Lords Sitting of 17 December 1924

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

ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law with respect to the regulation of advertisements, and to move that it be now lead a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

IRISH FREE STATE LAND PURCHASE (LOAN GUARANTEE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.

NATIVE ADMINISTRATION OF NIGERIA.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to an article in the current number of the National Review entitled "Nigeria's Curse—The Native Administration"; and whether they will have inquiries made as to the truth of the allegations contained therein. The article to which my Question refers was written by an official who served for seventeen years as a Political Officer in Northern Nigeria.
The charges which he makes are so numerous and the abuses he alleges are so flagrant that it is rather difficult to make a selection, but I would ask your Lordships to listen to a few paragraphs. He says:—
"Before the British took over the country an Emir was an Emir just so long as his hands could guard his head. The system was one of autocracy, tempered by assassination. A strong, capable, intriguing man

141
who could get a following and keep it could become an Emir, whatever his birth. The British, on their arrival, retained and supported in power those Emirs who went over to them, and the others they disposed of. Vacancies occurring since have been filled by men appointed by the Nigerian Government. The tempering by assassination has been abolished, the autocracy, tyranny, remain, reinforced. The Emirs to-day are maintained by British bayonets, so that there are men holding these positions at this time who would not last a week once the bayonets were to cease…
"The first thing an Emir does on being appointed is to make secure his tenure of the post. To this end as many as possible of his relations and friends are put upon the pay roll. Such men are, of course, his sworn supporters, and their number is augmented by other men who hope to get on to the salary list. The effect is that the population falls necessarily into two classes—those who draw salaries and those who pay taxes. The interests of these classes are diametrically opposed.
"The men on the pay roll number a good many. Besides the Emir himself there are: Emir's secretarial staff, treasurer and staff, Judges and Court officials, police, prisons staff, district headmen, village headmen, load and bridge making staff, medical staff, messengers, markets staff."
The interests of this class are diametrically opposed to the interests of those who pay the taxes.
The writer goes on to give a number of examples, and continues:—
"On the one side there is the Native Administration, for ever, like the daughters of the horse leech, crying for more, more, more—money. On the other there is the proletariat, with its taxes for ever being screwed up.
"Extortion of every sort is rife. Common forms of it are:—

"(a) Taxes being collected twice over.

"(b) People who have been turned out en masse to clean a road, or to build houses, or to do some other sort of work, being either given no pay at all, or a derisory sum, although an adequate amount has been voted and actually paid by the Treasury for distribution to the workers.

"(c) Provision, compulsory, by the people of entertainment for the Emir and his followers and his horses, or for his representatives, without any payment being made.

"(d) Presents—'dashes'—to the Emir's wives and his relatives and his hangers-on, on demand, and of course with no quid pro quo.

"(e) 'Loans' to Native Administration personnel, of horses, stock, women, grain, money, etc.

"Theoretically the plebs, thus unjustly treated, have their remedy. They can go to
142
the Native Court. There they are not likely to resort more than once. The Native Court depends upon the Emir, and is not going to get itself into trouble in that quarter."
He goes on to state that theoretically the natives can appeal to the British Political Officer, but this is useless for two reasons: in the first place, that they dare not do so because they would be punished by the Emir if they did so, and, secondly, because the Political Officer can do nothing, for no attention is paid to anything that he says either by the Emir or the Government in Nigeria.
The writer goes on:—
"In these circumstances it is not surprising that nowadays the Political Officer on tour gets no complaints against the Native Administration. The people know better than to complain. It was not always so. But yearly the Native Administration grows more and more powerful, and in this matter of extortion, more efficient. To-day, it is a veritable Old Man of the Sea, fastened upon the shoulders of the poor man, daily growing heavier, grinding him down, crushing urn. It is the apotheosis of inexpugnable tyranny."
That is a very serious indictment, and even if it were less circumstantial than it is I should have no difficulty in believing every word of it, as I have seen exactly the same thing taking place in exactly the same circumstances in Trans-Jordania.
There we gave unlimited power to an unprincipled tyrant, and the same results followed— subservient Judges, taxes paid twice over, compulsory presents, and jobs for ad the Emir's friends and relations, exactly as described in this article, portions of which I have read to your Lordships. There things went a step further because we were compelled, in order to support the Emir's authority, to send armoured cars to shoot down the people whom his tyranny had driven into rebellion. I have also seen a similar system being built up in Uganda, where Chiefs are encouraged to appoint their own police, assess and collect their own taxes, and act as judges in their own causes. There are no black men and few white men fit to be entrusted with such powers.
In order to give your Lordships some idea of the sort of people these negro potentates are, I will quote an extract from a book by Lady Lugard, wife of a former Governor, in which she describes the condition of Northern Nigeria before

