Lords Sitting of 6 August 1924

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR):My Lords, I beg to move the Motion of which Notice has been given.
Moved, That Standing Order N XXXIX. be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting.— (Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES BILL.
Order of the Day read for receiving the Report of Amendments.
LORD PARMOOR:My Lords, in moving that this Report be now revived there are one or two matters to which I should like to call the attention of the House before we come to the Amendments on the Paper. They refer to one or two promises which I made yesterday as to matters which I would consider before the Report stage. The first of these matters regards the proviso in subsection (3) of Clause 2, and was taken from an Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton. The matter has been before the draftsman, Sir Francis Greer, and I should like to read to your Lordships the form in which we could accept that proviso. I hope it may be acceptable to the House, though I do not say that we go to the length that your Lordships desire on certain points. I may add that the Farmers' Union have been consulted, and consent to it, and therefore there is no objection from the point of view of the farmers, who are really the people chiefly interested.
The words would take the place of the proviso in subsection (3), after the words "complied with," and would run as follows: —
"If an application for a permit is not disposed of within twenty-one days after the

439
day on which it is received then the employer of the worker to whom the application relates shall not be liable to any legal proceedings under this Act for paying wages to the worker at a rate less than the minimum rate during the interval between the expiration of the said period and the date on which the application is ultimately disposed of."
I do not know whether this would be a proper time to comment on these words but, at any rate, when we come to that point I will ask your Lordships to accept the form that I have suggested.
LORD SUMNER:Will the noble Lord read it again?
LORD PARMOOR:I will hand it to the noble and learned Lord.
LORD SUMNER:I think it carefully omits the twenty-one days which we discussed yesterday.
LORD PARMOOR:There is one other matter to which I should like to call your Lordships' attention before we come to the Amendments on the Paper, and it is in Clause 8, where the words " after such consultation as aforesaid " occur in reference to the appointment of officers. These words must have got there under a misapprehension. We were dealing with the secretary and that is a matter which will have to be discussed elsewhere, but in addition to the secretary question there is the question of the officers. Now an officer of the Board could not be appointed " after such consultation as aforesaid." He is an officer of the central Board, and of course an official of the central Board could not be appointed after consultation with fifty or sixty agricultural wages committees. " After such consultation as aforesaid " really deals with the secretary who is an officer of a particular committee, and I wish to call attention to that because when we come to it I hope your Lordships will agree to the deletion of those words. Another matter which I think I may mention is with regard to the efficiency of the woman worker. That has been gone into very carefully and considered by Sir Francis Greer and others and we have not succeeded in finding any definition which we think would be effective, and therefore we desire to leave the Bill as it is. I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report of Amendments be now received.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2:
Duties and powers of agricultural wages committees with respect to minimum rates of wages.
(3) If, on an application in that behalf, a committee are satisfied that any worker employed or desiring to be employed on time work to which a minimum rate fixed under this Act is applicable is so affected by any physical injury or mental deficiency, or any infirmity due to age or to any other cause, that he is incapable of earning that minimum rate the committee shall grant to the worker, a permit exempting, as from the date of the application, or from any later date specified in the permit, the employment of the worker from the provisions of this Act requiring wages to be paid at not less than the minimum rate, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the permit, including if the committee think fit, a condition as to the wages to be paid to the worker; and, while the permit has effect, an employer shall not be liable to any legal proceedings under this Act for paying wages to the worker at a rate less than the minimum rate if the conditions specified in the permit are complied with. Provided that an employer shall not be liable to any legal proceedings under this Act for paying wages at a rate less than the minimum rate to a worker in respect of whom an application for a permit has been made during the period that such application is before the committee unless the application shall have been considered and refused within twenty-one days of the receipt thereof.
LORD PARMOOR:My Lords, I beg to move that the proviso in subsection (3) be deleted and that the draft which I have read to the House be inserted in its place.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 9, leave out from (" with ") to the end of the subsection and insert:
"If an application for a permit is not disposed of within twenty-one days after the day on which it is received then the employer of the worker to whom the application relates shall not be liable to any legal proceedings under this Act for paying wages to the worker at a rate less than the minimum rate during the interval between the expiration of the said period and the date on which the application is ultimately disposed of."— (Lord Parmoor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:My Lords, I should like you to realise exactly what is proposed. Yesterday when we discussed this matter, your Lordships were really not satisfied with the Amendment which was inserted in the Bill because there was an interval of twenty-

441
one days during which the farmer must either give a higher wage than the man deserves or else expose himself to penalties for breach of the Act during the three weeks. Your Lordships, or some of you, were afraid that the effect of that would be that the farmer would be Very much disinclined to engage workers who were not able-bodied lest he put himself in the dilemma which I have explained and which no one who understands the subject denies will be his dilemma. That is the estimate of what farmers will be likely to do. On that there may be difference of opinion whether the farmer in those circumstances will abstain from employing disabled men. I think it would be a most deplorable result if such should be the case—if the result of the efforts of the two Houses of Parliament to help the working-class in this particular was to throw perfectly deserving but not able-bodied workers out of employment.
In those circumstances your Lordships were not quite satisfied with the Amendment which was put in the Bill, and an appeal was made to the Government— whether, in the watches of the night, they could not meet the difficulty of the twenty-one days. They have been unable to meet it; because the Amendment which has been read to the House and which, through the courtesy of the noble and learned Lord, I have had an opportunity of studying, is exactly the same in principle as Lord Clinton's Amendment. The drafting is in rather better language but the effect is exactly the same. There is no change in substance. The real question for your Lordships is whether you are satisfied to leave this interval of twenty-one days. If yon are not satisfied, of course you will have to amend the clause as it stands in the Bill as we fixed last night by leaving out the last phrase in the clause. In this I think we should be guided by those of your Lordships who have special knowledge of agricultural matters, and if they are satisfied with the Lord President's Amendment as it stands then I do not think that any other course could be taken except to accept the Government's drafting, which is an improvement on the Amendment we made yesterday. I have not been in touch with the Farmers' Union, but if those of your Lordships who have special knowledge of
442
these matters are satisfied to leave the twenty-one days in, then I think it would be better to accept the Government Amendment. I hope those of your Lordships who understand the matter will give your counsel to the House.
EARL STANHOPE:My Lords, quite frankly I am not in the least satisfied with the Amendment, for this reason—I entirely dispute that this is principally a matter for the farmer. It is really a matter for the worker. It makes very little difference to the farmer whether he employs one man or another, and the point is whether an infirm or disabled man is going to be turned down because the farmer is not going to take the risk of the twenty-one days' gap. It is an extremely difficult point to bridge this gap of twenty-one days, and yet protect the country against the black sheep who might evade the Act by putting in the whole of his men as infirm or disabled, and so trying to escape the minimum. I think that might be got over by omitting the last two lines—all words after " unless "—of Lord Clinton's Amendment, and putting in some phrase such as " unless the application be countersigned by a justice ol the peace." I think that might protect the country against such a practice as I have indicated, and I think the twenty-one days' gap would be most unfortunate, particularly with regard to the infirm or disabled worker.
LORD STRACHIE:I cannot agree with the noble Earl. I think the difficulties to which he refers will never arise, and that the view which has been expressed by the noble Marquess is quite right.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY:I agree with the noble Earl that this twenty-one days' gap is absolutely absurd. If a man is incapable of doing full work why cannot he do What I suggested yesterday—namely, get from his panel doctor a certificate that he is unable to do a full day's work? That will enable such a man to get employment from a farmer, who will pay him what he thinks he is worth.
LORD PARMOOR:Our only desire here, as is natural in a Bill of this kind, is to solve such a matter not to the disadvantage of the workers—of that we can hardly be suspected—but to give them the maximum of opportunity in the

443
circumstances. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, yesterday raised the question of bona fides. We went into that most carefully, and we thought the matter was best provided for by the form of words which we have introduced. May I say a word with regard to the suggested alternatives? So far as the worker is concerned, I am sure there will be an infinitely greater difficulty if the magistrate has to sign the counterfoil. And as for what was said by the noble Earl behind me (Lord Kimberley) surely to introduce the panel doctor in a question of this kind, when you want to do your best to give work to a poor man, is useless. In many cases what they are suffering from is infirmity of age. I hope that the principle of this Amendment may be accepted and I think that the words— they are Sir Francis Greer's words— really put the matter on the best basis.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER:There is nothing in the Bill about the extra wages paid during these twenty-one days being recoverable?
LORD PARMOOR:No.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON:My Lords, before we pass on may I call attention to a point which may seem small, but which has rather large implications? The noble and Learned Lord has quoted by name the Parliamentary draftsman. That really is a thing unheard of in this House. Your Lordships may remember that at an earlier stage of the Session, the noble and learned Lord himself on one occasion quoted the words of one of the permanent officials. We called the noble and learned Lord's attention to it, and he realised that he had made a mistake. I am sure he will equally agree that he has been guilty of a similar error on this occasion.
LORD PARMOOR:I am very sorry. I ought to have said " the draftsman."
Clause 8:
Appointment and powers of officers.
8.—(1) The Minister may appoint a secretary for the Agricultural Wages Board and (after consultation with the agricultural wages committee concerned) a secretary for each agricultural wages committee and, subject to the consent of the Treasury as to number and after such consultation as
444
aforesaid, such officers as he thinks necessary for the purpose of investigating complaints and otherwise securing the proper observance of this Act.
(2) Any officer so appointed shall have power—

(a) to require the production of and to inspect and take copies of wages sheets or other records of wages paid to workers employed in agriculture;

(b) to enter at all reasonable times any premises or place for the purpose of such inspection or for the enforcement of this Act; and

(c) to require any such worker, or the employer of any such worker, or any agent of the employer to give any information which it is in his power to give with respect to the employment of the worker or the wages paid to him.

