Lords Sitting of 20 February 1924

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD DANESFORT.
Sir John George Butcher, Bart., having been created Baron Danesfort of Danesfort, in the County of Kerry—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
ABERDARE CANAL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
HASLINGDEN CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (LAMBETH BRIDGE) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
MALVERN HILLS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
NEATH HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
WEST THURROCK WHARF AND RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.

TREATY OF PEACE (TURKEY) BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PAKMOOR): My Lords,
208
I beg leave to present a Bill to carry into effect the Treaty of Peace between His Majesty and certain other Powers and certain Conventions, protocols, and declarations connected therewith, and to move that it be read a first time. I should like to ask the noble Marquess opposite what would be a convenient day to take the Second Reading. Our only desire is to fix a day that would be convenient to him.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (Lord Parmoor.)
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I gather from what the noble and learned Lord has said, although I did not get it directly from the title, that this is a Bill to give effect to the Treaty with Turkey—what is commonly called the Lausanne Treaty, and from every point of view I concur with the noble and learned Lord in thinking it is very desirable that we should take the Bill at as early a date as possible. I have been looking at our Papers to see what amount of business we have before us, and the next few days are rather congested. So far as I can see, the first day upon which we could take the Bill so that it would be the first Order of the Day would be Thursday of next week and, subject to the noble Lord's approval, I should feel disposed to ask him to put it down for Second Reading on that day.
LORD PARMOOR: I entirely concur in what the noble Marquess has said, and we will put the Bill down for Second Reading on the day which he has mentioned.
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, in accordance with the arrangement that was come to last night, a Notice will be placed on the Paper to give precedence to this Bill and also to suspend the Standing Orders so as to enable this Bill to be carried through all its stages to-morrow.

PREFERENTIAL TARIFFS.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP rose to call attention to the high duties levied upon British goods under the preferential tariffs when they enter the self-governing Dominions and to the Indian tariffs; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in calling the attention of His Majesty's Government to this Question I am anxious not to make a speech which could in any sense be called controversial. The fact of the matter is that before very long your Lordships will probably be asked to discuss the general question of Imperial Preference, and it is very desirable that, when we do so, we should have all the figures available for a full and frank discussion upon the subject. These figures are really very difficult to get at. A few of them are to be found in official Papers, but comparatively few. I have thought that it would be to the, general advantage that before the discussion took place we should have these figures actually available. I have no doubt that the noble Lord who represents the Colonial Office in this House will tell me in what way he thinks it most convenient that they should be circulated —whether it will be sufficient that they should appear in the report of his speech or whether he thinks it more desirable that a White Paper should be issued. I should be quite ready to fall in with whatever ho suggests. But what I wish to do meanwhile is to put forward the figures which I have been able to get after a certain amount of research, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to confirm them.
Take Canada in the first place. These figures are taken from the Canadian Year Book which has all the character of an official document. It appears from them that the dutiable imports from the United Kingdom paid, in the year 1922, a sum of 24·80 per cent. and the total imports from the United Kingdom paid 20·1 per cent. in the same year. These things are, I am afraid, rather difficult to follow, but the difference is between the total number of goods going into Canada from the United Kingdom and those which were dutiable. The second set of figures shows that the dutiable imports from the United States of America paid, in the year 1912, 25 per cent., and in 1922 only 23 per cent., so that between those two years there was a reduction of the duty paid on American goods going into Canada of 2 per cent.
210
The same thing is somewhat reflected in the total number of imports from the United States, because the duty on ail imports, dutiable as well as free, taking it as a total, fell from 14 ·9 per cent. in 1912 to 13·9 per cent. in 1922. The comparison which I wish to make, and to which I hope the noble Lord will be able to give his assent, is this, that on all Canadian imports from the United Kingdom, dutiable and free, the average rate of import duty was 20·1 per cent., but the rate upon American goods going into Canada, taken on the same basis, was only 13·9 per cent., or more than 6 per cent. lower. And this is what we are told is the preferential duty upon British goods going into Canada! The rates levied on goods from the United Kingdom going into Canada are therefore, on the average, higher than those on United States goods going into Canada, in spite of the preference. Those are, I think, very remarkable figures, and I have given them because I feel quite sure that they are not generally appreciated, either in your Lordships' House or in the country.
I turn to the South African tariff. The tariff of the Union of South Africa, in force since 1914, was amended in June of last year, and for the purposes of the tariff goods are divided into seven classes. In most of those cases a preference of 3 per cent. ad valorem is given to goods the growth, produce, or manufacture of the United Kingdom. It is obvious that it would be unnecessary to give the figures relating to goods which do not enter South Africa from this country. I will confine myself therefore to the figures relating to imports into South Africa from this country: Coal and patent fuel, duty 3s. per ton and there is no rebate; cement, duty 1s. 3d. per 400 lbs. and the rebate is 3d. ; and so with coke, the duty is 1s., and I think there is the same rebate. The duty on confectionery is 3½d. and the rebate is one farthing. On matches per gross of boxes it is from 2s. 6d. to 5s., with no rebate; on pickles, 2¼d. with a rebate of ¼d.; pneumatic tyres, 1s. a lb., and a rebate of 3d. Then there are mixed rates, with a preference of 3 per cent. ad valorem on United Kingdom produce, on boots and shoes, 30 per cent. ; perfumery, 40 per cent. ; printed matter, 25 per cent. ; vehicles (not driven by motors), 25 per cent. When we come to the mixed rate, with a preference of

211
3 per cent. ad valorem, on secondhand vehicles the duty is £10 each plus 15 per cent.
Then there are some goods which come in with a duty of 25 per cent. ud valorem and a preference of 3 per cent. on all produce going in from this country. This is a preference of 3 per cent. on the 25 per cent. This item includes blankets, sheets, rugs, gramophones and records, cinematographs, harness, skates, tobacconists' wares, bespoke clothing and leather manufactures. Then there is a duty of 20 per cent. ad valorem, with a preference of 3 per cent. on United Kingdom produce, on goods not elsewhere charged with duty and not in the free list or prohibited. There is a duty of 15 per cent., with another preference of 3 per cent. on United Kingdom produce, on apparel and piece goods of cotton, hair or wool. Another list in the sixth category contains no fewer than 74 items, which include bottles, machinery, iron and steel and paper, on which there is a 3 per cent. ad valorem duty but no duty on United Kingdom produce at all. A final category embraces 46 items which come in free whether they come from this country or any other. The tariff now contains 193 items as compared with 175 in 1911. There has been a large number of increases, including 15 per cent. on boots and shoes and perfumery. Where 20 per cent. is now charged, 15 per cent. was charged in the previous tariff. I told your Lordships just now that the preference amounts only to 3 per cent. ad valorem generally speaking, and it will be seen that the South African duties on United Kingdom goods have been increased in many instances since 1914,
I turn now to Australia. Here there is a little more difficulty in getting hold of exact figures, and I am afraid that I am obliged to rely in this case upon some-telegraphed cables which I found in a newspaper. In this case I think it is necessary to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that in 1913 only 56 per cent. of the goods going into Australia were dutiable, while at the present moment over 62 per cent. are dutiable. They have added largely to the list of articles which have to pay duty. But the real test is in regard to rates paid on dutiable goods. The duty levied on goods of United Kingdom origin in the preferential tariff of 1913 averaged practically
212
19 per cent. and on foreign goods 35·34 per cent. But in 1921 the average duty collected under the general tariff was 28·69 per cent., and on goods under the preferential tariff—that is, of United Kingdom origin—it was 27·73 per cent. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that the preference on British goods going into Australia practically amounts to a trifle under 1 per cent. The average rate of duty on United Kingdom goods has, therefore, increased from 18·97 per cent. in 1913 to 27·73 per cent, in 1922. Meanwhile, the average duty, or the average rate collected, on foreign goods has decreased by an amount of 665 per cent. Therefore we find as a conclusion that since preference was first started more is paid upon British goods going into Australia than was paid before.
There are a number of single items which I shall venture to enumerate. A new 30 per cent. duty was imposed on United Kingdom telephone and telegraph cables in July last, and a 45 per cent. duty on foreign telephone and telegraph cables. Woollen yarn from this country was free on entry into Australia until January 1 last; now a duty of 10 per cent. has been put upon it, and a duty of 20 per cent. upon foreign yarns. Aluminium cable imported from the United Kingdom now pays a duty of 30 per cent. while foreign cable pays 45 per cent. Aluminium wire from the United Kingdom used to enter free, but since March 31 last a duty of 10 per cent. has been levied upon it while there is a duty of 20 per cent. on foreign goods.
The point is this—and here I am afraid I must be controversial, and that it is a little difficult to follow. In regard to the preference which we get and which is given to our goods, supposing £10,000 worth of goods are imported into Australia, we are told that we get a preference of £1,500 upon those goods because foreign goods pay £1,500 more than we do upon their £10,000 worth of goods going into Australia. Therefore, it is said, we get a benefit of £1,500. It is suggested that we should spend that £1,500 in some form which would be grateful to the particular Dominion. But I am bound to point out to your Lordships that there was no particular reason, from our point of view, for imposing that duty at all, and if the duty had not been