143
we took over the country, twenty-five years ago. This extract reads:—
"For the nails to be torn out with red hot pincers, for the limbs to be pounded one by one in a mortar while the victims were still alive, for important people who had offended to be built up alive gradually in the town walls, till, after a period of agony, the bead of the dying man was finally walled up, were among the punishments well attested to have been inflicted in the decadence of Fulani power. It is said that a considerable number of the walls of Haussa towns are known by the people to have been so built up, and are even now called by the names of the most distinguished victims whose corpses they contain. Impalement and mutilation were among the penalties of lesser offences. Some of the Fulani Emirs would themselves appear to have been monsters of inhumanity, who rejoiced, like the depraved Emperors of Dome, in witnessing the mortal agonies of their victims."
It is to the sons and nephews of these men that we have given uncontrolled power over the lives and fortunes of millions of British subjects.
There are, no doubt, in the files of the Colonial Office Reports signed by successive Governors of Nigeria to the effect that this system works admirably; in fact, I believe it was owing to the enthusiastic character of those Reports that the system was adopted elsewhere. Theoretically, the Governor knows everything that goes on, but practically he leads a very secluded life. When he goes on tour he is so carefully chaperoned that even if he knows the language of the country, which he seldom does, he has no real opportunity of forming an opinion as to the condition of the people. Most of the year he is in Government House surrounded by an exclusive circle consisting of his family and relations', his staff and senior officials, and these people live in a little world of their own, a world of tea-parties and tennis tournaments, quite apart from the real life of the country. Their ignorance of native affairs is often ludicrous. We have a Governor, therefore, who, whatever his abilities, can have no more than a superficial knowledge of the conditions of the people. He lives in the best of all possible Colonies, and he is surrounded by officials who are continually convinced that what looks well on paper must be well. In these circumstances it is hardly surprising that unpleasant facts so seldom find their way into official Reports.
It is not my intention to make any personal attack on the character of
144
British officials. They are almost invariably conscientious and hardworking, but their views are almost completely obscured by piles of correspondence, and if they are told that atrocities are being committed by a man who has smiled amiably at them over the top of the pile, they simply refuse to believe it. The success or failure of a native administration depends entirely on the attitude towards the Government of the ordinary cultivator, and this attitude is never taken into consideration. It used to be our boast that wherever the British flag was flown there was equal freedom and justice for all. We seem to have given up that idea, and the idea now is liberty amounting to licence for the Emir and Chiefs and slavery for everybody else.
What I want to ask His Majesty's Government is: What is the object of this change? Is the idea to stabilise native institutions? If so, the only things that are stabilised are tyranny and corruption. You cannot pour the new wine of civilised administration into the old bottles of savage despotism. Is the idea to develop the capacity of the natives for self-government? If so, it is difficult to see how this can be achieved by conferring despotic power on a few individuals. Is the idea to save trouble in administration? It certainly does save trouble up to a point. It is very troublesome to keep a tax roll, and it is much easier to hand the duty over to the local Chief. It is very troublesome to hear all the native cases, for this involves the knowledge of complicated systems of blood money and marriage payments. It is much easier to hand these matters over to the native Chief. He will almost certainly tax the people double and pocket the balance, and, if he has to try any case, is almost certain to decide it in favour of the party most closely connected with himself. It is a saving of trouble certainly, but it inevitably leads to more serious trouble in the long run. This system of native administration has always worked badly, always must work badly. How badly it works depends on the degree of British control, and in Northern Nigeria there is no effective control whatever.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, we shall all agree that it is most important that grave charges, such as those raised by the noble Lord, should be thoroughly investigated by His Majesty's Government, and