(3) If any person—

(a) hinders or molests any officer acting in the exercise of his powers under this section; or

(b) refuses to produce any document or give any information which any such officer lawfully requires him to produce or give; or

(c) produces or causes to be produced or knowingly allows to be produced any wages sheet, record or other document which is false in any material particular to any such officer knowing the same to be false; or

(d) furnishes any information to any such officer knowing the same to be false,

he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and imprisonment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMmoved, at the beginning of subsection (2), after "Any officer so appointed shall have power, "to insert" on giving reasonable and proper notice. "The noble Lord said: My Lords, the subsection would then read: —
"Any officer so appointed shall have power on giving reasonable and proper notice: —
"(c) to require any such worker, or the employer of any such worker, or any agent of the employer to give any information which it is in his power to give with respect to the employment of the worker or the wages paid to him."
This is in consequence of the promise given me by the noble and learned Lord yesterday that he would look into this matter and see whether or not he could

445
accept some such Amendment as this. It is, I believe, more or less in accordance with the Act of 1917. It prevents an injustice being done. It would not in any way interfere with the power of an official to find out whether or not proper wages were being paid, but it would prevent an official entering unreasonably and without notice and interfering with the farmer in the course of his business.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 14, after ("power") insert ("on giving reasonable and proper notice"). —(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD PARMOOR:My Lords, may I call attention to one matter? I do not know whether your Lordships would agree to the omission of the words at the beginning of line 11, " after such consultation as aforesaid." They are so inapplicable that I would ask your Lordships that the words should not be left in the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:We have passed that point. We must have some respect for order.
LORD PARMOOR:I have mentioned the point; that is sufficient for my purpose. With regard to the Amendment the matter has had consideration and I am unable to accept the Amendment. I have already informed the noble Lord that if he would like to put in words to make that applicable to paragraph (a) the Government would have no objection to it in that place. That would meet what the noble Lord says with regard to entry at reasonable times.
VISCOUNT PEEL:And paragraph (c) too?
LORD PARMOOR:These were words which were considered in the agreement in the other House and considered also with the Farmers' Union who, of course, are the people immediately affected, and they also assented to it. The same provisions were in the Trade Boards Bill, and I say quite frankly that to make provisions of this kind adequate and satisfactory you must have the power of making surprise visits. There is no doubt about that, and I do not know any provision of a similar kind to this in which that power is not given. In trying to meet the noble Lord I would assent to his words being put in after "to require" in paragraph
446
(a) but as regards their application to the whole subsection I cannot assent to them.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:My Lords, I confess that I am a very new member of your Lordships' House, but I hear with positive impatience this perpetual reference to what somebody outside this House has told the Government, what the noble Lord has said to the Farmers' Union, or what agreement is supposed to have been arrived at elsewhere. We have to consider these questions on their merits. I cannot conceive on what ground the Government resist this Amendment. This is merely a question of wages. It is not a question of conditions of labour. If it were, then there would be good ground, no doubt, for surprise visits. The noble and learned Lord refers to the Trade Boards Act. My recollection is that in that Act not only wages, but conditions of labour, are dealt with. In that case, no doubt surprise visits were necessary. But how are you going to gain anything by a surprise visit to ascertain how much a labourer is paid? It can only be done by inquiry, by having the wage files brought before you and by asking the people concerned. You will be much more likely to get your information if you give fair notice, and if everybody is collected together, so that you can make your inquiries properly. If the noble and learned Lord can show that there is an advantage in having surprise visits I quite agree that we ought not to insist upon this Amendment, but so far as the account he has given of the matter goes at present this Amendment appears to be a reasonable one.
LORD PARMOOR:This is a matter of importance. I should say that in mentioning what I have done I did so only because of my wish to get the Bill into a reasonable form. As regards the effect of this Amendment, the experience gained during four years of the Corn Production Act showed that if an inspector was expected the employer might intimidate the, workers, so that he would not give correct information with regard to the rates of wages. I cannot see what is the objection to allowing the inspectors to proceed in the way we propose, when all experience shows that otherwise the agricultural labourer is subject to intimidation. That is a very real difficulty, and therefore the Government cannot accept

447
this Amendment. We could introduce the words into paragraph (a), but beyond that we cannot go. If the noble Lord presses this Amendment we shall have to divide against it.
LORD SUMNER:Is the noble and learned Lord not prepared to make any concession with regard to paragraph (c)?
LORD PARMOOR:No. Only as regards paragraph (a).
LORD SUMNER:The noble and learned Lord has offered to introduce into paragraph (a) the words which my noble friend desires to make govern (a) (b) and (c)?
LORD PARMOOR:That is it.
LORD SUMNER:Paragraph (b) already contains a provision as to reasonableness—the entry has to be " at all reasonable times." There is not a word about reasonableness in paragraph (c), because at any time and without any notice the official can require the worker, the employer, or the agent of the employer to give any information which it is in his power to give. Then if you look at subsection (3) (b), you will see that if the person so required to give information refuses to give it, however justified he may be by the inconvenience of the moment or the unreasonableness of the request, he is then liable to a fine. Is it not right to make a concession with
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
regard to (c) so as to introduce some reasonableness in it?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:May I point out that there will be nothing gained by an official going into a farm in the middle of working hours? The noble and learned Lord says that unless the official has power to do this the farmer will intimidate his worker.
LORD PARMOOR:Yes.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:According to the noble and learned Lord the farmer can always intimidate his worker; but it does not follow that, as there is an obligation on him to produce his wages sheet, he can intimidate that wages sheet. The wages sheet must show what wages the worker is paid. In addition to that, the official can always go to the cottage of the worker in the evening when the farmer will not be present and ask the worker what wages he is receiving. He will then obtain all the information he requires without having been empowered to go at unreasonable times and interfere with the working of the farm, and the farmer will know nothing about it.
LORD PARMOOR:I regret to say that I cannot accept this Amendment.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?—
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 11.

CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

Eldon, E.

Peel, V.

Iveagh, E.

Curzon of Kedleston, M.

Lovelace, E.

Askwith, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Lucan, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Salisbury, M.

Malmesbury E.

Crawshaw, L.

Midleton, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Ancaster, E.

Onslow, E.

Gainford, L.

Bradford, E. [Teller.]

Stanhope, E.

Somerleyton, L.

Clarendon, E. [Teller.]

Strachie, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Sumner, L.

Chilston, V.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Chelmsford, V.

Denman, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Muir Mackenzie, L. [Teller.]

Kimberley, E.

Olivier, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Stanmore, L.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMhad an Amendment on the Paper to omit the

449
concluding words of subsection (3) "or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and imprisonment." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand from the noble and learned Lord that he is unable to accept this Amendment, and as I am desirous of assisting the noble and learned Lord in a reasonable manner, I do not desire to move it.
Clause 15:
Definitions.
15—(1) In this Act unless the context otherwise requires—
The expression "able-bodied man" means any male worker who is not incapable of performing the work of a normally efficient worker;
EARL STANHOPEmoved, in the definition of "able-bodied man," after the first "worker," to insert "who has attained the age of eighteen years and." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have put this Amendment down again for two reasons—first of all, because several of your Lordships told me after the Amendment was negatived that it was done under a misunderstanding, and that they intended to support it; secondly, to enable the noble and learned Lord opposite to give an explanation to the House as to how he proposes this Bill shall work unless some Amendment of this kind is put in. As I pointed out on the previous occasion, it affects Clause 2, subsection (4), to a considerable extent; and I submit to the House that some Amendment of this character is necessary. I do not want to argue the whole thing again now. I move the Amendment formally in order to enable the noble and learned Lord to tell us the views of the Government upon it.
Amendment moved—
Page 11. line 23, after ("worker") insert ("who has attained the age of eighteen years and").—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD PARMOOR:My Lords, I do not think anything fresh has arisen upon this matter. We accepted the proposal of the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, as regards the definition. We are dealing with a definition here. I stated last night my view that it would be a mistake to put in any particular age, and that the best test to be taken is that which is taken in the Bill now—namely, that
450
able-bodied man means "any male worker who is not incapable of performing the work of a normally efficient worker." He may be under or he may be over eighteen years of age. The test of efficiency is his ability to do a man's work. I think the definition is best as it is.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord to follow this definition as it really stands now? The expression "able-bodied man" means "any male worker "—that is to say, taking the word worker as defined in the previous definition, any man or boy—"who is not incapable of performing the work of a normally efficient" man or boy, because "worker" is "man or boy." The result will be that you secure the minimum wage to any boy who is capable "of performing the work of a normally efficient boy." That would be the effect of this, strictly construed, and, after all, the purpose of the definition is to make quite clear what you mean. I am afraid this is not likely to make clear quite what you mean. I cannot help recalling what Dr. Johnson said about the danger of definition. The House will recollect that he was discussing definitions and he said: "You may define a cow as a female cornuted ruminating quadruped, but after all cow is simpler." I. cannot help feeling that "able-bodied man" is simpler. I am rather disposed to think—I do not know whether I am right or not—that it would be better to strike this definition out altogether, and leave only "able-bodied man." That, I think, would be a better indication to the committee of what you are after than to try to define him as "a male worker who is not incapable of performing the work of a normally efficient worker." Personally, if that definition was submitted to me as a member of a committee, I should say: "Thank you for nothing."
THE EARL OF MIDLETON:My Lords, I would appeal to the noble and learned Lord to reconsider the question, though I rather differ from my noble friend who has just spoken. If you do not put in the age of eighteen, or some age, how on earth is the wages secretary or the committee to judge of the age of a man or his capabilities, unless they see him? In each case you will have the question coming up whether a boy of seventeen

451
and a half, or eighteen and a half, is or is not to be included among the normally efficient workers. Your Lordships will notice that the expression able-bodied man means " any male worker who is not incapable of performing the work," etc. That is intended to mean the full work of a man. but it does not follow that the person will be' able to do the same number of hours' work as efficiently as a full-grown man. I would remind the noble Lord that, after all, the test for the Army has always been the same, that a boy must be eighteen years of age. He is then supposed to be a man. Surely it would be of the greatest possible assistance to the Committee to have some age put in which would be a standard. Of course, if a boy is over the age of eighteen and not fit to perform the work of a normally efficient worker he would not be entitled to the minimum wage.
LORD GAINFORD:My Lords, I agree that the age of eighteen is an undesirable limitation to place in the Bill. If any age be put in we should prefer that it should be twenty-one. There is a very good reason for that. If a person is of the age of twenty-one it is possible that he may have reached the marrying age, and may have to maintain a family, but boys between the age of eighteen and twenty-one should not be expected to marry, and ought not to be placed exactly in the same category as those of twenty-one. There are, of course, exceptions. There are very able young ploughmen of nineteen or twenty who may be regarded as able-bodied. I agree with my noble friend Viscount Cecil that it is far better to omit any definition as to what an able-bodied man is. There are a certain number of words in the English language which we all understand, but the moment we begin to define them we get hopelessly into difficulties. I recollect that at one, time we tried to define the word " residence," and got into a hopeless difficulty. One always understands what is meant when the term " able-bodied worker " is used, but it is very difficult to define it in an Act of Parliament.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH:My Lords, I agree with what my noble friend Lord Gainford has said, but the more I have listened to your Lordships' debate on this question the more convinced I am of the
452
wisdom of my fellow countrymen in determining to have nothing to do with a Bill of this kind. They have much better conditions than this Bill will give. This is nothing more than a vote catching Bill, and it ought to have been left over until the autumn. The result of every Bill of this kind dealing with agriculture has been, over a long series of years, to depreciate our agricultural power as compared with that of other countries. In regard to the age of eighteen, subsection (4) of Clause (2) states that in fixing the minimum rates a committee shall secure for able-bodied men such wages as will enable a man " to maintain himself and his family in accordance with such standard of comfort as may be reasonable in relation to the nature of his occupation." It is not to be expected, and I do not think any of your Lordships would wish, that agricultural workers of eighteen should have large and flourishing families.
I admit that many youths of eighteen are efficient workers, but it is the practice in most cases that they do not get as high a wage as a man, for the reason that they have not a family to support. There is another great objection to it. We have heard a good deal about people not being employed because they are not physically fit, but I would point out that there are many young men of eighteen who have not the skill and experience of older men. Then there is the case of men who may take to the occupation without previous experience. Speaking as a farmer, I think any one, apart altogether from the question of age, is always prepared to give a good wage to an efficient worker, because a high wage for good work is much cheaper than a low wage for bad work. The whole thing seems so muddled in every way that I think the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Cecil is1 the only one to follow.
LORD PARMOOR:My Lords, may I point out this in order to shorten the matter? There is only one place in the Bill where an able-bodied man is referred to, and that is subsection (4) of Clause 2. I think there is something to be said for what the noble Viscount stated in regard to defining a term. After all, this term is only used once in the Bill, and if your Lordships will agree that the definition of the expression " able-bodied man " should be deleted, I should not dissent from that. I do dissent from any idea of

