Lords Sitting of 1 July 1924

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

SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which appears on the Paper in my name.
Moved, That the Order made on the 10th day of April last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall he read a second time after Tuesday, the 17th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now-read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2a accordingly.

LONDONDERRY AND LOUGH SWILLY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill It may be convenient to your Lordships if I take this opportunity to make a brief statement. Since the Bill was read a second time at the beginning of April, a good deal has happened. I may remind your Lordships, in a sentence, what it is that the. Bill sought to do. It sought to convert Scottish teinds or tithes into rentcharges, which should take the place of the old stipends and teinds out of which they are payable. A Committee had sat for a year to investigate the whole system, and it made a Report which was full of detail and difficulty. Thereupon my noble friend Viscount Novar, who was then Secretary for Scotland, brought in a Bill which, in the main, agreed with the scheme of the Committee, but also varied it in certain points. The points upon which variation was proposed were these. Both the Committee and Lord Novar proposed to create the rentcharges of which I have spoken, but, in order to clear the title of the land, they both sought also to make these rents compulsorily redeemable, and this gave rise to opposition on the part of the landowners.
On the Second Reading the Bill was passed without a Division, but a very firm warning was given to us by the heritors, or landowners, that they objected to com-

3
pulsory redemption. They objected, in fact, both to my noble friend's Bill and to the Report of the Committee on this point. It was obvious that the objection was a very serious one, and would demand modifications both in the Bill and in the views which the Committee took. I myself regarded it as so serious that I went to Edinburgh, and there held a meeting with the Scottish landowners. That meeting was a very amicable one, and though we did not then succeed in coming to an agreement, I was much assisted in presiding over this meeting by the good will and helpfulness shown by my noble friend the Duke of Buccleueh. As I say, we did not on that occasion come to a definite agreement, but we reached the point of being able to put the matter in the hands of three of the heritors and three representatives of the Church who were to meet under the Chairmanship of the Lord Advocate.
These gentlemen held a number of meetings, and in the result came to complete agreement as to the modifications which would be acceptable. The Church was represented, the landowners were represented, and we came to an agreement which we regarded as satisfactory and which was embodied in the Amendments put before your Lordships. The statement I am now making gives me an opportunity of dealing with these points rather briefly. What I have to say is that the method adopted was to get rid altogether of the provisions as to redemption. This principle is not now proposed, except so far as concerns small farms of less than £2. With regard to these there may have to be a further amendment made hereafter in the interest of the Church which desires its security to be preserved. Meantime, so far as the main sections are concerned, there is now complete agreement, and the noble Duke and those who act with him and their technical advisers are, I understand, completely satisfied with the Bill as it stands. So also is the Church, and it was passed by an overwhelming majority in the Assembly. This is very satisfactory, if these views are accepted by your Lordships. I now move that the House do resolve itself into Committee in order that we may consider the drafts of the Amendments.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, as the noble and learned Viscount has indicated, the situation has greatly changed for the better since your Lordships passed the Second Beading of this Bill. Indeed, a new situation has arisen. The representatives of the Church and of the heritors have come together and reached an agreement as to the basis for the commutation of teinds. I do not doubt that your Lordships will have no difficulty in a cepting such Amendments to the Bill as are necessary to give effect to this agreement. The debate in the House on the Second Beading probably contributed to the satisfactory issue of the conferences that were then going on between the parties concerned. It cleared the air, and showed the Churches the strength and reasonableness of the heritors' objections even to the proposals in my Bill, which were considerably more satisfactory to them than those contained in the original scheme of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. It may also have influenced the heritors to make concessions in the matter of the price of the chalder, so as to secure an agreement that would finally settle this vexed question, replace uncertain and varying liabilities by fixed calculable charges, and make certain that the teinds should be permanently assigned to the Church.
The United Free Church, when faced with the realities of the situation as disclosed in the Second Reading debate, happily discovered that the transformation of the teind into a first charge on land was not incompatible with the status of a Free Church, especially as much of its own property was held in the scarcely distinguishable form of land mortgages and feus— in short, that the form of redemption could not infringe any vital principle and could not imperil the union. Dr. Johnson observed that it clears a man's mind wonderfully when he is going to be hanged and doubtless, when the precarious position of the Bill became apparent, both lay and ecclesiastical minds were quickly cleared of prejudice and doubts, and a compromise was achieved. It must be said for the heritors that the enormous stipends paid during and after the war, when landowners themselves were precluded from raising rents

5
or benefiting in any way from the rise in the price of cereals which enriched ministers, disinclined them to make sacrifices, while the ever increasing difficulty they were encountering owing to the rise in rates and taxes made it almost impossible for some of them to face redemption on the basis laid down by the Committee, coupled with the condition that payment had to be made in the form of consols. The agreement, therefore, to add five per cent. to the value of the chalder for the purpose of calculating the final charge, is a generous one, for this puts the chalder higher in value than it was ever computed by the noble Viscount or myself.
Our old friend the consol reappears in the agreed Amendments to the Bill, but it is there as a memento mori of the noble and learned Viscount's original scheme and it has no longer any bearing on the subject. The provision imposes no obligation on the heritor to redeem in consols, nor is he likely to adopt that method, because it leaves it perfectly open to Church and heritor to make what bargain they like. It is probable that if the heritors' views had been as authoritatively represented during the sitting of the Commission or during the subsequent period of preparing the Bill as they have been recently the original character of the Bill would have been different, and no crisis need have arisen. It was always difficult to justify redemption on a basis which made it compulsory on the heritor while leaving the representative of the Church free to continue as at present and to claim commutation and redemption on vacancy. Yet there was substance in the claim of the minister to his existing rights, and it was equally difficult to contest the position taken up by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, that redemption had to be enforced if union were to be achieved, because of the conscientious scruples of the United Free Church.
The noble Duke, who admirably represented the views of the heritors in the Second Reading debate, made a general reference to the inconsistencies he detected in my record on this question, as well as in that of the Lord Chancellor. He had a fair opening for so doing, but those of us who supported disestablishment and disendowment in the old days did so largely in the hope of achieving the union, and we were perhaps over-influenced by the contention of the Free
6
Church that along that path only could union be obtained. We rejoice, to-day, that a better way has been found, and though a desire to secularise the teind may still be strong in certain circles in another place, it is difficult to see how this Bill, in its agreed form, with all the authority of the Church and people behind it, can fail to be accepted by Parliament.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I was unfortunately absent from this country when, three months ago, on April 1, this Bill was read a second time. Perhaps I may be allowed to offer a few words on a matter which I regard as of real importance. I venture to say these few words for the subject, although its details are necessarily extreme y technical, is concerned, and that not distantly, with far-reaching principles of Church and State and with the quite vital question of promoting Christian unity among the Churches. To me, as a Scotsman born five years after the Disruption, whose boyhood lay in surroundings wherein the question was a living and burning, or at all events, a heated one, the matter must always be one of peculiar interest.
And of recent years I have had the closest touch with the negotiations which have been carried on year after year, and the honour of being in almost constant consultation with the noble Lord whose absence is so pathetic to us to-night, the late Lord Balfour of Burleigh—whose son I am glad to see is taking part in the debate to-day—whose interest in this matter was not merely of a general kind but was really one of the forces which transformed what might have been theory into practical effect. He was a man not only of the finest character but of the most eminent Scottish acumen and of almost unique Scottish knowledge, both in things secular and sacred. I have, therefore, had the advantage of being in constant touch with the successive steps that have been taken for a good many years in a direction of which we are, I hope, now seeing the final stages.
On the face of it this measure is so technical as to daunt most men who would try to grapple quietly with a single page of it. It carries one back in thought to the pages of Sir Walter Scott and the conversations between Davie Deans and his friend Saddletree about the intricacies

7
of Scottish secular and ecclesiastical law, and we find phrases occurring to us which have been immortalised in the earlier chapters of the "Heart of Midlothian." But because the thing is technical, it would be extremely unwise and uninformed on our part were we to regard it, or speak of it, as unimportant. I suppose it is true to say, on the contrary, that unless we can clear up these dry and rather tangled thickets, these meshes of legal complications on the financial and other preliminaries of such a step as is now to be taken—unless we can get these obstructive details out of the way, we cannot possibly get on to the roadway that will be open towards that unity for which we may surely believe that every thoughtful and religious-minded Scotsman has been striving and praying for a good many years.
To get that unity brought out now is worth while. The spectacle would, outside Scotland, be not only amazing but almost incredible of two huge bodies of eager and earnest religious men, identically at one in creed, in the formularies they use, and in religious discipline, who have yet been at ceaseless and sometimes even vituperative, variance with one another for eighty years about questions which, however large they may loom in the eyes, say, of a Highland crofter who is also an elder in the Church, seem to the average Englishman not only unimportant but practically unintelligible. We know their reality and we desire to see them removed. We are anxious to see this unnecessary and yet long-continued division, starting from Disruption days, as we call them, and going on till now, brought to an end. It was by Parliamentary or Governmental mishandlings and tactlessness that the Disruption, eighty years ago, became first possible, and then inevitable. It is by the exercise here and now of the very opposite spirit that we may help to end that octogenarian schism. By our respectful, courteous and understanding handling of these complex rules and systems we may be allowed to contribute essentially to bring this unhappy division to an absolute end. That, beyond all doubt, will be to the infinite gain of religious life in Scotland, to the promotion of what will make for quiet co-operation, steady progress and, as I hope and believe,
8
enduring peace. I heartily welcome the fact that we shall now be going into Committee on this Bill.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, I am glad that the most rev. Primate made a reference to the late Lord Balfour of Burleigh. All of us who knew him so well, and particularly those from Scotland, welcome those words, and I feel myself that if Lord Balfour of Burleigh had been with us to-day he would certainly have approved of the arrangements embodied in this Bill, and would have been very pleased that there was a prospect of such a Bill passing through Parliament. I would like, in the first instance, to tender my thanks to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for the part he has taken in calling the Committee together. The Lord Chancellor does not have a very long holiday, but he spent one day of his holiday in coming to Edinburgh and presiding over a joint meeting of the heritors and representatives of the Church. At that meeting, although no agreement was arrived at, the way was paved for it, and the Lord Advocate was good enough to preside over a small joint committee which arrived at this settlement.
On behalf of those for whom I act I should like to tender our thanks for the great patience and the good advice with which the Lord Advocate has helped us to come to this settlement, which, I think, is satisfactory to both parties. If the Bill goes through in its present form I think no ill feeling will be left behind it; it will work for good, and will give the Church and everyone in Scotland a better prospect for the future. The Bill has been so much altered that there will probably have to be certain necessary minor Amendments after it has been reprinted, and therefore I hope that the Bill will be reprinted as soon as possible. But I quite agree with my noble and learned friend that in all the main respects it embodies the agreement arrived at between the heritors and the Church of Scotland.
There is only one point to which I should like to allude, and that is the compulsory redemption by the small heritors. I agree that it was probably absolutely necessary—it was certainly convenient—that this should be. But those with whom I am working do not represent the small heritors. At this