213
imposed we should have found a better market for our manufactures ; and we should not be expected to give further advantages for the £1,500, a figure which, in the opinion of a good many people, is somewhat illusory.
Turning to New Zealand, we find a much simpler tariff. The preference was given to us by New Zealand in 1903 by means of a surtax upon foreign goods, the preferential tariff remaining at the old rates and foreign goods imported paying more than we did. I hope your Lordships understand that in this matter I want to make no kind or sort of complaint. The average amount collected on most of our imports into New Zealand is about 20 to 25 per cent., but in spite of the preference I am sorry to say that the proportion of imports from the United Kingdom into New Zealand is decreasing. The proportion in 1906 was 59 per cent. while in 1919 it was less than 38 per cent. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is indeed lamentable that the result of preference should be to diminish the amount of goods that we send to New Zealand.
There is just a reference to India, which perhaps hardly comes into the scope of this Question, and, therefore, I will only touch upon it in the briefest possible way. I ask the noble Lord whether it is not accurate to say that though, of course, we get no preferential duties upon any goods going into India from this country, India has not, as a matter of fact, given us any preference, although she is at this time enjoying preference on anything which she sends to this country and upon which at this moment duties are being raised. The fact is that while we give India a preference we get none from her. I think I have now covered the various self-governing Dominions, and I must thank your Lordships for the attention with which you have listened to a number of statistics which, I fear, are always difficult to follow in the course of a speech. I hope also that I have said nothing which can really be called very controversial.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD ARNOLD): My Lords, in rising to make my first speech in your Lordships' House, I would ask for the indulgence which is, I think, always accorded upon such an occasion. I venture to hope that it may be extended to me in especial measure seeing that it falls
214
to my lot to make a statement on behalf of His Majesty's Government on the extraordinarily complicated matters relating to differential rates and preferential tariffs. The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, who introduced this Motion, always speaks, if he will permit mo to say so, on these economic problems with authority, and brings out points of substance for consideration. To-day has certainly been no exception to his rule, and I shall be well satisfied if, in my reply, I am able in any degree to assist him in his ceaseless quest for fiscal truth. My task is rendered considerably easier than it otherwise would be because the noble Earl was courteous enough to furnish me in advance with certain information regarding at any rate some of the points which he intended to raise to-day.
Before coming specifically to deal with the speech of the noble Earl I would like to state, broadly, what the position is as regards preference, and what the average amount of preference is which is rebated to British goods in the four self-governing Dominions of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. Newfoundland does not accord preference, nor does India, and that is my reply on that point to the noble Earl. However, taking the four self-governing Dominions of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, the preferences acorded vary very considerably. They range from 3 per cent. in the case of South Africa, as the noble Earl has said, up to as high as 25 per cent. in one instance in the tariff of the Commonwealth of Australia. I am speaking, of course, of a preference ad valorem, but the important point for your Lordships to consider is, I think, what is the actual average amount of preferential rebate which is accorded in the aggregate. of the transactions. The average actual amount of duty collected on British goods entitled to preference entering the four self-governing Dominions works out at somewhere about 10 per cent. ad valorem But after this preference has been taken into account and deducted there still remains an average amount of duty collected on British goods entitled to preference entering the four Dominions of a little over 15 per cent. ad valorem.

215
I will now reply move specifically to the speech of the noble Earl, but I must preface my remarks by saying that to find out exactly what has happened in regard to the whole of his points would entail prolonged research. The information already available, however, is I think, sufficient to enable me to deal with his main inquiries and arguments. I will take Canada first, as the noble Earl took it first. I do not think it is necessary to go into the points raised by the noble Earl regarding the comparatively trifling changes in the rates of duty paid on the United Kingdom goods and United States goods entering Canada between the years 1912 and 1922. The alterations in those percentages are so small that I do not think they call for serious consideration.
Therefore I pass to the main inquiry of the noble Earl, which was whether it is not the fact that, in spite of preference, the average rate of duty collected on United Kingdom dutiable imports in 1922 was nearly two per cent. higher than on United States dutiable imports. In his first point the noble Earl was dealing simply with United Kingdom dutiable imports and United States dutiable imports, but he proceeded to ask what is the position if we go further, and inquire what is the average duty on all imports into Canada, both dutiable and free, from the United Kingdom and the United States. He asked whether, if we look at those figures, it is the case that on the average the duty collected on all imports going into Canada from the United Kingdom is about 6 per cent. higher than that paid on all goods from the United States going into Canada. That really, I think, summarises the noble Earl's points in regard to Canada. He asked whether those figures are correct. My reply is that they are.
Such being the case, the question that will at once arise in your Lordships' minds is : How is it possible, in view of the substantial preference accorded to so many United Kingdom goods, that the average rates of duty paid by the United Kingdom goods are higher in both the respects indicated by the noble Earl than the average rates of duty paid by United States goods which enjoy no preference. The explanation is, of course, that there can be, and very often is, a wide difference between what I may call a
216
tariff on paper and a tariff in actual operation. Why is that ? It is because there are different rates of tariff on different classes of goods, and these different classes of goods go into Canada from the United Kingdom and the United States respectively in widely varying proportions. Therefore, looking at trade in the aggregate, the average rates of duty collected by Canada on United Kingdom imports and United States imports respectively depend upon the volume of goods in the various classes going into Canada from each country and the rates of duty on those particular classes. For instance, if the operations of trade so work out that United Kingdom imports into Canada contain a considerable proportion of goods on which the rates are fairly high, while, on the other hand, the United States imports contain a considerable proportion of goods on which the rates are fairly low, then it is in factors of this kind that we find the reason for figures such as those which the noble Earl has adduced, and also an explanation of the otherwise rather baffling disparity between what I may call a tariff on paper and a tariff in practice.
In regard to South Africa I do not think it is necessary to say very much. The position is, broadly speaking, as the noble Earl stated. South Africa affords to the Mother Country a preference of 3 per cent. ad valorem in nearly every case of British manufactured goods, and this preference has not been altered. It is true that the South African General Tariff has from time to time been increased on some articles, but the preference remains the same.
Turning to Australia, I do not think it is necessary to deal in detail with the variations in percentages which the noble Earl gave, showing the proportions between free imports and dutiable imports in the years 1913 to 1922, beyond saying that 1913 was, for a comparison of this kind, an exceptional year. If the noble Earl will go to the year 1912 he will find that the figures work out differently. I now pass to the noble Earl's chief point in regard to Australian tariffs. First, he asks whether, taking the year 1913 and comparing it with the year 1922, it is the fact that the average rate of duty collected on United Kingdom goods entering Australia under preference has, in that