453
bringing in the age. If it is thought desirable to omit the definition of the expression " able-bodied man " I would assent to that.
LORD SUMNER:My Lords, I am afraid I shall have to trouble the Lord President for a second speech. If he had allowed me to say what I desired to say just now it would not have been necessary for him to make a second speech. It is true that the expression " able-bodied man " occurs only once except in the Definition Clause, but as I understand this Bill the difficulty is this. Subsection (2) of Clause 2 requires the agricultural wages committee to fix the minimum rate of wages for all workers, and " workers "includes boys, women and girls. They have therefore to fix the minimum wage for men and boys. Subsection (2) gives them power to make the minimum rates apply universally to all workers, or to a special class of workers. Unless you read " boys " as a special class of workers, whatever their qualifications may be, which I should think was not the meaning of the subsection, you will find that they have to make the minimum rate apply universally to all men and boys. Under the clause to which the Lord President has referred, subsection (4), they have, in fixing their minimum rate of wages, to fix it so as to secure as far as possible for able-bodied men, who are at present included in " workers "—able-bodied boys are therefore included as well—such wages as will promote efficiency and enable a man to maintain himself and his family. " Family," I suppose, means a family of his own begetting, but one can hardly expect anything to be clear in a Bill of this kind.
If you leave the thing as it stands, a minimum rate, fixed as a minimum rate for a man and his wife and family, will also be payable to a boy from the time when he is able to be employed in the industry and is no longer required to be -attending school. That, of course, is probably not intended; it seems to be absurd. There are some young men who are quite capable of doing a full man's work, but to place them in the same position as an able-bodied man with a wife and family is a policy which we should not encourage, because of the jealousy their position must create among men who have a wife and
454
family to keep. If you take "boys" out, you strike them out on the ground that they are suffering from an infirmity due to age and not capable of earning the minimum rate. It means that every boy every year will have to be taken up to the county committee in order that his particular case may be determined with regard to this question: Is he now so far overcoming the infirmities of youth that he is capable of earning the minimum rate which is framed for the case of a man with a, wife and family? The work would never be got through.
I fail to understand why there should be an objection to stating the age, and stating that boys under such an age are not to have the benefit of the able-bodied married man's rate of wages. There seems to be a difficulty in agreeing on the age. I suppose there is some fear that youths will shortly be qualified to vote and may resent this restriction on their early prosperity. It is a difficulty which I do not appreciate. But merely to strike out " able-bodied man "leaves you in the old difficulty that you do not know what " man " means for this purpose. It is not to be assumed for the purpose of this Bill that an undefined " man " is a man of twenty-one years and upwards, and the result will be that each county committee will have to form its own judgment upon some materials which are not submitted to it as to what it considers a " man " to be. If that does not agree with the view of the county committee in the next county there will again be friction and jealousy. Subject to the difficulty of getting agriculture to agree on what the age of a boy is, it would be better to define what is really meant by " boy " and have done with it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:My Lords, I think this is a most convincing illustration of the utterly unsatisfactory way in which the Government desire your Lordships to do your duty. Could anything be more grotesque than that we should have to come to a decision on a difficult matter of this kind without proper consideration? If there had been a reasonable interval of time between the Committee stage and Report stage the matter could have been carefully considered, and if there had been another interval between the Report stage and Third Reading we should have had an opportunity of putting right any mistakes.

455
Now we have to settle this matter, if the Government's scheme of business is to go through, here and now. I protest most earnestly against the way in which your Lordships' House has been treated.
With regard to the point that has been raised, I think, in face of the noble and learned Lord's most biting analysis of the situation, that we can hardly go on without a definition. I should not like to be responsible for advising your Lordships that we can do without a definition altogether. And we are then faced with the situation as to whether we should accept the noble Earl's suggestion as it stands. I am going to make a suggestion. The only difference is whether the age should be eighteen or twenty-one. If noble Lords think twenty-one is better than eighteen, I suggest that the Amendment should be amended in that particular. I think that would be the most businesslike way to proceed.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:My Lords, I beg to move that the Amendment be amended by the substitution of " twenty-one " for "eighteen."
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Leave out (" eighteen ") and insert (" twenty-one "). — (Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD PARMOOR:My Lords, I should like to say a word or two in answer to the careful analysis which has been made by Lord Sumner. I am afraid we are always in the difficulty to which the noble Marquess has so eloquently referred, and always shall be unless there is a very drastic amendment of our procedure. The noble and learned Lord points out that two phrases are used, one is " worker " and the other is " able-bodied man." If you look at the definitions the difference between them is quite clear. " Worker " includes boy, woman and girl, and I think " able-bodied man," whether you have a definition or not, cannot possibly be held to include either woman, girl or boy. To my mind that is clear and logical. I do not want to repeat myself on the other point. Last night when we were discussing this question more objection was taken to the age of twenty-one than to the age of eighteen, because you would exclude a man for two or three years from having the legitimate minimum wage because he is not twenty-one years of
456
age. As a matter of fact, a large number of agricultural workers under that age are entitled to the minimum wage if they come, within the definition of able-bodied man.
As regards the definition, I have already said that I would accept the suggestion of the noble Viscount and not have a definition at all, but unfortunately, when I made that statement, other objections were immediately raised. The phrase occurs only once—I think there is something in the noble Viscount's quotation from Dr. Johnson—and, since that is so, we might do without a definition, and assume that even an agricultural committee would understand what we mean when we talk about able-bodied men. I do not think that the difficulties mentioned by Lord Sumner will be practical ones, nor do I think, from my knowledge of country committees, that there will be any trouble with any such subtle analysis as the noble and learned Lord has given us. I cannot accept either the Amendment or the Amendment to the Amendment, but surely we might agree in accepting the noble Viscount's suggestion, and not have a definition.
LORD SUMNER:If the noble Lord will pardon me, my point was not so subtle after all. If a man makes a mistake about this he is liable to be fined. That is the difficulty.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:My Lords, I have already expressed my view that you could do without a definition and I still, with all respect, hold to that view. But I do not think that the difficulty is nearly so great as the noble Lord suggested. What does it amount to? It is not a question of whether you will secure a minimum wage or not. You are going to have a minimum rate of wages for boys, women and girls, whether they are " able-bodied men " or not. They are all going to have the minimum rate of wages under subsection (1) of Clause 2. Where you have to secure that minimum rate for an able-bodied man, then in any case you are going to say that this minimum rate will be such as will enable him to support a family. That, broadly speaking, is the case. In those circumstances there is a good deal to be said for declaring that this minimum rate that

457
applies to able-bodied men shall apply only to men of twenty-one or some other age. I believe that the result would be much the same in any case, whether you inserted the definition or not, and I am inclined to think that you would have considerable difficulties in applying this definition which have not been alluded to yet, and I do not propose to complicate the debate by alluding to them now. If the House desires a definition, I agree with those of my noble friends who think that there ought to be a limit of age of this kind.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE:My Lords, I hope that the Government will resist both the Amendment and the Amendment to the Amendment. Many of us are entirely opposed to there being any limit of age.
EARL STANHOPE:My Lords, there is one other alternative, and that is that we should omit subsection (4) of Clause 2 when we come to the Third Reading. As your Lordships will remember, I suggested in regard to an Amendment to that subsection that it was necessary to put in some sort of definition, but the noble Lord was unable to accept any definition on behalf of the Government. It seems to me that the logical course is to leave out that definition in regard to the wages of male workers in the same way as it is omitted in regard to other workers. Then the definition will naturally disappear from the Bill altogether.
LORD PARMOOR:We considered that point, and I could not accept that sug-
gestion. I think it right to state at once that I do not think that the word " able-bodied " can go out altogether.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:As regards the question which is now before us, whether the age shall be eighteen or twenty-one, I should like to point out that the matter is not quite so important as some people seem to think. The Bill, as altered by the noble Earl's Amendment, would read thus:—
"the expression ' able-bodied man ' means any male worker who is not incapable of performing the work of a normally efficient worker, and who has attained the age of eighteen years "—
or twenty-one years, as the case may be. That is to say, if the boy can do the work, he would come within the definition. If he is a specially strong boy, even if he is only seventeen years old, he would come within the definition.
LORD ASKWITH:May I point out to the noble Marquess that the words proposed by the noble Earl would come after the first "worker"?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:The noble Marquess is, I think, suggesting a new Amendment, but that is not the Amendment before the House.
On Question, Whether the words " who has attained the age of twenty-one years and " shall be here inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 16.

CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Chilston, V.

Curzon of Kedleston, M.

Eldon, E.

Peel, V.

Linlithgow, M.

Iveagh, E.

Salisbury, M.

Lovelace, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Ancaster, E.

Midleton, E.

Somerleyton, L.

Bradford, E. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Strachie, L.

Clarendon, E. [Teller.]

Stanhope, E.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Sumner, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Askwith, L.

Lucan, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Denman, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Gainford, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L. [Teller.]

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Olivier, L.

Arnold, L.

Stanmore, L.

Thomson L.

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.
Constitution and proceedings of Agricultural Wages Committees and the Agricultural Wages Board.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES COMMITTEES.
1. An agricultural wages committee shall consist of members representing employers and members representing workers in agriculture in the county for which the committee act (in this Act referred to as representative members), in equal proportions, of two impartial members appointed by the Minister and of a chairman.
LORD STRACHIEmoved to add to the first clause " for a term of office of three years but they shall be eligible for re-nomination by the Minister." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I merely move this in order that the Lord President may be able to give an undertaking that the matter will be dealt with in the Regulations.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 12, at end, insert (" for a term of office of three years but they shall be eligible for re-nomination by the Minister ").—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD PARMOOR:My Lords, as I have mentioned to Lord Strachie I am quite willing to give an undertaking that the matter shall be dealt with in the Regulations. I am unable to say whether the term of office shall be two or three years. I think at present two years is contemplated. I give the noble Lord an undertaking that the matter will be dealt with in the Regulations and that a definite period will be inserted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

REGULATION ACT, 1920, SPECIAL ORDERS.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE:My Lords, I beg to move the Resolutions standing in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That the draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Oxford Gaslight and Coke Company,
460
which was presented on the 24th July, and published, be approved, with the following modification—
Clause 33, subclause (1), paragraph (b), omit " as provided by " and insert " the lands described in the Second 'Schedule to this Order and to the extent provided in."—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Settle Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 24th July, and published, be approved.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Sheffield Gas Company, which was presented on the 24th July, and published, be approved.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON:My Lords, I desire before we separate to ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack what are the proposals of the Government with regard to the conduct of business during the remainder of the Session. The noble and learned Lord will remember that two days ago he told us that he hoped to- make a statement, some time to-day certainly, upon the Irish question. My first question, therefore, is whether he thinks he will be in a position to carry out that undertaking. The second point is with regard to our business during the remainder of the day. Up to this moment the idea has prevailed that adjourning in a moment now, having discharged our business this morning, we should meet again at half-past five, in order to receive whatever business will have come up to us from the House of Commons. There are three Bills which your Lordships have dealt with which are now, or will presently be, in the hands of the House of Commons. There is first the Agricultural Wages Bill, which we have just dis-