9
meeting that fact was pointed out, and my noble and learned friend said at once that the Government; would look after their interests and see that they were fairly and generously treated. They were not, one might say, represented, but the Government, I believe, are fully-prepared even now, in the future stages of the Bill, to see that their interests do not suffer. This arrangement is a satisfactory one, and one which your Lordships could wisely accept. There is however, one point that I should like to urge upon the Government, although I do not think it is necessary to enlarge upon it as the Lord Chancellor has it in view.
Though there might not be a great deal of pressure on Parliament from outside, this is a measure which is very vital not only to the religious future but the future of the whole of Scotland, and I trust, therefore, that it will be passed through your Lordships' House in its present, or a somewhat similar, form, and that the Government will do all they can to pass it into law before the end of the Session. It is not, in any way, a Party measure and, therefore, I do not see that any one has any interest in trying to arrest its progress.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: My Lords, I should like, in a very few words, to associate myself with what has fallen from the noble Duke and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. I desire also, on behalf of the Church of Scotland, to express to the noble and learned Viscount their grateful thanks for the unremitting care and attention that he has given to this measure and to express their sense of the fact that it is very largely due to him that what we hope in Scotland may prove to be the last stumbling block in the way of union may now be removed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Standard value of victual stipend.
2.—(1) The value in money of victual stipend shall for each county in Scotland be the average value for that county of the
10
different kinds of victual in which such stipends are localled for the fifty years 1873 to 1922, as ascertained—

(a) In the case of the kinds of victual mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act, by reference to the values set out therein, or where for any county the value of any such kind of victual is not so set out, then by reference to the value of such other kind of victual for that county or to the value of the same kind of victual for such other county or counties as the Court of Session may select, and by Act of Sederunt prescribe, as being most suitable in the circumstances of the case; and

(b) In the case of any kind of victual not mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act, in accordance with the provisions set out in the Second Schedule to this Act,

(3) The value in money of any victual stipend, as the same may be ascertained under subsection (1) of this section subject to any variation under subsection (2) thereof is in this Act referred to as the "standard value" of that stipend.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the average value for that county of the different kinds of victual in which such stipends are localled," and insert "determined by adding to the former county average value of the different kinds of victual in which such stipends are localled an increase of five per centum of that average value, and for the purposes of this section the former county average value of any kind of victual shall be deemed to be the average value of that kind of victual for that county."
The noble and learned Viscount said: The purpose of this Amendment is to put into the Bill the increase of five per cent. to which the noble Viscount, Lord Novar, referred and which is part of the arrangement made with the heritors in lieu of redemption. This provision was negotiated in Scotland under the auspices of the Lord Advocate, and I should like to take this opportunity of saying that the thanks of the Church, of the heritors, and of his own colleagues are due for the unremitting care and attention with which the Lord Advocate brought to bear his vast store of knowledge and his experience in the negotiation of these Amendments. We all owe more to him in this matter than we ordinarily owe to

11
our colleagues, and I would like to take the opportunity of stating that without his help I doubt whether I could have overcome the difficulties in front of us.
In dealing with the Amendments I do not propose to read them to your Lordships. They are on the Paper, and they nearly all fulfil the definition which Lord Westbury gave of a deed—" something impossible to understand, difficult to read, and disgusting to touch." Therefore, if your Lordships will allow me, I will not read these Amendments; I will only tell you what their substance is. The substance of this Amendment is, as I stated, to put the five per cent. into the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 21, leave out from ("be") to ("for") on page 2, line 1, and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment to this clause is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 41, leave out ("ascertained") and insert (" determined").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Date of standardisation of stipend.
3. The date of standardisation of a stipend shall be the first day of January which shall first occur not less than six months after the date when the benefice becomes actually vacant or is deemed to have become vacant by election or by notification as hereinafter provided. In the ease of a benefice which is actually vacant at the passing of this Act the date of standardisation shall be the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-five.
The words "becomes actually vacant" shall not include the occasion where a minister is succeeded by an assistant and successor appointed to him before the passing of this Act, but shall include the occasion where a minister is succeeded by an assistant and successor appointed to him after such passing.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out "first day of January" and insert "term of Martinmas." The noble and learned Viscount said: I do not think I need enlarge to your Lordships on the merits of the term "Martinmas," a term with which you are not familiar south of the Tweed, but which we hold to be important in Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 2, leave out ("first day of January") and insert ("term of Martinmas")
Page 3, lines 7 and 8, leave out ("first day of January") and insert (" term of Martinmas").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Standardisation by election.
4. Any minister who at the passing of this Act is entitled to a victual stipend may elect that the stipend shall be standardised and may intimate his election in writing to the clerk of the presbytery and to the general trustees, and in such case the benefice shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to have become vacant by election at the date of the said intimation.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out "may intimate his election in writing" and insert "if he so elects he shall intimate his election in writing in the form set forth in the Third Schedule to this Act or in a similar form to the heritors." The noble and learned Viscount said: The object of the Amendment is to put into the Bill a form under which the minister may intimate his election in writing. It is a very harmless system, and I do not think I need enlarge upon it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 17 and 18, leave out (" may intimate his election in writing ") and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 (Standardisation by notification):
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the four Amendments to this clause which stand in my name on the Paper.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 29, leave out (" General Assembly ") and insert (" General Trustees ").
Page 3, line 32, after (" Presbytery ") insert (" and to the heritors ").
Page 3, line 37, leave out (" General Assembly ") and insert (" General Trustees ").
Page 4, lines 19 and 20, leave out (" General Assembly ") and insert (" General Trustees ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Collegiate Charges.
6. With respect to a parish where separate benefices exist and both the ministers are entitled to victual stipend, the foregoing provisions of this Act shall have effect subject to the following modification, namely, that neither of the benefices shall be deemed to be or to become actually vacant or to have become vacant by election or notification, unless the other benefice was actually vacant at the passing of this Act, or shall thereafter have become actually vacant or been deemed to have become vacant by election or notification.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after "' stipend, "to insert" except where in such parish there are no surplus teinds." The noble and learned Viscount said: I move to insert those words because it is obvious that the provision in the Bill would be useless where there are no such surplus teinds. The words are intended to meet that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 27, after ("stipend") insert ("except where in such parish there are no surplus teinds").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Payment of standardised stipend pending redemption.
8. In order to facilitate the payment of standardised victual stipend pending the ascertainment of the standard value thereof in terms of this Act, the following provisions shall have effect:—
As from the date of standardisation of a victual stipend, every heritor who is liable in payment of any part of the stipend exigible from the teinds of his lands shall until the date of redemption of that part of the stipend pay the same to the General Trustees at the assumed standard value thereof subject to an accounting between the heritor and the Trustees as at the said date of redemption on the basis of the standard value as then fixed and shown in the Teind Roll. Payment of the heritor's part of the stipend at the assumed standard value shall be made half-yearly by the heritor at each term of Whitsunday or Martinmas which may occur between the date of standardisation and the date of redemption, each half-yearly payment being in respect of stipend for the six months preceding payment, and on the date of redemption the final payment shall be such as the aforesaid accounting may require to complete payment at the standard value up to the
14
date of redemption. The assumed standard value of any part of a stipend shall for the purpose of this section be either—

(a) an amount equal to the average value of that part of the stipend converted into money according to Table A or Table B (as the case may be) n the First Schedule to this Act in cases where those tables are applicable; or

(b) in any case the amount paid by the heritor in respect of that part of the stipend for the crop and year immediately preceding the date of standardisation,

whichever of these two amounts the heritor may select.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out Clause 8 and insert the following new clause:—
Payment of standardised stipend.
8.—(1) As from the date of standardisation any stipend which has been standardised under the provisions of this Act shall be payable by the heritors to the General Trustees half-yearly at the terms of Whitsunday and Martinmas each half-yearly payment being in respect of the half-year preceding the date of payment subject to the following exceptions, namely—

(a) that the first half of the standardised stipend for the year beginning on the date of standardisation shall not become payable until the term of Lammas in that year; and

(b) that the second half of the standardised stipend for that year shall not become payable till the term of Candlemas in the following year.

(2) Where as hereinafter in this Act provided the standard value of the stipend as shown by the teinds roll is constituted a real burden or has become redeemable as the case may be, the provisions of this section shall cease to have effect, and with respect to payments under this section due or payable before that event, the General Trustees shall have all the powers of recovery which according to the present law and practice a minister has with respect to his stipend.
The noble and learned Viscount said: This new clause is designed to make clear what the standardised stipend is— that is to say, the stipend that has been revised in accordance with the provisions of the Bill— and also the dates on which it is payable. These clauses have been closely scrutinised by the Lord Advocate and myself on behalf of the Government and your Lordships may take it, I think, that they are in a satisfactory form. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, leave out Clause 8 and insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Augmentation of stipend.
10.—(1) From and after the passing of this Act (but without prejudice to any application for augmentation competently made before such passing), not more than one application for augmentation of stipend may be made with respect to any one stipend. And any augmentation granted on such single application shall come in place of all future rights of augmentation and shall be final.
(2) Subject as aforesaid; —

(a) The minister of a parish who has been admitted to the benefice of that parish before the passing of this Act may apply for an augmentation of stipend in accordance with the present law and practice, unless and until the benefice is deemed to have become vacant by election or by notification;

(b) Where a benefice is actually vacant at the passing of this Act or shall have become actually vacant thereafter, the General Trustees may apply for an augmentation of the stipend at any time before the expiry of six months after the passing of this Act or after the occurrence of the vacancy as the case may be: Provided that if a minister be appointed to the benefice before the application is disposed of he shall be sisted as a party to the application;

(c) Where a benefice is deemed to have become vacant by election or by notification, the minister or the General Trustees may apply for an augmentation of the stipend at any time before the expiry of six months after the benefice is deemed to have become vacant;

(d) An application for augmentation made under either of the two preceding paragraphs (b) and (c) shall be competent, notwithstanding that at the date of the application a period of less than twenty years has expired since the date of the last application for an augmentation of the stipend made before the passing of this Act: Provided that in the case of an application under paragraph (c) where the benefice is deemed to have become vacant by notification if a period of less than twenty years has elapsed as aforesaid the Court of Teinds, if they grant an augmentation, shall make an order as to the manner in which the augmentation and, if they think fit, any accumulation of the
16
augmentation shall be dealt with by the General Trustees when a period of twenty years shall have so elapsed, or if before that occurrence the benefice becomes actually vacant, or the Minister intimates his election that the stipend should he standardised.