217
period, increased by 8·76 per cent. The reply is that this particular figure is substantially correct. To be absolutely correct, instead of it being 8·76 it should be 8·33. But it is most important to make it clear that the figures which the noble Earl cited in this connection relate only to the increase in the rates of duty which has taken place on dutiable articles under preference. These figures, however, take no account of the fact that there is a considerable volume of goods going into Australia free under preference, because the preference has been such as to remove the duty altogether.
If I take the figures of all goods from the United Kingdom which benefit from a preference, that is, all goods dutiable and free in the manner I have described, the result comes out differently. Taking all such goods into account the average rate for imports of United Kingdom origin into Australia has gone up from 13·22 per cent. in 1913 to 14·89 per cent. in 1921–2. That is an increase of 1·67 per cent., which is, of course, a totally different figure from the other. Certain other figures are frequently cited in regard to Australia and they appear in the message to the newspapers with which the noble Earl was kind enough to furnish me. I will say just one word about them. It is asked whether the average duty on foreign dutiable imports into Australia has, in the same period, that is, from 1913 to 1921–2, decreased from 35·34 per cent. to 28·69 per cent., or a decrease of 6·65 per cent. Those figures are substantially correct, but there is some misapprehension about the precise category of goods to which they relate. Those figures do not relate only to foreign goods, but to a category which includes both foreign goods and also United Kingdom goods on which no preference is given. The category is therefore somewhat different. It does not make a great deal of difference, but it does make a slight difference in these particular figures. I think the position in regard to Australia comes to this: that the contentions of the noble Earl cannot be sustained in full degree. Nevertheless, it is unquestionably true that the development of Australia on the industrial side has led to higher duties on imports which compete with the products of her factories and works.
Lastly, I will deal with New Zealand. The noble Earl contends that the proportion of United Kingdom imports into
218
New Zealand in relation to the total imports of New Zealand has decreased materially. He takes for this purpose two years, 1906 and 1919, and he contends that these years show that the proportion of United Kingdom total imports, in relation to the total imports of New Zealand, have declined from 59 per cent. in 1906 to less than 33 per cent. in 1919. Those figures, so far as I know, are correct ; but 1919 was not a normal year for the purposes of the comparison. I am the last person to suggest that the noble Earl would designedly adduce a year which is not the befit for purposes of comparison. If he will allow me to say so, as an old co-worker in fiscal matters with him, I know how scrupulously fair he is. Hut it does happen that 1919 was an abnormal year. The war was scarcely over and shipping had not been restored to its normal routes. For the purposes of comparison we should arrive at a much truer result by taking the year 1922. If we take that year the result comes out very differently. If we take that year, the year 1922, we find that the proportion of United Kingdom imports into New Zealand, in relation to the total imports of New Zealand, was 55·75 per cent., as against 59 per cent, in 1906. The noble Earl will see that there is very little change in the proportions, and I submit, so far as that argument goes, that there is not sufficient difference in those figures upon which to base any substantial contention.
I am anxious not to trespass unduly on your Lordships' time, but I should like to summarise the position as regards these various matters, and I think I can do so in four sentences. In the first place, I think I have shown that in certain respects the figures of the noble Earl are open to criticism and, therefore, the deductions, or at least some of the deductions, must be to that degree qualified. Secondly, the Dominions may fairly claim to have arranged their tariffs on the whole in such a way as to favour goods from the United Kingdom rather than from foreign sources. Thirdly, it is nevertheless true to say, as the noble Earl indicates in the Notice on the Paper, that the duties levied upon British goods when they enter the self-governing Dominions are, in many cases, high, even after the preference is deducted. Fourthly, it must be freely admitted that where it has been decided to protect Dominion

219
industries high rates of duty have, generally speaking, been imposed and either no preference has been accorded or the deduction of duty has been such as still to leave the preference rate high enough to be protective. In saying that it must not of course be taken that I am suggesting any complaint against the Dominions. In these matters they must do what they think best. They are great self-governing communities and, like ourselves, must have complete freedom and liberty to settle their own affairs. I trust, having regard to the limits of reasonable duration of speech, the noble Earl will consider that the reply I have made to his Motion is not inadequate.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD OLIVIER): My Lords, I wish to add one word with regard to India. As in the case of the self-governing Dominions, the Government of India is autonomous in this matter. As the noble Earl has said the Government of India decided at present to accord no preference. In the Tariff Commission which sat in India and reported in 1922 no indication was given of any inclination on the part of those interested in India to grant any preference. The present Indian tariff is historically, and still ostensibly, a tariff for revenue, and, that being so, no concession or preference could be made without finding some alternative source of revenue. A Tariff Committee, however, is to be set up to consider the question of altering the principles upon which the tariff of India is settled rather in the direction of a protective tariff, and incidentally, in connection with the deliberations of that Committee, the question of giving a preference may, doubtless, be raised.
But I ought to add that, so far as I can judge, the advantages of the preferences now granted to the Government of India under the existing scheme are not sufficient to offer a very great temptation to the Government of India to make any considerable alteration of their tariff system in the direction of preference, unless a line were taken which, I think the noble Earl will agree with me, is not likely to be taken, and a preference were given on a tariff affecting foodstuffs and other products which are the principal exports of India. That is at present the position of India so far as I can indicate it, and no amount of discussion
220
with the noble Earl as to the wisdom or expediency of any line of preferential tariff in India would affect the question, because, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies has said, it is a matter which rests entirely with the Government of India. So far, however, as any information can be given in Papers, we shall be most glad to do anything we can to meet any desire of the noble Earl.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I am in the somewhat unusual position of being able to offer very cordial and sincere congratulations to two members of His Majesty's Government on their maiden speeches in your Lordships' House. I am confident that the speech which we have heard from the Under-Secretary for the Colonies is one which has been listened to with the greatest possible interest. The facility with which he dealt with a somewhat bewildering collection of figures will suggest, even to those of us who may not have been acquainted with him in the House of Commons, that he will prove a very worthy addition to your Lordships' House.
I do not propose this afternoon to follow the noble Earl who introduced this Motion or either of the noble Lords who have spoken from the Government Bench, in the figures which they have laid before your Lordships' House. I am more anxious to ascertain, if possible, what are the views of the Government, and of the Liberal Party, with reference to this question of Preference. This is not a question which can be decided by figures and by percentages, and I venture to say that the test of the value of Preference is the measure of assistance which it gives to inter-Imperial trade. At this hour, after our experience of twenty years, I do venture most earnestly to deprecate any suggestion that the assistance which has been granted to us by the self-governing Dominions is not appreciated in this country. If he will excuse my saying so, the noble Earl who introduced this Motion is well known to your Lordships as, I think, the most faithful supporter in your Lordships' House of the ancient principles of Free Trade. He was to-day scrupulously careful to avoid any controversial matter and, in fact, taking the speech which he made this afternoon by itself, I should be very much inclined to doubt if any critic

221
would have very much ground of complaint against it. The noble Earl was in search of information. I am inclined to agree with him that we do want a great deal more information in an easily accessible form than we have now ; and I believe that we who are in favour of Preference are perfectly prepared to face any sets of figures which may be produced, as we believe that they provide an unanswerable argument for the case which we are prepared to put forward.
But the noble Earl, apart from his Speech today, has taken an occasion within the last few weeks to issue a manifesto. The noble Earl must have suffered some pain and anxiety from the conduct of those with whom he is generally associated. I cannot help feeling that the speech which was delivered, I think, on January 15 this year by the then Leader of the Opposition in this House, who is now the Leader of the Liberal Party here, must have caused somewhat deep anxiety in the mind of the noble Earl, and I have been wondering if that speech is not in a large measure responsible for the manifesto which was issued, I think, on Monday last. I do not know if it has appeared in any other papers, but I have been able to extract my information from that most reliable of all sources—the true fount, I understand—the Manchester Guardian.
I do not propose to read the whole of this statement, but I may refer to the opening and concluding passages, which may throw some light on the condition of the noble Earl's mind. Here is the opening passage: —
" Recent utterances of certain politicians hitherto regarded as sound Free Traders have convinced us that it is necessary to re-state our reasons for regarding all forms of fiscal preference granted or promised to the Dominions as incompatible with the doctrines of Free Trade."
The noble Earl goes on to elaborate his argument with references to loss of revenue and the creation of vested interests, and winds up his statement as follows :—
" In order to secure this result we call upon the Free Trade majority returned to Parliament to carry out in its integrity the mandate given to it by the nation and to restore the Free Trade policy which prevailed from the days of Peel to the opening of the great war by securing forthwith the abolition of all protective duties, whether preferential or otherwise."
222
It would not be fair this afternoon to ask His Majesty's Government to anticipate the statement which will, no doubt, be made in the course of a few days when the promised debate takes place on the subject of Preference, but I do venture to utter one word of warning.
I trust that His Majesty's Government will not pay undue respect to the advice which is tendered to them by the noble Earl below the gangway. After all, the real test of what Preference has done for us lies in the volume of our trade. I certainly have no wish to add to the already rather large number of figures and statistics which have been presented to your Lordships' House in the coarse of the debate this afternoon, hut I hold in my hand a long list which contains the information that during the year 1922 Australia purchased a variety of goods from Great Britain, which produced a sum in excess of the purchases of similar goods by all foreign countries put together. For instance, in steel girders, I find that Australia purchased £157,000 worth against purchases by all foreign countries of £104,000 worth. In electric wire insulated rubber Australia purchased £275.000 worth and the total foreign purchases were £129,000 worth. I believe the noble Lord, the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, comes from Lancashire, and possibly these figures may be of some little interest to him. Of made-up cotton goods for household purposes Australia bought, during 1922, £910,000 worth as compared with £599,000 worth bought by foreigners. I could, if necessary, give further instances, but I think I have already stated enough to prove, what I do not think can be seriously contested, that, whatever the incidence of preferential duties may be, the result has been to confer a very considerable advantage on British manufactures and British trade.
But there is another aspect of the question which we have to bear in mind. Let me take, if I may, a comparison between Australia, with a population of five and a half millions, and the Argentine, with a population of eight and a half millions. As your Lordships are very well aware, we are peculiarly well situated in the Argentine. Very large sums of British capital are invested there ; British firms stand very high, and are well repre-