461
posed of, secondly there is the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill and thirdly there is the London Traffic Bill. Upon all those Bills we shall presently receive the views of another place. Will the noble and learned Viscount tell us whether he thinks we shall be in a position to meet at half-past five in order to take those measures?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE):My Lords, with regard to the statement which I had hoped to be in a position to make this afternoon, I am afraid that that is not practicable, and that I shall not be able to make any statement with regard to Ireland to-day.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON:It will not be made in another place to-day?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:I understand not, but I will inquire between now and the subsequent sitting of this House, and if it is made to-day in another place it will also be made to your Lordships. Then, with regard to our sitting here again, after careful inquiry, and after taking into account twenty-five years' experience, I am unable to promise your Lordships that the three Bills will be ready for your Lordships' consideration by half past five. My information goes to this, that it is not likely to be before seven o'clock at the soonest, and I think I may safely say a quarter past seven, and, although I know it is very inconvenient to your Lordships, I suggest that it would be better that we should adjourn during pleasure and sit again at a quarter past seven.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON:My Lords, I am not sure that the noble and learned Viscount has fully explained the whole situation, for it is somewhat surprising in a matter of this sort that while we are asked to sit at noon, and then to sit again in the afternoon or evening, the House of Commons should not be sitting at this moment, and I believe is only going to sit at its customary hour this afternoon. In the circumstances of the Session I was quite prepared to recommend your Lordships to meet at half past five as arranged, in order to take up the consideration of whatever Bills the House of Commons had already disposed of, but I am informed that the leading
462
Ministers of the Government are themselves attending a Cabinet Council at six o'clock. That would mean that even if we met at half-past five the duty of representing the views of the Ministry upon all these important matters would devolve upon my noble friends Lord Muir Mackenzie and Lord De La Warr, and, competent as they are to discharge the business, I am not certain that they would not quail under it. It is out of consideration for those noble Lords rather than for their colleagues that I feel disposed to think that we shall do well to accept the advice of the Lord Chancellor.
In doing so, may I re-echo what fell from the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury? Really, the way in which the business of this House has been managed, or mismanaged, in these concluding stages of the Session is terrible. We must utter a protest against the way in which we are treated. A distinguished man in another place recently used the metaphor, "patient oxen." That is the way, apparently, in which we are treated here. But even the patient ox is liable at moments to show some ferocity. Your Lordships must not be surprised if, treated as we are, we do show some resentment. If, however, we are to meet at a quarter past seven this evening, as suggested by the Lord Chancellor, may I ask him to represent to his colleagues that the whole of the business coming from another place should be in our hands at that hour? We cannot go dribbling on here, with the chance very likely of having to meet at eight o'clock or nine o'clock to-morrow morning, while Ministers are discussing what their Irish policy is to be, if they have one. If we meet at a quarter past seven this evening let us have an assurance that the House of Commons will deal with all these Bills, and that we may, in the final stages of these matters, meet, at the hands of His Majesty's Government, with a rather more complaisant attitude than we have experienced hitherto.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:My Lords, I wish I could give some categorical assurance such as the noble Marquess has asked for, but I can no more rule the House of Commons than I can rule the wind and the waves. The House of Commons is sitting at 2.45 p.m. You may say that it ought to meet earlier,

463
but there is a European Conference of great importance going on at this moment, and it is taking up the whole of the Prime Minister's time. He has the greatest difficulty to get time for even the most necessary Parliamentary business. I am quite aware that your Lordships have not been treated well, but I do not know that one Ministry is worse than another in that respect. If your Lordships would be so kind as to re-assemble at a quarter past seven we will now simply adjourn during pleasure.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:My Lords, I feel very reluctant, as a new member, to intervene in this discussion, but I have for many years noticed that the House of Lords has always made protests against being badly treated towards the close of the Session, but they have done nothing more than made protests. So long as your Lordships only make protests this sort of thing will go on. The real way to stop it is to say: " Very well, we will not take the business." That would have some effect, but mere protests have been tried over and over again, and have not been found effective.
LORD DENMAN:Can the noble and learned Viscount tell us what are the arrangements for to-morrow?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:That is a very important question. I am told, but I have not got it on official authority, that the House of Commons proposes to meet at eleven o'clock tomorrow. The question is when your Lordships would like to meet. There is one thing we must have, and that is a Royal Commission, but that we can get at any time. The question is whether we should meet early, with the possibility that there may be some business to do, or whether we should meet a little later and ask for a Royal Commission. I am not in a position to say what the views of the House of Commons are on that subject, because I am not in a position to assure your Lordships that they meet at eleven o'clock. I am only going on the result of inquiries I have made unofficially this morning. Could we: leave this question until we meet this evening?
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON:Yes, I think it would be well to leave the decision of that matter until
464
we meet at a quarter past seven. I hope that Ministers will not put the House of Lords into the position of meeting at that hour with nothing before them. That would really bring things to a point, and I think that the House of Lords, placed in such a position, would have to take action which might really have a rather serious effect on the position of affairs. Therefore, I give that warning with all respect.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:We will do our best.
[The sitting was suspended at half past one o'clock and resumed at a quarter past seven o'clock.]

THE IRISH BOUNDARY COMMISSION.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON:My Lords, I understand that since we separated this afternoon a statement upon the Irish situation has been made in another place. I venture therefore to ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack whether, in pursuance of the engagement he gave earlier in the afternoon, he is prepared to make a similar statement to us here?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:Yes, my Lords. I will make a statement substantially in the same terms as that which was made in the other House—a fairly full statement. As the House is aware, in view of the Report of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the questions submitted to them, His Majesty's Government felt it necessary to confer with representatives of the Government of the Irish Free State and of the Government of North Ireland, and a joint meeting was held in London on August 2, after which the representatives of both Irish Governments returned in order to consult with their colleagues. The Colonial Secretary informed the House of Commons that His Majesty's Government felt that it was an honourable obligation binding upon the British people, to secure that the undoubted intention of the Treaty was carried into effect; and in order that that obligation might be fully discharged, His Majesty's Government entered into an agreement with the Government of the Irish Free State, duly signed on both sides, but subject to confirmation by the respective Parliaments,

465
to remedy the defect in the Treaty disclosed by the Report of the Judicial Committee; and the purpose of the Bill which he introduced to-day is to rectify and give the force of law, so far as this country is concerned, to that agreement.
On August 4 my right hon. friend the Prime Minister received a letter from the President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State in which Mr. Cosgrave stated that, after the fullest consultation with his colleagues, he felt it necessary to urge upon the British Government the necessity of passing the Bill into law before the adjournment of Parliament, in order to remove finally from the minds of the Irish people the grave doubts and suspicions which the long delay in the setting up of the Commission had created. The Prime Minister felt that he could not call upon Parliament to consider legislation which was certain to meet with serious opposition, not only in this House but in another place at the very end of the Session, and without allowing at least some period of time for reflection both here and elsewhere as to the grave issues involved. At his request, therefore, my right hon. friend the Home Secretary and Mr. Thomas crossed to Dublin that night. They had the fullest and frankest discussion yesterday with Mr. Cosgrave and his colleagues, who explained to them the very serious difficulties with which they were faced; and my right hon. friends explained to them the difficulties confronting His Majesty's Government and the British Parliament. I hope and believe that this mutual exchange of views was of value to both sides.
As a result of that discussion His Majesty's Government, feeling that they ought not to leave any room for doubt in the minds of the Irish people, or of the world, of their determination to carry the Treaty into effect, have decided to ask Parliament to meet again on the 30th of next month instead of on the 28th October as had been originally intended. On that date, unless in the meantime the Government of northern Ireland has nominated a member of the Commission, we shall move the Second Reading of the Bill, of which Notice was given to-day, and thereafter, in priority to any other business, we shall make use of all the powers available to us for the purpose of passing that Bill into law at the earliest possible date. I will not pretend that
466
the Free State Government were fully satisfied with this decision, or that they in any way receded from their view that the Bill should be passed into law forthwith, but? hope that nevertheless they will be able to satisfy their people that His Majesty's Government and the British people mean to keep faith with them and to afford no shadow of excuse for the accusation that this country has been in any way false to a Treaty solemnly entered into with the people of the Irish Free State.
After the adjournment of the House to-morrow, therefore, we have until the 30th of next month before the Second Reading of the Bill. His Majesty's Government most earnestly hope that in that interval the Government of Northern Ireland will see their way to appoint their representative on the Commission, and thereby to render the further progress of the Bill unnecessary.
But let there be no mistake and no misunderstanding. His Majesty's Government accepts the view that it is an honourable obligation undertaken by the people of Great Britain towards the people of the Irish Free State to secure that the Boundary Commission shall be set up and that its recommendations shall be made effective by the Governments concerned. The issues of this question are grave. They involve the honour and the good faith of this country. They are too serious to be the sport of Party passions and politics. I venture, therefore, to believe that it is not asking too much of the Press and people of this country if I express the hope that during the interval until this House meets again they will refrain from any action which might awaken old suspicions or inflame old prejudices. It is, I am sure, the earnest hope of all of us that those suspicions and prejudices may before long be forgotten for ever.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON:My Lords, it would, I think, be undesirable at this stage, and more particularly in view of the business that lies before us, to initiate a discussion on the very important pronouncement that we have just heard from the Woolsack, but I should like, nevertheless, to say upon it this. In the first place, His Majesty's Government appear to me to contemplate placing a very heavy, and indeed, I think,

467
an undue strain upon Parliament in the measures which they are proposing to take, and, secondly, that those measures appear to me to involve what, in reality, is a form of pressure as to the statesmanship of which I am not at all convinced. With regard to the actual words of the pronouncement that has just been read they seem to me, if I may say so—and I hear them now for the first time—to be tinged with some element of partiality.
Several NOBLE LORDS:Hear, hear!
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON:And when His Majesty's Government talk, as they have done more than once in the declaration to which we have just listened, about obligations of honour, let me remark that those obligations of honour are not confined to one Party only but equally apply to all.
NOBLE LORDS:Hear, hear!
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON:The noble and learned Viscount will know exactly what I mean, and the manner in which this observation of mine has been received will indicate that in this House we cannot feel any sympathy or agreement with the terms of the declaration that has just been made.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:Let me say at once that nothing has been farther from the mind of His Majesty's Government than to take up any partial attitude in this matter. They know that they are proposing a heavy burden on this House in asking it to reassemble on September 30, but the situation is so grave and the results of failure might be so serious that they feel it is their duty to ask your Lordships to meet even at some inconvenience to yourselves. Of course, if in the meantime Northern Ireland sees fit to appoint a Commissioner that would make a meeting on September 30 unnecessary and get rid of the difficulty. We cannot assume this, however. But the desire of the Government is to take up a wholly impartial attitude on this question.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON:My Lords, there is one question which I ought to put, but which I forgot when speaking just now. I understand that His Majesty's Government contemplate meeting on September 30 for this particular purpose should an agreement not be arrived at in the meantime. Will
468
the meeting of Parliament on that occasion, should it be necessary to convene it, be for the purpose of this particular Bill only? Hitherto, we have contemplated an adjournment until October 28. That is the day that has commonly been named in the Press for the reassembling of Parliament, but when Parliament is summoned shall we only have to deal with the Irish situation, or will the Government treat it as a resumption of the Session and proceed to deal with business as a whole?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:My Lords, the business that lies before the other House now in dealing with a number of Bills which your Lordships' House has passed is very heavy indeed, and therefore I cannot submit to the proposition that this Bill is the only one that will be taken. It seems, however, that there is-a good chance that your Lordships may not be called upon to devote much time to business here. The work got through during the past Session is very great indeed, and I presume there is not very much remaining which need absorb much of our time, but I prefer not to give a categorical answer to the noble Marquess without a fuller appreciation of the situation which might confront us on September 30. I can only say that it is the desire of the Government to lighten the burden we are asking your Lordships to undertake as much as we can.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:I do not know whether the Lord Chancellor contemplates meeting to-morrow; if so, perhaps the last question of the noble Marquess might be repeated then so that we could get a fuller reply.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:What is contemplated is this. The other House meets at eleven o'clock to-morrow. It has not much business that I know of, and I thought it might suit your Lordships' convenience to meet early also. The Royal Commission we must have to morrow, and as soon as that is disposed of we have no more business. I cannot, of course, tell what questions may arise out of the Bills we are considering to night, but when we have disposed of the Amendments it might be convenient to meet at eleven o'clock to-morrow, the same hour as the House of Commons, and have the Royal Commission almost immediately.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, without amendment.
ARBITRATION CLAUSES (PROTOCOL) BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, without amendment.