(3) The provisions set out in the Third Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to applications for augmentation of stipend made after the passing of this Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out Clause 10 and insert the following new clause:
Augmentation of stipend.
10.—(1) On the passing of this Act the present law relating to augmentation of stipend shall cease to have effect without prejudice to any application for augmentation competently made before such passing or to anything following on such application or done therein.
(2) The Minister or the General Trustees as the case may be to whom a stipend or the payments under a standard charge as hereinafter defined is or are payable may—

(a) if not less than twenty years shall have elapsed since the date of the last application for augmentation of the stipend; or

(b) upon the expiry of twenty years from the date of the last application for augmentation of the stipend or upon the expiry of ten years from the passing of this Act, whichever of these two events shall first occur;

apply to the Lord Ordinary to find whether there are surplus teinds available for an augmentation. No such application may be made after the expiry of eleven years from the passing of this Act.
(3) If the Lord Ordinary (whose decision shall he final and not subject to review) finds that there are surplus teinds so available, the Minister or the General Trustees, as the case may he, shall be entitled to receive as from the first term of Martinmas following the date of the application an augmentation according to the following scale:—

(a) Where the stipend as last modified by the Court of Teinds does not exceed twenty-five chalders, an augmentation of six chalders; and

(b) Where the stipend as so modified exceeds twenty-five chalders but is less than thirty chalders, an augmentation of five chalders; and

(c) Where the stipend as so modified is thirty chalders or upwards, an augmentation of four chalders.

The foregoing augmentation of six, five or four chalders, as the case may be, shall be converted and localled in sterling money according to the standard value.
If the amount of the available surplus teinds as ultimately ascertained in the localling of the augmentation among the heritors is insufficient to meet the foregoing augmentations, the augmentation shall be limited to the amount so ascertained.
(4) As from the date when a Minister or the General Trustees, as the case may be, becomes or become entitled to an augmentation under this section, the amount of the augmentation shall be added to the stipend and shall be payable and recoverable in like manner.
(5) The provisions set out in the Fourth Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to augmentations under this section.
(6) An augmentation under this section shall come in place of all future rights of augmentation and shall be final.
(7) In the event of the Lord Ordinary finding that there are no surplus teinds available for an augmentation, neither the Minister nor the General Trustees shall be entitled to make any further application."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is an Amendment for the purpose of substituting a new clause for Clause 10 as it stands in the Bill. It is a clause relating to a mysterious subject called the augmentation of stipend, on which the law is still more mysterious. This is a clause which simply puts into form the m matter agreed on between the heritors and the Church. It has been agreed that there should be a definite amount in the augmentation of stipend instead of leaving it to litigation. Accordingly, I move this clause which embodies the agreement.
Amendment moved—
Pages 6 and 7, leave out Clause 10 and insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11:
Teind rolls.
11.—(1) There shall be prepared by the Clerk of Teinds for every parish in Scotland a teind roll specifying in sterling money—

(a) The total teind of that parish; and

(b) The amount of that total applicable to the lands of each heritor; and

(c) The value of the whole stipend payable to the minister, so far as payable out of teinds including vicarage teinds payable as stipend and surrendered teinds so payable; and

(d) The proportion of that value payable by each heritor in the parish.

(2) The said teind rolls shall be prepared and issued as soon as may be practicable, and the provisions of the Fourth Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to the preparation, issue, and adjustment of the teind rolls.
(3) The Court of Session shall make by Act of Sederunt, with the approval of the Treasury, such rules and regulations as may in the judgment of the court from time to time be necessary to regulate the amount of the fees to ho paid to the Clerk of Teinds in connection with the preparation, issue, and adjustment of the teind rolls and the time and place of the payment of the said fees, which shall he payable by the heritors concerned.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "Fourth" and insert "Fifth." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a purely verbal Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 43, leave out ("Fourth") and insert ("Fifth").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "which shall be payable by the heritors concerned," and insert "The expenses of the preparation, issue and adjustment of a teind roll including where necessary the expense of the preparation of a state of teinds shall be borne by the heritors in proportion to the amount of the total teind applicable to the lands of each heritor but any heritor whose teinds have been valued and surrendered before the date of standardisation shall be relieved of his share of the expenses by the General Trustee."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a provision as to the costs of the teind roll which, under this clause, are partitioned between the heritors and the Church. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, lines 10 and 11, leave out from ("fees") to the end of the clause and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor whether the Government or some one else, though I suppose it would be the Government, would take care to see that the Teind Court is properly constituted for the work in front of it, otherwise great expense will be laid upon the parties. The Teind Clerk, Who is a most important person, will require assistance
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We have that in view, and, if necessary, further assistance may be given to the Teind Clerk for the purpose. We are watching this very carefully.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Redemption of stipend.
12.—(1) It shall be the duty of every heritor at any term of Whitsunday or Martinmas occurring within one year from the date on which the teind roll of a parish has become final (such term of Whitsunday or Martinmas being hereinafter in this Act referred to as the "date of redemption") to redeem any stipend exigible from the teinds of his lands in that parish by payment to the General Trustees of redemption money equal to the value of the stipend so exigible as shown by the teind roll multiplied by twenty-two.
(2) For the purpose of paying the redemption money in respect of any stipend as aforesaid, the heritor may raise the amount of the redemption money, or any part thereof, by granting a bond and disposition in security over the lands from the teinds of which the stipend is exigible.
(3) Where the redemption money due by a heritor under subsection (1) of this section in respect of his lands in any parish exceeds the sum of twenty-two pounds he may, in lieu of paying the redemption money as aforesaid, discharge the said payment by means of an annuity (payable half-yearly) consisting of—

(a) A sum equal to the proportion of the value of the stipend payable by the heritor as shown in the teind roll; and

(b) Such further sum, being not less than one pound, by way of sinking fund instalment as would be sufficient if the periodical payments thereof were accumulated at the rate of four and a half per centum per annum to produce an amount equal to the redemption money at the end of a given number of years, not exceeding fifty years, from the date of redemption.

(4) Every annuity under this section shall be created by way of a charge over the lands from the teinds of which the stipend is exigible in favour of the General Trustees, payable by half-yearly instalments extending over the terms of years specified therein, and the first payment thereof shall be made at the term of Whitsunday or Martinmas first occurring after the date of redemption, the first half-yearly payment of the said annuity being for the half year preceding the term at which the first half-yearly payment is made, and the charge shall be stamped and sufficiently stamped with the duty payable on a mortgage to secure the redemption money.
(5)—(a) Where the redemption money due by a heritor under subsection (1) of this section does not exceed the sum of twenty-two pounds, and the same has not been paid to the General Trustees at the date of redemption, the amount of the redemption money shall be a personal debt due by the heritor to the General Trustees.
(b) Where the redemption money due by a heritor as aforesaid exceeds the sum of twenty-two pounds, and payment thereof has at the date of redemption neither been made to the General Trustees nor been discharged by means of an annuity as in this section provided; the General Trustees may apply to the sheriff for an order ordaining the heritor to create a charge in their favour as hereinbefore provided. And if the heritor refuses or fails so to do, the sheriff shall grant authority to the sheriff clerk to execute such a charge, the annuity created by the charge being of the smallest amount and for the longest period allowed by the foregoing provisions of this section, and a charge so executed shall be as valid as if it bad been executed by the heritor.
(6) At any term of Whitsunday or Martinmas during the currency of any charge under this section, the charge may be terminated by payment to the General Trustees of an amount equal to the redemption money after the deduction of such sum as represents the sinking fund instalments already paid under the charge and the accumulations thereof at the rate of four and a half per centum per annum. On receipt of such payment, the General Trustees shall be bound to grant a certificate thereof, and such certificate on being stamped with the same stamp duty as a discharge of a mortgage and on being recorded in the appropriate Register of Sasines shall operate so as to release from the charge the lands over which the charge is secured.
(7) Any heritable security granted for the purpose of the payment of redemption money, and any charge created under this section, shall be recorded in the appropriate Register of Sasines, and from the date of such recording shall be preferable to all other securities or burdens not incidents of tenure.
(8) The half-yearly instalments of any annuity created by way of a charge under this section and any arrears of such instalments may be recovered by the person for the time being entitled thereto by the same means and in the like manner as any feu duties or rent or other payment out of the same lands would be recoverable.
(9) Any charge created under this section may be in or as nearly as may be in the form set out in the Fifth Schedule to this Act.
(10) All heirs of entail, liferenters, trustees, judicial factors, tutors, curators and other guardians, heritable creditors in possession, and other persons who are in actual receipt of the income of any estate of property are, notwithstanding any limitations in their titles, hereby authorised and required without any further sanction to exercise all the powers conferred and to carry out all the obligations imposed by this section

21
upon heritors who are absolute owners, and all deeds executed in pursuance of this subsection by any of the persons before-mentioned" shall be fully binding upon all persons whomsoever interested in the lands to which such deeds relate. Where any heir of entail in possession shall have, in whole or in part, paid the redemption money of any stipend exigible from the teinds of the entailed lands, he shall be help to be a creditor of the entailed lands for the amount of the redemption money so paid, and shall have the like rights as are conferred upon heirs of entail in possession by the Entail Acts with reference to improvement expenditure made by them.
(11) Upon the payment to the General Trustees of the redemption money, or from the date of the recording of the charge, as the case may he, any claim upon the heritor in respect of the stipend shall cease and be extinguished.
(12) Nothing contained in this section or done in pursuance thereof by a heritor shall prejudice or affect any obligation to relieve the heritor of any lands from liability in respect of any stipend exigible from the teinds thereof, and any such obligation shall extend to relief from liability in respect of the redemption of the stipend.
(13) The reference to "teinds" in Section fifty-nine of the Improvements of Land Act. 1864, shall be construed so as to include charges under this section.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out Clause 12 and insert the following new clause:—
Charge to be substituted for liability of stipend exceeding two pounds.
"12. Where the standard value of the stipend exigible from the teinds of the lands of any heritor in a parish as shown by the teind roll exceeds the sum of two pounds—

(1) the amount of such standard value shall by virtue of this Act be constituted as at and from the first term of Whitsunday or Martinmas which shall occur after the date when the teind roll becomes final a permanent and real burden (in this Act referred to as the ' standard charge ') on the lands from the teinds of which the said stipend is exigible in favour of the General Trustees preferable to all other securities or burdens not incidents of tenure;

(2) the amount of the standard charge shall be payable by equal half-yearly instalments at the terms of Whitsunday and Martinmas each half-yearly instalment being in respect of the half year preceding the date of payment and the said instalments shall be recoverable by the same means and in the like manner as any feu-duty out of the said lands would be recoverable:

22

(3) The standard charge over any lands may at any time after the completion of the teind roll be re-deemed by and in the option of the heritor of those lands or other person liable in respect of the standard charge either (a) for such consideration or in such manner as may be agreed upon between the person liable and the General Trustees, or (b) at any term of Whitsunday or Martinmas after three months' notice either by (i) payment to the Trustees of such a sum as would if invested at the time of payment in Consolidated 2½ per cent. annuities produce an annual sum equal to the standard charge, or (ii) by transfer to the General Trustees of such an amount of Consolidated 2½ per cent. annuities as would produce an annual sum equal to the standard charge;

(4) upon the redemption of the standard charge as aforesaid any claim upon the heritor or other person in respect of such standard charge shall cease and be extinguished and the lands from which the same was exigible shall be disburdened thereof in all time coming and an entry to that effect shall be made in the teind roll which shall be sufficient evidence of the discharge of the burden."