223
sented. Yet I find that in 1922 Australia supplied Great Britain with £64,000,000 worth of goods—almost entirely food stuffs and raw material. In the same year the Argentine sold to Great Britain £56,500,000 worth of produce, all very much of the same character as those which came from Australia. But, on the other side of the account, we find that Australia purchased £60,250,000 worth of goods from us, as compared with £22,660,000 worth of goods bought by the Argentine. It is, I think, something more than a coincidence. I think it is a pretty clear demonstration of the value which the preference given by the Dominions has been to us in the past.
We are, of course, dealing to-day with figures which have actually been accounted for, and which have no relation to any further proposals which were made at the Economic Conference which sat in the autumn of last year, but I should have been much surprised if the representatives of the Overseas Dominions who attended that Conference had been told that the preferences which they had in the past accorded to us were of little or no value. I certainly am not an alarmist, but I think it is my duty to warn your Lordships that there is a feeling of uneasiness in the Dominions to-day. For twenty years, and more, this policy has been a fixed policy with the Dominions. It was not till 1910 that we made a small overture to them, and made efforts in certain directions to help their trade. I have no intention this afternoon of discussing on their merits the proposals which we laid before the Economic Conference—no doubt, on another occasion, they will be discussed on their merits—but I think I am justified in saying that the proposals which were made by the then Government were gratefully accepted by the representatives of the Dominions, not merely as a gesture but as a material contribution to inter-Imperial trade.
It is not my intention to read any lengthy extracts in support of that contention, but I think I am justified in calling your Lordships' attention to passages from the speeches of the Prime Ministers of Canada and South Africa. In the concluding speeches of the Imperial Conference, after the Conference had had a full opportunity of discussing these matters in very great detail, Mr., Mackenzie King said:
224
" In the first place, I would like to mention again what I said at the opening meeting, that we appreciated in Canada the difficulties with which the British Government was confronted in this matter, and appreciated sincerely the action of the Government in seeing that the embargo was removed, giving admission to our cattle. We wished to do something more than give verbal appreciation of that action, and we increased the British preference, amongst other things, in the hope that the British public would realise that having met us in a matter in which we were vitally concerned, we, in like measure, would like to meet them in a matter which was of concern to British interests. We increased our preference by giving an additional 10 per cent. discount on the existing preferential duties on all goods coming through Canadian ports. I want to make it clear that this was done largely as the result of the action of the British Government in respect to the admission of our cattle. We intend to hold to what we have done. Our attitude in the matter of preference is one of trying to further as much as we can inter-Imperial trade."
Again, if I may, I will read one short extract from the speech delivered by General Smuts, as follows: —
" So far as we in South Africa are concerned, our policy has been to give a general percentage preference in our Customs system in favour of British products. It has been a general percentage extended to practically all articles."
He went on to say, and this is a point to which I should like your Lordships to, have special regard—
" We are quite prepared to reshape our policy in such a way as to be more beneficial both to the South African consumer and to the British producer."
I have given these instances, which could be multiplied a thousandfold from the Report of the Imperial Economic Conference, which I hold in my hand.
There is a further point which I wish to emphasise. The question of Imperial Preference cannot be taken separately and isolated from the whole of our Imperial policy. As is perfectly well known, there exist within the limits of the Empire great spaces, which are still open and still available for white men and women to make happy, prosperous, and contented homes. Those great countries, with their immense natural resources, are going to be developed. It is the wish not merely of the Governments but of the people of the great Dominions that that development should take place by means of British industry, British capital, and British labour. And there is no surer way in which we can

225
help forward their great ideal than by working together in the development of inter-Imperial trade.
The Government in the course of a few days will probably make an announcement of their policy. I can only trust that when they are forming their policy they will look to the essential needs and requirements of the time, and that they will not be fettered and tied by formulas which, however suitable they may have been in bygone periods, bear singularly little relation to present-day facts and present-day life. I hope that His Majesty's Government, in settling the policy which they will lay before the country in the course of the next few weeks, will be guided by the great results which have already been achieved, and that, far from taking any retrograde step, they will do their best, on the lines which have already been indicated and accepted by the country, still further to develop closer and closer imperial trade.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, may I be allowed to join in the congratulations to my noble friend on the lucidity and interest of his speech on a subject which it is always difficult to make interesting by statistics? I think every member of your Lordships' House felt that in the new Peer we shall have a member who will do much to help our debates. I do not propose to respond to the suggestion of the noble Duke that we should to-day state our views on Imperial Preference. My noble friend who moved for Papers studiously avoided on the present occasion any controversial matter, and it would ill become me to enter into the question on its merits. Speaking frankly, I do not know that I absolutely agree with the views of my noble friend on some of the Resolutions of the Imperial Conference, which we shall have to consider, but I take it that your Lordships will have a full opportunity of discussing the matter on merits. Therefore I do not propose to follow the noble Duke on the present occasion on the merits of the question.
What my noble friend wanted were facts and information, and the noble Duke himself said that he also would like further facts and further information. My noble friend who represents the Colonial Office gave us some very interesting figures in regard to the operation of preference from what I may call
226
the other side, but would it not be of great, assistance to us here, and also to Members of the other House, if we could have in a simple form the actual proposals of the late Government which will come before us for discussion, instead of having to dig them out of innumerable Blue-books and Reports of Conferences? They fall into three classes. It would be a great convenience if those three classes were clearly indicated one from the other. I should be glad if we could have also the various Resolutions of the Imperial Conference dealing with this matter. I think there was one in 1911, and another in 1917 ; the noble Duke has referred to the proposals of 1919, and there was the Resolution passed by the Conference last year. My noble friend has given us considerable information showing how the preference actually affects the import of British goods, and we should like also to have in a simple form both the proposals and the Resolutions of the Conference. I am sure every one of us realises the importance of the speech of the noble Duke, and we shall all desire to deal with this question, not only from the purely economic point of view, but also from the Imperial point of view, which is of the utmost possible importance.
LORD PARMOOR: We have noted what has been said by the last speaker as regards the additional information which might be brought forward in the shape of a White Paper. The suggestions which he has made were very carefully considered. My recollection is that there was a White Paper issued last autumn, which at any rate, contained a large number of the Resolutions to which he refers.
EARL BUXTON: I think that Paper contained the Resolutions of the Conference last year, but it would be of advantage to have the actual proposals and the former Resolutions together, which, after all, are very material for a decision as to whether we can agree to the new proposals or not.
LORD PARMOOR: Every attention will he given to what the noble Earl has suggested, and the information will be furnished in as careful and complete a way as possible. The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, indicated last week that he