145
I have no doubt they will take the steps that are necessary to that end. I could very well have left the defence of the Government of Nigeria, if such defence is needed, to the noble Karl opposite who is to speak on behalf of the Government, and in fact I was quite prepared to do so, but I have been rather stimulated by some remarks that fell from the noble Lord with regard to the manner in which the government of Nigeria is conducted by the High Commissioner or the Lieutenant-Governors. Any one who knows anything of Sir Frederick Lugard and Sir Hugh Clifford will be astonished at the description given of them by the noble Lord He described them as sitting cloistered in self-appointed domestic circles, in tea-party conclaves, and receiving all their information with regard to conditions in Nigeria from smiling gentlemen over files of papers.
LORD RAGLAN: My remarks were intended to be general and not particular.
LORD OLIVIER: That description is entirely inapplicable to the manner in which the government of Nigeria has ever been conducted. There are no two men in our Colonial Empire who have travelled more about their Dependencies than Sir Frederick Lugard and Sir Hugh Clifford; there are no two men who have had more personal contact with all classes of the population; and, so far as Sir Hugh Clifford is concerned, who have a more direct interest in and enthusiasm for the character and happiness of the native population, or who pay more attention to the idiosyncrasies of the people under their control. I am quite sure the noble Lord who will reply will bear me out in this. It cannot be charged that the Government of Nigeria, as represented by these two men, has ever neglected any possible opportunity of serving the interests of the people.
The article which the noble Lord has quoted is very disquieting, and seems to me to call all the more for inquiry because it is so directly contrary in its effect to what is stated by Sir Hugh Clifford in his last Report. Sir Hugh Clifford is not a Governor who only makes statements of bare facts and figures and gives an historical survey of his administration in his Blue-book Reports, but for a good many years he has been in the habit of giving a philosophical discussion on the principles of government he has been
146
following out and how far he has been able to apply them. I cannot imagine that Sir Hugh Clifford would write so unconscientiously about public affairs in his Dependency as; one must suppose him to have done if the charges which the noble Lord has quoted are true. When Sir Frederick Lugard first went into Nigeria the condition of things was much as was represented by Lady Lugard in the book to which the noble Lord referred. There were public slave markets in all the principal towns of the country, and I have no doubt, there were all those abuses to which the noble Lord has referred. And assuming that there has been a considerable reformation, the occurrence of such scandals as were quoted by the noble Lord is only what one might imagine would continue to happen up to the present time under native administration, notwithstanding what has been done.
Let me call your Lordships' attention to what Sir Hugh Clifford says in his Report; it is directly contradictory of the general tendency of the noble Lord's remarks. He says:—
"An enormous change—a change almost incalculably great—has been effected since the beginning of the present century, in the character of the government under which these millions of human beings live. … The salient feature … is that the change which it has wrought has entailed no abrupt or violent, departure from established custom or tradition; none save minor alterations in the administrative machinery which had been developed by the people themselves centuries before our Protectorate over them was set up; no material modification even in the laws under which they have lived for centuries, save only that the traffic in slaves is no longer sanctioned. The change, which is so great as to amount to an absolute transformation, affecting alike the social, material and many of the moral conditions amid which these people live, abides wholly in the manner in which the indigenous system of government is to-day being made to function, and in the entirely new spirit in which the Emirs and their Chiefs and officials are being gradually and patiently taught to discharge the responsibilities, appreciate the obligations and carry out the duties which always theoretically devolve upon them under that system."
The noble Lord will recognise how extremely startling is the opposition between the two statements. The contradiction is absolute.
The Government of Nigeria, now consists of the amalgamated Provinces of what were formerly Northern Nigeria and Southern Nigeria, with Lagos. It is

