Lords Sitting of 8 March 1922

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

JURIES BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law with respect to the preparation of Jurors books, and otherwise to amend the law relating to jurors and juries in England and Wales; and to move that it be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read lª; and to be printed.

LAW OF PROPERTY BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to assimilate and amend the law of real and personal estate, to abolish copyhold and other special tenures, to amend the law relating to commonable lands and of intestacy, and to amend the Wills Act, 1837, the Settled Lands Acts, 1882 to 1890, the Conveyancing Acts, 1881 to 1911, the Trustee Act, 1893, and the Land Transfer Acts, 1875 and 1897; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read lª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª; and to be printed.

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees whether he is now in a position to give the House any information with regard to the Great Northern Railway Bill.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for putting the Question. Your Lordships

349
will remember that this Bill was down for Second Reading yesterday and Lord Ampthill gave Notice of his intention to move its rejection. For that reason we put the debate off until Tuesday next. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, asked me if it was quite certain the debate would come on next Tuesday, and I replied that I thought it would. Since yesterday, however, the promoters have further considered the position. I have gathered from private conversations that the objection of noble Lords who oppose the Bill is to Clause 31 of the measure—a rating clause. I have not taken any part in the discussions beyond the fact that I have seen the promoters, and I understand that if the Bill is read a second time and reaches Committee, they are prepared to withdraw Clause 31. It was for the convenience of your Lordships that I thought this announcement should be made at once; and in that case I hope there will be no objection to the Second Reading next Tuesday.

TRAFFORD PARK BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2ª, and committed.
NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2ª, and committed.
SHEPTON MALLET WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2ª, and committed.
SOUTH WALES ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2ª, and committed.
AYR BURGH (ELECTRICITY) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2ª, and committed.
MAGUIRE'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to Order).

HOUSING ASSESSMENTS.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether houses erected by local authorities under the
350
Housing Act can be assessed for local rating, not by the overseers but by assessment committees in the first instance; and further, is it the case that the assessment committee of the Clutton Board of Guardians have assessed such houses at nine pounds a year, while the rent charged by the local authority for these houses is nineteen pounds ten shillings a year, the tenants having also to pay all local rates; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put this Notice on the Paper in order to obtain, if possible, from the Ministry of Health some declaration upon general principles. My reason for putting down specific details was merely to have something to go upon and to be able to ask the local authorities concerned what they were doing in the matter. I do not, however, wish to argue the matter from the narrow point of view of the action of one particular assessment-committee, but rather to discuss it as a question of principle, because I gather that if this particular action is approved we shall find others following the example. My attention was drawn to this matter from the fact that the overseers of a parish in which I happen to own some land, informed me that an intimation had been given to them by the assessment committee that they were not to rate these houses erected under the Government housing scheme at the actual rent, which is always the criterion and basis upon which houses are rated where there is bona fide letting. I am sure the noble Earl, with all his experience as a large landowner, will not disagree with the statement that it is the duty of the overseers to make an assessment to begin with, that the assessment then goes to the assessment committee, and that it is unusual for the assessment committee to intimate in the first place what the rating should be.
This particular case is very peculiar, because these houses, which belong to the local authority and were put up with the Government subsidy, are let at the rate of 7s. 6d. per week, the tenants paying all rates and taxes. In other words, they are let at £19 l0 s. a year. But the overseers have acted upon an intimation from the assessment committee that they were to rate these houses at a gross value of £9 a year, and a rateable value of £7 a year. That seems to me to establish a most extraordinary precedent. It is saying that the rent is so excessive that it is impossible

351
for the tenants to pay rates upon it. It would look very bad indeed, it is argued, if the tenants had to pay 5s. or even more a week, instead of 2s. 6d. a week, in this area, where the rate happens to be from 14 s. to 15 s. in the£, although it is purely an agricultural district.
The point is this. What the local authority ought to have done, to my mind, was to put down the actual amount of the rent, and if it was found impossible for the tenants to pay rates on that basis, they should have said: "We will pay these rates ourselves and put the amount against the £19 10 s. which we receive." I think the difficulty of this preferential rating arises in two ways. The assessment committee will say: "What does it matter to us what are the rates that we receive? When we put upon these houses this fictitious value of £7 a year, although we let them at £19 10 s. a year, it does not matter to us, because we receive in rent what we lose in rates." That would be perfectly true if it stopped there, but we have to remember that by the extravagant system upon which these houses were put up under the Ministry of Health, they ought really to let at £76 a year, and it is reckoned that taking the whole country, there will be a deficit of about £56 on every house which will have to be made good by the Imperial Exchequer, with the exception of the amount that can be raised by a penny rate.
We all know that the bulk of the loss must fall upon the Government and the Ministry of Health, but when they are making out the accounts showing the extent of the loss, the Ministry of Health will naturally say that these houses are let at £19 10 s. a year and therefore they must receive credit on that scale; and the local authority will lose what the Ministry of Health gain. If each house had been assessed at a fair rate, say £10 a year instead of 2s. 6d. a week, the rates would amount to something like double, or 5s. or 6s. per week. The consequence would be that the local authority would get double the amount of rates from their tenants, while the Government, on the other hand, would lose £9 10 s. because they would be able to debit the local authority with only £10 a year instead of £19 10 s. This system, therefore, is going to have the bad effect of increasing the local rates when the account is taken between the local authority and the Ministry of Health, though it may be argued that it is as broad
352
as it is long, because the rating authority will get back in one way what it loses in another.
I do not, however, want so much to deal with this small point as to raise the question of great public importance, whether in this country it is desirable to have different forms of rating. I am sure that the county rating committee will not be ready to recognise this fictitious rate of £9 for cottages which are let at £19 10 s. The noble Earl knows that the county committee makes its own assessments, and they will say that it will not be fair to other ratepayers to give preferential rating to certain occupiers because they happen to be tenants of the local authority. Equally, we shall get the anomaly that, under Schedule A, the district council will not pay Income Tax on the rent of £9 a a year but will have to pay on the full amount of £19 10 s. The Income Tax Commissioners will not agree to give preferential treatment to one taxpayer rather than another.
A further difficulty is going to arise. I notice that the Ministry of Health have accepted the Report of the Geddes Committee which says that the Government have made an awful mess with their housing policy (houses having been put up at extraordinary prices and in too great a hurry), and that there is going to be a heavy loss of something like £56 a year on every house. It is suggested that the best way is for the Ministry to cut their losses and sell for what they can get. I should like to know what is going to be the position in such a case as this. Naturally, when a man buys a house—and very often it will be the person living in the house at the moment—he will argue that the rates are very low and he can afford to give very much more than he would do if he were rated up to the hilt. What will happen when such houses are let by a private owner? You will get a very curious state of things. Are they to be sold with regard to this preferential rating, and when they are sold, are the rates to be put up? It will be very unfair to a poor man who buys and then finds that as it is no longer Government property, or local government property, he has to pay like any other individual. It will cause all sorts of difficulties, and, in some cases, a good deal of hardship.
I do not want to argue, however, on the particular point, because I am quite aware

353
that an aggrieved ratepayer can, if he is rich enough, go to Quarter Sessions and tight it out at the cost of some hundreds of pounds. He can say: "You have no right to assess my house at £19 10 s. Although the rent of somebody else is £19 10 s., you assess him at £19." I know that can be done, but I want to know whether the Government approve of the idea of preferential rating by local authorities of their own property, and whether the Government will not say that in their view the rating authorities ought to go on the old idea of assessment—that when there is a bona fide rent it should be the basis of rating. It is, in my opinion, very undesirable, and against public interest, that you should have preferential rating, and for that reason, if for no other reason, it seems to me that we should have some general declaration from the Government that it is undesirable that houses should be rated by local authorities, especially their own property, in such a manner that the actual rent is not the basis. I beg to move.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, with regard to the first part of the Question of the noble Lord, I may say that it is the duty of the overseers to prepare supplementary valuation lists whenever property not included in the valuation lists in force becomes rateable, and, according to the information at the disposal of my right honourable friend, that was done in this case; but the clerk of the rural district council in question, in response to a request from the overseers, advised them as to the rateable value to be taken. I have copies of the correspondence and they are at the disposal of the noble Lord. As regards the latter part of the Question, to which the noble Lord devoted most of his remarks, the facts as stated in the Question appear to be correct, but I can express no opinion whatever as to whether the assessment has been made correctly or incorrectly. It is a matter which can only be decided by the Courts, as the noble Lord pointed out, and it is not one in which my Department has any power of interference.
My noble friend, in the course 'of his speech, discussed the general question of rating, and while expressing no opinion on the particular case mentioned in the Question, and on the distinct understanding that my right honourable friend's
354
Department has no power to give directions as to the assessment of properties, perhaps I may be permitted to offer a few observations, although I cannot follow the noble Lord far into the hypothetical questions which he put. I may say that my Department would view with disapproval any inequitable assessment, either of new or old houses. Certainly underassessment of new houses would be inequitable, because it would, in effect, increase the burden of expense which falls upon the other ratepayers, and it has never been advocated by my Department.
On the other hand, it is equally important that new houses should not be over-assessed as compared with existing similar houses, and it is notorious that many old houses are under-assessed. If, however, old houses are assessed on the basis of existing rents, and the rents of new houses have been properly fixed, this inequality should not happen, because the rent of the new houses, subject to some addition for superior amenities, should be the same as the rent of similar existing houses, and consequently the rating value should be similar. My noble friend has asked for Papers, and I am quite ready to put at his disposal all the correspondence that has passed on the subject. I have had copies typed and I shall be glad to give them to him. I hope that this will satisfy him, and that, in view of the expense, he will not press for them to be printed.
LORD STRACHIE: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his answer, and I ask leave to withdraw my Motion, because I am quite satisfied with the expression of opinion he has given upon the general question.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

REGULATION OF COAL MINES.
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE had given Notice to move, "That it is not expedient that the provisions of Part II of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, should cease to have effect." The noble and hearted Viscount said: My Lords, I rise to move this Motion in the form in which it appears on the Paper because it was foreseen that that might happen which did happen. Last