227
would confine himself to-day to the terms of his Motion and avoid, I will not say controversial topics, but the larger topics to which the noble Duke has referred. Every one must appreciate how intricate a matter is inter-Imperial trade, and particularly, as the noble Duke said, because you have to consider it in relation to the general features of our Imperial policy. I think the noble Duke himself gave an answer to the question which he asked, because he referred to the fact that the Preference Resolutions of the Economic Conference would be quite shortly discussed in detail in another place, and therefore it is impossible at the present time, before that discussion has taken place, to indicate in a way that would be of any value what the policy of the Government will be. In due course the Government will be prepared to make its statement about the whole matter in your Lordships' House in order that it may be fully discussed. At the present time I could not say more than that, nor do I think that the noble Duke expected that we could on the present occasion.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, in asking leave to withdraw my Motion, I hope you will allow me, in the first place, to express my thanks to the Under-Secretary for the Colonies for the very full reply which he was good enough to give. It amply satisfied my requirements. The noble Duke, the late Secretary of State for the Colonies, will, I hope, forgive me if I say that the red rag which he offered to me is one which I cannot really altogether pass by. If he will allow me, although I wished not to say anything controversial, I really must make some attempt at a reply to his statistics with regard to the Argentine. They are, I know, very favourite arguments and very favourite figures of Mr. Bruce, and are always used by him, and they were used again by the noble Duke to-night. He told us—and, of course, those are the figures—that the Argentine sends to us something over £60,000,000 worth of goods, chiefly in the form of food and raw material, and that we send back to the Argentine, I think he said, £22,000,000 worth. Supposing such a transaction happened in private life most people would say that if we got £60 worth and only paid £22 for them we were not doing so very badly. It is not a transaction of which a private
228
individual would very much complain unless he felt unduly and unnecessarily honest.
But I am sure that the noble Duke realises that this £60,000,000 worth of goods coming into this country from the Argentine are paid for by this country in some way. They must be paid for. That may not appear in the actual amount of goods sent out to the Argentine, but they are paid for by way of the employment given to people in respect of the goods sent out. If those goods are sent out to the Argentine they are paid for by goods certainly in an equivalent amount, though those goods may not go direct to the Argentine. They may go to the United States who may pay the Argentine. It does not follow that because, in the account directly between ourselves and the Argentine, there is no direct appearance of those goods there is a disadvantage to us as between ourselves and the Argentine. We may send them to some neighbouring country and that neighbouring country may pay the Argentine. When we come to discuss this question in the future, I hope that the noble Duke will furnish me with a reply to what I have ventured to say on this question as between this country and the Argentine, to which Mr. Bruce attaches and the noble Duke seems to attach, if he will allow me to say so, a somewhat exaggerated importance. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

A SOUTHWARK CONTRACT.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM had on the Paper the Question—to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Southwark Borough Council refused to accept the lowest tender for a printing contract on the ground that some of the employees of the firm tendering were not members of a trade union; whether they accepted a higher tender, thus causing a loss to the ratepayers of £293 ; whether the district auditor surcharged the Council in this amount, and whether the Government have cancelled the surcharge ?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I desire to say, on behalf of my noble friend, that he is precluded by

229
indisposition from being in your Lordships' House to-day, and I am sure your Lordships will permit me to express his regret that he is unable to fulfil his engagement here, He also desires me to say that he will postpone his Question, by the leave of your Lordships, to some day next week.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the noble Lord was kind enough to send me a message that he could not be here to-day, and we all very much regret his indisposition. We will take his Question at any subsequent date which is convenient to him.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No doubt the noble Lord will communicate with the Government in reference to the matter.
LORD PARMOOR: We will give the Question a date convenient to the noble Lord.

CRUELTY TO CHILDREN.
LORD GORELL LORD GORELL, who had given Notice to call attention to a recent case of cruelty to a child and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will not consider amending the law in respect of such offences, said : My Lords, the subject I venture to raise in your Lordships' House is different in all particulars from that which we have just been discussing. It is, I venture to hope, in no sense of the word political. It is extremely simple, and it is exceedingly painful. But I think it is time that the attention of your Lordships' House, and of the public in general should be called to the present state of affairs. The particular case to which I wish to refer, and of which I have given the Lord President of the Council private notice, is contained in a very short paragraph which appeared in the principal journals of the day. That in itself, is significant. I know of no people who are better able to estimate public interest in any subject than the editors of great newspapers, and they cannot be blamed if they do not make much of subjects on which there is so much public inertia at the present time as the treatment of children.
In this matter the public are really behaving like the traditional ostrich. They know that horrible things are going
230
on; but it is nobody's business in particular, and the result is that very little attention has been paid to them. I think it is time that the conscience of this country was awakened and it may be that a discussion in your Lordships' House will do something towards that result. I venture to read the paragraph because it is very short—there are only fourteen and a half lines of small type in all—and contains the facts of the case to which I wish particularly to refer. By so doing one will avoid any trace of exaggeration or over-statement. The paragraph is headed "Cruelty to a Child," and it runs as follows:
" The maximum sentence, of six months' imprisonment with hard labour was passed at Chatham yesterday "—
that is, on Friday last, February 15—
" on Harry Hickman, a young sapper in the Royal Engineers, and his wife, Edith Hickman, for cruelty to an infant child they had adopted. It. was stated that the child was strapped round the arms and legs and trussed up like a fowl, and wearing only one slender garment; it slept on a sack on the floor. It almost lost the power to walk, and crawled about on all-fours like a dog. One witness stated that she never saw such a sight before. The child did not appear to be human, except for its eyes."
Is there anybody in this country who would have his attention directed to a thing of that kind without being made to feel perfectly sick? It is a horrible case, and that it can have taken place is almost an outrage on our civilisation. The names of such people ought to be pilloried throughout the length and breadth of the country.
There are two aspects of the case to which I specially invite your Lordships' attention. The first is the status of the offenders, and the second is the status of the child. With regard to the first, it is not a ease, like that we sometimes see, of a drunken never-do-well wastrel. The man, at any rate, is sane enough and responsible enough to have been accepted for enlistment in a very honourable and distinguished corps of the Army. and that such a thing can have happened will, I hope, be taken by that corps as a slur upon them. When the offender comes out I hope they will make him realise that fact. What happens? The man and his wife get the maximum punishment of six months' imprisonment with hard labour. It seems to me that people who can do

231
such things are either in the category, unhappily known to medical science, of those who have a lust for cruelty, or are almost unreasoned and demented beings. If that is so, they ought to be locked up and taken care of for the rest of their lives. But they are not, and what has happened? They have received six months' imprisonment with hard labour. Are they, on coming out, to be put in the position of having control of a child ? They are not fit ever to have control of a child or an animal again, and some steps ought to be taken, in my view, to make a punishment more justly fit the crime. I feel very strongly that for offences of this brutal character the only real remedy is to treat the offender as he has treated his victim. If that were done, of course, it would end such a horrible state of things. But one recognises that that is impossible. At any rate, the law ought to be strengthened so that some more adequate punishment can be dealt out for offences of this vile description.
I am afraid that, though in some of its features this case seems to mo the worst that I have seen, it is not by any means a completely isolated one. Not very long ago there was another case reported in the newspapers of a father who beat his infant child in the cradle with n leather strap with a buckle on it. He got a few months' imprisonment. He ought to have had the strap and the buckle himself. These punishments belong to a day when offences against property were regarded as much more severe than offences against life. It is a crime infinitely worse than the crime for which men get many years' imprisonment in penal servitude. I would go even further, and say that in the heart it is worse than many a murder committed in hot blood. I am told that if the punishment is increased one result will be that justices will not convict. I cannot believe that any man, having in his heart the least spark of kindness or appreciation for children, when any of these cases are brought before him, would not desire to inflict the maximum punishment that he legally could. But it is entirely a matter of the rousing of the public conscience. I am specially glad ; to see in his place the most rev. Primate, because I feel that of all doctrines nothing is more clear in Christian Scripture than the case of the care for little children, and I hope that he will use the whole of his great influence to
232
arouse public attention to this terrible matter.
We have had, in the past months, a great deal of discussion about the protection of our industries. It would be well if we had a little more discussion about the protection of small children. I say that particularly, because it leads me on to the second half of the case to which I have referred—that is to say, the status of the child. This was not the legal child of the offenders, or even the natural child. It was a child they had adopted. One may ask for what possible reason could people who intended to treat a child like this adopt it. One answer may be— have referred—that is to say, the status of the offenders—that this was a demented pair who had a lust for cruelty. That is rare. But the other reason why people do in such circumstances adopt children is not so rare, and that is for money, with the intention of putting out of the way an unwanted child. Here I should like, specially to say that. I would be very sorry to utter any word in disparagement of the excellent work which is being done by some of the reputable, good adoption societies. There is very much to be said on their side, and there have been many cases of great and beneficent kindness done under adoption ; but, when all is said and done on that side, there still remains a very dark side, and a case like this brings it pointedly to the fore.
There are two main reasons why people, who afterwards brutally illtreat children, adopt them. One is that adoption affords them the means of getting a cheap form of labour, employing a small child as their slave—by no means, I am afraid, uncommon—and the other is that money passes, usually in the ease of an illegitimate child, and the people who adopt know perfectly well that they will be carrying out the wishes of those who place it in their hands if they get rid of it. And it does not take very much neglect, or even cruelty, to get rid of a very small infant.
In that connection I would bring to your Lordships' attention some evidence that was given before a Committee which was appointed in August. 1020, and reported in February, 1921—three years ago. That was presided over by Sir Alfred Hopkinson, and had upon it one of the most prominent members of the late Government. Mr. Neville Chamber-