The noble and learned Viscount said: This deals with stipends where the amount payable is over £2 in the case of a particular piece of land, and it provides how this kind of charge is to be attached to the land, and how it is to be payable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Pages 9 to 11, leave out Clause 12 and insert the said now clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 12, to insert the following new clause:—
Allocation of standard charge.
". A standard charge shall from its constitution continue a real burden on the whole of the lands subject thereto, and on every part of those lands notwithstanding any disposition of the lands or any part thereof unless and until intimation of an allocation of the standard charge has been made in writing by the General Trustees and the disponer or his representatives to the Clerk of Teinds, who upon receiving such an intimation shall forthwith make the necessary entry in the teind roll.
If as the result of any such allocation the portion of a standard charge so allocated

23
upon the lands disponed or remaining a real burden on the lands retained by the disponer does not exceed two pounds, the disponer or his representatives shall within three months after the date of the entry in the roll redeem the same by payment to the General Trustees of a sum equal to the amount so allocated or remaining a burden multiplied by twenty; and if the portion of the standard charge so allocated or remaining a burden exceeds two pounds but is less than fifteen pounds, that portion of the standard charge shall as from the date of the entry in the teind roll be increased by five per centum."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This new clause provides for the allocation of the standard charge and has this important feature, that in future the rentcharge will be a rentcharge in the strict sense of the term and not merely the profits of the land.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 12, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 12, to insert the following new clause:—
Provisions where stipend does not exceed two pounds.
". Where the standard value of the stipend exigible from the teinds of the lands of any heritor in a parish as shown by the teind roll does not exceed the sum of two pounds:—

(1) the heritor or other person liable in payment of the said stipend shall redeem the same either

(a) at the first term of Whitsunday or Martinmas which shall occur not less than three months after the date on which the teind roll of the parish becomes final for such consideration or in such manner as may be agreed upon between the person so liable and the General Trustees; or

(b) by payment to the General Trustees at the said term of Whitsunday or Martinmas of a sum equal to the standard value of the said stipend multiplied by eighteen; or

(c) by payment to the General Trustees of a series of thirty-six equal half-yearly instalments commencing at the said term of Whitsunday or Martinmas, each instalment being equal to one-half of the standard value of the said stipend with the addition of seventy-five per centum:

(2) All payments due to the General Trustees in respect of the redemption of a stipend shall be recoverable by the General Trustees from the heritor or other person liable for such payments as a personal debt:

24

(3) Upon the redemption of a stipend as aforesaid any claim upon the heritor or other person in respect of such stipend shall cease and be extinguished and an entry to that effect made in the teind roll shall be sufficient evidence of the redemption."

Amendment moved—
After Clause 12 insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
Redemption of surplus teinds.
14.—(1) It shall be the duty of every heritor who has no heritable right to the surplus teinds of his lands in any parish at any term of Whitsunday or Martinmas occurring within one year from the date on which the teind roll of that parish has become final to redeem such teinds in manner following, that is to say:—

(a) in the case of surplus teinds which under the present law and practice are redeemable at the instance of the heritor redemption shall be by payment to the titular of redemption money equal to the value of those surplus teinds as shown by the teind roll multiplied by nine; and

(b) in the case of surplus teinds, which under the present law and practice are redeemable by agreement only, redemption shall be by payment to the titular of redemption money equal to the value of those surplus teinds as shown by the teind roll multiplied by such number as may be agreed, or, failing agreement, fixed by an arbiter nominated by the Lord President of the Court of Session on the application of either party; and

(c) in the case of all other surplus teinds redemption shall be by payment to the titular of redemption money equal to the value of those surplus teinds as shown by the teind roll multiplied by twenty-two.

(2) The provisions of the section of this Act relating to redemption of stipend other than subsections (1) and (12) of that section shall apply with the necessary modifications to the redemption of surplus teinds under this section. And in such application references to stipend shall be construed as references to surplus teinds, references to the General Trustees shall be construed as references to the titular, references to the standard value of the stipend shall be construed as references to the value of the surplus teind as appearing in the teind roll, and references to the land from the teinds of which the stipend is exigible shall be construed as references to the lands from which the surplus teinds are exigible.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR,THE LORD CHANCELLOR, moved to leave out Clause 14 and insert the following new clause:
Sale of surplus teinds.
"14. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act of the Scots Parliament, 1693. c. 23 (an Act renewing the commission for plantation of kirks and valuation of teinds), or in any other enactment or in any charter, grant or deed, it shall be lawful after the passing of this Act for the titular or any other person having right of titularity to sell surplus teinds on such terms as may be agreed upon between him and the heritor.
Nothing in this section shall prejudice or affect the provisions of the Acts of the Scots Parliament, 1633, c. 17 (anent the rate and price of teinds), and 1690, c. 23 (concerning patronages) or any other enactment at present in force authorising the sale of surplus teinds."
The noble and learned Viscount said: Here again, in pursuance of the agreement, we leave out Clause, 14, and for this reason. In Scotland there are certain teinds payable to Universities, and so on, which cannot be sold, and it is desirable that there should be power to sell those teinds. Therefore, we propose an Amendment providing that, notwithstanding anything in the Act of the Scots Parliament for renewing the Commission foe plantation of kirks and valuation of teinds, there should be this power to sell. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Pages 11 and 12, leave out Clause 14 and insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15:
Vicarage teind not payable as stipend.
15. Any person claiming right to vicarage teind exigible according to the present law and practice for any purpose other than stipend may, at any time within two years after the passing of this Act, apply to the Commissioners to find that his claim is valid, to ascertain the value of the vicarage teind so claimed and to make an Order for the commutation thereof. If no such application be made to the Commissioners within the period aforesaid, or if the Commissioners refuse such application, any right or claim with respect to such vicarage teind shall thereupon be at an end.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out Clause 15. The noble and learned Viscount said: If your Lordships will take the trouble to turn to Clause 15 in the Bill, you will find that it is a clause the operation of which is
26
confined to vicarage teinds. They consist of fish and all sorts of things, and are not really germane to this Bill, and we have left them alone.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, lines 30 to 40, leave out Clause 1.5.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
Clause 18:
Orders of Commissioners.
18.—(1) The Commissioners may, after such inquiry in each individual case as they may think fit, make such orders as they may consider necessary or proper for any of the following purposes, that is to say:—
(a) for giving effect to the schemes framed by the Commissioners under the provisions of this Act relating to burgh churches, including the modification of the Act 23 & 24 Victoria, chapter 50, entitled "An Act to abolish the annuity tax in Edinburgh and Montrose, and to make provision in regard to the stipends of the ministers in that city and burgh, and also to make provision for the patronage of the church of North Leith," and of any other local or personal Act relating to the burgh churches.
(f) for framing and giving effect to schemes for the commutation of vicarage teinds (other than vicarage teinds payable as stipend), after the ascertainment of the value of such teinds in any case where the Commissioners, upon application made to them by any person interested, are satisfied that such teinds are due and exigible;
LORD ELPHINSTONE LORD ELPHINSTONE moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "Act," where that word last occurs, to insert "decree of the Court of Session or Court of Teinds or agreement." The noble Lord said: Clause 18 define; the functions of the Scottish Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and provides, inter alia, that they may make orders for giving effect to schemes framed by the Commissioners with reference to burgh churches. The object of the words proposed to be added by this Amendment is to make certain that the Commissioners may also consider and inquire into the matter of burgh churches which are regulated not by Acts, either public, local or personal, but by decrees of the Court of Session or the Court of Teinds or by agreement. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 39, after (" Act ") insert (" decree of the Court of Session or Court of Teinds or agreement ").—(Lord Elphinstone.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Government accept this Amendment, which is a useful one.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out paragraph (f) of subsection (1). The noble and learned Viscount said: This paragraph relates to vicarage teinds and the Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, lines 12 to 19, leave out paragraph (f).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 22 agreed to.
Clause 23:
Proceedings relating to matters mentioned in Section 3 of the Ecclesiastical Buildings and Glebes (Scotland) Act, 1868.
23. No proceedings relating to any of the matters mentioned in Section three of the Ecclesiastical Buildings and Glebes (Scotland) Act, 1868, shall be instituted or entertained before or by any presbytery or any court of law or the Commissioners except as hereinafter in this Act provided. The foregoing provision shall be deemed to have had effect as on and from the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, but without prejudice to any proceedings instituted before that date or to the enforcement of any order, finding, judgment, interlocutor, or decree made, given, or pronounced therein.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out "January" and insert "August." The noble and learned Viscount said: In this clause we have made an agreement with the landowners as to the liability for repairs, and we define it. They accept their liability, but this defines it. I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 36, leave out "January" and insert "August."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Line 40, at end insert ("or to any contract or agreement made by heritors before that date or to any resolution passed by heritors to levy an assessment to meet expenditure incurred in pursuance of such
28
contract or agreement, and any such assessment shall be recoverable as if this Act had not been passed ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24:
Transfer of right in parish churches und manses.
24.—(1) Where a presbytery (whether on the representation of the minister concerned or otherwise) or the General Trustees are of opinion that any church or manse is not in such a state of repair as to be reasonably fit for occupation and that the duty of executing repair is incumbent upon heritors, the presbytery or the General Trustees, as the case may be, may agree with the heritors concerned for the repair of the same by or at the expense of the heritors or for the payment by the heritors to the General Trustees of a sum of money in lieu of repair and failing such agreement the presbytery or General Trustees may within one year after the passing of this Act apply to the sheriff for an order directing the heritors to carry out such repairs (if any) not involving structural additions, as he may consider necessary, or to make payment in lieu thereof. The sheriff shall deal with any such application in a summary manner and his decision shall be final.
(3) When a certificate issued by the sheriff under this section duly stamped with the stamp duty of ten shillings as a conveyance has been recorded as aforesaid—

(a) any liability or obligation incumbent on any heritor in connection with the subjects to which the certificate relates shall be at an end except the liability to assess for the repayment of any debt existing at the date of the certificate: and

(b) all rights of property in the said subjects shall by virtue of this Act and without the necessity of any further conveyance vest in and belong to the General Trustees, to the same effect as if a complete feudal title holding of the Crown in free blench farm for payment of a penny Scots yearly if asked only had been duly constituted in favour of the General Trustees.