355
night, in another place, a Resolution that Part II of the Act should not cease to have effect failed, and as a Resolution of both Houses is required to keep it alive, even if you pass this Motion in its full technical form, it could not operate; but that does not prevent an expression of opinion upon the situation.
It is a most extraordinary situation. The Government are entirely in agreement, so far as I can judge from the correspondence and declarations of the Minister of Mines, with what I am going to say, but they have been defeated by the use of a technical provision in the Act in a very extraordinary fashion. Your Lordships may remember that the propositions contained in Mr. Justice Sankey's Report. were not carried into effect—that is to say as regards the main body of those provisions. But there was in Mr. Justice Sankey's Report a proposal that there should be set up Conciliation Committees—pit committees, district committees and area committees, and the National Board, which should be consultative, and on each the coal owners should talk with the representatives of the men, and should see whether they could not adjust difficulties.
The Government thought that an excellent plan, for they embodied it in the Mining Industry Act, 1920, which they passed, and there it is. Now that was not a suggestion which was put upon the coal owners by the Sankey Commission. On the contrary, it was proposed by the coal owners themselves. I have here the Sankey Report. and the document embodying what is, in substance, the provisions of Part II of the Act of 1920, signed by Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. R. W. Cooper, Sir Adam Nimmo, Sir Allan M. Smith, and Mr. Evan Williams, all of whom—Lord Gainford would, I think, bear me out—are very eminent members of the body which he knows so Well. They said: "Let us meet the men and we can adjust all our difficulties with them." It is not anything compulsory, it is consultation, and accordingly I think the Government very wisely, acting upon their suggestion, put that purely voluntary system into the Act of 1920. These committees, consisting of equal numbers of representatives of the masters and men, were to meet together—one for the pit, one for the district, one for the area—and talk over such matters as safety, health, welfare, maintenance, and increased output, and see whether they could not adjust disputes which might arise.
I should have thought that when these committees were set up we should have a very valuable means of coining to a termination of these disputes which have had such disastrous consequences. But the miners at first did not think this good enough. They said: "No, we do not want to adjust things by districts again; we want to adjust them on a national scale." Your Lordships will remember that there was a proposition for a national scale of wages. The result was a most disastrous strike, which lasted for a long time, and the miners were beaten and were at the mercy of the mine owners. Then the devil, having been sick and having been willing to be saved, recovered himself, and the mine owners, who had proposed this very system of conciliation, suddenly turned round—both parties turned round, in fact.
The miners, not being able to get what they wanted, which, as the result of the battle, had been found to be too much, said: "We shall be very glad to take Part II of the Act and to settle these disputes." But the mine owners thereupon said: "No, we do not want that any more. What we want is to manage our industry perfectly unfettered, and we are not going to consult with anyone. Anything we do we will do of ourselves and we cannot give any recognition to that provision in the Act." What made the situation acute were the very peculiar terms of Section 17. We were not thinking of it much here when the Bill was discussed as a Bill. Otherwise, I should certainly have turned attention to it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It was a good deal discussed. I was in charge of the Bill myself, and I remember.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Well, we did not appreciate what a curious position it would create. The section states—
"If at the expiration of one year from the passing of this Act it appears to the Board of Trade that the scheme of this Part of the Act has been rendered abortive by reason of the failure on the part of those entitled to appoint representatives as members of the pit and district committees, area boards, and the National Board to avail themselves of such right—"
That, your Lordships observe, includes both masters and men—
"the Board of Trade shall issue a report of the circumstances—"

357
That is to say, if they cannot both agree——
"and that report shall be laid before Parliament, and at the expiration of thirty days during the session of Parliament from the date when it is so laid all the provisions of this Act shall cease to have effect, unless in the meantime a resolution to the contrary is passed by both Houses of Parliament."
That is very extraordinary, because here is a voluntary system for inviting negotiation and agreement which the Government itself apparently judge most advantageous. It is put into the Pill on the suggestion of the coal owners, and these words are added, according to which, if the parties do not agree, not merely do you not set up the committees, but you never can set them up again; that part of the Act lapses. It is repealed by the temporary failure, it may be, of the two parties to come to an agreement. That is why I say that if I had appreciated what this clause meant I should have offered very strenuous opposition to its introduction into the Bill.
Now, what has happened? As I have told your. Lordships, the miners, having been beaten, said: "Very well, let us see what arrangement we can make under Part II. We will appoint our representatives on the pit and district and area committees." But then came the mine owners who said: "We will have nothing to do with this." And, really, I have, seldom read a more pathetic document than that which records the observations of the Minister of Mines on what they did. Mr. Bridgeman seems to have acted most sensibly and most sympathetically. The mine owners flatly refused to carry out their own proposals by appointing their own representatives.
After much correspondence they sent a deputation to Mr. Bridgeman, and this is what he said on August 24 last (I am reading from page 10 of a Parliamentary Paper laid on the Table)—
"You have spoken frankly to me and I hope you won't mind my speaking rather plainly to you on this point. It has been urged that if the Miners' Federation could hold up the working of this part of the Act for a year, that was a sufficient reason for the Owners Association, who had already agreed to work it to go back on that agreement and now say they would have nothing to do with it. It rather reminds me of the parable of the man who had two sons and told each to go on an errand. One said 'I go not' but went, and the other said 'I go' but went not. In this case you said I 'go' in favour of working this part of the Act, but according to the attitude of the present moment it appears you are not going to do so. On the other hand the miners said they would not go, and now are going. I think public opinion would be, as in the
358
case of the parable, on the side of those who formed a bad resolution at first and thought better of it later."
I entirely agree with what Mr. Bridgeman did, and I do not think he had any alternative but to report that the mine owners refused to agree, and therefore there was no chalice of putting Part II of the Act into operation, with the conciliation provisions which it contained.
What I think he ought to have done, however, or rather what the Government to which he belonged ought to have done, was to have moved in the House of Commons and in this House identical Resolutions to say that it was not expedient that Part II should come to an end. Where such a very unreasonable attitude (for do not hesitate to call it so) was taken up by people who had originally proposed the very plan—a plan, not lot compulsion, but for appointing bodies which could negotiate and meet—I think it was the duty of the Government to move those Resolutions. Last night they did not move any Resolution, but I gather that they would not put on their Whips against it. By a comparatively small majority, for these days, the Resolution was lost. That prevents any Resolution your Lordships may pass to-day from being effective, but it does not prevent the subject from being discussed.
This is not a matter which concerns only the miners. There is an agreement in existence which, after a little time, will come to an end. If the circumstances of the coal trade improve at all it is extremely likely, with the state of feeling which this kind of action beings about, that you will have another dispute and another strike. I am not one of those who think that the coal owners are in such a very powerful position that they can afford to speculate upon the future. Just now they are in possession of the field—the stricken field. They have beaten the miners. They are in a position to refuse to do anything. But in a matter of this kind, where the Government has a policy—a policy which the Government has pressed., a policy not of interfering with their business but of bringing about that kind of conciliation which we have in the Whitley Committees, and which is the order of the day—that the mine owners should refuse, and should lead the Government to a position in which, without a Resolution of each House. Part II cannot be kept alive, seems to me to be a very disastrous situation.

359
It is inviting misery for the country generally, a misery which arises from the kind of dispute which almost inevitably terminates in a great strike. I am not afraid of that just now. The miners have been too heavily beaten; but that time will pass. Human nature is human nature, and the bitterness will assert itself again, and all because the mine owners do not choose to take advantage of the proposition which they themselves made, and which, at their request, was embodied in this Act of Parliament, but which they now refuse to put into operation. I move the Resolution which stands in my name.
Moved, "That it is not expedient that, the provisions of Part II of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, should cease to have effect."—(Viscount Haldane.)
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I listened with some interest to the speech of the noble and learned Viscount and. I was surprised at the way in which he reflected upon the coal owners of this country. He indicated in his speech that the miners and the coal owners are, as it were, at arms length; that we have had a fight; that the men have been worsted in that fight, and that now the coal owners have the miners at their mercy. The true facts of the case are quite different. We certainly had a difference with the miners which arose very largely out of the long period of Government control of the industry during the war.
Reference has been made to Mr. Justice Sankey's Commission. It is true that at a time when the coal industry was under the control of the Government, Mr. Justice Sankey and some of his colleagues reported in favour of certain alterations in the law, such as those to which the noble Viscount has referred. But after the Sankey Commission had reported it became obvious to those interested in the trade, as well as to the whole country, and then to the Government, that it was necessary that the trade should be freed from Government control. After the Government had released the industry from control we found we were in such a condition that we could not carry on our collieries and continue to pay the wages which the Government- had ordered us to pay during the period of control. It was due to that situation that a difference arose between the miners and ourselves—between the Miners' Federation of Great Britain and the Mining Association of
360
Great Britain—as to whether matters connected with the industry should be settled in the districts or whether they should be dealt with on a national basis. Upon that we had our difference, and a strike occurred.
It is true that in the end we came to a general agreement amongst ourselves that, instead of ascertaining prices nationally, we would ascertain the prices which had been realised in the districts, and also that joint accountants should take out what the costs in each district were, and that we should co-operate under an agreement to share the profits in the industry. As a result of that agreement the whole situation has changed, and there never was a period in the history of the coal trade in which employers and employed worked so unitedly together to secure economy in the industry and avoid waste. The result of this system of co-operation, and of sharing of profits by ascertaining month by month what the profits are in each district, has been to alter entirely the attitude of a great number of the employers to their men, and I know that a great number of the men are working whole-heartedly in the interests of the industry.
The men have accepted the proposition that the wages which are payable in the industry are those which the industry can afford. We have come to an agreement which cannot be terminated before the end of this year, but which I believe both sides are anxious shall be continued for many months, if not years, to come. It is possible that it might be amended by agreement. Under that agreement we have set up by voluntary action, not only a National Board but district boards to which all questions of difference arising in the industry are referred. These boards, which are conciliation boards, and on which any question of difference arising is referred to an umpire, have removed all friction which existed in our collieries. If there is any question connected with a pit committee—and there are many places where there are pit committees—and a settlement is not arrived at, it is referred to one of these district boards and is there discussed. If in any particular colliery where there is not a pit committee a group of men have any grievance whatsoever they send a deputation to see the mine manager, and if they cannot settle whatever difference of opinion there may

361
be, it is referred to their leaders and is considered by the methods of conciliation which exist now in every district.
Under this voluntary arrangement I am glad to say that things are working in the right direction, and, as I say, at no period in the history of the coal trade have things worked more smoothly between employers and employed than they do at the present time. It might be understood from the noble Viscount's speech that the coal owners have changed their attitude n regard to this matter. When the Act to which he referred was before your Lordships' House on August 3, 1920, I addressed your Lordships upon this very point of the pit committees, and I explained exactly what the view of the coal owners then was. There is one paragraph in my speech which is so applicable to the present situation that I think I cannot. do better than read it to show your Lordships what was the attitude of the coal owners at the time of the passage of the Ministry of Mines Bill. These are my words—
"In regard to the pit committees I should like to say that when the miners have asked for industrial democracy with a view to freeing the condition of the miners we have endeavoured voluntarily to enter into arrangements with them. Pit committees have been established already voluntarily in many districts, and in some have worked well. We have conciliation boards by which to-day we are adjusting wages in the localities according to the different circumstances which arise, and so far as I know cordial relations exist in the various districts between ourselves and our men. It is proposed by this Bill to establish this machinery compulsorily. In my evidence before the Coal Commission I had not compulsion in my mind but a voluntary arrangement, because I believe that voluntary arrangements between employers and employed are far better than compulsion used by the State in connection with the promotion of harmonious working. It is because I believe that voluntary arrangements can and will be entered into that I see a prospect of industrial peace in the future."
We have entered into voluntary arrangements. We see now in front of us a period when we can co-operate together as we have never done before.
The miners had ample opportunity during last year, if they so desired, to ask us to appoint these pit committees voluntarily if they wanted them. Not once in any single district, during the course of this and the past year, have they asked us even to confer with them on the question of establishing these pit committees. If they had wanted them they could have come to us, and we would have discussed it
362
freely with them in a voluntary way. But we have objected to a hard and fast compulsory measure which will tend to create friction, and which may divide the responsibility between the manager and the men in connection with the working underground. That ought to be the sole duty of the mine manager. The mine managers are all against these compulsory powers. They realise that they are in charge of a colliery, and are responsible for the lives of the men underground. They are not prepared, by statutory enactment, to share with the men responsibility for the underground operations, but they are prepared voluntarily to enter into conversations with the men with a view to trying to improve anything which can be improved by the ordinary voluntary processes of conciliation through tile district board, and, if necessary, the National Board.
To set up these pit committees compulsorily under an Act of Parliament means the appointment of a large additional number of inspectors. It means, I believe, great additional expense in working the Coal Mines Act, and this is not the time when such expenditure can be wisely undertaken, if ever it can be undertaken. I believe the safety of the men was never better looked after than it is at the present time, and there is no advantage whatsoever in the compulsory application of this Act for the creation of pit committees. It would limit possibly the opportunities which now exist for the men to make suggestions, and, instead of having that elasticity which you always get under a voluntary system, there would be, under a compulsory system, a hard and fast watertight arrangement which could only lead to friction.
May I also say that the colliery engine men and the mechanics, who are a very important section of the workmen employed in the colliery, are opposed to Part II on the ground that their independence would be menaced. Their union, which is composed of the most highly skilled of our workmen, has been compelled to sever its connection with the Miners' Federation, and it is not willing to acquiesce in any proposal of this character. You have the mine managers opposed to this compulsory enactment, and you have the further fact that we have voluntarily entered into arrangements with the men which are working satisfactorily. In these circumstances, I think it would be a great

