—I think that was the word he used—
LORD SYDENHAM: No.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Anyhow, he spoke of candidates of a rather queer description at some of the Indian elections. I believe there were some candidates who might not have been expected to stand, on general grounds of education, but I am advised that these candidates got in, and it is obvious, therefore, that the protection of the deposit, to be forfeited if less than one-eighth of the votes are obtained, would have been of no value in the case of those particular candidates.
The next question I was asked by my noble friend was as to the giving of votes

93
ex officio, the placing on the list of voters of officers, non-commissioned officers and men.
LORD SYDENHAM: I did not mention non-commissioned officers. It was only retired native officers.
VISCOUNT PEEL: As regards the question of votes for Provincial Elections, that is already done in the Provinces of India, and is also the rule under the new Constitution of Burma. As to the question of whether they should or should not vote ex officio for the Legislative Assembly or for the Council of State, I am sure my noble friend knows that those electorates are very limited, and very carefully composed. The question was discussed, but it was understood that such action would upset the balance of voting power in the different Provinces, because there was such a very large number of these retired officers and men, especially in the Punjab. It is obvious that, under these Rules, which apply only to Burma, it would not be possible to make a general revision of these Electoral Rules as regards the other Provinces in India, and I am sure my noble friend will see, and will probably agree, that it would be difficult to confine it to Burma, and not to apply it to the other Provinces, where the election is for the Indian Assembly and for the Council of State.
I looked up the undertaking that was given by Lord Sinha, when these matters were discussed on a previous occasion in your Lordships' House, and I find that an undertaking was given that this matter should be considered sympathetically when the next revision of Rules takes place. I am perfectly prepared to renew that undertaking, and, if I am there, or if my successor or successors are there, that will, no doubt, be done. This is not, of course, a general revision of Rules. This is the establishment of new Rules for setting up the Constitution of Burma, and is not therefore an occasion, as my noble friend will see, when that could be done. I think those are the principal points raised in the course of the discussion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TREATIES OF WASHINGTON BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CARDINAL LOGUE.
LORD BRAYE: My Lords, I desire to ask, in reference to the indignities recently offered to Cardinal Logue, Archbishop of Armagh, who was taken from his ear and held up with revolver and rifle, what correspondence, if any, has passed between His Majesty's and the Ulster Governments as to this occurrence; and whether His Majesty's Government contemplate expressing regret, through our accredited envoy at the Vatican to the Holy See, that such an outrage has been made on an octogenarian Prince of the Church.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I have to inform noble Lords that no official correspondence has passed between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Northern Ireland on the subject to which Lord Braye refers. The question was discussed briefly with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, on the occasion of his recent visit to this country, and assurances have subsequently been received from the Secretary to the Lister Cabinet that effective steps are being taken to prevent any further act of discourtesy to His Eminence. The reply to the last part of the Question is in the negative, the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland having already expressed his regret, in which the King's Government concurs, that anything in the nature of inconvenience or discourtesy should have been experienced by the Cardinal and the prelate who was travelling with him on the occasion under review.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITHE RENTCHARGES (RATES) BILL.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I beg to ask that leave may be given me to advance my Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill from Wednesday, July 5, to Monday, July 3. When I put the Bill down for Wednesday I was not aware that your Lordships were; going to sit on Monday. I hope your Lordships will allow me to take this course. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am sure your Lordships will agree to this proposal.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

SITUATION IN DUBLIN.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, before the House adjourns, I should like to ask the noble Earl, who is leading the House, whether he is able to

95
furnish any fresh information about the reported disturbances that are said to be going on in Dublin.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I can give the noble Marquess practically no information, beyond what has appeared in the newspaper messages which are reaching London. So far as the Government knows, early this morning the forces of the Provisional Government attacked the insurgent bands who are now occupying the Four Courts in Dublin. I can really add nothing to the information which is already public property, except to say that the Provisional Government is solely responsible for the operations, and that, up to now, they have made no communication to His Majesty's Government
96
upon the subject, having declined all assistance from Imperial sources, except in so far as some equipment is concerned. The fighting is still in progress, and no information has come through as to the casualties on either side. I am afraid that is all I can tell the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: Is communication still open between Dublin and this country?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: From the messages that are coming in, I think it is quite clear that the telegraph is still working.
House adjourned at half past five o'clock.