147
within my recollection, and the noble Lord opposite will confirm me, that since the amalgamation of these territories there has been considerable divergence of what I may call official opinion as between two schools of administrative policy, between the system of indirect control of native administration under the control of a Native Affairs Department—and I may say that I believe it is only about three years since a proper Native Affairs Department was sot up for the control of those administrations—and direct British control, which the writer of the article and the noble Lord, as I understood him, think should be more generally advanced.
I have been studying in the course of the last year the wisdom of the East, and I was very much interested to read a treatise on Indian Constitutional Law in regard to which, as your Lordships will be aware, the Brahmins have been for immemorial centuries the advisers of the rulers of one Empire after another. With regard to the best Imperial policy to pursue, I was very much interested to come across these sentences from Pandit Vrihaspati:—
"The laws practised by the various countries, tribes and castes, they are to be preserved: otherwise the people are agitated. What gods there are in any country …. and whatever the custom and law anywhere, they are not to be despised there. The law is such. The custom of the country is first to be considered: what is the rule in each country, that is to be done."
That is the philosophy which, in our later experiments in Empire building, the Colonial Office and the British Government generally have been persistently following out.
LORD RAGLAN: Might I interrupt the noble Lord one moment? It is quite possible, and, I think, often desirable, to preserve the rules and at the same time to change the rulers.
LORD OLIVIER: To change the rulers i Well, the writer of the article says that in former times the despotisms of these countries were tempered by assassinations and by the removal of rivals. I think that, not only in Nigeria but even in this country, a good many people may hold the view that a despotic tyranny maintaining stable government is perhaps better than the rule of a more enterprising and progressive administration
148
liable to sudden displacements. The view, at any rate, of the Nigerian Administration has been that it was better to maintain a stable Government under one dynasty and to see that this dynasty administered its duties in a humane, reasonable and just manner, than to trust to the indignation of the people to upset an unjust dynasty and again and again to throw the affairs of their country into confusion, and that if any progress is to be made towards democratic control, towards the supersession of the tyranny or autocracy which at present, as Sir Hugh Clifford observes, seem to be native to these peoples—if any progress is to be made towards a more democratic-system of government, it can only be made through a process of ensuring a period of peace and of increasing prosperity, and by building up a substantial class having such interests of its own as will compel it to take action in its own behalf to amend the, government of its country. That is to say, a stable government in Nigeria controlled by the British Government is better than the remedy which previously prevailed for these evils.
I have put my points, but I should like to add one word regarding the alternative system, the system of direct control by a British administration which is advocated by a good many officials in Nigeria. Sir Hugh Clifford himself, in his last Report, admits that the system of indirect administration was, in the first place, adopted because the conquest of Nigeria was a very rapid matter, and financial reasons rendered it absolutely impossible at that time to set up any kind of direct British administration on account of the expense, for, as the noble Lord has said, direct administration is more expensive and more troublesome to British authority. But Sir Hugh Clifford, like Sir Frederick Lugard, has been, I think, convinced that the system of native administration is, on the whole, more healthy and better for the well-being of these communities, and, contrasting the system of indirect control with the system of direct control, he makes some rather pertinent observations. He says that while in the North—
"the system of government was one with which the people of the country had for generations been familiar, and with the aims and ideals of which they were in complete sympathy, among the people of the South the rule established by their Political Officers was