363

misfortune to the country if we were driven back upon compulsory methods—which mean additional expense to the nation—when all is well with the industry. Allow us voluntarily to arrange things in the way that we are doing at present and it will be best for the country, and for all concerned.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount moves, "That it is not expedient that the provisions of Part II of the Mining Industry Act of 1920 shall cease to have effect." The noble and learned Viscount, as he was quite justified in doing, went into the previous history of this question. He went back to the Sankey Commission, and to the Act of 1920. Probably the proposals of the Sankey Commission are still fresh in the minds of your Lordships. The noble and learned Viscount stated that the particular proposals which are embodied in this debatable ground—Part II of the Act of 1920—were suggested by the owners themselves in Part C of the Report. I think it is quite true that the committees were so suggested, with the exception of the area boards which were not, I think, in Part C of the Report. The only contention on that point between the noble and learned Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, is that Lord Gainford maintains that the owners' report in favour meant that voluntary committees were to he appointed, and not compulsory committees under Statute.
Though that no doubt is so, I think the attitude of the owners went a little further than was stated by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, in the speech he has just made. As it is relevant to this discussion I desire, if your Lordships will allow me, to give some quotations—because one wants to be fair to both sides— showing the attitude taken up by the miners when this Bill was introduced. This had some influence possibly on the attitude taken up by the owners at a later stage. During the passage of the Bill all the miners' representatives expressed themselves as strongly opposed to this measure. Mr. Hartshorn, a very well-known representative of the miners, said in another place on June 30:—
"This Bill cannot be operated except with the whole-hearted co-operation of owners and miners. I do not think there is a ghost of a chance of securing that co-operation for a Bill containing
364
such principles…. This Bill does not settle or solve a single problem with which the industry is faced at the moment. It simply defers it, and proposes to set up a lot of machinery which is going to irritate all the men employed in the industry from John o' Groats to Land's End."
At the Miners' Conference Mr. Robert Smillie was no less emphatic. He said—
"The Government ought to have given the Bill the title of the 'Enslavement of the Miners"
Mr. Hartshorn, at the same Conference, on July 8, 1920, said—
"The Executive Committee has examined the Bill, and it has come to the conclusion that a more reactionary Bill could not possibly have been conceived by the biggest enemy of our movement. The Government cannot set this Bill in motion unless the miners co-operate in setting up the machinery of the pit committees, the district committees, the area boards, the national committee, and the advisory committee, and in the absence of that machinery the Bill becomes a dead letter. This conference ought to make the pronouncement, so that the Government should know that if they go on with the Bill the Federation has pledged itself to have nothing whatever to do with it if it ever becomes law."
The Conference passed a resolution to that effect.
Again, Mr. Hartshorn, on June 30 in another place, said—
"No scheme will be acceptable to the miners —and when I say that I mean that it will not be worked—no scheme will be operated by the miners which destroys the national basis upon which wages are to he regulated. That is fundamental."
Your Lordships, therefore, will see that while the Bill was in progress through another place the most unqualified condemnation was expressed for Part II generally by the miners' representatives. Miners' representatives used very vigorous language. I do not think it would be possible to use language of more thorough and absolute condemnation than was used by these gentlemen outside and, during the passage of the Bill, in another place.
At that time the attitude of the owners was very different. The noble Lord, Lord Gainford, has given us a very interesting account of their attitude all through, and has told us how their representatives on the Commission supported proposals which, he said, were to be entirely voluntary and not enforced by Act of Parliament. But when the Act was going through the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, used these words in this House:
"We shall have difficulties under the provisions of this Bill, if they are adopted, but we all intend

365
as coal owners to do our part and work these provisions honourably…. The coal trade takes no responsibility in connection with this Bill, but we look forward under its provisions to being again entrusted with the control of an industry to which in the past we believe we have not been unfaithful."
The noble Lord, Lord Joicey, spoke very much to the same effect.
That was the situation. You had the coal owners prepared honourably to work the Bill though they did not take any responsibility for it. You had the most emphatic condemnation of the Bill on the part of the miners themselves. As a result, the rather remarkable clause, Section 17, to which the noble and learned Viscount has referred, was passed. I understood him to say that it was passed on the suggestion of the coal owners.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: No. What I said was that I did not really appreciate what an extraordinary clause it was when we debated it, otherwise I should have said more about it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Then I can only suggest, most respectfully, that when I make a, speech he should listen carefully to what I say. I have looked up what I said on that occasion and I find that I called die attention of the House particularly to that clause. I said it was a most peculiar and extraordinary clause and one which I had never seen in an Act of Parliament before. No doubt that was forgotten. The clause was passed, and passed simply because of the attitude of the miners.
The whole idea and basis of the Act was that these pit committees and area committees should be worked on a voluntary basis. Without voluntary co-operation it would be of no use at all. If one side or the other stood out, the Act became perfectly futile. Then followed the coal strike and its lamentable consequences. The result of all this was that although the Minister of Mines was under statutory obligation to bring out Regulations setting up the organisation of these committees he did not do so, because he felt it would be impossible whilst there was so much disturbance in the trade itself. Neither side would be able to pay proper attention to the Regulations, and it might be that discussions later between both sides would probably make changes in the draft Regulations necessary. He, therefore, felt, it advisable to wait until a later stage.
366
Then we come to an interesting point in the history of these proceedings. The negotiations were brought to an end on August 12, 1921; and I ask your Lordships to pay particular attention to the dates of subsequent events. In a letter dated August 12, the very day when these proceedings were brought to an end and the settlement made, the Miners' Federation notified the Minister that they were now prepared to co-operate in carrying the Act into effect. There was a very rapid change, apparently, in the attitude of the Miners' Federation. They had made the attempt to nationalise the mines and have wages on a national basis, and had failed. They altered their tactics at once. Having failed for the higher stakes, they decided to try for the lower stakes in the Act. It looked as if the whole thing was settled, that the Regulations might be issued and the operation of the Act take place.
But four days afterwards, on August 16, a letter was received from the mine owners who, apparently, had gone through some internal change. They said that by reason of the failure of those entitled to appoint representatives of the workers on the various boards and committees, they had decided not to co-operate in working the Act. It was pointed out to them by the Minister of Mines that their letter was based on a complete misunderstanding, because it was obvious that until the Regulations had been issued it was impossible for either side to appoint members to committees which were not yet set up. Long discussions proceeded between the owners and the Minister of Mines. The attitude of the Minister was urgent that the owners should still stand by what they had said two years before, that they intended honourably to abide by the Act and carry it into force, and although, two years before and up to rather a late date, the men had taken up an opposite attitude, that they should not, take advantage of that but in the interests of the industry itself agree to co-operate. The noble and learned Viscount has commended the action of the Minister of Mines, but the Minister of Mines failed entirely to persuade the owners.
The, owners have stated their views this afternoon through Lord Gainford and given us the reasons why they do not wish to co-operate any longer. I do not want to add very much to that except on two points. They have stated—,I have taken this from the correspondence—that during

367
the long negotiations no mention was made of Part II of the Act and they therefore rather assumed that its provisions were no longer operative. They further considered that the settlement arrived at on August 12 rendered Part II of the Act unnecessary. The Minister of Mines proceeded calmly on his way. He issued the. Regulations, and when no notice was taken by the owners and he received a letter saying that they were not going to act upon them, he made a report to Parliament to that effect. There the matter stands, and I can only say, on behalf of the Minister of Mines, that he deeply regrets that owing to this double volte face it seems impossible to enforce provisions which he thinks would be of great value to the industry.
The only question which remains for me to deal with is whether the Government ought to proceed and try to enforce, if possible, arrangements which are really of an entirely voluntary nature. The view of the Government is that as all this elaborate organisation—pit committees, area committees, National Board—depends upon friendly co-operation between the two parties it is almost a contradiction in terms to say that it shall be compulsory, and to try to enforce this form of co-operation would probably create fresh disturbances in the industry. It would be a great mistake to attempt any such action.
It has been suggested—I do not think the noble and learned Viscount suggested it—that Part II should remain on the Statute Book and not be put into operation; that at some future time it may be possible to put all this machinery into action. The Government attitude is that if the Act is not operative it is much better to put an end to it. If it is contended that in the trade itself they are able to manage their own affairs by arrangements as to wages, etc., then probably the maintenance of this particular provision, inoperative, on the Statute Book would have a bad effect on those voluntary proceedings, and it is better that the matter should be wiped right away from the Statute Book and the State take no more direct responsibility for arrangements which should be left to the trade itself. That, very shortly, is the attitude of the Government, and the noble and learned Viscount will see, therefore, that on behalf of the Government I cannot accept the Motion that he has made.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I confess that any of your Lordships might be a little bewildered at the situation, because it appears that whereas when this Act was passing through Parliament the miners were in favour of one course and the mine owners of another, they have now exactly changed about, and the miners are now in favour of the course which the mine owners then supported, while the owners are in favour of the course which the miners previously advocated. It also appears that His Majesty's Government, who are responsible for the clause which now stands as part of the Act of Parliament, are no longer anxious that it should remain part of the law of the land.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Under the circumstances.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Quite so. I do not altogether quarrel with the attitude which the Government have adopted, and I say so, not because I have at all weakened in my belief that conciliation by means of some instrument of organisation as between employers and employed is the proper remedy for our industrial difficulties, but because of the speech which was delivered a few minutes ago by my noble friend, Lord Gainford. Lord Gainford gave a very good account of the situation to your Lordships, and I am sure that every one of us must have listened to him with the keenest satisfaction, because he showed that the condition of things in the coal trade is very smooth as between employers and employed, that all the ferment of a few months ago has entirely died down; and that matters are working on a perfectly friendly footing.
He also showed that the mine owners appreciated what had been said in Parliament and outside as to the necessity of taking the men into their confidence, and had, as I understand him—he will correct me if I am wrong—adopted a method of communicating financial results from time to time, so that the men received a complete assurance that they knew exactly how things stood, and that upon the strength of the figures so revealed no difficulty was experienced in coining to an arrangement as between the parties. He also showed that in a great number of cases voluntary pit committees and voluntary district committees have been set up; that they are working perfectly smoothly; and that the employers are quite willing,