LONDON TRAFFIC BILL.
Message from the Commons: That they do not insist on their disagreement to the Amendment made by the Lords to the London Traffic Bill on which the Lords have insisted but agree to the Amendment with an Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR:My Lords, I beg to move that this Message be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 17, page 21, line 6, leave out ("twenty-seven") and insert ("thirty").
The Commons have amended this Amendment as follows:
Leave out (" thirty ") and insert (" twenty-eight ").
LORD PARMOOR:My Lords, I beg to move that the Amendment of the Commons to the Lords Amendment be accepted. The question arises, as your Lordships may know, on the matter of the date. Originally the date was November, 1927, but your Lordships altered it to the end of 1930. The Commons propose to leave out " thirty " and to insert " twenty-eight." If that Amendment is accepted, there is an end of the matter. No doubt it is a compromise, and accordingly I propose that the Amendment be accepted, and that " twenty-eight " be inserted instead of " thirty."
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment but agrees with the Commons in their Amendment to the Lords Amendment.—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON:My Lords, no doubt the proposal put forward by the Government regarding the Amendment to your Lordships'
470
Amendment which has been carried in another place is intended as a compromise, as the noble Lord has said. I feel disposed, on the whole, to urge your Lordships to regard it in that spirit, I cannot pretend that my noble friends behind me will be altogether satisfied in the matter, but, at the same time, we are not desirous of putting undue obstacles in the way, and my advice to my noble friends, unless they take a contrary view, will be that we should accept the Commons Amendment in the spirit of compromise in which it is proposed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.
Message from the Commons: That they agree to certain Amendments made by the Lords to the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill without amendment; that they agree to one Amendment with an Amendment and have made consequential Amendments to the Bill; and that they disagree to certain other Amendments for which they assign Reasons.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:My Lords, I beg to move that the Message from the Commons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments and Reasons be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack would describe to your Lordships what is the effect of these Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:The Commons have agreed to a considerable majority of the Amendments made by your Lordships, but there are two or three which they regard as vital. I will deal with these as I come to them; I think it would be the most convenient course that I should take them seriatim.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:My Lords, it will perhaps be best if I refer to the Amendments which your Lordships made. The first was on page 2 of the Bill, to leave out from the beginning of line 24 to the end of line 39. The Commons agree to your Lordships' Amend-

471
ment. Then on page 3, line 32, your Lordships inserted a proviso which is on the marshalled list of Amendments. That also the Commons agree to. Then we come to page 4 where, in line 21, this House inserted, " the Common Council of the City of London or by ": That the Commons agree to.
Then, I come to another Amendment on page 5, line 5, where your Lordships, after "tenants," inserted the words " who are members of the working classes and." With that Amendment the Commons are unable to agree for this Reason: " Because the words might be interpreted as excluding classes of persons such as poorly paid clerks and people of that type, and would therefore prevent such persons from becoming tenants of the houses." We think that such persons as the more poorly paid clerks should not be excluded from becoming tenants of these houses in considerable numbers, and I ask your Lordships not to insist upon this Amendment, and I move that the Lords do not insist upon the said Amendment.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 5, line 5, after (" tenants ") insert (" who are members of the working classes and ").
Moved, That the House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD STRACHIE:My Lords, as I was responsible for the Amendment, I may explain that this Bill deals with houses provided by the local authorities, and in its clauses refers to houses for the working classes. It is clear that the Bill was not intended to find houses for poorly-paid clerks and people of that type, but was intended to provide houses for people receiving a weekly wage. When this Amendment came before the House of Commons Mr. Wheatley rose in his place and moved that the House doth agree with the Lords Amendment, and it was only when objection was taken below the gangway, and the case of the poor clerk was mentioned, that the Government, under pressure, withdrew their agreement. It does seem to me that when the local authorities are asked to spend very large sums of money in the provision of houses for the working classes, and to put a heavy charge upon the local rates, we ought not to go outside those who are receiving weekly wages. Otherwise,
472
doctors who are not very well off or others of a like class may be provided with houses at the expense of the local rates.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:I am considerably puzzled by the action of the Commons in respect of this Amendment, because this is not the only place in which your Lordships inserted the phrase " who are members of the working classes." In Clause (2) (a), on line 24 of page 6, your Lordships inserted the same words " who are members of the working classes." I have been given to understand, although one cannot be certain, that the Commons have not disagreed with that phrase in the second instance that I have pointed out.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:They have.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:Then it is a very unreasonable proceeding. I do not understand on what possible ground you can justify the spending of these large sums of money unless the houses are to be let to people of the working classes. I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount suggests that there is a difficulty in the definition of " working classes." I think the phrase appears in many Housing Acts which have been passed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:It was not only from the Labour side in the House of Commons that this was pressed. It was pressed by Sir William Joynson-Hicks and by Mr. Masterman—the Conservatives and the Liberals—and the case made was so strong that the Government were convinced. " The working classes " is a perfectly vague phrase. There is no difference between a man who gets 35 s. a week for working with his hands and the man who gets 35 s. a week for working with his pen.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 5, line 39, leave out ("in the aggregate ").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:The next Amendment is also one on which a very strong line has been taken in the other House, It is in Clause 3 (1) (e). As it came before your Lordships' House that paragraph read as follows: —
"(e) that the rents charged in respect of the houses shall not in the aggregate exceed

473
the total amount of the rents that would be payable if the houses were let at the appropriate normal rents charged in respect of working-class houses erected prior to the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen…"
Your Lordships struck out the words "in the aggregate," and later inserted the words "of a similar size, type and amenity' so that, with a consequential Amendment the paragraph as it left this House read as follows:—
"(e) that the rents charged in respect of the houses shall not exceed the rents that would be payable if the houses were let at the appropriate normal rents charged in respect of working-class houses of similar size, type and amenity …"
those last words your Lordships inserted—
"erected prior to the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen …"
Your Lordships objected to the phrase "in the aggregate," apparently for two reasons, (1) because the phrase seemed to you to be ambiguous, and (2) because you considered that it might be open to abuse.
It is essential to the scheme of the Bill that the rents to be charged shall be fixed, not by comparing house with house, but by reference to the total amount of the rents that may be charged for the new houses as compared with the total amount of the rents that would be charged for pre-war houses, otherwise local authorities would be required to charge the same rent for houses of all types. It is essential that they should have power to vary their rents so as to make proper allowance for houses of different condition and amenity. The view emerged in the course of the discussion on the Amendments that a local authority might build a row of twenty houses letting the first three houses at preposterous rents and would then find that it had to let the remaining houses at very much lower rents until it came to the last house which had to be let without any rent at all. This would perhaps be true if the houses were let on perpetual lease, but as a matter of fact, they will as a rule be let on weekly tenancies and the rents therefore can be adjusted at any time.
The other point made against the clause was that it might be open to abuse inasmuch as a local authority might be tempted to let some of the houses to their friends at unduly low rents and charge
474
higher rents to others. There is really no ground for this suspicion. Local authorities under previous Housing Acts had the power, if they wished, to do the same thing, but no case of the kind has ever been brought to the notice of the Ministry. So long as there is local government, local authorities must be trusted; and there is no more reason to suspect abuse in the matter of rents than in the case of charges made by local authorities for, say, water or gas. That is the objection to the striking out of the words.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:Might I suggest to the noble and learned Viscount that we should take the Amendments in their order?
LORD GAINFORD:The noble and learned Viscount is dealing with the Amendment in line 39, I take it. The Amendments in line 12, line 17, and line 18 of page 5 have been agreed to?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:They have all been agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:I do not propose to go into the Amendments which the Commons have accepted or to give their reasons for so doing. The noble Lord may take it from me that the Commons have accepted those Amendments. The only reason why I referred to the others was because the answer was inseparable from the argument I am reading; that is to say, these words affect the uniformity of the pattern of the houses. The object of the Bill, as I said before, is to enable the working classes to have better houses for the same money, and unless you leave a certain amount of latitude to the local authorities the matter is likely to be very serious. We want to get rid of paying high rent for bad houses. That is the very reason why a subsidy is given both by the Government and by the local authorities, and to put these words into the Bill and change the principle would be very unwise. A similar Amendment was moved in the other House, and was rejected by 216 to 116.
I ask your Lordships' attention to this. On that Amendment Mr. Neville Chamberlain, who is supposed to know something about this matter, said he quite agreed with Mr. Wheatley that this Amendment, if it were carried, would

475
wreck the Bill, and that he was not going to try to kill the Bill by a side wind. I hope the noble Lord will not press this. It is an Amendment about which the other House took the strongest view, and, as I have pointed out to your Lordships, the House in that was supported by Mr. Neville Chamberlain. I beg to move that the Lords do not insist on the Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:My Lords, the real fact of the matter is that your Lordships are in this difficulty. In the first place, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, for some reason best known to himself, has mixed up these two Amendments which, with great respect to him, have nothing whatever to do with one another. The House will, of course, take them in their order. We have to deal, in the first instance, with the Commons refusal to accept your Lordships' Amendment that the words " in the aggregate " should be left out. That is the first Amendment with which we have to deal. It may be taken with that leaving out the words " total amount of the " because those two were consequential one upon the other. As your Lordships sent the Bill to the House of Commons it was intelligible. The House of Commons has restored the words, and so far as we know the result is unintelligible. If it was only myself making that assertion to your Lordships you might wonder that I had the hardihood to make such a. remark.
It is the great quality of your Lordships' House that we have amongst our numbers lawyers of very great distinction, and one of them who sits behind me has given it as his opinion that the drafting of the clause in respect of these particular matters is unintelligible. I am mot dealing with the question of " similar size, type, and amenity," which is a different point. But as regards these particular words which we are now considering the noble and learned Lord behind me, Lord Sumner, says that the drafting as it stands is unintelligible. Here you have a very high authority making that assertion. We do our very best. We improve the drafting, and we send it to the House of Commons. They do not attempt to meet our point. They
476
simply put it back as it was originally. I really do not know upon what principle we are to accept a piece of bad drafting which is really unintelligible. What is the good of having a revising Chamber if it is never allowed to .revise? The only reason why there is a certain hesitation in my voice is this —Is it worth while, in the face of the persistence of the House of Commons in insisting on putting unintelligible drafting in the Bill, to send the Bill back? I really do not know whether it is worth while or not.
If the noble and learned Lord who sits behind me still thinks there is no means of construing it, I do not know how we can leave the words in. It is not a matter of principle;? do not pretend that it is; but I think that for a revising Chamber to leave an unintelligible phrase in a Bill is asking us to do something which is almost without parallel.
LORD DENMAN:I would ask the Lord Chancellor whether it is not a fact that the point of privilege was raised by the Speaker in the House of Commons on these Amendments?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:Yes, I I might have mentioned privilege here. One of the Reasons for the Commons objecting to the Amendments was that this House was interfering with their financial arrangements.
LORD SUMNER:My Lords, I do not want to detain your Lordships at this late hour. I can only repeat what I said yesterday, that the words " shall not in the aggregate exceed the total amount of rents that would be payable " appear to me to have exactly the meaning which we objected to yesterday, and I am still unable to understand how these words can be appropriate for the purpose of enabling a local authority to build different "kinds of houses for different kinds of people instead of building the same kind of house that was built before the war. It does not touch the question at all. It deals with the total amount of rents they are to get out of the total number of houses we are dealing with. As to the next Amendment, which we have not come to yet, I understand that there is a more satisfactory answer, but if the Government press for these words, and is in a position to secure them, with the idea that they will enable local authorities