(4) Whereas in certain parishes, not only the heritors, but also town councils in their capacity as town councils, are under the present law and practice liable in obligations relating to the church or manse, it shall be lawful in any such case, for the presbytery or the General Trustees or any other person concerned to apply to the sheriff to find and declare that the case ought to be dealt with by the Commissioners, and if the sheriff so finds and declares the provisions of this section shall have no further application to the case which shall thereafter be dealt with by the said Commissioners in accordance with the provisions of this Act relating to orders of Commissioners.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out subsection (1) and to insert the following new subsection:
" (1) Where the General Trustees are of opinion that any church or manse is not in a reasonable state of tenantable repair and that the duty of executing repairs is incumbent upon heritors, the General Trustees may agree with the heritors concerned for the repair of the same by or at the expense of the heritors or for the payment by the heritors to the General Trustees of a sum of money in lieu of repair, and failing agreement the General Trustees may within three years after the passing of this Act apply to the sherill for an order directing the heritors to carry out such repairs (if any) not involving structural alterations as he may consider necessary, or if the General Trustees so require to pay to the General Trustees such sum of money in lieu of repair as the sheriff may determine. The sheriff shall deal with any such application in a summary manner and his decision shall he final."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is an Amendment relating to repairs, and again it represents an agreement. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, lines 1 to 17, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 19, line 40, leave out ("liability to assess") and insert ("obligation or liability to assess or to be assessed ").
Page 20, line 8, leave out from the end of line 8 to ("liable ") in line 9, and insert ("or other public bodies or kirk sessions are under the present law and practice or by agreement or custom ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26:
Transfer of rights in glebes.
26. With respect to glebes, the following provisions shall have effect:—

(1) It shall be the duty of the clerk of every presbytery within one year after the passing of this Act to furnish to the Commissioners a list of the glebes appropriated to the ministers of the parishes in the presbytery, and of any cases where a minister has accepted or is entitled to any annual payment in place of glebe, and at the same time to intimate in which cases (if any) it is claimed by the presbytery (whether on the representation of the minister concerned or otherwise) that the heritors concerned have not fully
30
implemented the obligations incumbent on them according to the present law and practice with respect to the provision and enlargement of a glebe:

(2) As soon as conveniently may be after the receipt of the said lists, the Commissioners shall inquire into all circumstances relating to existing rights of property in the globes, and in any payments in place of globe, and shall thereafter make orders relating to the glebes and payments:

(3) Every such order shall make provision for—

(a) the implement by the heritors of any obligations incumbent on them as aforesaid which have not already been implemented; and

(b) the transfer to and vesting in the General Trustees of the ownership of the glebes; and

(c) the preservation of the existing rights of all persons other than the heritors or the minister of the parish who, under or in pursuance of any general or local Act of Parliament or otherwise, have acquired any right in any glebe or any part thereof, whether as purchasers, feuars, or tenants, and the payment of any feu-duties, casualties, or rent to the General Trustees in place of the minister; and

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, after paragraph (c) in subsection (1), to insert the following new paragraph:
"(d) the manner in which—

(i) any burden upon the glebe created under section eighteen of the Glebe Lands (Scotland) Act, 1866; and

(ii) any of the costs, charges and expenses referred to in that section which have not been made a burden on the glebe may be dealt with, discharged and extinguished."

The noble Lord said: Where a glebe, or portion of a glebe, is suitable for building purposes, hitherto it has only been possible to feu the glebe subject to application to the Court, and the Court has also provided that certain capital expenditure may be burdened upon the glebe. The sources from which that capital expenditure could be repaid are being swept away by this Bill, and the object of this Amendment is to provide machinery for dealing with that capital expenditure. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 22, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Government have accepted this Amendment, which is a useful one. It does not affect the heritors, but it does affect the Church. And it is to me personally a pleasure to see the noble Lord taking that interest in the affairs of the Church of Scotland which his father took.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27:
Transfer of parish churchyards.
27. The property of any churchyard here-tofore held by the heritors of any parish shall as at and from the passing of this Act by virtue of this Act and without the necessity of any further conveyance he transferred from the heritors and vested in the parish council to the same effect as if the churchyard had been as at that date transferred by the heritors to the council in pursuance of subsection (6) of section thirty of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894: Provided that in addition to the powers and duties by the said subsection transferred from the heritors to the parish council the power or duty of enlarging or extending the churchyard and assessing for the cost of such enlargement or extension shall also be so transferred and for the purpose of providing ground for such enlargement or extension or additional accommodation in a suitable and convenient situation the parish council shall have and may exercise all the powers relating to the acquisition of land for burial grounds contained in the Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act, 1855, and the costs of providing, maintaining and managing ground so acquired, so far as they require to be defrayed out of any rate, shall be a charge on the poor rate: Provided further that where any churchyard transferred to a parish council by or in pursuance of this Act surrounds or adjoins any church or other ecclesiastical building vested in the heritors or in the General Trustees or in any other body holding the same in trust for the purpose of worship—
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, after "Provided that," to insert "due regard and respect shall he had by the Parish Council to the memory of the dead and the wishes of their relatives before any ground already allocated as a burial ground shall be treated as being vacant and unoccupied ground and re-allocated by the Parish Council as the burial place for another family or for the interment of another body; provided also." The noble Duke said: Some people have suggested that provision should be put in
32
the Bill for protecting the family burial grounds. This clause has been drafted to meet those views, and it has been agreed to by the representatives of the Church of Scotland. I do not think I need explain it, unless your Lordships wish me to do so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 9, after ("that") insert the said words.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 (Requirements of parish to be first charge on endowments):
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendments standing in my name to this clause are really only drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 23, line 29, leave out from ("stipend") to ("and") in line 30, and insert (" or standard charge until the same is redeemed ")
Page 23, line 31, after ("stipend") insert ("or standard charge ").
Page 24, line 5, leave out from beginning of line 5 to end of line 18.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29:
Powers of General Trustees.
29. In addition to any powers which they already enjoy, the General Trustees shall have power to hold, maintain, administer, and dispose of any property of whatsoever description transferred to, or received by, or vested in them under, or in pursuance of this Act, subject always to the provisions of this Act and to the directions of the General Assembly. Without prejudice to the foregoing generality, the General Trustees shall have power, subject as aforesaid, to compromise or settle any claim against any heritor or other person arising out of anything contained in this Act or done thereunder.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after "General Assembly," to insert "provided that the General Trustees before selling or feuing a glebe or any part thereof shall give to the heritor or heritors whose lands adjoin such glebe or part an opportunity to purchase or take the same in feu at such price or feu duty and on such terms as may be agreed upon between the General Trustees and

33
the heritor or heritors, or as may, failing agreement, be determined by an arbiter appointed by the sheriff on the application of either party." The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment really gives effect to the principle of the present law. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 25, after ("Assembly") insert the said proviso.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 30, to insert the following new clause:—
Redemption of manse mail.
". Where in any parish manse mail is at the passing of this Act payable in lieu of a manse the heritors legally liable in payment thereof shall redeem the manse mail by payment to the General Trustees of a sum equal to the annual amount thereof multiplied by twenty, such redemption payment to be made within five years after the passing of this Act."
The noble and learned Viscount said: We propose to insert a new clause relating to the manse mail. It is not connected with the delivering of letters, but in the case of some manses there is a sum of money payable to the minister in place of the usual convenience, and we are putting in words to keep it alive.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 30 insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32:
Ultimate extinction of teind.
32. With a view to the ultimate extinction of teind and to the release from the burden of teind of all lands or the fruits thereof in Scotland, the following provisions shall have effect:—
(1) Upon the expiry of five years after the date on which the teind roll of a parish becomes final—

(a) All claims in respect of stipend exigible from the teinds of any lands in that parish shall cease and be extinguished in so far as such claims have not already ceased and been extinguished in terms of subsection (11) of the section of this Act relating to redemption of stipend; and

34

(b) All claims in respect of surplus teinds of any lands in that parish shall likewise cease and be extinguished, in so far as such claims have not already ceased and been extinguished in terms of the section of this Act relating to redemption of surplus teinds.