233
lain. Their Report was unanimous, and they reported also that the matter was urgent. Three years have elapsed and so far nothing has been done to remedy this state of things. This is a case taken from the evidence of one of the Directors of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children given before that Committee : —
" It is not unusual to find persons of known bad habits adopting children. A child, eleven months old, passed through several hands until it came into the charge of a young married woman, the wife of a sailor. She adopted the child with a payment of £16 10s. The woman was of loose character, and on more than one occasion had been in hospital suffering from venereal disease."
The witness then goes into details, of a horrible character, with which I need not trouble your Lordships, but he quotes this incident: —
" Though the child was removed to a place of safety, it died as the result of the neglect of the foster-mother who, when prosecuted, was sent to prison for two months."
And presumably, on coming out of prison two months later; she could do the same thing to another child.
I venture, therefore, to ask how long this country is going to be supine in this matter. The late Government, in spite of the fact that Mr. Neville Chamberlain was a member of this Committee, took no action. I hope that we may have some more definite assurance of action from the present Government. The Committee of Sir Alfred Hopkinson made three definite recommendations—namely, (1), That there should be some form of adoption made legal ; (2), that there should be notification and supervision in cases where full legal adoption was not desired ; and (3), that illegitimate children should be legitimated by subsequent remarriage of their parents. This last point, no doubt, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, will mention to-morrow. It is the only case in regard to which immediate legal action is intended, and it was projected before.
I am not ignorant that a private Member in another place has brought in a very large Bill dealing with the whole consolidation and reform of the Children Act, and that Clause 22 of that Bill strengthens the power of the law to inflict greater punishments, and that Clause 46 deals with the question of supervision of those who adopt children. That is not the
234
whole of the matter covered by Sir Alfred Hopkinson's Report ; still, it goes a long way. But the Bill is one of 184 clauses ; it, is very long and very elaborate, and no doubt highly controversial in some of its aspects. I do not know, but I should imagine, that as long as it remains a private Member's Bill it has very little chance of becoming law. It is not a matter to be left, as I submit to your Lordships, in private hands. I hope that the Lord President of the Council—if he is the member of the Government who will reply to me—whose sympathy with many forms of human suffering and whose broad humanity is well known, will be able to give us some reassurance that this is a matter which the Government mean to take up without delay. After the three years' delay that there has been after inquiry, I hope the Government will now bring legislation definitely before Parliament to remedy the state of things to which I have drawn attention.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, in rising to address your Lordships' House for the first time, I must earnestly crave your indulgence. I do so for a reason somewhat greater than that this is my first speech. Before you stands a young man of but little knowledge, of but little experience, and he stands, not perhaps where he should be at the back of the House, but at the Box from which some of the greatest statesmen of this country have addressed your Lordships. May I assure your Lordships that it is in no sense of presumption that I undertook the responsibility of even a junior Office in the present Government, but from a very real desire to serve in any way possible a Government which commands so much enthusiasm amongst the youth of this country and to whose policy I so whole-heartedly subscribe. Now let me proceed to answer the Question of the noble Lord.
Under the present law which is contained in the Children Act, 1908, any person who is convicted of cruelty to a child or young person by ill-treatment or neglect or otherwise, directly or indirectly, is liable on conviction by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to six months' imprisonment with or without hard labour. It is open, however, to the magistrates in any serious case to commit the offender for trial, and if convicted on indictment the offender is liable to im-

235
prisonment for two years with or without hard labour. Further, in cases where grievous bodily harm has been inflicted on a child, the offender can be tried on this charge and, on conviction, may be sent to penal servitude. The House will recognise that cruelty to children is a crime which is abhorrent to the minds of all decent people and is rightly made punishable by the law of England as a grave offence for which severe penalties are provided. Fortunately, statistics show that offences involving cruelty to children have markedly decreased in recent years. The number of cases which are brought before the Courts is not always a certain indication of the number of offences, but, in view of the increased attention given to the welfare of children, both by education authorities and voluntary agencies, instances of ill-treatment are less likely to remain hidden than might have been the case some years ago, and the number of persons proceeded against may therefore be taken as affording fairly conclusive evidence of the extent of the evil.
In 1900, 4,106 persons were prosecuted for cruelty to or neglect of children. In 1910, although the Children Act of 1908 extended the range of offences, the number of prosecutions fell to 3,695. During the war years the number again decreased to well below 3,000, and reached the lowest point in 1919, when the number was 1,642. In 1921 the number was 2,052. His Majesty's Government are not aware that the present penalties for offences of this character are insufficient, but they will be prepared to consider any evidence on the point that may be laid before them. I have only seen a newspaper report of the case to which the noble Lord has drawn attention, but I presume that before deciding to deal with the case themselves, seeing that their powers were limited to a maximum sentence of six months' imprisonment, the magistrates considered the question of committing the offender for trial so that the man might have got penal servitude or a longer term of imprisonment. The noble Lord has also drawn attention to the fact that this unfortunate child did not suffer at the hands of its natural parents, but was ill-treated by a young married couple who had adopted it. This raises the question of the present state of the law on the subject of the adoption of children, and your Lordships may be
236
glad to learn that my right hon. friend has decided to appoint a strong Committee to consider this question.
LORD LAMBOURNE: My Lords, the mere fact that even with all the various societies now at work there should be over 2,000 cases of cruelty to children must strike everybody with horror. The man, and apparently there are a great many such men, who can commit a hideous crime upon mere babies and inflict cruelty on inoffensive children, places himself outside the pale of humanity altogether and should be dealt with in such a way that he becomes marked indelibly with disgrace wherever he may go amongst his fellow creatures. A man who commits such an offence is not dealt with, in my opinion, sufficiently severely at the present time. I have noticed great inequalities in sentences on those convicted of cruelty to children, as I have noticed also great inequality in sentences inflicted on those convicted of horrible cruelty upon dumb animals. Speaking for myself, I believe nothing but corporal punishment, bringing home to the brute himself the punishment he ought to undergo, will ever have a lasting effect upon the wretches who commit these crimes upon children. I am aware that such a proposal would require fresh legislation; and there are always people who talk about the degradation of the man upon whom corporal punishment is inflicted. But how can you degrade a man who is already a brute and who, by the act he has committed, has earned the contempt of all his fellow creatures? I wish the Government, or some private Member in the other House, would bring in a Bill which would render the corporal punishment of these people not only possible but very probable.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, this discussion raises once more the old and difficult question as to what is the best method that can be adopted for the repression of crime. The noble Lord who has just sat down spoke in terms that were not unduly severe of the brutality and inhumanity of a man who illtreats either inoffensive children or inoffensive beasts. The infliction of cruelty on those unable to protect themselves is surely one of the greatest crimes of which a man can be guilty. Let us accept that. The next