477
to build a variety of houses and let them at the old rents, then I am unable to understand the position. The words have a meaning, but not apparently the meaning which the Government attaches to them.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:My Lords, I should like to add one word on this point. There appears to be a curious misapprehension in the mind of the Government. The omission of these words will in no way restrict the possibility of building houses of different classes. That is an entire illusion. The Lord Chancellor said they would not be able to do it because they would be forced to charge the same rent for all the houses they build and that, therefore, they would be restricted, without these words, to one kind of house. That really is not so. That point may arise on the next Amendment, but on the question of "in the aggregate " it is not so. If the Lord Chancellor will look at the subsection to which he has already referred, subsection (3), of this clause, he will find that power is reserved, in charging the normal rents —a most confusing method of nomenclature—to have different sets of normal rents according to the different classes of house that are built.
Therefore, if a local authority, in building ten houses, desires to build five houses with five rooms and five with four rooms there is nothing to prevent it charging a different rent for the five houses with five rooms from that which they propose to charge for the five houses with four rooms. If you leave out these words there is nothing to prevent a local authority charging a different rent for the same house to different people: and that, to my mind, is an exceedingly objectionable power. It is a most objectionable thing, if you have ten houses all of precisely the same character, to charge a different rent for these houses according to the kind of people who occupy them; but that is the only power that these words " in the aggregate " give to the local authority. No other power is given. I do not know whether it is worth while your Lordships insisting on the Amendment, but so far the Government have not given even the shadow of an answer to the case made out.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:I am not speaking what has been conveyed to me.
478
I assure your Lordships that I have gone most closely into the drafting of this subsection with the draftsman. I am satisfied that, if the words " in the aggregate " were omitted, it would lead to a very great amount of doubt in the minds of those concerned. It was said that they make no difference. Very well; if they make no difference, why leave them out?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:They do make a difference.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:We think they do.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:So do I.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:The difference is, not that you can charge different rents for the same house to different people, but that you can differentiate the houses. What we want is that the total rents—though for some houses they may demand more than for others— shall be within the total. We think that this is the best policy, and it is the policy of the Bill, upon which the Minister has insisted with all his strength. This is not an Amendment which has been taken lightly in another place. I will not speak of the effect of insisting upon it, but I can only say that it is a very serious matter.
VISCOUNT PEEL:My Lords, may I ask this one question of the noble and learned Viscount? I understand part of his argument—whether it is correct or not I do not know—regarding the difficulty which these authorities might have in building different types of houses, but what I want to ask is whether, in his opinion, it would be possible, if these words are put in, for the local authority to build, say, a row of twenty houses and to let them at different rents to different persons. That is really the point on which we object. I put aside the question as to whether or not local authorities would do this, or whether they have in the past used their powers properly or improperly. I do not think that that point is relevant. The point is whether they can or cannot use the power of differentiating.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:I think that, if the local authorities were disposed for personal reasons to differentiate, no doubt they could do so, but at the same time your Lordships must remember that they had exactly the same powers under

479
the other Housing Bill and with regard to gas and water, and it has never happened. Not only do the local authorities not do it, but public opinion would round upon them if they did do it. I do not think there is the smallest risk, but it is far better to run a theoretical risk than to destroy the scheme of the Bill. That is the view of the Government, and that is the answer to the noble Viscount's question.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 5, lines 39 and 40, leave out (" total amount of the ").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:There is a consequential Amendment at lines 39 and 40, to leave out "total amount of the". I move that the Lords do not insist upon their Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 5, line 43, after ("houses") insert (" of similar size, type and amenity ").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:My Lords, then comes the next Amendment to which the Commons disagree, and that is the insertion after " houses," in line 43, of the words " of similar size, type and amenity." The object is to let at the rents now being paid in the area for prewar houses. Where the pre-war houses are in a large majority of cases of similar type, size and amenity to the new houses, the rents will be as the Lords Amendment desires—in other words, the people now well housed will get least assistance—but where the working classes occupy houses of an inferior type, in the majority of cases, our object is to give them better houses at present rents; in other words, to give the greatest help to those who need it most. This Amendment, as I have stated, was rejected in the House of Commons, and I propose to ask your Lordships not to insist upon it.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD STRACHIE:My Lords, I am responsible for this Amendment, and my attitude has been entirely misrepresented upon it. I should like to say that
480
the reason I moved it was that I adopted an Amendment moved by a very distinguished member on the Liberal side, when this Bill was in another place. The object of that Amendment was that when rents were fixed for houses under the Bill they were to be the same as houses erected prior to August, 1914, and it was desirable that the comparison should be with houses of the same kind, and not dissimilar ones. Otherwise, what is the object of this particular clause? Now I understand from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that my Amendment will have the effect of preventing very much better houses being let at lower rents than the inferior houses of 1914 could command.
The noble and learned Viscount has referred to this matter as being one on which the other House was in entire agreement. Nothing of the kind. Originally, this Amendment was moved by a Liberal Member, Mr. Simon, and your Lordships will be surprised to hear that he was backed up by Mr. Master-man. This is what the Manchester Guardian said:
"The Amendment standing in the name of Mr. E. D. Simon and Mr. Masterman would release the State from all obligation to enforce this principle of the subsidised rent, the application of which would be left to the discretion, and the pocket, of the local authorities. The Bill would then contain nothing definitely offensive. It might be faulty, clumsy, or ineffective. Its practical short-comings could be remedied, now or later. But unless this fundamentally corrupt vote-catching, demoralising subsidy to lucky tenants, this publicly financed lottery, is withdrawn as a statutory obligation upon the State and the already overburdened taxpayer, we do not see how Liberals or Conservatives can accept even part responsibility for a, Bill which they may be called upon to operate."
It may be true that Mr. Masterman changed his mind. I am not surprised at that
Mr. Chamberlain changed his mind, too. He was at one time entirely against this Bill; then he said he would not kill it by a side wind. But he afterwards tried to kill it on the Third Reading. We have had Mr. Chamberlain quoted to us, but he did not lead the Conservative Party in this matter. One hundred members—practically the whole of the Conservative Party present—went into the Lobby against Mr. Chamberlain, showing that the Conservative Party had the same views as were enunciated by the

481
Manchester Guardian. Therefore I cannot see what possible objection there can be to this Amendment, at least on the grounds given by the Lord Chancellor. As the Manchester Guardian said, it is merely a vote-catching clause, which I have tried to amend on the lines indicated by Mr. Simon.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:The attitude taken by the Government was endorsed by a majority of one hundred in the House of Commons. As to the merits of the dispute between Mr. Masterman and the Manchester Guardian I am not in a position to speak.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 6, line 24, after ("tenants") insert (" who are members of the working classes and ").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:My Lords, this Amendment was really conseqential to one upon which your Lordships have already not insisted. The Commons disagreed with it for the same reason as in the case of the similar Amendment at page 5, line 5. I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 4, page 8, line 21, leave out ("seven") and insert ("six")
Clause 4, page 8, line 21, leave out ("third") and insert ("second")
Clause 4, page 8, line 24, leave out (" two years ") and insert (" year ")
Clause 4, page 8, lines 26 and 27, leave out (" those two years ") and insert (" that year ").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:My Lords, I come now to the Amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, and although I cannot accept the first of them I am prepared to accept the later Amendment which does something of the same sort. I am dealing now with the Amendments to Clause 4, on page 8. One reason which the Commons have given is that privilege is involved. I am loath to raise questions of privilege if it can be avoided.
The Bill as it left another place proposed that the scheme might be brought
482
to an end if, in the year 1927 or any third succeeding year, the quota in houses had not been reached. Your Lordships amended this by proposing that the scheme might be brought to an end in the year 1926 and in any second succeeding year. The Commons disagree with these four Amendments because, in their opinion, they would entail a breach of the understanding not only with the building industry but also with the local authorities. Apart from this, and taking them purely on their merits, it is unreasonable to provide for the first review in 1926 instead of in 1927. Three years is considered to be the shortest reasonable period to allow of the necessary organisation to be in full running order. As to the proposal for biennial reviews instead of triennial, it is only right that a reasonable time should be allowed over which to average.
There may in any one year be some outstanding difficulty, such as an abnormally long winter or an unusually wet building season, which would unavoidably restrict the output, although the industry might well be in a position to overtake the reduction in numbers during the following years. Moreover, no industry can make arrangements for extending its resources if an accidental set of conditions in any year can bring the scheme to an end. I move that this House doth not insist upon the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:My Lords, I understand that although this series of Amendments is not accepted, the Amendments which belong to the next clause and which deal to some extent with the same order of ideas are to be accepted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:Dealing with the same order of ideas, you say?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:Yes; that is to say, the Commons have rejected the Amendments in regard to two years and three years on this clause, but have accepted them on the other clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:There are two formal Amendments which follow

483
but they are consequential. I think that in lines 26 and 27 is also consequential.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
Page 9, line 17, leave out (" seven ") and insert (" six ")
Page 9, line 18, leave out (" third ") and insert (" second ")
Page 9, line 21, leave out ("three") and insert (" two ")
Page 9, line 25, leave out ("three") and insert (" two ").
The Commons accept these Amendments in principle, but propose the following Amendments in substitution:
Page 9, line 17, leave out (" seven ") and insert ("six, after the first day of October in that year ")
Page 9, line 18, leave out (" in any third succeeding year ") and insert (" in each second succeeding year after the first day of October in such year ")
Page 9, lines 20 and 21, leave out (" next succeeding three years ") and insert (" period of two years from such first day of October ")
Page 9, lines 24 and 25, leave out (" preceding three years ") and insert (" period of two years ending on that day ")
Page 9, line 33, leave out from (" the ") to (" date") in line 35
Page 9, line 36, leave out (" as the case may be ").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:My Lords, I now come to the more agreeable part of my ordeal. Lord Banbury moved some Amendments and I am prepared to accept these with a slight variation which I do not think affects the substance. The Commons accept these Amendments in principle but propose Amendments in substitution of the- Lords Amendments. The object of these Amendments is to accept the Lords Amendments in Clause: 5 which provide for the first revision of contribution taking place in 1926, instead of 1927, and for subsequent biennial revisions instead of triennial revisions, and to supplement the Lords Amendments by providing that in the year 1926 and in each second succeeding year the revision is to be made after the first of October in the year in question. These are all consequential alterations, and do not really touch the substance of Lord Banbury's Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendments but does agree
484
with the Amendments made by the Commons to the Lord's Amendments.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
Page 10, lines 11 and 12, leave out (" the Commons House ") and insert ("both Houses ")
Page 10, line 13, leave out (" that House ") and insert (" this House ").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:My Lords, when your Lordships put in " both Houses " I think you were under the impression that the Orders to which this related were Orders which might touch something other than finance. The Commons retain the view that the drafts of these Orders should be laid before them alone as they merely affect the continuation or the amount of the Exchequer contribution.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
First Schedule, page 15, leave out from the beginning of line 4 to the end of line 7, and insert: —

("1925

90,000

1927

110,000

1929

135,000

1931

170,000

1933

210,000

1935

225,000

1937

225,000")

The Commons disagree with this Amendment:
Because it is consequential upon the Amendments to Clause 4 with which they have also disagreed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:My Lords, I move that your Lordships do not insist on the Amendment. It is consequential.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON:My Lords, I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor whether it would not be desirable to adjourn at this stage. We have to consider now the action taken by the House of Commons with regard to the Agricultural Wages Bill, and I am sure the Lord Chancellor will agree that it

485
is desirable that we should have time to make ourselves acquainted with the Amendments we are now about to discuss. I suggest we should adjourn for an hour and meet again at half past nine.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:Or a quarter to ten.
[The sitting was suspended at half past eight o'clock and resumed at a, quarter before ten.]