369
in every case where an application has been made to that effect, to treat the men upon a footing of complete confidence. That is the temper under which industry ought to be carried on, and we should be very unwise to do anything to interfere with that temper. I agree, of course, with Lord Gainford and others that if these things can be clone on a voluntary basis it is far preferable to their being done on a compulsory basis. Compulsion is not sympathetic to the English temperament, and it certainly involves friction which a voluntary agreement avoids. We may rest content, I think, that the coal trade, at any rate, is on the right path. I do not mean to say that they have completely created the necessary machinery on a voluntary basis, but they are on the right way to do so, and all we can do is to wish them God-speed in their work.
Before I sit down, I should like to say, as I did when this Bill was going through Parliament, that I believe in this machinery of committees between employers and employed. The actual clause which we are discussing is unnecessarily cumbrous, if I may say so—indeed, I think I said so on that occasion—but the system of committees is the right one. I do not believe we shall ever come to the end of our industrial troubles in this country—I am not speaking only of the coal trade, but of industry generally—until the employers show themselves quite willing to take their men into their full confidence as to the conduct of the industry. It is true that they may apparently lose a little by communicating matters which they would prefer to keep private to a number of men who may not be able absolutely to keep secret what they know. But they will gain a great deal more than they will lose, thanks to the smoothness with which the industry will work. I am sure that until it is recognised that the men are partners in the industry, and essential partners, we shall never really achieve industrial peace; but if this can be done through a voluntary machinery, and by the agreement of all parties, without friction, it is of course far better than any compulsory Statute. In all these circumstances, I need not say that, so far as I ace concerned. I shall not support the noble Viscount in his Motion. It is academic in arty case, because it cannot have any effect, the House of Commons having refused to take the same course. I ant glad, however, that we are not going to
370
apply the principle of compulsion where the voluntary principle will do equally well.
LORD VERNON: Can the noble Viscount tell us whether the possibility of amending the Act and producing an arrangement satisfactory to both parties, has been considered or discussed with either party?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think the question addressed to me really concerns the views of the mine owners and the miners, and I do not think that, as representing the Government, I can very well give an answer on that point.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: All you had to do was to pass the Resolution.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, after the discussion that has taken place, I would venture to make an appeal to the noble Viscount who introduced this Motion. We owe him a debt of gratitude for having evoked the speeches which we have heard, especially that of Lord Gainford, which has really destroyed his case and cut the ground from under his feet. I want to add just one consideration to those which have been advanced. Not merely would this proposal dislocate the whole arrangement in the coal industry, which is now proceeding on so satisfactory a basis, but it would cause gigantic expenditure. I do not know if the noble Viscount remembers that we saw the expenses connected with the Coal Mines Department of the Board of Trade go up from £60,000 in 1913 to £211,000 in 1921. I understand that if this proposal were put in force, there being some 3,000 pits, committees would be set up in each pit under the Bill, to which we objected at the time on that ground. There are, I believe, twelve members of each committee who are to be paid. There must also be a Government member attached to each of these committees, and I am given to believe that there would be 3,000 places at once filled for the purpose, not of improving the relations between employers and employed, but of disturbing the arrangement which has been reached in the interval.
We all of us now recognise that the Sankey Commission was a terrible blunder and that it delivered a panic-stricken verdict. 'But it did one good thing. It broke down for ever the principle of putting men who are already committed and thoroughly partial into a Committee

371
of that kind with instructions to report within a very short period. This proposal would bring forward again one of those close approaches to nationalisation at the very moment when it has been shown that the whole business can be satisfactorily carried out by private endeavour between those concerned without that intervention of the State which we all deprecate. In those circumstances, I earnestly hope the noble Viscount will not put the House to the trouble of dividing.
On Question, Motion negatived.

TERRITORIAL ARMY V.A.D.
LORD LAWRENCE: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Notice— namely:—When the new scheme for Territorial Army Voluntary Aid Detachments will be issued In concrete form; and whether they are aware that the present registered Detachments in a great number of instances exist only on paper, most of the members having resigned, and that this condition is brought about owing to lack of any definite conditions and regulations as to service and qualifications for membership. Are they further aware that the temporary rules already issued are too vague, and that intending members of Voluntary Aid Detachments will not accept them in their present form?
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, the answer to the Question of the noble Lord is that the Central Joint Voluntary Aid Detachment Committee, which includes representatives of the Territorial Army Associations, the Order of St. John, and the British Red Cross Society, has recently submitted a scheme in outline for the reorganisation of the Voluntary Aid Detachments. This scheme is at present under the active consideration of the Army Council. Every effort is being made to expedite the preparation of the new scheme, but there are still certain important questions of detail to be settled. I need hardly say that the final decisions on the scheme will not be delayed any longer than is essentially necessary. I understand that the War Office have no official information as to the existence of detachments on paper alone, nor as to the resignation of members in larger numbers than would naturally he expected on the termination of a great var. Temporary rules, such as
372
are referred to, must of necessity be unsatisfactory. I hope that the new scheme when issued will remove such difficulties.

ATTACKS ON ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government for information as to the murder of Head Constable Davis, on Thursday last in Tipperary, and as to the attack upon him and the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary on the occasion of their surrender, by orders of His Majesty's Government, of Tipperary barracks to the Irish Republican Army; and as to what steps are taken by His Majesty's Government to protect the lives of faithful officers of the Crown who are compelled to undergo such humiliations.
I have ventured to put this Question on the Paper, not because it is a mere individual instance of the savagery that is taking place in Ireland now and has existed for some time past, but because I desire to draw attention to the manner in which the most faithful servants of His Majesty are being treated under the Government which, whether in fact I do not know, but in law at all events, is responsible to this House. It is not so very long ago that your Lordships took every opportunity of saying what a splendid body the Royal Irish Constabulary were. I have heard that throughout the twenty-eight years I spent in the House of Commons, and I heard it repeated very often when I happened to come across to this place. They were the most faithful servants of His Majesty, and they were those faithful servants under difficulties which I doubt very much if all your. Lordships, at all events, ever really comprehended.
I have often met Englishmen who asked me, perhaps in the County of Kent, "Why do von not do with a few policemen in Ireland, as we are doing in the County of Kent?" as if Tipperary were Kent, or Limerick were Kent, or Surrey, or Sussex. These amen were men who every year, and every day of every year, carried their lives in their hands to try to serve the Government, of this country. Of course, that is now all changed; and I shall not on the present Question, which I have put down for information, talk more than I can help of what has happened since you were beaten in Ireland. You have surren-

373
tiered at discretion, and I should have thought that at all events you were great enough to do something to try to help those who had so faithfully served you as have the Royal Irish Constabulary.
But, my Lords, you, or rather the Government, have done nothing, except to try to get out of Ireland as fast as you can, and leave these unfortunate men to the tender mercies of those who, under your orders they were trying to keep within the law and were helping to punish when they did things which were outside the law. A more abject humiliation for any country has, I think, never been witnessed, but you can, at all events, stand the humiliation in the comfort in which you live, and the freedom from that kind of thing which you enjoy over here. No doubt you do, and I suppose there are very few of your Lordships who in the morning ever read about these murdered policemen. Apparently, nobody cares very much about these murdered policemen. They are of no more use to you, and indeed they are an encumbrance because I suppose they will get some kind of pension, if not from you, perhaps from your successors in Ireland.
Let your Lordships contemplate what humiliation these men have to go through because you have left them there to carry oat the humiliating policy which you have inaugurated. You have told these unfortunate men: "It is quite true that yesterday we ordered you to treat the Irish Republican Army and the servants of Mr. Collins and Mr. de Valera as outlaws and murderers and lawbreakers, but we ask you now, in the process of handing over the country after we have been beaten, to treat them as your masters, and you must be their attentive servants." That is humiliating enough even to a poor Royal Irish Constable. If that were all, I suppose humiliation breaks no bones, and it leaves people alive as a rule; and I suppose these men can go on and do something else. But I rarely take up an Irish newspaper, which I feel it my duty to read every day, without reading of the murder, or humiliation of various kinds, of these police or of others who have helped you. When marching through these places, where they were once in authority, they are jeered at, and sneered at, because, having once been your servants, you have now abandoned them.
The particular case to which I call attention shows that there is nobody to give
374
them protection, and that I say is an outrage. What happened last Thursday The police in Tipperary barracks were ordered by His Majesty's Government to hand over the barracks to the representatives of what is called the Provisional Government, which is, of course, a Government without any legal sanction or legal authority at all, but which is allowed to go on as a result of your being driven out of Ireland. The bulk of these men, as I understand the matter, left the barracks, and there remained in occupation the Assistant District Inspector and twelve other ranks—thirteen in all. They handed over the barracks to the representatives of your Allied Government, the Provisional Government. That was bad enough. They walked out, and the criminals and the others walked in as the restorers of law and order.
Then they started to proceed to Dublin, as they were ordered to do, bringing their motor cars, which belonged to your Government, to deliver them over; and they had hardly gone a few yards along the road when they were ambushed by the friends—or, if you like, the enemies—of the Provisional Government, to whom they had just handed over the barracks. Four of them were shot. One of them, Head Constable Davis, was killed, and the other three are seriously wounded. Thereupon, the representatives of the ambushing party proceeded to take £160 from the District Inspector, and also all the cars, arms, and ammunition, including twenty rifles, sortie revolvers, and 2,000 rounds of ammunition. It is hard to believe that such a thing can happen in what is called a civilised country.
My anxiety is not merely for these poor men, but for the remainder of the Royal Irish Constabulary. I want to know what this Government is going to do for these men, and how it is going to protect them in the future. Are you going to ask them, when you have withdrawn your soldiers and run away, to take all the risks of carrying out your policy of evacuation, handing over their barracks and their stores and their ammunition to the representatives of the Provisional Government, to run the chance a few moments afterwards of being shot in the streets in the performance of that duty for which you give them no protection?

This poor man—I do not know that it interests anybody, probably not; but I state it really that his relatives may know

375
there is somebody that takes an interest still in the Force—this poor man, Head Constable Davies, was 22 years in the service of His Majesty's Government, a faithful servant. He leaves a widow and five children. I want to ask whoever replies to me what the Government is going to do for the widow and the five children. No statutory compensation, as in ordinary cases, is at all adequate in a case of this kind, because the murder and outrage have been committed through your negligence and your incompetence and cowardice. You cannot escape your responsibility. You are the only Government responsible. And in following the evolution of events in Ireland at the present day, it is certainly a most extraordinary thing that the Government seem to think that, by ignoring what is going on, and getting the Press to ignore what is going on, you can really avoid responsibility for what is happening.
As I said before, this is not an isolated ease; there are many similar, some worse. In the same paper in which I read this I saw, almost in the next column, that a policeman had been kidnapped in the course of his duty, who, when he got back to his family, after his treatment while he was so kidnapped, had immediately to be sent to a lunatic asylum. Well, I am only an Irishman. I hope you are all proud that you are Englishmen, and I hope you are proud of your achievements in the pacification of my country.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, I think it is high time that your attention was drawn to the manner in which His Majesty's Government are treating the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Auxiliary Police. I refer particularly to the humiliating circumstances under which they are made to hand over their surrendered barracks. I have a letter here which appeared in the Morning Post, and was sent by a father, who received it from his son in the Auxiliary Division of the R.I.C. He says that "the A.U.S. at the Castle "—I do not know whether you know Mr. Cope, but I really think, if the Government want peace in Ireland, the sooner they remove Mr. Cope the better—
"Mr. Cope, the A.U.S. at the Castle, is intent on advertising our shame. We have to hand in all our kit before we leave, except uniform, great coat, and rifle. Then we march right from Beggar's Bush Barracks with empty rifles to Westland-row, in order that the public may jeer, hoot, and boo the defeated. And 'discipline is
376
to be preserved on the route.' For this disgusting piece of humiliation the Government have hired a transport ship at Holyhead, in which to collect our rifles and uniforms."
You would have thought that the Government would have some consideration for the feelings of these wretched men who have been put in this position in carrying out the policy of the Government. Surely, when these men of the R.I.C. march out of barracks they should, at any rate, go with bands and flags flying, and ammunition, and all the rest of it. Taking away their ammunition is the sort of thing that a victorious enemy would do to a defeated force. It is not fair. I do think that they should have some consideration.
I do not wish to say anything nasty, but the truth of it is that the Government are afraid of hurting the susceptibilities of Sinn Fein. They do not mind how they hurt the feelings of their own loyal people, but they will not do anything which would annoy Mr. Collins and his followers. Surely, the Government have not forgotten all that the R.I.C. did for them? I heard the Lord Chancellor make speeches in which he told how wonderfully they had performed their duties, how loyal they had been. But now, as one of them told me the other day, the Government treat them rather as if they were the enemies, and Sinn Fein were the friends.
How many police have been murdered since the truce, and since the surrender, I do not know. A great many have been murdered, and I only know one case where the' murderers were actually caught red-handed, and that was in the murder of a warder in a prison—a most horrible murder, in which they chloroformed the warder, and beat him on the head, and performed all sorts of other atrocities on him. In this case the man was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. There were four of them as a matter of fact, and they were released by the Lord Lieutenant. Why were they released? Simply and solely because it was known that, if these men were hanged, it would displease Mr. Collins. I am sure even those of your Lordships who think that this Treaty, or surrender as I call it, was justifiable would wish that the R.I.C. should be properly treated, and I ask your Lordships to insist that this shall be done.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, if the noble Marquess had pursued the convenient