149
something wholly new, often unintelligible; and was also found not infrequently to cut diametrically across their immemorial customs and their most cherished religious and superstitious beliefs and practices."
In the words of Pandit Vrihaspati, the people were agitated,
Then again, with regard to the Southern administration, Sir Hugh Clifford says:—
"Finding, as they could not fail to do, so much that was barbarous in many of the areas throughout which they were suddenly called upon to establish a reign of law and order, their tendency was to condemn local law and custom as a thing at once unintelligible and suspect, and to endeavour to substitute in its place modern European notions of right and wrong and of justice and equity. It is very possible that, in the process, they swept away, intermixed with much that was evil, a residuum that might with profit have been utilised for the more efficient management of local native affairs. in any event, the work of destruction culminated in the agitation in England—conducted with the best and purest intentions but with the most lamentable ignorance of local conditions and circumstances and, I am compelled to add, with deplorable consequences."
The two points upon which we hope to have some assurance from the Government are these: First, that they are entirely vigilant and are prepared to make all necessary inquiries into such charges as are made; and secondly, that they are going steadfastly to pursue that which has been the Colonial policy for so many years—namely, a determination to govern as far as possible through native institutions and properly to control those institutions through an efficient Native Affairs Department.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I need not say that as soon as my noble friend's Question appeared upon the Paper I read the article very carefully and discussed it with the officials of my right honourable friend's Department, the Colonial Office. Naturally, an article such as my noble friend has quoted attracts attention and would be examined into, a* has been suggested by the noble Lord opposite, even if it were only to contrast it, as it has been contrasted by the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, with the Report of Sir Hugh Clifford. As the noble Lord has pointed out, the article which is the subject of this Question and the Report of Sir Hugh Clifford contained very opposite—in fact, diametrically opposite—descriptions of the state of the country to which they both refer.
150
In the speech which my noble friend made in asking this Question he dealt with the whole matter very widely. He applied his mind to the general question of indirect and direct administration as much as to the particular subject of Nigeria. He dealt with the question of Trans-Jordania and of Uganda—of both of which countries, I think, he has himself had personal experience—and of other part's of the world as well. But I would suggest to my noble friend that if he wishes to raise a debate in this House upon general questions he should perhaps put down a Question on the Paper in rather more general terms than he has done. I will therefore, if I may do so, devote my reply to dealing specifically with the Question that he has definitely raised, and that is the question of indirect rule in Nigeria. As has already been said, that system was mainly developed by that great Colonial statesman Sir Frederick Lugard, and the policy inaugurated at that time has been followed by successive Secretaries of State since it was started, I think, about twenty-five years ago.
I would like to say that certainly in my opinion, and also in the opinion of the Government, nobody can say that this system has not met with success. I think that even the noble Lord will admit that the present system is a very great improvement upon the somewhat lurid description which he gave us of the system that was in force before. If you want further proof of the success with which this system has been attended I should like to call attention to the loyalty of the natives of Nigeria during the late war, and the assistance which was rendered by them to the Imperial cause. That, I think, is a great testimony to the success of the system. In spite of what the writer of the article has said, and which has been quoted by the noble Lord, it was possible during the late campaigns in the Kameroons and East Africa to withdraw troops from Northern Nigeria and to send large numbers of them to take part in those campaigns.
I dare say that many of your Lordships have read Sir Frederick Lugard's book entitled: "Dual Mandate in Tropical Africa," In Chapters 10 and 11 Sir Frederick Lugard discusses and describes the system at much greater length, and with much greater knowledge and ability

151
than I can do, and there have been other writers who have dealt exhaustively with this matter. Of course, it is admitted that the policy of indirect government is an experimental policy, but I venture to think that it is a policy and an experiment which has been very largely crowned with success. We have had in other countries experience of the difficulties which the policy of direct administration raises. If we are to adopt any alternative to the policy of indirect administration, the only alternative is to allow the natives to administer the territory on their own lines and through their own rulers—subject, of course, to the careful supervision of British officials who sympathise with the method adopted and whose sole object it is to ensure the natural and healthy political development of the races entrusted to their charge.
My noble friend animadverted on the abuses of native rule and quoted instances of the tyranny exercised by the predecessors of the present rulers. This is the first time that I have heard of the sins of the fathers being visited upon the children to such an exhaustive extent as my noble friend has suggested. As regards the question of British officials—those entrusted with the government of British Dominions abroad, and especially of Nigeria—I should like to endorse what has been said with regard to Sir Hugh Clifford and his colleagues. I am sure that the description given by my noble friend of the activities of those who administer tropical countries, and indeed any other countries, might almost be described as indeed fantastic.
LORD RAGLAN: Has my noble friend had any opportunity of observing these distinguished people from below?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I have not had opportunity of observing them from above, but certainly I have had some opportunity of observing them, and I should have thought that they conducted themselves in a way which we should commend. Certainly Sir Hugh Clifford is the last person to whom I should apply the description given by my noble friend. Yesterday, when looking into this matter, I read a Despatch from Sir Hugh Clifford, covering, I think, some hundred paragraphs, and I should like to say without any equivocation on behalf of the Government and of my right hon. friend that
152
we have the most perfect confidence in the honesty, efficiency and capacity of the British officials. I should like to add this: that on their tact and patience depend a very considerable amount of the success of the British administration—in fact, all the success of our administration in those countries—and I think they are entitled to have our confidence in every possible manner.
The development of any system of government, especially in tropical countries, whether it be direct or indirect, or a hybrid system, must of necessity be a slow process. You cannot make a fully-developed government in a day, and that no doubt must be the case in a country like Nigeria. This system of indirect government has already achieved considerable success and great results, and many gross abuses have been swept away, but it would be ridiculous to suppose that any system of government, in the early days of what must be an experiment, can be absolutely perfect. Possibly shortcomings may arise, and may be discernible, on the part of native administrators, which would not be discernible on the part of a community ruled over entirely by British officials; but I do not think that anybody suggests that administration entirely by British officers should be instituted in Nigeria. I do not think that it is suggested by the writer of the article. What I think is suggested by Captain Fitzpatrick is that native administrators should be replaced by British officials, assisted by native subordinates. There is nothing to show that this system would be more satisfactory than the present system, if the present system is indeed unsatisfactory, and there are many people who think that such a system would be less satisfactory.
LORD RAGLAN: The difference is that the last word would be with the British official and not, as now, with the Emir.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I venture to think that the British officials are the responsible persons. If, as I have already said, this system which is advocated were adopted, it would enormously increase the cost of administration and in addition, as was said by the noble Lord opposite, it would destroy all prospect of teaching the natives the art of governing themselves, and render them entirely dependent upon their