237
thing is to see how such crimes are to be rendered more and more rare. I have grave doubts as to whether the infliction of increasingly severe punishments is the best means of effecting that object. The history of the development of our criminal law shows that what really stops crime is the growth of a strong, healthy public opinion against the criminal and not the severity or the brutality of the sentence you inflict. Above all, I think it is of the utmost consequence that we should not let our feelings betray us in the anxiety to make the person who has caused a child to suffer himself to suffer in retaliation under the idea that by some such specie of retaliation we can make the balance equal. I do not believe you will effect anything of the kind by any such means.
I agree with the critics to whom Lord Lambourne has referred, that the flogging of a man is a brutalising thing, brutalising to the man, brutalising to those who flog him, brutalising to the people who look on and to everybody concerned in the transaction. It is easy to say that the man is such a brute that you can do no more to degrade one who is already sufficiently degraded. I do not think that is the right view to take of the matter, and I myself should regard with great regret any attempt to extend in any way the offences for which corporal punishment is at present inflicted. My own firm belief would be that you would better attain the standard that you desire to set up of increasing humanity and of finer feeling among all classes by removing the present punishments which permit of flogging rather than by adding to their number.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord who introduced this discussion—a discussion which, I think, is likely to be of real use—referred to myself, and gave an assurance which, I hope, was not necessary of his conviction that in a matter like this I should be with him in desiring to see the law amended, if it needs amendment, in any direction which would render less possible atrocious things such as the incident which he described. I know nothing of this incident beyond the words quoted by the noble Lord from a newspaper. Presumably something more was said on that occasion, but I imagine that no evidence
238
could have been forthcoming on such a matter which could have relieved the man and woman convicted from the opprobrium which everybody must feel at so horrible, so disgraceful and revolting an act of cruelty as that which was there described.
I understood from the noble Lord who spoke so well and so clearly on behalf of the Government to-night, that the question of whether or not some legislation is now necessary for the protection of children who are not under the care of their own parents but have been transferred to that of others is in contemplation, and that a Committee is to be appointed to consider it. It seems to me that this proceeding is eminently desirable, and the horrible case to which the noble Lord referred in opening this discussion should draw general attention to it. I suppose it is some twenty-five years ago that I was a member of a Committee of your Lordships' House which sat for a long time to consider what was described as infant life protection, that is to say, the means of safeguarding little children who were under the charge of people other than their own parents. Suggestions were then made which subsequently took the form of legislation for the protection of those children.
A case such as this would, I imagine, come within the limits of what was there prescribed, and one would like to know what were the circumstances of the adoption in this case, whether the child was taken for a monetary consideration received, or whether there was some other motive which led to the adoption. I agree with the noble Lord that it is difficult to understand what consideration other than a monetary one would be likely to induce people capable of perpetrating the horrible offence described to adopt a very small child, but I should like some information on that point and I should be most anxious, as I need hardly say, if such information is forthcoming, to support any measure that the Government may feel to be desirable for rendering severer the responsibility of those who have under their care children who are not their own, or even of parents upon whose own children wrongs of a horrible kind are inflicted.
The noble Lord suggested that it would be impossible to think it right that those

239
who had been convicted of a crime such as this should ever again be allowed to take little children under their care. I should entirely agree with that, and I believe it to be the law at this moment that any one who has taken a child for a money consideration—a child, that is, who is not their own—has to submit to some supervision as to the grounds upon which a child is received, and to some inspection of the manner in which the child is cared for. Any of us who have not been familiar with the working of the law designed to prevent cruelty to children and who have not followed the great progress which the admirable society that devotes its energies to that end has been making for years, will be startled by the amount of evidence that exists to the effect that it does appear to be the case that parents who are convicted of wrongdoing to their children, and who, after coming out of prison, have the children again under their care, are proved to be particularly liable to fall into that error again. The effect of the evidence that was abundantly brought before us was surprising. In a case of this kind, of course, where the child was not the child of the culprits who thus offended, the case is different, but one would imagine that such a recurrence ought, if practicable, to be rendered impossible in the case of people who have thus offended.
All I need say to-night is that it goes without saying that every one of us is repelled and horrified by such an account as has been given, and probably we should all be ready to support such legislation as may be found to be necessary to render the recurrence of this kind of crime less possible than it is at this moment. I am not desirous at this moment of entering upon what I know is a highly controverted point, the question of the good or evil of corporal punishment. But the noble Lord may be assured that all those of whom I have any possible right to be regarded as directly or indirectly a representative, would be entirely with him and with others who would desire to support any action taken by the Government to render impracticable the perpetration of crimes like this, and to deter the offenders by the gravity of the penalty which would be imposed upon them.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, the very painful case which has been brought before the House by the noble Lord below the gangway raises, it
240
seems to me, three different issues. The first is the adequacy of the sentence and the existence, or supposed existence, of circumstances in which that sentence was the maximum that could be inflicted. The first question that one feels inclined to ask oneself is : Whose was the discretion which chose that minor charge as the charge which should be brought forward ? This is a case of the infliction of grievous wounds, the creation of grievous bodily harm, and such a crime, right down to the most insignificant kind of assault, is none the less a grievous bodily harm, or a grievous wound or an assault, because it happens to be committed against a child. It was in the year 1864 that a codification took place—and this was not by any means the first enactment or the first creation of very severe penalties—in respect of Statutes which already provided ample punishment for crimes of that kind. Consequently it does suggest itself to one to ask why it was that the minor charge was the first charge chosen to proceed upon in this case.
In the second place, the noble Lord raised the question whether it is possible to conceive that such parents could again enter into the legal charge of a child whom they had so brutally misused after the inadequate term of imprisonment had expired. If I remember aright, in the Act of 1908 the whole scheme of Industrial Schools Acts was consolidated, codified and re-enacted, with, I think, some amendments tending to make them stronger, under which, in any case of cruelty, in any case even of moderate neglect of a child by parents, and a fortiori in any case of actual cruelty, you could proceed against the true parents and absolutely divest them of the status of parents of such children for a considerable number of years by putting the child into an industrial school or some kind of analogous home where it received kind treatment. Not only that, you could divest the parents of their rights, but leave them subject to the obligation of parents to make a contribution to the maintenance of the child whilst in the industrial school. Therefore I suggest that, unless some very serious defect in the law has been since discovered, of which I have not heard, there ought to be very effective protection—a fortiori in the case where persons are not the real parents of the child—to see that they are

241
not in a position again to enter into the status in which they would be again able to commit such a crime.
The third point is as to the circumstances in which persons, authorised or unauthorised, inspected or uninspected, registered or unregistered, enter upon the care of a child for reward in that behalf. The House will understand that there must be a large number of cases in which that relationship is entered into for bad reasons, or for reasons which give rise to the gravest suspicion, and I think legislation has been recommended in past times, to draw a sharp distinction between a lump sum paid to the persons who take the child, as compared with, and as contrasted from, a weekly payment for the maintenance of the child. In the first case it is obvious that the persons acting in this way—it is baby farming—have an interest, just as much as the person handing over the child to them, in the final disappearance of the child, from some cause, violent or otherwise. There has been a recommendation to Parliament that an alteration should be made in the law, but I confess I cannot remember whether proposals for legislation of that kind have received the sanction of Parliament, and I hope that the noble Lord who replies further for the Government will address his mind to that point, or will see that it is made the subject of possible legislation in the future.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I do not desire to intervene for more than a moment. I share, as I suppose the whole House shares, the feeling of indignation which is aroused by these cases, and particularly by the kind of case brought to the notice of the House by Lord Gorell. I suppose we all agree with the, most rev. Primate in, his anxiety to see anything done which can be done, which will secure the happiness of these unhappy children, whether by an alteration of the law with respect to cruelty or by an improvement of the law with respect to adoption. The question of adoption is an extremely difficult one, and while entirely sharing the view that every precaution should be taken, the only anxiety I have felt is lest, in trying to provide for these cases of cruelty, we should make more difficult the lives of a number of children who are not subject
242
to cruelty at all. The danger of substituting institutions for homes has always appeared to me to be a very considerable danger in dealing with child life, and I am sure that that will be fully considered by those who conduct the Inquiry which the Government has promised, and I will say no more about it now.
There is one question that I should like to ask, and that is with reference to the two thousand cases which are said still to exist. I am not quite sure whether those are convictions, or charges to be dealt with. I suppose they include every possible case, even those of minor neglect, which has been brought before the Court. It would be, I imagine, an entirely wrong impression to suppose that there were two thousand cases in any way resembling, however remotely, the case of horrible cruelty to which Lord Gorell referred. As to that particular ease, of course it is one of those strange examples of cruelty which do occur in every society, under every condition. Cruelty is unquestionably one of the most powerful passions of human nature, giving rise to some of the most terrible crimes, and I quite sympathise with the noble Lord in thinking that a punishment of six months' imprisonment seems grossly inadequate to an offence of that kind. I am glad to know from the noble Lord opposite that by taking a different course the magistrates might have, exposed these criminals to a much severer penalty, and I trust that this debate will have done something to call the attention of magistrates throughout the Kingdom to their powers in that respect, and make them more vigilant to exercise those powers in cases of this sort.
As to the question of flogging, I sympathise with a great deal that was said by noble Lords behind me. I agree that there is much to be, said against the punishment of flogging. There is much to be said against all punishment, when you come to look into it. I have often thought there is a great deal to be said against imprisonment with hard labour, when you remember all the incidents of imprisonment with hard labour, at any rate in the first months of that punishment. All punishment tends to be brutal and brutalising. I am afraid that is true of other punishment besides flogging, and I always remember what a learned Judge, who was then Mr. Justice Hawkins, a great authority on crime and its punishment,