377
course of informing me of the additional complaint that he intended to make should have acquainted, myself, as far as I could have done so, with the facts to which he desired to call your Lordships' attention. The noble Marquess has indicated that the members of the R.I.C. in the course of the evacuation which is being carried out are being treated with humiliation. Had the noble Marquess told me that he proposed to make that complaint I would have addressed myself to it. If he chooses to repeat it with Notice on the Paper I will make myself very familiar with the facts. Let me in the meantime tell him that I do not choose to accept as possessing the least authority an anonymous letter appearing in the Morning Post.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: May I say that it is known all over Ireland?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess says that it is known all over Ireland, but a mere general affirmation of this kind does not carry the slightest weight with me, until I have made inquiries as to whether it is known or whether it is admitted. I have heard too many sweeping statements here and elsewhere to yield credence to them until I have heard the facts. When the noble Marquess tells me that it is known all over Ireland he is probably not unaware that it is said with a great deal of iteration that terrible things are proceeding in Belfast.
LORD CARSON: So they are.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: So they are, and undoubtedly at the present moment upon both sides in Ireland events are taking place which are shocking to all persons who desire the pacification of that country. But when the noble and learned Lord has accused the Government—and I am not sure that your Lordships are not involved in his condemnation—of every kind of cowardice and neglect of duty in a speech in which I think the word "humiliating" or "humiliated" will be found by those who read it in to-morrow's OFFICIAL REPORT, to have occurred sonic seventeen or eighteen times—
LORD CARSON: Quite right.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:—we may at least examine the situation in a little
378
cooler perspective than the noble and learned Lord has done. The noble and learned Lord is an Irishman. He is at this moment pursuing, and has for many years pursued, a career in England. When we are told, in a speech overloaded with somewhat exhausted adjectives, of the humiliation to which all Englishmen are exposed, we may at least feel ourselves entitled to say that the English nation—which has not been accounted throughout. the centuries, either under this or any other Government, to be the careless custodian of the honour of England—in dealing with this problem of Ireland is entitled to consider its own difficulties, its own duties and its own resources.
It is our view, whether or no it be the view of the noble and learned Lord, that the overwhelming majority of the people of England are behind the Treaty and intend to support the Treaty. We are of opinion that had we made an appeal in the early part of this year, as many of us would have desired to do, for a clear statement of opinion from the constituencies of this country upon this Treaty, there would have been an overwhelming reply in favour of the terms of the Treaty. Indeed, those who favoured the intention which was then suggested by certain persons of taking the opinion of the country, were met by the reply: "There is no justification whatever for consulting the country upon the Irish Treaty because it is universally conceded that the country is strongly in favour of that Treaty." We may be right or we may be wrong; we may still be driven to ascertain whether we were right.
LORD CARSON: Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I say, we may still be driven to ascertain whether we were right or whether we were wrong, and we shall certainly not shrink from doing so should such a contingency occur.
LORD CARSON: Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In the meantime, until it has occurred, and whether we are right or wrong that the assumption be well-founded that the course which we have adopted in the difficult circumstances in which we have been placed is one which has the overwhelming support of the people of England

379
and that they at any rate are behind us,. I for one listen with the most complete indifference to these taunts and accusations, and these "humiliating" epithets—
LORD CARSON: Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR — and to the noble and learned Lord's continued interjections, which are a little novel in our experience in debate in this House. The noble and learned Lord made another observation to which I will make bold to take exception, characteristic as it was of his controversial and Parliamentary methods. He said that the Royal Irish Constabulary not only enjoy no support and no sympathy from the Government, but that the Government looked upon them as an encumbrance because—I think the expression was—the Government had to pay the pensions. To me it is astounding that a noble and learned Lord, occupying a responsible position, should think it worthy of him, or worthy of the office he holds, to say of any English Government that they look upon the R.I.C. as an encumbrance in the sense and with the only possible suggestion underlying it, that their disappearance is a subject of indifference because they will become a financial charge upon the State. However low may be the opinion which the noble and learned Lord has of the Government, give me leave to say that that taunt is as unworthy of the Government as it is unworthy of himself and of the position that he holds.
LORD CARSON: Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I shall have an opportunity if and when this subject is resumed—as in the ordinary course it presumably will be when the proposals of the Government come before the House—of dealing, I hope suitably, with these and other observations and criticisms that may be made. That occasion will, perhaps, be one in which I may ask your Lordships' indulgence with more relevance than on the very limited Question which has been put to me to-day. I have had prepared a detailed answer which refers to the specific points contained in the Question of the noble and learned Lord, and I will ask the leave of the House to read that answer which I think affords the information requested.
In accordance with the general scheme for the concentration of the R.I.C. prior
380
to disbandment Tipperary police barracks was evacuated on the 2nd inst. In view of the disturbed condition of this county in which the authority of the Provisional Government carries very little weight, the Provisional Government are not taking over evacuated barracks on evacuation; nevertheless it is considered undesirable to continue to occupy these barracks with comparatively small detachments of the in case a further Clonmel incident should occur. In this case, therefore, all readily transportable material was removed from the barracks, the premises were locked up and all but thirteen of the garrison proceeded to Dublin by train, taking with them the greater portion of the arms, etc.
Thirteen men were left behind to bring up the transport, and these left for Dublin on the 2nd inst. Immediately after leaving the barracks, fire was opened upon this party, which was returned by them. Firing from both sides continued for some time, in the course of which four of the police were wounded (Head Constable Davis fatally), and it is believed four of the attackers were wounded. After some time the police, who were largely out-numbered, surrendered. The wounded were conveyed by the attackers to Limerick Junction, and sent on by train to Dublin, and the remainder of the police were released, and they also proceeded to Dublin. The property lost, by the police on this occasion consisted of £160 in cash, 20 rifles, some revolvers, 2,000 rounds of ammunition, and four motor vehicles. Three members of the Royal Irish Constabulary have been arrested and will be tried by Court Martial on a charge of complicity with the attackers on this occasion.
It must be recognised that the position, both of the police and of the Provisional Government in this particular area—in which there is definite rebellion against the authority of the Provisional Government—is very difficult. The police have, in the present circumstances, neither the authority nor sufficient strength to crush the rebellion which took place at a time when they were in course of evacuation. This evacuation is now complete, and there is reason to hope that no further incidents of this kind will occur. As regards the Provisional Government, it is clear that they are no less anxious than the British Government to restore peace and order in this disaffected area. Their resources, however, are not, at the

381
moment sufficient, nor the circumstances propitious for definite aggressive action. They are, with the assistance of the British Government, expediting the formation, training and equipment of their own Defence Force, and there is every reason to believe that public opinion in. Ireland is consolidating itself behind the Provisional Government, and that this tendency is hastened by arrogant and high-handed acts such as are being committed by the recalcitrant section of the Irish Revolutionary Army in Tipperary and Limerick.
This is a short statement of the facts, but it will, I think, show that the situation is one on which, if I might offer advice to your 'Lordships, you would be well advised to reserve complete judgment until the findings of the Court Martial of which have spoken. I do not think it wise or right that I should say more at a time when these proceedings are still pending, and I will only advert in a very few moments to the general situation. The situation is, according to the best information of the Government, that at the present moment the authority of the Provisional Government is recognised over the greater part of Southern Ireland, but there are, at the same time, considerable districts in which the military forces that heretofore acknowledged allegiance to the Republic have refused to adhere to the Provisional Government, and there are two or three districts of which it is not an exaggeration to say that they are to-day in complete disaffection from the Provisional Government. The Provisional Government is sanguine enough to believe that, with the passage of a little time, they will be strong enough to deal with the rebels from their authority.
All this, of course, is full of anxiety for every one of us, but, if I am asked for my perfectly honest opinion, it is this, that bad and anxious as the situation is, I cannot see that it is not a gain that you have in Southern Ireland men who have hitherto been organised against us now, as far as one can see, honestly attempting to carry out their duty and their responsibility, and to put down this movement in the South of Ireland. I say plainly that, having once satisfied myself that we have treated them properly, I would far rather that they were undertaking that task than that we were, and I believe that if that task is effectively and successfully
382
carried out by them the fact that it should be done by them and not by us will have resulted in an economy of English lives, and will also, in the end, conduce to permanent peace in Ireland.
I did not wish to become involved in so general a discussion. I had confined myself in the first place to a written answer to the Question asked by the noble and learned Lord, but, my Lords, I must say plainly that, being unconscious myself of anything of which I either am ashamed or have any need to be ashamed in the course I have taken, and the views I have adopted upon the subject of Ireland, as long as I am assailed in this House either by the noble and learned Lord, or by anyone else, with invective and terms of contempt, and as long as those with whom I act are so assailed, I shall make such answer as occurs to me and as I deem adequate. When the debate is resumed in a more general form, as it will be next week on the Second Reading of the proposals we are bringing forward to carry out the Treaty, if your Lordships are good enough to allow me I shall attempt a complete restatement of the grounds which have led me to the conclusion I have formed, and by which I myself am content to stand.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I did not intend to take part in this debate, and. I only say, in reference to the observations of the noble and learned Viscount, that whatever views the country may take as to the advisability of the Treaty—about which I pronounce no opinion, not having the omniscience of the noble and learned Viscount—I am quite sure that the country is thoroughly ashamed of the methods and the circumstances under which that Treaty was carried out. I rose only to remind the noble and learned Viscount that he has not answered the Question which my noble and learned friend put as to what steps are being taken by His Majesty's. Government to protect the lives of faithful officers of the Crown who are compelled to undergo such humiliation. The noble and learned Viscount told us that certain parts of Ireland are in rebellion against the Provisional Government, but he did not tell us what steps His Majesty's Government are taking.
I might, in particular, remind him that my noble and learned friend—or it might have been the noble Marquess—asked him what compensation was going to be given

383
to the widow and children of this constabulary officer who lost his life in the service of the Crown. I do not want to use very strong language, but that is an obligation, as it appears to me, of honour, not only upon the Provisional Government, but upon His Majesty's Government. I think your Lordships would wish to be assured that His Majesty's Government will look upon it as a debt of honour, and will see that whatever compensation is payable to this officer's widow and children is paid.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Marquess has called my attention to an omission from my answer. I think I intended to deal with the matter. He says I have not answered the Question as to what steps are taken by His Majesty's Government to protect the lives of the faithful officers of the Crown who are compelled to undergo such humiliation. No particular steps were taken beyond what I have stated in the answer that I have read. What was done was that thirteen of the garrison were left armed to return to Dublin. There was not the slightest reason, as far as I am aware, to suppose that those thirteen men were in the least likely to be the subject of an attack, for in this district, and in contiguous districts, even smaller bodies of men have been left and the evacuation has proceeded peacefully. The noble Marquess will observe that I gave the impression that in the view of the authorities there was something significant about the matter and that it is to be made the subject of Court Martial proceedings, but I do not think it can be called reckless to leave thirteen armed men in the barracks as a final company.
As to what is to be done for the widow, the noble Marquess, as a very experienced Parliamentarian, will understand that I am very unlikely to know exactly the answer to his question, but I will tell him for what I will make myself responsible. During the past three anxious years we have made provision which has been considered adequate—it has not been the subject of complaint—for all those who have lost their lives among the police. The same terms will be given in this case. I agree entirely with what the noble Marquess says that no money compensation can meet such a case, but so far as money can meet it, I will undertake that it shall be adequately treated.

FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS THE EARL OF WEMYSS rose to ask His Majesty's Government how many cattle have been compulsorily slaughtered during the present outbreak of foot and mouth disease; and to ask what the cost has been; to draw attention to the correspondence that took place between - the Board of Agriculture and Mr. Crossley of the Poplars, Ashford, at the time of the last outbreak; and to ask the reasons for the Board's refusal to try the suggested cure; and to draw attention to the administration of the Diseases of Animals Acts; and to move to resolve, "That it is desirable to inquire into the efficacy of the various alleged cures with the view of a curative treatment being made a substitute or an alternative to the present policy of slaughtering infected cattle."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am aware that the number of cattle slaughtered is considerable, and I am also aware that I shall be told that they only amount to about one-eighth per cent. of all the cattle in the country. I confess that I attach less importance to hearing the precise numbers than to ascertaining whether the Government are convinced, and if so by what facts and by what evidence, that this compulsory slaughter is the best way of dealing with this disease.
I approach this Question quite unbiassed. If I have been impressed by what I have heard on the other side I am ready, and should be rather pleased, to be convinced by the noble Earl opposite, but it is impossible to deny that the present method of slaughter is costly, wasteful, and, to a certain extent, barbarous. If he can prove that it is the only way then there is nothing more to be said. But many people, a daily increasing number, believe that it is not the only way, and that the same and better results could be achieved by less drastic methods.
I desire to tell your Lordships of a gentleman who claims to have discovered an infallible cure and who is prepared, moreover, to give ample pledges of his belief in his own cure and of his own good faith. I wish it to be distinctly understood, however, that I do not vouch for this cure. I am only stating what I have been told. This gentleman claims that before the Act was passed he cured hundreds of cases; that lie never lost a single case, and that the treatment he recommends is easy, inexpensive and in-

385
fallible. He makes this further extraordinary claim for which, of course, I do not vouch; that just as ailing children after measles become strong, and as many of us in much later life who have undergone some severe illness become stronger and develop a regrettable rotundity of figure, so the cattle who have had this disease put on flesh more quickly and come to market in a better condition than their less fortunate companions who have not had the disease.
I do not know what importance to attach to this, but when we remember that not a great many years ago people who had consumption were shut off from every breath of fresh air and that they are now put on the tops of high mountains with all the air that they can get, we see what amazing somersaults medical science can turn. We must not be surprised at anything. I should not have brought up this man's case unless he had told the Government that if they would let him treat cattle for this disease he would undertake, if they gave him two guineas and out-of-pocket expenses for every case he treated, to pay full value for every animal that died under his treatment. It seems to me a very fair offer. It is a sporting offer, perhaps rather too sporting. It suggests the Golden Ballot, or Premium Bonds, or whist drives.
I do not think it was refused on that ground. I understand the Government in their reply said they were interested in the prevention, not in the cure, of this disease. Everyone will admit that prevention is better than cure. But if you cannot prevent, will you not try to cure? If you have failed to prevent, will you not try to cure? As far as I understand—I may be wrong—the Government have not advanced one bit in their knowledge of this disease. They are still groping in their original darkness and have not even discovered the bacillus or the bug. They have no knowledge as to what brings the disease, or why it comes, or why it goes away, or when it will come again. They are still in absolute darkness; and yet their only policy seems to be a futile search after prevention, followed in time by what I may almost call an orgy of slaughter.
I should be obliged to the noble Earl if he will explain to me exactly when this slaughter begins. I am not sure that I understand, but I imagine it is something like this. Supposing, for the sake of argu-
386
ment, that this Act applied to human beings. It is an unpleasant hypothesis, and I only use it by way of illustration. But supposing I were to invite my noble friend to dinner and he were good enough to accept, and that during dinner I developed symptoms of influenza—I suppose he would be slaughtered.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: You would have to be certified.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: But after that he would be slaughtered. Of course, I should be slaughtered, too, and that, I am sure, would be some consolation to my noble friend in his last moments—something like the glass of ruin given to a French criminal on his way to the guillotine. But what I want to know is why either of us should be slaughtered? Why should not I have treatment, and if I respond to the treatment, then be allowed out? Why should my noble friend not be put under observation, and if he does not contract the disease, be allowed out too? We do not apply this sort of treatment to human diseases. Medical science tries to do three things. It tries to prevent disease, to stamp out disease, and to cure disease; and I am not at all sure that their attempts at curing disease are not more successful than their attempts to stamp it out or prevent it. Enteric, diphtheria, tetanus, pneumonia, have none of them been stamped out, but they have been robbed of their sting and deprived of the greater number of their victims by curative and prophylactic methods.
Why should you not try the same thing with cattle? I dare say I shall be told that the farmers of this country are in favour of compulsory slaughter. All I can say is that they would be very strange people if they were not. They would be superior to human nature. Under your Act they have full protection. If their cattle are infected they get, or are supposed to get, full compensation without the trouble of taking them to market, and they have this indirect and additional advantage that when the slaughter begins the price of cattle goes up. It went up enormously in Scotland at the beginning of this outbreak, and the result is that you offer to the farmers what practically amounts to a fully paid premium policy with an additional bonus in the shape of a possible appreciation of the value of their stock No wonder the farmers are in favour of it.

387
I think it only fair, however, to tell your Lordships of a conversation I had with a very prominent member of the Farmers' Union. I will not say where it was, but he said to me: "Of course I am in favour, or rather my Union is in favour, of slaughter; but while I rejoice as a farmer I deplore as a citizen the public waste in this most unnecessary slaughter. Many farmers agree with me, and farmers have told me that they would be quite contented if this slaughtering were done away with, and if the farmers were given some compensation while the treatment was going on." I give you that for what it is worth.
In my Motion I have made some reference to administration. I do not know that. it is very important, but I read the other day that 127 tons of coal had been used to consume the carcasses of 100 oxen. We have witnessed, on occasions of public and private rejoicing, the roasting of a whole ox. A more unpleasant spectacle I cannot imagine, and I can quite believe that a large amount of fuel is consumed in doing it. But science must surely have found better means of dealing with these carcasses than by using the best coal, and I cannot help saying to the Government: Why these unsavoury bonfires, and why this costly holocaust of slaughtered hecatombs?
There is another point, the element of compensation. I do not think we need suppose that there are any wide and general complaints regarding the allocation of compensation. If there were I am sure we should have heard of them. But I did hear of two glaring cases close to one another. It was not, of course, in this outbreak, in which, I suppose, the compensation has not yet been allotted. In one case a man owned a stock of pedigree cattle. They had an illustrious line of ancestry, but something had gone wrong with the strain, and they were degenerate sons of sturdy sires. The owner would have been pleased to take £6,000, and he was offered £24,000. I do not give his name; the name was withheld from me, because naturally, if it is unpleasant to be considered a war profiteer, it would be worse to be considered a foot and mouth disease profiteer, or a cattle plague king. Close by was another man who, I was told, had a stock which was not pedigree, though extremely good, and he was offered only half the value of that stock. I give that as an instance.
388
I dare say my noble friend does not know of it, and may disbelieve it. I cannot vouch for it, but I was told it on very good authority.
In conclusion, I would only add this. You have just had a severe attack of this disease. You had an attack a short time ago; it is quite impossible for you to tell when you may have the next attack, nor can you tell how severe that attack may be. It may come in a severely epidemic form, when, I suppose, your slaughtering operations would not be able to overtake it. I imagine there is some limit to the number of cattle you could slaughter. I ask my noble friend, if he will not, on behalf of the Government, consider whether it is not worth while to examine these cures. It will not prevent the Government from continuing their researches; it will not prevent them from slaughtering; and if they examine these cures and find they are of no use, they will be no worse off. If, on the other hand, they find one or inure of them to be efficient they will then, perhaps, though not escaping the reproach of having carried on a foolish policy for a long time, be able to claim at least that they had the discernment to discover, and the courage to correct, the mistake when it was pointed out to them. I hope my noble friend may be able to give us sonic hope and encouragement in this matter.
Moved to resolve, "That it is desirable to inquire into the efficacy of the various alleged cures with the view of a curative treatment being made a substitute or an alternative to the present policy of slaughtering infected cattle."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER): My Lords, I think it will be to the convenience of your Lordships' House if I first of all read the answer as regards the numbers and cost—that is the first thing asked by the noble Earl in his Question—and I can then deal with his points concerning the cure. The slaughter of 20,813 cattle has been authorised by the Ministry up to and including March 6 in connection with the present outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The existence of the disease was first reported to the Ministry on January 23 last, and the outbreak now embraces some 981 separate cases. The gross amount of compensation payable in respect of this

389
number of cattle is approximately £580,000, but from this figure a deduction should be made for salvage receipts the amount of which is not yet definitely known, but is estimated at £70,000. A sum of £510,000 may therefore be taken as being approximately the net cost in respect of compensation for the cattle slaughtered up to March 6.
I might mention at this point, in order to afford as complete information as possible to the noble Earl who, in his Question, referred only to cattle, that the other animals, namely, sheep, pigs and goats, which have been slaughtered in connection with this outbreak, number some 23,600. The net compensation payable in respect of these animals is estimated, however, to amount to not more than £89,100. There are also certain administrative expenses which should be to ken into account in estimating the cost of the outbreak. These charges, consisting of salaries of the additional inspectors, wages to slaughter-men and the expenses of dressing the carcasses and disinfection, are estimated at a total of £135,000 to date.
Having given these figures I think I might be allowed to make one or two observations on the points raised by the noble Earl. First of all, as to the suggestion that these animals are slaughtered straight away if they are suspected, I may say that they are not slaughtered until an inspector of the Ministry has given a certificate that the animal has contracted foot and mouth disease, and has also certified what animals have been in contact with the infected animal. It is necessary, of course, to have extra inspectors, which naturally costs money, and further I think I am right in stating that almost all these animals are slaughtered by professional slaughtermen, and probably with humane killers.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I never implied anything else.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Quite so. But that naturally adds to the expense. As regards the point which the noble Earl raised about the cost of coal and the compensation, if he will give me details I will try to ascertain the facts about it. I believe that the £135,000 includes the coal, because I think in many cases the bodies are burnt.
With regard to the correspondence to which the noble Earl refers, I may say that
390
Mr. Crossley addressed a letter to the Ministry in January, 1921, in which he stated that foot and mouth disease could be cured, and that he was prepared to undertake the demonstration of a remedy. The Ministry's reply was that it was aware that there were a number of methods of treatment of foot and mouth disease which are beneficial in enabling animals to get through the attack safely, but that the policy of the Ministry did not permit of the remedial treatment of infected cases, and was directed rather to the complete elimination of the infection as expeditiously as possible by the slaughter of diseased animals and those animals in immediate contact. The reason why remedial treatment is not adopted is because it would involve the maintenance of the infection while the treatment was taking effect, and so long as the virus exists there would always be a very great risk of its conveyance to other stock in the vicinity, indeed, of the permanent establishment of the disease in this country, as it is in most Continental countries.
On the question of the administration of the Diseases of Animals Acts I may take this opportunity of stating that the administrative procedure adopted under those Acts has never been called upon, since its formulation nearly thirty years ago, to deal with an outbreak so extensive as the present. In consideration of this fact, and of the obscurity which exists as to the origin of the present outbreak, the Minister has arranged to set, up a Departmental Committee to inquire into the working and administration of the Acts. I think the reference to the Committee is drawn very widely, and they will inquire into several of the subjects mentioned by the noble Earl. I have the terms of reference here; they are as follows—
"To inquire into the origin and circumstances of the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease and into the policy and procedure which was pursued in dealing with the disease, and to report whether any alteration of the methods of administrative control hitherto adopted or any amendment of the existing law is necessary and desirable."
In addition to that the Ministry is entering into correspondence with Governments on the Continent in order to arrange for their co-operation in an International Inquiry into the general question of the treatment of foot and mouth disease. It is hoped that it will be possible to arrange for the investigations to be carried out on the Continent, where, as foot and mouth