AGRICULTURAL WAGES BILL.
Message from the Commons: That they agree to certain of the Amendments made by the Lords to the Agricultural Wages Bill without amendment, they disagree to one other Amendment and have made an Amendment in lieu thereof and they disagree to certain other Amendments for which they assign Reasons.
LORD PARMOOR:My Lords, I beg to move that we consider the Reasons sent from the House of Commons in connection with the Agricultural Wages Bill.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment and Reasons be now considered.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR:Noble Lords, I think, have the statement of the Lords Amendments before them. In regard to those on page 1, the Amendments are agreed to and therefore no question arises about them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:All the Amendments on page 1?
LORD PARMOOR:Yes, all the Amendments on page 1, as well as one on page 3.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill No. 188 as first printed for the Lords.]
Page 5, leave out Clause 6.
LORD PARMOOR:I beg to move that the House doth not insist upon its Amendment to leave out Clause 6. The other House has disagreed with your Lordships upon it. I ought to say that the reasons given by the Commons are these. They consider that it is desirable that the Minister should have power to require the Committee to consider a minimum rate in view of circumstances that may not
486
have been considered when the rate was fixed. I think there was a little misunderstanding when we were dealing with this clause here, because it does not give the Minister any power in reference to fixing the rate at all. It only gives him the power of referring a matter back to the local committee, should he desire to do so.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment. — (Lord Parmoor.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:My Lords, I moved this Amendment in Committee and the noble and learned Lord, representing the Government, agreed to it. I do not understand the procedure of the present Government. Here is a leading member of the Government in this House who agrees to an Amendment. It then goes down to another place, the other place throw over, not only your Lordships' House but the whole of the Front Bench sitting opposite to us, who agreed to the Amendment. The noble and learned Lord says that it is not intended that such things shall happen. That is all very well, but it is by the Bill, when it becomes an Act, that the Courts, the Minister and the wages committee will be guided. It is no protection for the noble and learned Lord to say here that he is of opinion that nothing will happen. It was only yesterday that the noble and learned Lord, after having put a provision in the Bill, said that he did not intend to act upon it. After having said that an offence was to be created, he went so far as to say that they did not intend to prosecute for that offence which they themselves had created.
The noble and learned Lord and his supporters may not be here after another two months, or perhaps even less, and what is going to happen then? I do not want to repeat the argument which I used in moving this Amendment, but I venture to say that the statement of the noble and learned Lord—I am sure unwittingly—is absolutely incorrect. The noble and learned Lord says that the Minister will have no power to do more than refer the question to the wages board. I have already shown your Lordships that he has a great deal more power than that. He can direct the two independent members nominated by him under the Bill to do certain things. He

487
will do that privately of course, and if those two members do not agree to do it, perhaps, when the time comes, they will be dismissed and two other members will be appointed. But even if they do not do that, consider the effect which will be created amongst the workers and the farmers by the Minister interfering.
This really is an attempt to get over the abandonment of the Central Wages Board. It is an attempt to carry out from London, and by the Minister, the functions of the local committees, and to say from London what the farmers are to do. I will not take up your Lordships' time at this hour, but I earnestly hope that we shall insist upon this Amendment. We have been brought here at very great inconvenience to consider this matter in a very short time, and it is impossible adequately to consider all these various Amendments to a number of Bills in so short a time. The insistence upon this Amendment will not in any way vitiate the principle of the Bill. The principle that there shall be committees consisting of employers and employed with two independent members to settle wages will still remain. All that will happen will be that the Minister will not have power to override the decisions of the localities to fix wages.
LORD PARMOOR:My Lords, I should like to say a word in answer to the noble Lord. I think he has shown quite conclusively that he has had quite sufficient time to study the question. Still, I think he has made a mistake, and I know how accurate he generally is in dealing with clauses. I think it was owing to a statement made on a former stage that perhaps I went wrong. The clause says: —
"The Minister may direct an agricultural wages committee to reconsider any minimum rate which has been fixed by them, and thereupon the committee shall reconsider the same and notify to the Minister the result of their reconsideration."
I do not agree with what the noble Lord has said with regard to the influence of the Minister. He simply asks that in the circumstances the matter shall be reconsidered. It is really a clause in the same form as in the Corn Production Act. I hope your Lordships will not insist upon the Amendment. I admit I was wrong when the matter was discussed before. It was my own fault and I am sorry.
THE EARL OF MAYO:My Lords, I have here a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT from which it appears that the Lord President distinctly agreed to this Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR:That is what I have said. I do not deny it. It was a mistake on my part, and only shows that we cannot always be infallible. It was a mistake, but I do not think I misled any one.
THE EARL OF MAYO:There is a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT which is very distinct, and it is all very well for the Lord President now to say that it was a mistake. He actually agreed to the Amendment without making any terms whatsoever. He said that he thought it was not a very important clause.
LORD CLINTON:My Lords, I do not know whether there is much reason to be surprised that the Lord President attaches so much importance to this clause considering the enormous powers which the Minister will exercise. What is surprising is that the Government should have such little confidence in the creatures of their own creation. They have great powers. Under the schedule they can nominate the representative members, although I understand they do not intend to do so. They can pack the committee with their appointed members. They can select their own secretary and appoint all their own officers, and in some circumstances may even appoint the chairman. It is really, therefore, unnecessary that they should take the further power of disagreeing with the decision at which their own people have arrived and refer it back for their reconsideration, with the only possible result that they will agree with what the Minister instructs them to do. I do not attach the same importance to this clause as the noble Lord. The Minister has great powers already, and I am not sure that this is a very great enlargement of them. As the Government have really found out that this is a matter of the greatest importance to them I suggest that your Lordships do not insist on the Amendment.
LORD GAINFORD:My Lords, many of us were prepared to support the Government in the retention of this clause in the earlier stages of the Bill and were

489
much surprised that they gave way and agreed to its omission. All I have to say is that, as a somewhat remote Cabinet Minister of past days, I understood that there was a principle in the constitution of collective responsibility between Ministers, that if one Minister committed his Government to a particular course it was expected that Ministers in another place would support him. I recognise the very difficult task that the Leader of the House has had in connection with this Bill and the way this House has been treated by another place in having these Amendments suddenly thrust upon us and being expected to deal with them without adequate notice. My friends and I will adhere to their previous intention of supporting the Government on this matter rather than jeopardise the Bill in connection with this clause.
EARL STANHOPE:My Lords, may I say that I should be sorry if this Amendment is abandoned and for a different reason from those which have been mentioned to your Lordships already? If this Bill is going to work at all, and many of us hope that it will, the whole essence' of it depends upon the confidence established by the local wages committees. Could anything undermine confidence in these committees more than a clause of this character? It means that at any moment matters may be referred to the Minister over their heads, and decisions which they have arrived at, perhaps with considerable difficulty, are then referred to them again. All the confidence in these committees, both among farmers and labourers, will be seriously undermined if the clause remains in the Bill and is put into operation by the Minister of the day.
LORD STRACHIE:My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam in being very glad that this Amendment was accepted by the Lord President, and in consequence I did not move another Amendment which w-as somewhat to the same effect. On the other hand, I had an opportunity of hearing the discussion of this question in the House of Commons in the course of which Mr. Buxton asserted most clearly that the National Farmers' Union were agreed that this clause should remain in the Bill. To my mind, if the National Farmers' Union take that line—and,
490
after all, they are the great employers of agricultural labour and the people most closely interested in this matter—tbeir view satisfies me completely, and if we go to a Division I shall certainly support the Government.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:My Lords, on this Bench we have listened very carefully to the discussion which has taken place and we are placed in considerable difficulty by it. Personally, I should like to see this clause left out of the Bill if it could possibly be managed, but I think that your Lordships, before absolutely deciding upon the matter, should realise exactly what is the situation between the two Houses of Parliament. May I say with great respect—I am sure the noble Lord opposite, the Lord President, will allow me to say this—that I think it was almost a pity that when the Question was put from the Woolsack that the Message from the Commons should be now considered, he did not inform your Lordships—and no man could do it better than he—of the general effect of the treatment of your Lordships' Amendments by another place.
The general effect of that treatment is that the House of Commons have, I think, rejected five Amendments, but of those, I believe that we shall without difficulty restore the principal part of two of them which would leave only three Amendments which the House of Commons had definitely rejected. This reduces the matter to comparatively narrow limits, and all the rest of your Lordships' Amendments would then be accepted except those three. Of these, two have reference to the consultation with the agricultural wages committees before the secretary and officers are appointed, which is not a matter of first rate importance, so that what it really comes to is that this question of leaving out Clause 6 is the only matter of first-rate importance in which the House of Commons has differed from your Lordships. My noble friend Lord Clinton, who understands this matter better than I do, confirms, I understand, that which I have just ventured to say to your Lordships.
In those circumstances, what course ought we to take? There is a difference of opinion amongst noble Lords who have spoken. Lord Clinton himself recommended your Lordships to agree with the