153
British rulers. We feel—and it is a feeling that has been shared by other Secretaries of State—that one of the essential factors in the well-being of the native races is that they should be educated in governing themselves. Therefore my noble friend adheres to the views of his predecessors, and is not prepared to advise any drastic changes in the methods obtaining in the country in question.
My noble friend Lord Raglan has drawn attention to different systems in other countries, and similar systems in other Colonies, but at the present moment I am not in a position to discuss them. The condition of affairs in Northern Nigeria is different from those in other countries. There is, in Northern Nigeria, a population of some ten millions of Africans, most of whom are good agriculturists, and many of them skilled artisans. The Haussa States are, as the article truly points out. in a state of civilisation which is equivalent to the feudal system of the Middle Ages in Europe. The pagan tribes, on the other hand, are very backward in civilisation, and are much behind their Haussa neighbours. In a civilsation such as that it would he impossible to plunge the population wholesale into modern ideas of individualism and unrestricted competition. If you did, you would destroy such civilisation as they have, and you would, I fear, plunge the whole country into anarchy. That would really be the putting of new wine into old bottles.
LORD RAGLAN: I do not think any one has ever suggested such a course.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The noble Lord spoke of pouring new wine into old bottles, and advocated another system, but the effect would be such as I describe, and not as he said. If you followed such a course as is suggested by the noble Lord, you would have to rule the country with a whole army of white officials, because you could not govern a country of this extent, with ten millions of people, by a few hundreds of civilians alone.
LORD RAGLAN: In thanking the noble-Earl for his reply, may I say I quite realise the impossibility of answering the specific charges made by the writer of the article, but I would like to know whether they will be enquired into.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I will communicate the noble Lord's request to my right hon. friend.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUOHMORE): My Lords, there is one point in this Bill to which I think I ought to draw your Lordships' attention. It has recently been brought to my notice, and I am sorry, having worried my noble friend Lord Peel several times already in the last few days, that I must worry him again. The matter concerns the Minister of Transport, although it comes under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Part II of the Schedule of this Bill continues the Harbours, Docks and Piers (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, 1920, for another year. I want to ask why this is done. I have not had the opportunity of going very carefully in detail into the subject, but I think that all these temporary Bills, of which the war naturally brought forth a very large crop, have been dropped, except this one and the Canals (Continuance of Charging Powers) Bill, which is the next Bill on the Order Paper. Why is it necessary that the Minister of Transport should ask Parliament to continue this power?
Your Lordships are, of course, aware that this is a matter that has been gone into in great detail. A Select Committee of the House of Commons sat in the year 1922, and issued a Report, from which I will read two quotations which bear directly on this very question. The Report is responsible for the form in which the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill now appears, and I can sum up what the Committee say by referring your Lordships to Paragraph 10 of the Report, in which they say:—
"If the recommendations of your Committee are followed, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill in future years will be