(2) Upon the expiry of ten years after the passing of this Act, all claims in respect of the vicarage teinds of any land in Scotland, other than vicarage teinds payable as stipend, shall cease and be extinguished n so far as such claims have not already ceased and been extinguished by failure of any party entitled thereto to apply to the Commissioners in terms of the section of this Act relating to vicarage teinds not payable as stipend, or by the operation of any order made by the Commissioners.
Nothing in this section shall prejudice or affect any proceedings in respect of stipend exigible from teind or in respect of surplus teinds, or in respect of vicarage teinds other than vicarage teinds payable as stipend instituted prior to the expiry of the respective periods aforesaid.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment to leave out this clause is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Pages 25 and 26, leave out Clause 32.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ELPHINSTONE LORD ELPHINSTONE moved, after Clause 32, to insert the following new clause:—
Church Collections.
". For the removing of doubt, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding anything contained in Section fifty-four of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845, or in any other enactment, all moneys arising from the ordinary church collections in any parish shall belong to and be at the disposal of the kirk session of the parish, subject only to review of the higher courts of the church."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to make assurance doubly sure. Before the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845, was passed, the church door collections were to a considerable extent used for the maintenance of the poor. This was superseded by the Poor Law Act, but there was a provision in Section 54 which required the Session clerk to report annually to the Board of Supervision as to the application of monies arising from

35
church collections. This has now passed away and the Amendment is to remove any doubt that may exist on the subject
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 23, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Elphinstone.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This addition to the Bill will be a comfort to such of your Lordships as put half-a-crown into the plate in any Scottish kirk, and the Government agrees with it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 33 and 34 agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 34, to insert the following new clause:—
Saxing for obligations or relief.
". Nothing in this Act shall prejudice or affect any obligation to relieve the heritor of any lands from liability in respect of any stipend or augmentation thereof exigible from the teinds of such lands, and any such obligation shall extend to relief from liability in respect of any standard charge over those lands."
The noble and learned Viscount said: These are words which it is proper to put in the Bill in order to keep the law alive.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 34 insert the said new Clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 (Interpretation):
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: All the Amendments to this clause are drafting. They make no difference whatever.
Amendments moved—
Page 27, line 19 after ("grass") insert ("servitudes or right of pasturage ").
Page 27, line 23, leave out ("Lord Ordinary has the same meaning") and insert ("Manse" and "Lord Ordinary" have the same meanings ").
Page 27,line 28, at end insert the following new subsection:
("(3) The reference to 'teinds' in Section fifty-nine of the Improvement of Land Act, 1864, shall be construed so as to include standard charges".)—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First and Second Schedules agreed to.
Third Schedule:

THIRD SCHEDULE.
Provisions relating to applications for augmentation of stipend.
1. Where an application is made by a Minister or by the General Trustees the Court of Teinds shall, in so far as there is sufficient free teind, give effect to any agreement as to the amount of the augmentation to be granted made between the heritors concerned on the one part and the minister with consent of the General Trustees or the General Trustees as the case may be on the other part.
2. In considering what effect (if any) ought to be given to—

(a) the circumstance that the application is final; and

(b) (in cases where the application is made before the expiry of twenty years from the last application for augmentation) the circumstance that the application is so made

the Court of Teinds shall not be bound to proceed on the basis of the average fiars prices for the seven years preceding the application.
3. Any application shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be made and be dealt with in such manner as the Court of Session by Act of Sederunt may prescribe.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out the Third Schedule and insert the following new Schedule:—

THIRD SCHEDULE.
Form of Intimation of Election that Stipend shall be Standardised.
Date.
I Minister (or as the case may be) of the Parish of in the Presbytery of hereby intimate that I elect that the stipend to which the Minister of the said Parish is entitled shall be standardised in accordance with the provisions of the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Act, 1924.
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is merely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, leave out the Third Schedule and insert the said new Schedule.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after the Third Schedule, to insert the following new Schedule:—

FOURTH SCHEDULE.
Precisions relating to Augmentation of Stipend.
1. Where an application is made by a Minister or by the General Trustees, the Lord

37
Ordinary shall, in so far as there are surplus teinds available give effect to any agreement as to the amount of augmentation made between the heritors concerned on the one part and the minister with the consent of the General Trustees or the General Trustees as the case may be on the other part.
2. In ascertaining the amount of the available teinds the victual teind and stipend shall he converted according to the average of the fiars prices for the five years preceding the year in which an application is made, or if that average is less than the standard value then according to the standard value.
3. Any application shall, subject to the provisions of this Act. be made and dealt with in such manner as the Court of Session by Act of Sederunt may prescribe.
The noble and learned Viscount said: I am moving to insert provisions relating to augmentation of stipend which have been agreed to.
Amendment moved—
After the Third Schedule insert the said new Schedule.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule (Provisions relating to the preparation, issuing and adjustment of Teind Rolls):
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: All the Amendments to this schedule are merely formal and in order to make the practice clear.
Amendments moved—
Page 32, line 1, leave out ("Fourth" and insert ("Fifth ")
Page 32, line 12, leave out from (" notification ") to the end of line 18 and insert (" it shall be the duty of the heritors concerned forthwith to prepare and lodge in the Teind Office a state of teinds unless in any case the Lord Ordinary shall on the application of any party dispense therewith")
Page 32, line 23, leave out ("standard value") and insert ("former county average value within the meaning of Section two of this Act ").
Page 33, line 15, at end insert ("As on and from the date of such interlocutor the roll shall for the purposes of this Act be filial, subject to such alterations and adjustments as may be necessary in consequence of changes of ownership ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Fifth Schedule:

FIFTH SCHEDULE.
Charge tinder the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Act, 1924.

County of

Parish of

Heritor

(Insert his name and designation.)
Redemption money (insert amount) of stipend exigible from the Teinds of All and Whole (describe or refer to a description of the subjects) in the parish of and the county of belonging to the said
The said (insert name of heritor) in pursuance of and as authorised by [or where authority to charge the lands is granted by the sheriff, sheriff clerk of as authorised by sheriff of under and in pursuance of the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Act 1924], hereby charges the fee of the said subjects with the payment to the Church of Scotland General Trustees of the yearly sum of payable half yearly, on the fifteenth day of May and the eleventh day of November in each year for the term of years, being as to the half yearly sum of a payment in respect of the said stipend, and as to the balance of a sinking fund instalment in respect of the redemption money of, the first half-yearly payment to be made on the day of
In witness whereof:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I move to leave out this schedule.
Amendment moved—
Pages 33 and 34, leave out the Fifth Schedule.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Sixth Schedule (Provisions relating to the Valvation of teinds and the surrender of rained teinds):
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: These are all minor and drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 34, line 14, have out ("four") and insert (''twelve ").
Page 35, line 19. leave out ("one hundred") and insert (" fifty").
Page 35, line 42, leave out ("one hundred") and insert ("fifty ").
Page 36, line 1, leave out ("one hundred") and insert (" fifty").
Page 36, line 13, leave out ("not").
Page 36, line 39, leave out ("four") and insert ("six").
Page 37, line 30, leave out ("ten") and insert ("thirty ").
Page 37,line 37, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("thirty ").
Page 38, line 26, at end insert the following new paragraph:
" 11. Where a heritor is entered separately for different subjects belonging to him in the same parish for teinds of the same class only he shall be entitled to have the said entries or some of them consolidated into one entry, and on receiving from the

39
heritor an application to that effect before the teind roll is completed the Clerk of Teinds shall give effect thereto."
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Seventh and Eighth Schedules agreed to.
Ninth Schedule (List of Burgh Churches):
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out "26, Gorbals, Glasgow." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a small Amendment for which the Corporation of Glasgow ask.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 28, leave out ("26, Gorbals, Glasgow ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Ninth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to have an opportunity of looking at the Amendments. Would it be convenient to take the Report stage of the Bill to-morrow week?
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I think Thursday week would be more convenient.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Very well then. Thursday week.

WAR CHARGES (VALIDITY) (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, this Rill deals with a number of Orders made under the Defence of the Realm Act. In another place it was stated that Ministers, quite irrespective of politics or Party, had made the Orders which we seek to validate in this Bill. It was found by a decision of your Lordships' House on the judicial side that on constitutional grounds these charges were not valid—not on moral or equitable grounds, but that they had not the proper sanction of Parliament as required by the Petition of Right Act. As soon as they were invalidated, indeed before, a notice was given by the then President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Stanley Baldwin, that if the decision of
40
your Lordships' House on the judicial side was against the validity of these Orders and charges, legislation would have to be introduced, and consequently, after the decision had been given, legislation was introduced.
There were certain reasons why it was not carried forward: not, I am told in relation to the principle of the Bill, but owing to lack of time. The second time a Bill of this kind was introduced it was not carried further, because of the Dissolution. Now it is introduced for a third time, and has passed the other House strongly supported, both as regards its principle and its terms, by the late President of the Board of Trade, Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame. He gave it the full measure of his support, not only on the Second Reading but in the form in which it appears at the present time. All these Orders were made under the Defence of the Realm Act, and the charges made under these Orders were all in respect of a valuable consideration, and those who became subject to the charges were quite willing to pay them. If I might use the words of the late President of the Board of Trade, Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame, "they were issued at the application of the persons interested because they thought it good business to make the application." In other words, you have limitations imposed under the Defence of the Realm Act as regards prices or dealings in certain commodities, and persons who wanted to deal in those commodities in accordance with the restrictions of the Orders were willing, as a matter of business, to come under these charges.
If your Lordships will look at the form of the Bill, you will see what it is that it is proposed to make valid. In the Preamble, these charges are stated under the heads (a), (b) and (c). Some of them were charges made—
"on, or as a condition of, the grant of licences or permits issued, or purporting to be issued, in pursuance of the said powers.''
I shall have to deal at rather greater length with what are known as the milk charges at a later stage, and I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with them now. There you have an instance of a licence granted to sell milk outside the controlled area at an addition to the controlled rate, and, in order to obtain that advantage the milk distributors

41
were only too willing to pay an additional two pence per gallon, which was fixed as the charge upon them. I propose to go into that question in a little more detail later on, because it is raised specifically as an Amendment by my noble friend Lord Strachie.
In the second place, the payment" were required to be made—
" in connection with the control of the supplies or of the prices of certain commodities."
I will, if I may, give an illustration on that point which, I am told, is a very simple one. It was thought right that breweries, or houses situated conveniently for munition workers whose work was of a character which was thought to require all the assistance of that kind that was possible, should be granted powers to supply more than the quantity which, under the general control, they had been entitled to supply, and for that purpose they were willing to pay a charge, and a charge was made upon them. No one is suggesting, from the point of view of that trade, that they have been injured, but I wish your Lordships to know the nature of the charges that were made, and the conditions under which they were made. Finally, the charges were made "for services rendered" by the Government in certain specified directions. I believe, that in the first instance, no one for a moment considered that these charges or Orders were in any sense unconstitutional. I agree, and, indeed, everyone admits since the judicial opinion expressed in this House, that this was a mistake. As I say, the charges were imposed for specific purposes, and the persons who paid them were only too willing to do so in consideration of business advantages.
If your Lordships will then pass to the enacting part of the Bill, you will see that these charges are made valid, and payment is due, in so far as it is due, from the Government in respect of them, and in every respect they are to be regarded as though they had been made in a constitutional manner. One realises at once, of course, that certain objections can be raised to legislation of this character.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Hear, hear !
LORD PARMOOR: As in the case of other Indemnity Bills, it is, I think, really impossible to deal with a subject
42
matter of this kind in any other way, and if I may give an illustration of what I mean, in answer to what was, I presume, the somewhat ironical cheer of the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, several of these charges and, indeed, the largest of all in connection with any particular matter—namely, the £7,000,000 in respect of flour allowed to be sold under certain conditions—was, I believe, considered more than once by the Committee of which the noble Lord was Chairman, the Public Expenses Committee——
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The National Expenditure Committee.
LORD PARMOOR: I quote that only to point out that if there ever was a vigilant protector of constitutional rights in the House of Commons it was the noble Lord. I entirely agree with him that we ought to be grateful for the work that was done. At first, as I have said, no one regarded these charges or Orders as unconstitutional, nor was it ever thought that they were otherwise invalid until a ease came to your Lordships' House in which the Wiltshire Dairy Company were concerned. It was then held—I will ask your Lordships to allow me to read a word or two of quotation on this point later—that they were unconstitutional, because they did not receive the sanction of the House of Commons, and that therefore they ceased to be valid.
When this matter of the milk charges was discussed before this House on the political side, not on the judicial side, certain remarks were made by two noble Lords whom I should like to quote. One is the noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster, who sat on the judicial inquiry, and the other the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, who was then Lord Chancellor. I think that what they then said expressed very shortly and exactly what the true conditions are. Lord Buckmaster said this:
"This money—"
that is, the charges in question—
" was money that the Food Controller could not lawfully compel these people to pay, but I say without the least hesitation that it was money which in honour they were bound to pay. Why should a man who has entered into a commercial contract and obtained a great privilege over and above his fellow subjects on the terms of paying 2d. per gallon for the right, come here and through the noble Lord [Lord Strachie] pose as an injured