491
Commons, and I understand that Lord Strachie takes the same view, while the Farmers' Union, apparently, have agreed, though really in the case of these outside bodies it is very difficult—
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:I do not admit that they have agreed voluntarily.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:My noble friend has always very good information about almost everything. There is also my noble friend Lord Gainford, who has said that those in whose name he speaks are anxious to agree with the Commons. In these circumstances I am almost inclined to suggest that we should not insist upon this Amendment, this being the only really important difference of opinion between the two Houses of Parliament. I am, of course, taking great responsibility upon myself, and I hope your Lordships will 'have some sympathy with me, because this is a speech which ought to have come, if I may say so respectfully, from the other side of the House. It is the proper function of the Minister to explain what happens in another place, because he knows what has been done there, and I do not. In all the circumstances I thought it right to do my utmost to make the Constitution work and to prevent the possibility of this Bill being lost altogether, which might happen if we insisted upon this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:The Question is that this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment—I think the " Contents " have it.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:But I said " Not-Content."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:I thought the noble Lord did not insist.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:Yes, certainly I did.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:Then I have been under a misapprehension and I think I ought to put the Question again. Does the noble Lord insist?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:I certainly said "Not-Content," but I understand I must accept the Commons decision.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 9, line 7, after (" and ") insert (" (after consultation with the agricultural wages committee concerned) ").
LORD PARMOOR:My Lords, I am sorry I did not give the explanation which the noble Marquess suggested, but I thought I had given sufficient explanation before proceeding to the particular Amendment. The Amendment on page 8, line 40, to leave out subsection (2) and insert a new subsection, has been agreed to by the Commons, and therefore I need not trouble your Lordships about that. On page 9 you will remember your Lordships inserted, in line 7, after " and," the words " after consultation with the agricultural wages committee concerned." Now the other House have disagreed to that Amendment and I ask your Lordships not to insist upon it. The reason I do so is that from an administrative point of view it would be found, I am told, to be inconvenient, and more particularly as regards committees when first formed. As I pointed out the other day, the desire is to have the formation of the committees assisted by those who would afterwards be their secretaries. And a serious matter I think is that a far more efficient secretary would be obtained by having a secretary to act for more than one of these committees. In that way you would get efficiency of work and economy in expense. I therefore ask your Lordships not to insist upon the Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 9, line 9, after ("number ") insert (" and after such consultation as aforesaid ").
LORD PARMOOR:My Lords, the next Amendment at line 9, which is to insert after " number " the words " and after such consultation as aforesaid," is consequential, and I move that your Lordships do not insist on the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(Lord Parmoor.)
EARL STANHOPE:I must say one word upon this. It is, of course, not con-

493
sequential. The noble Lord has twice said that the House put it in under a misapprehension, but it was a separate question, and it is not consequential.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 9, line 13, after (" power ") insert (" on giving reasonable and proper notice ").
LORD PARMOOR:My Lords, at the beginning of the various paragraphs which follow the word " power " your Lordships introduced the words " on giving reasonable and proper notice." The other House have put in after (a) in line 14 " after giving reasonable notice." It will run therefore as follows:
"any officer so appointed shall have power after giving reasonable notice to require …"
and so so. As regards paragraph (b) attention was called to the fact that you might enter at dwelling house without reasonable notice and that is a matter which I think should be dealt with. Therefore, I am now going to propose that paragraph (b) should run in this way: —
"(b) to enter at all reasonable times any premises or place for the purpose of such inspection or for the enforcement of this Act, hut in the case of a dwelling house not without giving reasonable notice."
I hope that your Lordships will, therefore, not insist upon your Amendment, and I shall move those words, in order to carry out what, I think, your Lordships had in mind as regards- the entrance of a dwelling house.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD SUMNER:My Lords, would the Lord President tell us, with reference to paragraph (a), where it is that his proposed Amendment would come in? The Amendment that we have made already introduces reasonable notice as prefatory to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).
LORD PARMOOR:Yes.
LORD SUMNER:The noble and learned Lord did not tell us whether lie introduced his reasonable notice in paragraph (a)—which would make it only applicable to (a)—or after the word
494
"power," which would make it applicable to all three paragraphs. If he brings it in after the letter (a), so that it would read " after reasonable notice to require," then, although there is a provision for reasonable behaviour under paragraph (b), there is no provision whatever for reasonable behaviour under paragraph (c). It remains that there is to be power at any time and in any circumstances to require any worker, employer or agent to give any information, and if he does not do it there is power to fine him.
LORD PARMOOR:I thought I made it clear that there has been an Amendment put in by the House of Commons after (a). Therefore, the words " after reasonable notice to require the production " refer only to (a). Then I want to move an Amendment to the Commons Amendment as regards (b), that is, to insert the words " but in case of a dwelling-house not without giving reasonable notice."
LORD SUMNER:(e) is a power reasonable or unreasonable?
LORD PARMOOR:There is no limitation that I propose as regards (c).
LORD CLINTON:I appeal to the noble Lord to put the words in after " power," because it is most important. An unreasonable officer might require the worker to give any information at any time.
LORD PARMOOR:This matter has been very carefully considered, and I am afraid I cannot go further than I have indicated.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:I think that we are very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the distance he has gone. Let me suggest to him that he should go a step further. What he proposes to do is to continue your Lordships' Amendment so far as paragraph (a) is concerned?
LORD PARMOOR:Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:And to insert it in a very truncated form so far as paragraph (b) is concerned?
LORD PARMOOR:Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:But he proposes to leave paragraph (c) absolutely untouched?
LORD PARMOOR:Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:Surely it is a very small step really to insist upon the Lords Amendment which would cover all three paragraphs. I do not want to make a pun, but I really think it would be a reasonable thing to do.
LORD PARMOOR:If I might reply to the noble Marquess, this matter has been very carefully considered with a desire to make what seemed to be a fair adjustment. But I am bound to say that the Government cannot assent to any change in paragraph (e).
VISCOUNT PEEL:Will the noble and learned Lord give us the reason why they cannot assent?
LORD PARMOOR:I was just going to do so. Paragraph (c) requires any such worker, or the employer of any such worker, or any agent of the employer to give any information which it is in his power to give with respect to the employment of the worker or the wages paid to him. I will assume that an officer has reason to think that a worker has not been paid a proper minimum wage or a proper rate of wages, or whatever it is. I cannot see any reason at all why he should give any notice. All that he is asked to do is to require any such worker or employer or agent of an employer to give any information which it is in his power to give with respect to the employment of the worker and the wages paid to him. Surely you do not want to give any notice about that. It would be most inconvenient.
An officer has reason to suppose that a proper rate of wages has not been paid, and he goes and asks the worker and the . employer about it. I should have thought that was the proper way of proceeding. At any rate, I am bound to say that the view of the Minister of Agriculture is that it would be a serious interference in a question of that kind.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON:My Lords, may I say a few words before the Motion is put? I am sorry
496
that the noble and learned Lord has not seen his way to accept the words that are proposed as governing (a), (b) and (c), but I realise that he has gone some considerable distance to meet us, and I am not certain that as regards paragraph (c) the question has the great importance which some of the noble Lords behind me seem disposed to attach to it. But if your Lordships look at the words you will see that they run as follows—
"Any officer so appointed shall have power—
(c) to require any such worker, or the employer of any such worker, or any agent of the employer to give any information which it is in his power to give with respect to the employment of the worker or the wages paid to him."
That leaves a considerable licence to the person who is called upon to give the information and, although it does not correspond to all that my noble friends behind me desire, it hardly seems to me worth while on our part, if I may venture to give advice, to carry the matter to the point of dissenting from the recommendations of another place on this point. I am disposed, therefore, rather reluctantly, to urge my noble friends to accept the compromise that has been offered.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR:The Amendment agreed to is, as I have said, already in paragraph (a). The Amendment I have to propose is after the word " Act " in paragraph (b) to insert " but in the case of a dwelling house not without giving reasonable notice." I move that those words be therein inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 20, after (" Act ") insert (" but in the case of a dwelling house not without giving reasonable notice ").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
Page 11, line 23, after ("worker") insert (" who has attained the age of twenty-one years and ")
Page 11, line 23, leave out from (" incapable ") to ("of") in line 25.
LORD PARMOOR:My Lords, the next point upon which there is disagreement is as regards the words inserted after the word "worker" in line 23. This refers

497
to the expression "able-bodied man means any male worker who is not incapable of performing the work of a normally efficient worker." There were two Amendments, one inserting an age limit, and the other taking out words that were originally in the Bill. In the original definition as the Bill came to us the expression "able-bodied man" means "any male worker who is not incapable by reason of physical injury or mental deficiency, or any infirmity due to age or any other cause, of performing the work of a normally efficient worker." I move that we do not insist upon our Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendments.—(Lord Parmoor.)
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:My Lords, I venture to make a suggestion to the Government upon this matter. If your Lordships decide not to insist upon your Amendments I suggest that an Amendment in lieu of them should be accepted, and that is that we should strike out this definition altogether. The Lord President of the Council was good enough to say he was not unfavourable to that at an earlier stage of this discussion. The more I look at this the more convinced I am that it is quite unnecessary to have a definition of able-bodied man. If you look again at subsection (4) of Clause 2, which is the only place where "able-bodied man" is mentioned, you will find that it is perfectly clear what is intended. The man as to whom any special application for a permit to take a lower wage has been applied for is the kind of man who will have a wife and family. That is really what is meant, and, that being so, I really do not see the advantage of putting in all these words which certainly will give rise to misconception as they stand. I think we convinced the whole House, including, I believe, the Treasury Bench, that the actual definition was neither grammar nor sense, and in these circumstances I hope the Government will consent to strike this out. That I think is the best way out of the difficulty. I understand that if we do not insist on our Amendments that I can move an Amendment in lieu thereof to the effect that the definition of able-bodied man be struck out of the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:My Lords, I now move that the words from line 22 to line 26 on page 11 be omitted from the Bill, namely:—
The expression "able-bodied man" means any male worker who is not incapable by reason of physical injury or mental deficiency, or any infirmity due to age or to any other cause, of performing the work of a normally efficient worker;
Amendment moved—
Page 11, leave out from line 22 to line 26.—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
LORD PARMOOR:My Lords, I was aware that this suggestion might be made by the noble Viscount. If I spoke my own mind it agrees with the noble Viscount to a great extent, but I have been told by those who represent the Government in the Ministry of Agriculture that I could accept this suggestion if your Lordships generally were in favour of that solution of the matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON:My Lords, may I ask the Lord Chancellor whether we meet at eleven o'clock to-morrow?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:Yes, if your Lordships are agreeable, and I think we shall be able to take the Royal Commission very soon after.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON:Can the Lord Chancellor give us any idea as to what will be the business to-morrow?
LORD PARMOOR:May I reply to that question? There will be the Appropriation Bill, and it may be that the Agricultural Wages Bill will have to come back to us again. If the Amendment is accepted, of course it will not come back.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON:The Lord Chancellor, at an earlier stage this afternoon, gave us a repetition of the statement which had been made in another place on the Irish situation. I am informed that a statement, which I have not yet seen in the newspapers and of which I am not cognisant, has also been made with regard to the negotiations

499
with Russia. Is the Lord Chancellor prepared to make any statement on that question?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:I am in the same position as the noble Marquess. I have not seen the statement.
THE MARQUESS CUEZON OF KEDLESTON:The Lord Chancellor may be unaware of the statement that has been made, but I assume that he has a certain responsibility as a member of the Government, and I assume that if His Majesty's Government has arrived at a decision the Lord Chancellor is cognisant of it. If that is the case I am sure we shall be glad if he can give us an idea as to what the Government have decided to do.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:My difficulty is this. The noble Marquess says that there has been a statement made in the House of Commons to-night on the question of Russia. All I can say is that I have not heard of it. It may be that there has been such a statement in which case it will come to me in due course. After all, human nature is limited.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON:But human nature likes a plain answer to a plain question, and the question I desire to put to the Lord
500
Chancellor is whether His Majesty's Government have come to an agreement or not. It is quite immaterial to the question as to whether, a statement has been made in another place.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:If they have it has been subsequent to anything that has come to my cognisance. It may be that they have come to some agreement. If so, I have not been informed of it.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:May I ask the Lord Chancellor if he knows whether it is a fact or not that the-Government have undertaken to guarantee a loan, under certain conditions, to Russia, the conditions of which we do not yet know?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:I am not responsible for everything that is in the newspapers.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:No, that is the statement made in the House of Commons.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:I am not aware of it.
House adjourned at half-past ten o'clock.