243
said to mo many years ago. He said : "When I am asked to award Hogging I look through the list of prisoners to be tried, and I feel this difficulty, that I shall have to try other prisoners for crimes even more serious, and if I award flogging in one case there is great danger of creating in the public mind an impression that I am not preserving equality of, punishment. "I think there is that danger in dealing with a particular crime like this, and saying that it is a brutal crime and we must enact flogging for it. I think you must, before you do that, survey the whole scale of crimes which involve brutality and cruelty.
Before you imitate our ancestors, who were, in the habit, whenever they felt particular indignation against any offence, of making it a felony without benefit of clergy, until they had produced the frightful results with which we are all familiar—before doing that, I think we should be careful to remember that, though flogging is, at any rate in my judgment, a proper punishment in certain cases, it should be used with the greatest care, because undoubtedly it is a very severe punishment and is open to the criticism which Lord Buckmaster made against it—namely, that it is liable to excite sympathy with the prisoner, and liable also to create an impression of brutalising, which is a very serious one. Therefore, although I am sympathetic with my noble friends, I shall not be able to support any proposal to add flogging for any particular offence, without also a proposal to consider the whole criminal law.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, so far from remaining confined to a particular case this discussion has developed into a consideration of principles of very general application and of the deepest importance. I think that the noble Lord who drew attention to the case may well congratulate himself upon having brought this matter forward, because if he has done nothing else he has called public attention to a very grave matter. In large measure the question must be one depending upon public opinion. If there is a high standard of public opinion, not only will these things be less likely to occur, but they will be severely punished when they do occur and are found out.
244
How extensive the evil is to-day it is impossible to tell. The 2,000 cases to which my noble friend Lord De La Warr alluded were 2,000 cases of prosecution—prosecutions for one year, I think, 1921. What happened to those prosecutions, how many of them succeeded, how many of them failed, what the degree of guilt was, it is impossible to tell without a great deal of investigation, which probably could not successfully be made. But undoubtedly there is an evil, and the remedy for the evil docs not seem to lie so much in an alteration of the law itself as in the mode of enforcing it. It is open to the magistrates in any case, instead of disposing of it, to commit for trial, if they think it sufficiently serious, and then there may be not only a long term of imprisonment but a still longer term of penal servitude. That is in the power of the magistrate. On the other hand, it is open to take steps to transfer the guardianship of the child from its parent to another person. As to that, no doubt the machinery is more difficult to put into operation than the machinery of prosecution, and I think, on that, the Government will have to consider whether the law relating to children —because it is not only the Children Act, but other Statutes which deal with this matter—is sufficiently drastic to enable an easy remedy to be adopted. I am not sure that it is an easy remedy.
Another question developed itself. I found myself in entire agreement with the misgivings expressed by my noble friend Lord Buckmaster and by Lord Cecil of Chelwood about the utility of vindictive punishment. No doubt when you get an abominable offence, either against a helpless child or an animal, it seems as if corporal punishment, the punishment of flogging, were not un natural, but we know that that punishment is one which has come more and more into disrepute, and justly so. It is a punishment that does not reform. It is a punishment that brutalises. And, while I am far from being one of those who think that the only object of punishment is reform, still the reforming element must never be left out of account. Punishment, to my mind, is the assertion of the will of society against the offender, but although it is punishment in that sense, it is also something more. It ought to aim at making the offender a better man than before he was

245
punished, and not to leave him a worse. Corporal punishment of the kind we have heard of almost invariably leaves the offender worse than he was, and therefore it is not a punishment upon which one can look with much faith.
As I have said, the difficulty is very much move one of public opinion. This debate, I hope, will have done something to raise the level of the public interest. I was struck with what the most rev. Primate, said on the subject. He directed attention to the whole question from another point of view. If only the standard of public opinion continues to rise, the standard of the legislation and the improvement of the remedies will continue to progress. There has been an enormous improvement, in these matters during the last fifteen years. To begin with, there is the Children Act, then there are the other Guardianship Acts, and there are increased powers given to the magistrates to commit for trial. Why are these powers not used ? Because people are coo often not awakened to the gravity of the situation. All I have to say, on behalf of the Government, is that-we will give attention to the question of whether the machinery needs to be strengthened, but I am confident of this, that it is in the wider aspect of the matter, the awakening of the public conscience, that the real remedy rests.
LORD GORELL: My Lords. I am very grateful to noble Lords who have taken so much interest in this matter, and who have made such valuable contributions, but in two respects I must say I do not find the answers made by the noble Lords who have spoken for the Government entirely satisfactory. I gave notice of the particular case I was going to raise three days ago, and I think I was entitled to hear something more than I did. I knew nothing more about the case than I saw in the papers. I still know nothing more. The noble Earl who replied for the Government said he knew nothing more. But there are various features about it which definitely require looking into. It is well known that the magistrates had power to arrange, by moving it to a higher tribunal, for a greater punishment, and the noble Earl who replied for the Government said
246
that in grave cases they did so. But is it possible to imagine a worse case than this? Why did the magistrate take this view of it? We know nothing; we have not been told. Secondly, how did the child come into the hands of these people ? Lord Stuart of Wortley referred to the fact that it was possible to proceed against the parents in some cases, but the difficulty very often is that the child passes through several hands, and there is nobody who knows who the parent is.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: You can proceed against the de facto guardian.
LORD GORELL: I do not wish to go into the point. The noble Earl told us that the Government were going to appoint a Committee to inquire into the question of adoption—a statement which was received by noble Lords opposite with some applause. But the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, in his contribution, made no reference to that, and I should like to know what they are going to inquire into, and how much further are we than we were in February, 1921, after the subject had been very fully inquired into by a Committee composed of a number of distinguished people under the Chairmanship of Sir Alfred Hopkinson, with Mr. Neville Chamberlain as one of the members? They went into this whole question of adoption. I think in about 27 clauses of their Report they gave details of the way in which they thought it should be supervised and safeguarded, and I ventured in my first remarks to call attention to the fact that they unanimously decided that the subject was urgent. All we get now is exactly the same thing. The Government promise to appoint a Committee. What is it going to inquire into? How much further is it going to take a review of the matter I think we are entitled to hear a little more about it.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That a Committee of five Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present Session,

247
and that the Lords following be named of the Committee:

E. Malmesbury.

L. Muir Mackenzie.

L. Stuart of Wortley.

L. Askwith.

L. Blanesburgh.

—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.
Then a message was ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to appoint five Members of that House to be joined with the said Committee.
[From Minutes of February 19.]

ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a (Lord Muir-Mackenzie) and reported from the Committee.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL. [H.L.]
Second Reading (which stands appointed for Thursday next) put off to Tuesday next.
House adjourned at ten minutes past six o'clock.