391
disease is always present, it will not be necessary to maintain a centre of infection in an otherwise free country.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: In these circumstances I am prepared to withdraw my Motion.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I should like to say one word on this question of cure versus slaughter. Of course, the trying of cures of necessity means the maintaining of a sphere of infection in this country. You have to have infected animals on which to try your cures. Now, the policy of successive Governments has been, for the last thirty-two years, the moment an outbreak is discovered, to have slaughtered as speedily as possible all animals infected and all those that can possibly have been brought into contact with them. The effect of that policy, and the cost of that policy, are wonderful. During the whole thirty-two years, I believe, the average cost of thus dealing with the disease has been only £9,000 per annum, and the advantage to this country throughout that period has been enormous. I am informed that in France, during 1920, the loss to farmers owing to foot and mouth disease amounted to five and a-half millions.
In spite of what people may say there is no doubt that it is disastrous for anybody to get foot and mouth disease into his herd. Even if the animals are cured, and there are cures, from all I am told those animals lose in condition. When they recover, no doubt they pick up quickly, but I am informed that it is a most dangerous thing if the disease is contracted by cows or ewes, as it very frequently brings about abortion. It would be a most serious thing if the hill flocks in Scotland were attacked with the disease just before lambing time, because it might mean the loss of the whole season's lambs. Therefore, to say the disease does not matter is not quite true. It is a serious thing.
In addition, there are other important points to take into consideration. Whenever, during the last thirty-two years, this country has been free from foot and mouth disease all the other countries in the world have come to it to buy pedigree stock, but whenever you have the disease in this country the ports of all those other countries — of Argentine, Brazil, Canada, America, and South Africa—are closed
392
against us. The moment the disease is stamped out the buyers of those countries flock back here to buy pedigree stock. If we go in for the policy of allowing the disease to remain in the country for the purpose of curative treatment, it is certain that the disease will hang about for a longer period, and that foreign countries will close their ports against our cattle, and the trade in pedigree stock will be stopped for a long time, involving serious loss to the nation.
It is not true that the Ministry never undertake any investigations in this matter. As a matter of fact, only about a year ago they commenced to carry on investigations. They began by trying to find the virus. Apparently they could not find the virus of foot and mouth disease, because it cannot be seen with a microscope. In order to get preventive treatment by injection the very first thing you have to do, I am told, is to cultivate the virus, and they never got so far as to be r able to cultivate the virus. Therefore, the prospects of finding out a preventive or cure which is a certainty seemed to be very remote indeed—at all events, they do not seem to be very encouraging.
I can only say in conclusion that there is a great outbreak, and that if it goes on much longer—I think we have got it in band and that there will not be another flare-up—it will be impossible to continue the policy of slaughter indefinitely. In the meantime, it is inevitable that when you have a flare-up like this, the first really serious one for more than thirty-two years, you should have nearly everybody coming along and saying lie has a sure cure for it. The gentleman who has written to the noble Earl is not alone in this matter. A short time ago I was rung up by a friend in the City who said he knew of a professor at Berne who had an absolutely infallible cure. The first question to be asked is why, if these people have an infallible cure, do they not try it on the Continent, where the disease is rampant. I hope that at the present moment it will not get about the country that we have been wrong in the past in the policy of slaughter. By the means we have adopted, except on this occasion, the thing has been stamped out in a few weeks, and it would be a great pity to abandon that policy until some mixture is found which is, not a cure, but a preventive.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for his

393
explanation. I said at the beginning that I had no bias on this subject, but that the cure I recommended was not a foreign one but an all-British one. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

WOMEN POLICE.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR had given Notice to draw attention to the Report of the Committee on the Employment of Women on Police Duties (of which Sir John Baird, Bart., M.P., was Chairman), in which the first conclusion arrived at was the following: "That the experience of the war has proved that women can be employed with advantage to the community in the performance of certain police duties which, before the war, were exclusively discharged by men"; and to ask, if in view of the large amount of expert evidence received by that Committee in favour of the above recommendation, and also in view of the useful work since performed in various centres by women police, information will be available as to the source of the evidence which led the Committee on National Expenditure, in their Second Interim Report, to make a recommendation which, if adopted, would lead to the disbandment of the women police patrols in the Metropolitan area.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, in framing this Question I have endeavoured to word it so that, as far as possible, it would tell its own tale. Nevertheless, this subject has more ramifications and bearings than might be, at first sight, apparent. Of course, the central feature of the recommendations of the Committee now known as the Geddes Committee is that of economy at any rate, ostensibly. But I am only voicing the feelings of a vast number of people when I offer the opinion that the utility of the women police and the women patrols is not negligible, but that the economy effected by the proposed disbandment would be negligible, both in a direct and an indirect way.
For example, t he building which is used, I understand, as the headquarters of this Division of Women Police will, I presume, be continued, even if that portion of the force is disbanded for the time being. It will be utilised, I suppose, for some police purpose, and therefore the expense of the maintenance of the building, fire and light, and so forth, will
394
continue, though at present it is debited to the charge of the women police. Then as to the uniform, which has been in use only for a short time. At the present, time it almost seems impossible to buy except in the dearest market, but, when it is a case of selling, it is always the cheapest market. One can imagine the sort of value set upon scrapped uniforms.
With regard to the question of pensions, I am aware that in another place some official announcements have been made which would seem to indicate that the claim to pensions, if these officials are disbanded, would be evaded or, at, any rate, could not be made good. I confess I am very much puzzled by that statement for the reason that in the Police Pensions Act, 1921, the points are mentioned under which the women police are deprived of the privilege of pensions. For example—
"No provision relating to pensions, gratuities or other payments to or for the benefit of the widow or wife of a member or ex-member of a police force shall apply to the: widower or husband of a policewoman"
and again—
"A police woman shall not be entitled to reckon as approved service any service before the passing of this Act unless she pays to the police authority a sum equal to the aggregate rateable deductions which would have been made from her pay if this Act had applied to her during such service."
I think it is recognised maxim, and especially a legal maxim, that when cert in disabilities are mentioned other things are assumed not to apply; in other words, that those who do not come under these exceptions would, according to the Act, be entitled to pension. Perhaps I ought to apologise to my noble friend who will answer this Question for bringing up the matter of pensions, but if he would wish me to raise it on another occasion I should be only too pleased.
I pass on to the other supposed sources of economy. Of course, many things which are done by the police women now could be done by the men, and I cannot refrain from adding that I am second to none in the feeling of admiration for the manner in which the Metropolitan policemen perform their duties. There was a magnificent example of that in the historic events of Tuesday of last week. Of course, the tribute paid on that occasion was primarily to the splendid order of the crowd, but I think it is agreed that the tact and judgment of the police help to make a crowd

395
orderly and well behaved. But there are some duties which certainly can be performed better by the women police than by even the best and most experienced men.
For example, in the case of women or girls who have got into trouble and been brought before a magistrate, the work of women police in passing them on to some voluntary institution, where they can be cared for, has been recognised for a long time by the Police Department, and I believe they have an admirable lady at the head of that particular section. But one official cannot cover the whole ground in such a matter, and it seems certain that the number of such cases passed on—and therefore saved from corning on the rates, because there is the liability of the workhouse and the prison—has greatly increased. For last year the number was 1,131, which is certainly much in advance of the figure of some previous years.
I will give one other example of the usefulness of the women police. The rule is that when a woman prisoner is being taken from the place of trial to a prison she must be accompanied by a woman official. Since the institution of the women patrols this duty has to a large extent been fulfilled by the women police. But a male member of the Force has to accompany the prisoner and the woman escort. It seems rather a cumbrous method, but the reason it has to be done is that, as yet, the women patrols have not been sworn in, and therefore a full-fledged policeman has to accompany them. The remedy for that is to swear in the woman, and economy would lie gained thereby. Then there would be no need for the extra expense of a policeman. The total amount saved in that direction would be considerable.
Lastly, I wish to refer to the testimony as to the value of women police. Sir Leonard Dunning, in his annual Report for the whole country, speaks of their value, especially in preventive work. He goes on to say—
"Sexual immorality does not always lead to the commission of crimes or offences which clearly lie within the preventive duties of the police, but it does, directly and indirectly, to so great an extent that its prevention, even when it is not unlawful, cannot definitely be said to lie outside the duties of a police force."
I think you will agree that anything that tends to reduce immorality is indirectly a benefit to the State, in the practical utilitarian sense.
Another example of official testimony before the Baird Committee is what was said by Mr. J. W. Olive, C.B.E.—
"There are certain duties which the women police can and do now discharge which formerly had perforce to be carried out by the ordinary constable, but which it is desirable that women, properly qualified, should undertake—"
and so on. Another witness, a superintendent of police, Superintendent James Billings, said—
"In the beginning I was somewhat sceptical as to what the results would be. For that reason I have given special attention to the matter, and I am fully convinced, now that Women Patrols are established—I am speaking of the women who have had careful training in the work—they have proved very useful and a great adjunct to the carrying out of the police duties generally. They have done a lot of excellent work, particularly in the direction of cases of a certain sort in open spaces—Hyde Park in particular."
In addition to that testimony, people who are in contact with social work in the fullest sense have given their opinion in no uncertain tones. A few weeks ago a conference convened by the National Council of Women—at which forty-four Societies concerned in various branches of social welfare were represented—considered the recommendations of the Geddes Committee on this matter and passed a unanimous resolution that it would be a mistake and a misfortune if the women police were disbanded. In addition to that, twenty other societies expressed a similar opinion; so that sixty societies have indicated their strong feeling upon the subject. After all, they can form an opinion. It is not like people giving an opinion of civil servants inside a Department, because that must be left to their official superiors. But these people are, to use an apostolic phrase, living epistles. "known and read of all men." I am very glad that the most rev. Primate has remained in the House to-night because he has had the most unrivalled opportunities of becoming a repository of all such information and will. I hope, give the House his views on the subject.
Lastly, may I say that if, unfortunately as so many people think, these policewomen are disbanded in this City of London it will be a cause of regret throughout the country because the system is still a comparatively new one. It has been tried in various centres, in most cases with great success. Of course if it is stopped in London, that will have, or may have, a deterrent effect, though I believe only for