155
confined to measures properly subject to annual renewal."
Paragraph 11 seems to me to be very apposite to the proposal in Part II of the Schedule, This is what the Committee say:—
"The above considerations do not apply to the greater number of the temporary laws passed during and since the war, many of them being limited in duration by reference to the date of the termination of the war. Such Acts owe their origin to circumstances which are, by their very nature, exceptional, and, speaking generally, your Committee has taken the view that temporary Acts passed during and since the war should, if continued at all, be continued for a strictly limited period. They wish, however, to record their view that it is most undesirable that these Act6, which are essentially of a temporary and emergency nature, should be allowed to drift into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and so become, without any definite intention of Parliament, part of the permanent system of law."
What I suggest for your Lordships' consideration is this. If it is really desirable that these increases of charges that have taken place in all our harbours should be permanent, surely it is better for Parliament to continue them and settle them on a permanent basis. I have not the smallest intention, of course, of being a nuisance to my noble friend in this matter, and I have no intention of moving any Amendment, or of opposing the Bill when we reach Committee, but I would suggest that the point might be looked into, with a view, perhaps, to dealing with the matter when this Bill reaches us again a year hence.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I think the Chairman of Committees is entirely right in the point of view he has put. These Acts, which owed their origin purely to war circumstances, are not Acts which should find their way into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and be continued from year to year. But I can see the reason why this particular Act, relating to dock charges, is in. It is not always easy to dispose of a matter of this kind when a policy, perhaps a new policy, is followed in regard to these charges. It may be that the noble Viscount will tell us that this Act is in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill merely because time has not been found to put the matter on a proper and permanent basis for the future. If that be the truth about it, then, agreeing as I do with the Chairman of Committees, I think the Government should tell us that they mean this year
156
to look into this particular Statute, to see upon what permanent basis the matter should be put, and that the Act is only in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill in order to give them time for that purpose.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, my noble friend the Chairman of Committees did not tell me that he was going to raise this particular point on the Second Reading, or I should have been very glad to have given him a more comprehensive answer than I can give at the present moment. But perhaps I may be allowed to suggest, as he has told us that he objects to this and similar measures becoming part of the permanent law of the land—
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Oh, no!
VISCOUUNT PEEL: That is what you said.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I am sorry I did not make myself clear. I want them to become part of the permanent law of the land, but I think the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is not a Bill in which they should be permanently included.
VISCOUUNT PEEL: I thought the noble Earl objected to the increased charges. I am glad he is anxious that they should become part of the permanent law of the land. As to the point raised by the noble and learned Viscount opposite, it is true that it is owing to pressure of work that these provisions are included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. There has not been time for this Government, or for its predecessor, to deal with these matters in a way which would put them on a more permanent basis. Indeed, I am sorry to say that after your Lordships have disposed of the Second Reading of this Bill I am going to move the Second Reading of another Bill which commits the same iniquity, if it is an iniquity, in regard to certain canal charges. May I say at once, as it will shorten my second speech, that the only reason why the Canal Bill is necessary is that owing to a technical error or a technical difficulty those charges cannot be included in this particular Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I am afraid that their inclusion would have excited the

157
animadversion of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees. That is the whole explanation of the circumstances.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CANALS (CONTINUANCE OF CHARGING POWERS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, in moving that this Bill be read a second time, may I say that its nature is explained in the Preamble. Its purpose is to continue until February 15, 192G, certain charges which were first, increased in the case of these canals and inland navigations under an Act of 1919. At that time these canals were taken over by His Majesty's Government and it was absolutely necessary to increase the charges to make them pay their way. Subsequently they were handed back to their owners. Nevertheless, the same difficulty remains, and I am under the necessity of asking your Lordships to permit this increase of charges to be carried on until that particular date in order that the Government may have an opportunity of
158
considering the whole matter from a rather larger point of view.
I only want to add that under the Act of 1922 there is a provision to safeguard traders; that is to say, when representations are made the Minister may refer the matter to the Fates Committee which will be able to see whether, within those powers, the rates charged are fair. I hope your Lordships will accept this Bill as; a merely temporary measure. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, before the House adjourns, I ought to state that we shall have to place a Notice on the Paper which will appear to-morrow morning for dispensing with Standing Orders for the few remaining Bills which it is desirable to pass before the adjournment.
House adjourned at five minutes before five o'clock.