43
person because he is asked to pay money which he has signed an obligation to discharge? I am utterly unable to understand the complaint of the noble Lord.''
The complaint of the noble Lord on that occasion was that there was a hardship in seeking payment, or in retaining payment, from the Wiltshire Dairy Company in respect of these charges, which had been found unconstitutional.
LORD STRACHIE: Will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? My complaint has never been anything to do with the middleman. My complaint has been that this money has been withheld from the farmer.
LORD PARMOOR: I will deal with that point, because that is, no doubt, the form of the noble Lord's Amendment to-day.
LORD STRACHIE: It always was so.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not want to get into controversy with the noble Lord, because that is a point with which I am going to deal, but if I may read the Motion which he introduced on that occasion, it may remind him of its terms. The Motion says:—
"That in the opinion of this House the Government should at once take steps to reimburse all persons who hare been compelled to pay the illegal tax of 2d. per gallon … "
and so on. But the only people who have been compelled to pay that which the noble Lord calls the illegal tax are the middlemen. Nobody else has been compelled to pay at all. It was on that basis that the whole discussion really turned when the matter was debated in your Lordships' House on a former occasion. I do not want to get into anything like personal controversy with the noble Lord, but I wish to make that point clear, in order that your Lordships may understand what the question was when this matter was discussed in your Lordships' House last time.
The noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, who was then Lord Chancellor, made the following observations:—
"The effect of the decision given the other day—
that is, the decision to which I have referred,—
"is that distributors and cheese manufacturers in the south-west of England will
44
obtain a profit considerably in excess of that earned by their less fortunate competitors in other parts of the country—"
I pause there for a moment to say that the point which I thought was being dealt with both by Lord Buckmaster and Lord Birkenhead was the position of the actual middlemen who would be compelled to pay the 2d. Lord Birkenhead went on to say:—
"and I am quite unable to see, making all allowance for the admitted merits of the farmers in that part of the country, why they should make larger profits than their competitors in other parts of the country. This is no doubt, inevitable in the present case, but there is no reason why the equilibrium should be upset in other cases. The noble Lord [Lord Strachie] asked in his Question what the Government propose to do. I cannot state in detail, because the matter is still under discussion by the Cabinet, although I expect an early decision will be reached, but if it in any way interests the noble Lord I am able to tell him plainly that as far as I personally am concerned any small influence I possess will be most unsparingly used against it."
In other words, so far as my researches go, every Minister, at every period, who has in any way taken part in this controversy, has recognised that this is a case in which these charges which have been made should be validated, and that no hardship can fee alleged by persons who have been called upon to pay them.
Lord Strachie refers to the case of the farmer. If I may postpone that question for a moment, I will come to it when I reach the Amendment which he proposes to move to this Bill. If your Lordships will look at the Schedule your Lordships will find numbers of charges. They include all the charges with which the Bill deals, and which are validated, and at the same time two White Papers have been issued showing the amount of money-involved. It is sufficient to say that the total claims which might be made against the Government are in the aggregate £18,500,000. It is impossible to state how many of these claims might be made, because a very large number, no doubt, of the claimants have recognised the position that, in equity, they have no right to bring their claim forward at all. They are in the position of a man who has a valuable privilege, for which he has paid a certain figure, and who feels in honour bound to remain by the contract he has made, although upon constitutional grounds it was found that these charges were invalid, of which neither party had

45
any suspicion when the contract was made.
There is another point in the Bill to which I should like to call attention before I pass to one or two words on the proposed Amendments. Your Lordships will see that there are two provisos, and the second proviso, which is an important one, was specially inserted in the House of Commons. When this Bill was originally introduced in the House of Commons after the Financial Resolution, it was proposed to deal with these milk charges to which I have made reference, but that part of the Resolution was not passed, so that the Bill as it at present stands leaves the milk charges exactly where they were under your Lordships' judicial decision, because there were people who thought, and perhaps rightly, that, where a decision of the highest tribunal had been given the matter should be left where that decision left it. So in the present Bill the milk charges are not affected, one way or another, although I admit that that is not an answer to Lord Strachie, because what he suggests is that simultaneously with this Bill another Bill shall be introduced dealing with these milk charges in another manner.
While these proceedings have been going on and these various Bills introduced, and so on, certain persons have brought their actions to recover money from the Government, on the ground that the charges made against them were invalid and they are entitled to recover. At law they would be entitled to recover, subject only to one question—namely, whether tinder the Indemnity Act, the largo and wide Indemnity Act, they are precluded from recovering owing to the fact that claims under that Act have to be brought within a year after the termination of the war or the date when the cause of action arose. It was thought in the other House that people who had brought their action in order to establish a right to which at that date many of them were entitled, ought to be preserved against any expenses to which they had been put, and therefore the proviso is this: that in those cases where the expenses of litigation have been incurred the persons who have incurred them are to be entitled to recover their costs on the higher scale, as between solicitor and client. That was assented to by the present President of
46
the Board of Trade, and I think was accepted by all the members of the other House as a fair solution of the question. That is to say, although a person could not recover the amount which he claimed, yet he was to be indemnified in the fullest say as regards the costs which he had incurred.
That being the general purpose of the Bill, there have been placed on the Paper two Amendments, one in the name of Lord Strachie and another in the name of Lord Kylsant. They relate, though one is an Amendment in a wider form than the other, first, to the milk licences and suppliers, and, secondly, to the ship-owners, and I want to say one or two words on each topic, in order that your Lordships may appreciate how the matter stands. The Amendment of Lord Strachie is what is called a reasoned Amendment, and what he suggests is:
"That this House declines to give a Second Reading to this Bill unless an assurance is forthcoming from the Government that legislation will he simultaneously enacted to provide that the sums which accrued from the non-validated milk licence charge shall he passed by the licensees to their suppliers."
Now I want to state, if I may, the history of this question, in order to show, first of all, that the producer or supplier really has no claim whatever and, secondly, as far as I can see, that it is impossible to formulate any Bill on the principle suggested.
Let me give one or two facts as regards the matters with which Lord Strachie deals. At the outset of the milk control, Lord Rhondda, then Food Controller, fixed throughout Great Britain one maximum price; that is to say, whether milk was produced in Yorkshire or the Midlands, or in the South-western counties, with which Lord Strachie is more particularly concerned, one maximum price was fixed. This maximum price became, as was inevitable, almost invariably the ruling price. In the South-western counties, where the cost of production, and correspondingly the price, had been relatively low, this rise in price to the over-all maximum aroused very bitter feeling. People who had been accustomed to the price of milk where the cost of production was relatively cheap, naturally protested, because the result of fixing one maximum price was to make the charges in these Southwestern counties as high as in the industrial

47
districts of Yorkshire. In the summer of 1918 a mass meeting of protest was held at Exeter, and it was demanded that producers in districts where the cost was low should not be allowed to profiteer. In other words, the demand was made that the farmer should not have a price out of proportion to the cost of production where the cost of production was low, which would undoubtedly have enabled the farmer to profiteer.
In consequence of this agitation a Commission was appointed, containing representatives of farmers, the Ministry of Agriculture, and consumers. This Commission unanimously recommended the fixing of differential maximum prices in different parts of the country. That is the beginning of the complaint to which the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, referred. Twopence less than the normal maximum was charged in certain Southwestern counties, and twopence more than the normal was charged in Yorkshire and the other industrial counties. Therefore, you had three prices—the normal price, the normal price less 2d. and the normal price plus 2d. Where the production was cheaper, in order to prevent milk being attracted away into the dearer districts it became more essential that a differentiation should be made, and that was the origin of the two penny charge. Every farmer in the noble Lord's district, upon which he is an authority in this House, got the highest controlled price which he could get. There is no suggestion that a single farmer got a penny less than the full controlled price, and, if he got that, it was all that he was entitled to.
If he or the milk producer desired to get the better price, that is, the twopence more in outside districts, they were charged twopence for the right to export. The Wiltshire Dairy Company were willing to pay that in order to get the larger market. No farmer got a penny less than the maximum controlled price. What the noble Lord suggests—though I do not quite understand how he seeks to work it out—is that this twopence to which I have referred should in some way be adjusted between the middleman and the farmer. But the farmer has had the maximum controlled price. I am sure that the noble Lord will have to assent to the proposition which I am laying down.
48
What right has any farmer to ask for an addition to the maximum controlled price? I say, on the contrary, that the unanimous report of the Commission which was set up indicated the only fair way of dealing with a matter of this kind.
I do not wonder that, in the counties where production was cheaper, the inhabitants protested against what appeared to them to be a profiteer's price. That is quite natural, but how can it be suggested that this twopence has in any way affected the price which these farmers were able to obtain for their milk? No doubt, they would have liked to be entitled to charge the same price as in Yorkshire, which would have given them fourpence more per gallon, but it was the very suggestion of an over-all general price which raised the bitter discussion that culminated in a mass meeting at Exeter. It was in consequence of that that an unanimous decision was taken to fix differential prices instead of one controlled price. Though I am in general sympathy with farmers, I cannot see what is the hardship now suggested, and if there is no hardship you cannot have legislation to put it right. It was suggested in another place that, so far as we could deal with a charge of this kind—and the amount outstanding is really a small matter—the Government would desire, if they could, to use the money for some general agricultural purpose. That is a very proper suggestion. My recollection is that the President of the Board of Trade, in another place, said he viewed a suggestion of that kind with sympathy. That is an entirely different matter from what the noble Lord proposes, and it occurs to me that his proposal is founded on a misapprehension, if the facts which I have mentioned, and which I have had prepared with great care, are correctly stated.
I want now to deal with Lord Kylsant's Amendment for the rejection of the Bill. Although it applies to the Bill as a whole I understand that what he is really interested in is the question of ship-owners and ship transfers. Let me explain how that matter stands. During the war English ships could be requisitioned for public purposes. The effect of that was to diminish very much the value of English ships. Therefore, certain old ships, not less than twenty to twenty-five years old, were allowed to be transferred under