397
a time. In my opinion, if this force is disbanded now, it will come into existence again, because we can no more keep women out of the police than your Lordships can keep women Peers out of this House.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, although the contemplation of these empty benches is not exactly stimulating to a full statement upon such a subject as this, or indeed upon any subject, I should not like the noble Earl who answers on behalf of the Government to speak until I had at least put before him a word or two as to the perplexity in which we find ourselves in regard to this matter. Until a few days ago the position was bewildering enough; but it has become very much more bewildering during the last twenty-four hours, because the answer given last night in another place seems absolutely inconsistent with the recommendation on which it was based and which was made by what is called the Geddes Committee.
The whole of this question rests at this moment upon the Report of the Committee on National Expenditure. On page 69 of that Report the Committee say this—
"We have considered the question of the employment of the women patrols."
This refers to London and to London only.
"These women patrols, 110 in number, are in addition to the numbers of police. Their pay is only a little less than that of the 'uniformed' constable."
Now notice this—
"Their powers are very limited, and their, utility from a police point of view is, on the evidence submitted to us, negligible. We do not think that in present circumstances this expenditure can be justified."
I have waited day by day since the publication of that Report in the hope of seeing what is "the evidence submitted to us" which proves the work of these policewomen to be negligible. Last night, in the House of Commons, the Home Secretary was asked whether he would state what witnesses appeared before the Geddes Committee to give an account of the women patrols, and whether any members of the Women's Force were called, and his reply was—
"The Committee consulted the Commissioner of Police and myself. No witnesses from the force were called."
398
Now note this—
"It must be remembered that the question was not as to the efficiency or usefulness of the women police, but whether the work was of such a nature that it ought to be maintained at the expense of the State in a time of extreme financial stringency."
There was no question, he said, as to the efficiency or usefulness of the women police, but the whole point was that the Geddes Report, as he called it, said that their powers were very limited and their utility from a police point of view was, on the evidence submitted to the Committee, negligible. The evidence submitted was that of the Home Secretary himself, and the Commissioner of Police and no one else, apparently, at all, and the utility of the women police was thereby proved to be nil.
What are the real facts as to what had gone before? Just think for a moment what the story was. Two years or a year and a half ago the Government appointed a very strong Committee of eight persons to investigate the question of the employment of women police. That Committee met under the chairmanship of Sir John Baird, and took an immense mass of evidence which occupied over 160 pages of a large Blue Book. They called 47 witnesses whom they examined in full, and they made a unanimous Report. Their recommendation upon this particular point was this—
"After careful consideration of all the evidence we are of opinion that in thickly populated areas, where offences against the law relating to women and children are not infrequent, there is not only scope but urgent need for the employment of policewomen."
That recommendation was based upon a mass of evidence from all sorts of people, to some of whom the noble Marquess has already referred, who were giving testimony as to the value which they as Chief Constables, as police authorities in different parts of the country, or as magistrates, felt to belong to the work of the women police. It was done with enormous care, and may I say incidentally, if we are talking about economy, obviously at very great cost.
Sir Nevil Macready, who gave very useful evidence indeed, said that he thought the force had fully justified its existence. And he continued—
"I cannot say at the present moment to what extent it should be increased."

399
He said further that if he got certain powers he would desire to see the force very greatly increased, and would transfer to it a very large amount of work which was now done by men. That may or may not be so; but it was the evidence given by an expert upon the subject the Committee were called upon to consider. Then Sir Leonard Dunning, the Home Office Inspector of Constabulary, said that the fact of having a woman to do this particular work made the whole difference, because—
"her very sex gives her influence over the child whose mischief has brought him under the notice of the police, before the mischief takes the form of crime, and over the mother to whose neglect the offence of the child is so often due."
And he goes on to say how difficult it is for the police to extract from these girls the kind of evidence that is necessary in such cases. May I say it is very bad for them to give it; it is bad for a young female to go into details on this subject to the police. That is thoroughly to the bad, and is recognised by witness after witness.
Further, a man like Superintendent Billings says—
"In my opinion they would be very well employed as matrons at police stations, and also in the place of constables on reserve at the police station, particularly at those stations where a great many women are dealt with. Many women who come into police stations would naturally make a better and fuller statement to a woman than they would to a male police officer, and a carefully trained woman employed at a police station on reserve duty, instead of a constable, would, in many cases I am sure, be found very useful indeed, and probably it would bring about some saving."
Supplementary to that, I should like to say that it is wrong to suppose that this is an occasional thing happening now and then.
During one year alone—1921—the women police in London took 429 statements, and 1,131 women and girls passed through their hands to such hospital or other treatment as was required. All over England and Scotland, to some degree, the same thing is going on. There is evidence about it in all parts of the country, though the evidence is not unanimous as to the advantage. The minority who spoke against it, however, is so insignificant that the Report, as I have already pointed out, is unanimous on the part of the people who devoted a great deal of time and trouble to investigating the whole matter.
Now we are suddenly told that this is to come to an end. When we ask why it
400
is to come to an end, we are told that it is on the ground of cost. The Home Secretary says that on the evidence submitted the utility of these people is negligible. He was asked last night what was the evidence upon which that opinion was based, and he said: "It was the evidence which I gave and the Commissioner of Police gave." But no other members of the force were called, nor was anybody else called who was capable of speaking about it in the country, nor were any of those called who had done the work. This statement of the Home Secretary is made in the face of the printed Blue Book containing the evidence of all the people who, one after another, recommended this system, and in face of the unanimous Report in favour of it. What does this upsetting of it mean? Is it really a question of economy? One wonders where the economy is going to come in. The numbers of the women are not very large, and the cost is not very great. The Inquiry itself cost an immense amount of money, and it produced a unanimous Report that the work ought to go on.
However, the question I want to raise to-night is not whether or not the women police are a gain to the public service of the country. Upon that I do not profess to be an expert, though I have seen some of their work both in town and in the country, and am strongly in favour of it. But my good opinion may be a complete mistake. What I want to point out is that we have no evidence now before us upon which there can reasonably be justified a complete change of policy upon a large question of this kind. If it were said: "They are costing too much, there are too many of them, and we must diminish the number and economise on their pensions or their pay," or something of that kind, one could understand it. I could understand it if it were said: "We shall continue to observe the principle which has so far been carried out because we believe that principle to be right, but we must economise." If that were said I should answer: "Very well, I regret a great many things that we may be asked to do in the way of economy; we regret this as well as ethers, but we must acquiesce for the country's sake." But that is not the question here. Here it is a question of a complete change of the policy which has been deliberately adopted after being supported by a mass of evidence and by the unanimous Report of a Committee appointed to inquire into it.

401
Whether the change now proposed be right or wrong, it certainly has never been justified to us upon any evidence whatever. We ought to know, and we are entitled to know, what is the ground upon which this work recommended by a large Depart mental Committee is to be put on one side. Upon that we have no evidence whatever before us. I feel that to be a position in which we cannot acquiesce. We must know why the change is to be made. If it is merely a question of economy, let it be so said, but it will be almost impossible, I think, that economy would be brought about, sufficient at any rate to justify a complete change of policy in the face of such a Report as that made by the Departmental Committee appointed by the Home Secretary.
The matter requires, I think, to be very much more openly handled. We desire to know why it is that this change has been brought about. We want to have the evidence before us, if there be any, which answers and neutralises the mass of evidence collected upon the other side. We have not that evidence before us at this moment. I hope the noble Earl who speaks for the Government will be able to tell us that such evidence has been collected, or that he will put before us some evidence to show that the change is made professedly on the grounds of economy only, and that there is no question of the utility or non-utility of the work. This is far too important a matter to be allowed to rest where it is, and I hope we shall have from the Government to-night a statement that will clarify our minds on the subject.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, in reply to the Question of the noble Marquess, I should observe in the first place that Sir John Baird's Committee, which the noble Marquess quoted, took the view that women cannot be regarded as substitutes for men in a police force, and, therefore, that the women police must be looked upon as supplementary to the regular Metropolitan organisation. I do not think anyone can fail to endorse the finding of the Committee which is quoted by the noble Marquess in his Question, and the experiments which have been undertaken since the Committee reported, and since women patrols have been working, bear testimony to the efficiency and usefulness of the women in the sense in which the noble Marquess and the most rev. Primate referred to them. This usefulness has been repeatedly
402
voiced by my right honourable friend, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons, and also in circulars issued to the police, and in other ways. The Report of Sir Leonard Dunning read to us is a case in point.
As to the reasons why the Home Secretary has decided upon the disbandment of this force, when Sir Eric Geddes' Committee examined into the expenditure of the Home Office, this question of women patrols was one of the matters gone into. The Committee consulted my right honourable friend and the Chief Commissioner of Police, Sir John Horwood. The question at issue was not as to the efficiency or usefulness of the women police, but whether the work that they were undertaking was of such a nature that it ought to be maintained at the expense of the State at a time of extreme financial stringency. The most rev. Primate has referred to the fact that no witnesses were called from the police force, except, of course, the Chief of Police. It was open to Sir Eric Geddes and his colleagues to ask for other views, but in order to arrive at their decision they did not think it necessary to go into the matter further than they did. They had all the evidence which they thought, they required.
The decision of the Committee has been read to your Lordships by the most rev. Primate. I should like to read the last paragraph of it in which they say:
"Their powers are very limited, and their utility from a police point of view is, on the evidence submitted to us, negligible. We do not think that in the present circumstances this expenditure can be justified."
In my opening remarks I quoted the opinion of Sir John Baird's Committee to the effect that women patrols could not be regarded as a substitute for men in the police force, but must be regarded as supplementary to that force. Let me amplify the statement of the Geddes Committee for one moment. The Geddes Committee, having regard to the limited scope of women patrols as compared with the regular police, and the short period during which they have formed part of the Metropolitan Police organisation, considered that the service was one which in the present urgent need for economy should be dispensed with. That recommendation my right hon. friend felt bound to carry out. It is not a question as to whether the

403
force was desirable or doing good work. What was under consideration was the question whether we could do without this particular force at the present time? It is a question what we can do without, not what it is desirable to keep if we can. Really it is a question as to what we can afford.
With regard to the question of which the noble Marquess gave me private notice, and also his inquiry as to pensions I will answer briefly, but if he wishes to have any further information I should be grateful if he would give me further Notice. Steps are being taken for the disbandment of the Metropolitan women police patrol to commence on March 31, and they have been given notice that after that date their engagements, which are for a period of twelve months expiring at various dates in 1922, are not to he renewed. Now as to pensions. My right honourable friend in answer to a question last night in the House of Commons stated that women patrols will not be entitled to pensions on disbandment. The reason is that they are only engaged for a year at a time. They have not hitherto been assimilated with the ordinary police force. It is true, as the noble Marquess has said, that deductions have been made from their salary for the purpose of pensions but these deductions will be refunded to them as soon as their notices expire.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: The limited period is, of course, a matter of importance. If they are engaged for twelve months only they are in a different position from the men. I am obliged to the noble Earl for his reply.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this subject, and what has fallen from the noble Earl relieves me of some of the observations I had proposed to make. I gather from his last sentence that the disbanding of these women will he wholly unaccompanied by any pensions at all.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: That is so.
LORD BUCKMASTER: That, of course, is a very important matter from the point of view of economy, because it would be quite indefensible to establish a force of this kind and at the end of a few months to disband them with pensions, which are only payable to people whose services have been long enjoyed. The question as to the
404
need for their disbandment is quite different. I thoroughly understand the need for economy and on that point I agree with the noble Earl. I think it is quite impossible at the present moment for any Department to ask that money shall be provided on the basis of the efficient administration of that Department. The only claim they have a right to make is that all the money that can properly be allotted to their Department shall be given. They have no right to ask that any Department should be carried on at a superfine pitch of excellence which the country cannot afford. In other words, we have to cut our coat according to our cloth and not according to our taste.
But is it quite so clear that economy is going to be effected by the way it is proposed to treat these women? It seems quite likely that the force as now established, with its present personnel, is in excess of what we can reasonably pay for. The services they discharge may not be commensurate with the payment they receive. But as the most rev. Primate has pointed out there are quite a number of functions these women discharge which can only be properly discharged by women, and I agree with him that it is a bad thing for everyone—for the children, and it is not a good thing for the man—that young girls should be interrogated as to offences of a sexual character without the intervention of a woman. It is eminently desirable that this branch of their services should, if possible, be kept on foot, and so far as I can gather that might be done without the complete disbandment of these women. This view may not carry out all that is desired by the noble Marquess and the most rev. Primate, but my own feelings would be satisfied if I could be assured that the duties which are essentially feminine will still continue to be discharged by women, although they may cease to be regular members of the regular Metropolitan Police Force. That is a slight modification of the view that has been put forward in the debate and I hope the Home Office will give it their serious attention.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I cannot at the moment reply to the noble and learned Lord on that point, but I assure him that I will bring it to the notice of the authorities concerned.
House adjourned at seven o'clock.