49
certain conditions to a foreign flag. Very often the transfer made them worth two or three times their value under the English flag, owing to the risk of requisition which attached to them as English ships. Certain charges were made for permission to go under the foreign flag and acquire that enhanced value. I see that Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame, in the other House, said that in no case was the charge more than about fifteen per cent-, on the profit made.
To give an illustration, there were cases of ships bought in this country for £50,000 which, as soon as they could be sold as foreign ships, were sold for £150,000. On that £100,000 profit the ship-owner was asked to pay a certain charge, which constituted the licence enabling him to put his ship under a foreign flag. The cost of that licence, I believe, never approached anything like the profit actually made. I have a list of the ships, and one or two particular cases will tell your Lordships exactly what has happened. Surely, there can be no case whatever that anything like a profiteering price should be made owing to the transfer of ships from our flag to a foreign flag. The easiest way of dealing with the matter will be for me to take one or two actual instances—I have them all, or practically all, here—in order to show how this system operated.
A ship called the "General Allenby" was built in 1895. She was twenty-five years old and was due for survey, which would be a very costly matter. The ship was supposed to be worth practically nothing in view of the cost of survey and repairs. The vessel was actually sold for £91,000, and on permission being granted for sale abroad, because if the sale was abroad the obligation to requisition no longer attached, a sum of £13,500 was paid to the Government. I am told that was a case in which a very large profit indeed was made and only a comparatively small sum was paid to the Government. I have another instance of an old sailing vessel, built in 1893, which was stated by the owners to have been for years a most unprofitable ship. Yet, on permission being granted for sale abroad, she realised £40,750, and the charge for the licence was £7,000. Then there is another ship, about 37 years old, which realised a large sum, only a proportionate part of which was paid to the Shipping Controller.
50
Another vessel called "The Fair-haven," which was built in 1913, was valued at about £88,000, for which amount she was insured. She stranded at Barrow in January, 1919, and to have repaired her would have cost no less than £65,000. The vessel was practically what is known in nautical circles as a constructive total loss, but on permission being given for her sale to foreigners she realised, in her damaged condition, no less than £70,000, and the licence charge was £7,000. I should have thought that the criticism would have been the other way. When one looks into these conditions, it would seem that the criticism should not have been that too much was charged for the granting of these licences, but that the profiteering element was left too large. I do not think that I need go into the other cases of which I have three or four pages; they all tell the same story. But there was the "Hornby Grange," which was built in 1890. This vessel was under survey and required a very large sum to be spent upon it. On permission being granted for sale abroad, she fetched £67,000, of which £9,000 was paid to the Exchequer.
What is the hardship in those cases? I agree that certain charges have been held to be invalid. In regard to a very large number of these charges the persons who paid them have not sought to bring any action at all. I think they have recognised what the real position is and have been content to abide by the bargain which, to them, has generally been a very profitable one. I admit, as every one must, that the validating of invalid charges of this kind is a matter for regret, at any rate on constitutional grounds. These indemnity matters have been dealt with after war times. These mistakes have been and are made, under conditions of great complexity and difficulty, by all Governments and officials I noticed that it was said in another place that if any persons were the culprits in regard to this they were Mr. Asquith, Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. Baldwin and every other Minister with whom they were acting during the period of the war.
If the Government thought for one moment that there was any hardship in this, it would be their duty to seek to redress it. On the statistics which I have brought forward I hope that your

51
Lordships will be convinced that there is no hardship, and that your Lordships will think that sufficient machinery is provided for the payment of costs where action has been brought. The Bill was thoroughly discussed in another place, which had the advantage of the presence of the late President and the present President of the Board of Trade, who are personally cognisant with all the details, of which I hope I have given sufficient for your Lordships to see what is the basis upon which I ask for a Second Reading to be given to this Bill. I beg to move.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord parmoor.)
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, That this House declines to give a Second Beading to this Bill unless an assurance is forthcoming from the Government that legislation will be simultaneously enacted to provide that the sums which accrued from the non-validated milk licence charge shall be passed by the licensees to their suppliers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is desirable, first of all, I think, that I should explain the reason for the Amendment which is on the Paper in my name. It was placed on the Paper at the request of the National Farmers' Union and the grounds upon which they asked me to do that are as follows:—
"The charge in question affects milk producers in the Four South-western counties of Devon, Dorset. Somerset and Cornwall. The Food Controller, in fixing the price of milk produced in that area for a certain period at 2d. per gallon less than elsewhere, made it impossible for these producers to obtain for their milk the full market price ruling in any market to which it might he consigned outside the South-western area. Having created that position, the Food Controller then attempted to prevent buyers from making an undue profit by requiring them to pay a licence fee of 2d per gallon on all milk which they took out of the four counties. This fee was later held to be illegal by the House of Lords in the test case "—
to which reference has already been made.
The Lord President of the Council has referred to the fact that when I moved a Resolution upon this matter some two years ago the noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, took exception to it on the ground that they thought no harm had been done and that,
52
as regards the legal position, the money ought to go to the middleman and not to the farmer. That, to my mind, was a purely legal argument which was, no doubt, justified, but it is rather interesting to note that no other noble Lord took that line.
Then, again, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill says that the Bill was left as it was introduced— that is to say, with milk excluded from it. What was the reason for that? The reason was that on the Money Resolution in the House of Commons an Amendment was moved which made it necessary to introduce that particular clause into the Bill. I will deal with this question later on, because it affects the reason why I placed this Amendment on the Paper. The noble Lord says that the Government of the day wished that no Amendment should be made in the Resolution. He also says that the farmers in four Western counties have been indemnified and have no claim to this money, that they were never put in any unfair position, and that these farmers of the South-west of England were mere profiteers. That applies only to these four counties. In the county in which the noble Lord is interested, which adjoins the County of Somerset and in which the farmers also supply milk as they do in Somerset, they are not profiteers and all the rest of it. Why a farmer in Gloucestershire should get twopence a gallon more for his milk and a farmer in Somerset twopence less, I cannot understand.
LORD PARMOOR: That was under the Food Controller entirely.
LORD STRACHIE: Yes: but the noble Lord seems to think it is perfectly right, and I cannot understand it. Perhaps I should understand it if I lived in Gloucestershire. The noble Lord also says that there was a great agitation. What is this great agitation which the noble Lord talks about? It is an agitation which, I believe, was engineered for political reasons in the sense that it was to the advantage of the member for that city to say: "I am standing forth as your champion. "There was no agitation in the great city of Bristol, which equally might have been affected. It was simply a bogus agitation in the small city of Exeter: in no other part of the four Western counties was a word said

53
on this matter. I am sure that, had there been, the noble Lord would have been only too glad to have quoted it. I think those responsible for the imposition of the two-pence really had got it into their heads that they could, by that means, provide some money for the Food Controller to meet the expenses of that most expensive office. I think that was the origin of this two-pence. Afterwards, they said that they had no intention of doing that, but that they were collecting this money and would pass it on to the consumers generally in the country, and so make butter and cheese cheaper. That certainly was no advantage to the unfortunate farmer in the Western counties.
The noble Lord has laid great emphasis upon this travelling Commission. I wish the noble Lord had taken the trouble to have researches made into the Report of the Select Committee appointed by your Lordships' House in 1919. That Report dealt with this very question of whether the Commission were justified or not in adopting a flat rate for the Western counties two-pence below the maximum. My noble friend who was Chairman of that Select Committee, if he were not detained elsewhere, would have been here to-night to support what I am saying. What did this Select Committee report? They reported unanimously:—
"The Committee are of opinion that the evidence submitted to them does not sufficiently justify the maintenance of an arbitrary differential rate based on the average cost of milk production in the four South-western counties as compared with the rest of England and Wales."
Could anything be stronger than that?
They went on to say:—
"They are of opinion that the considerations which led to the adoption of a general flat rate for the greater part of England and Wales are on the whole equally applicable to the four South-western counties.
"A flat rate for the whole of England and Wales may cause some inequality in the price and profit obtained from the sale of milk in different localities, but the establishment of a differential rate for an arbitrarily defined area such as that represented by the four South-western counties would cause even greater inequality."
Then they stated, in the eighth paragraph:—
"They consider that the arguments adduced by the travelling Commisision as to the more favourable conditions prevailing in the four South-western counties, such as climate, duration of grass season, and consequent
54
lower expenditure on feeding stuffs, are more than counterbalanced by the practical difficulties of administration, and the local hardship and general disturbance of the milk trade, which differentiation entails."
I think the House will say that is a complete answer to the argument of the noble Lord based on the travelling Commission. I am only surprised that the noble Lord has never read that Report. I will not go further into past history. I had not intended to do so if the Lord President had not made it necessary for me to do so.
In the House of Commons Sir Courtenay Mansel asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question, and the Government's reply was as follows:—
"The Government will abide by the judgment of the House of Lords, which decided that milk licences were illegal where licencees have paid. The obligation on the Government is to repay them and no one else."
That shows the attitude of the Labour Government in this matter. They clearly wish to pay the middleman, and do not wish to satisfy the farmer or the producer. They also made a suggestion, later on, that this money to which the noble Lord has referred would be used for dairy research, or matters of that sort, in all parts of the country. They did not say that it would be used only in the four counties, which would certainly seem to be the fair thing to do, seeing that the money had been extracted from those counties.
The Government also said that they undertook to pay the taxed costs as between solicitor and client. I am glad that is so because the companies in question had been put to great cost in this matter. They had paid income tax on this two-pence and the Wiltshire United Dairies Company had incurred heavy costs. It would not have been fair in these cases to ask them to pay the whole of the amount. As the Government have undertaken to pay the whole of the taxed costs as between solicitor and client, that difficulty does not arise, and there is no reason why the farmers who had this two-pence extracted from them should not have the money repaid to them.
The Money Resolution, as I have already pointed out, created the whole difficulty in this matter. There was an interesting statement made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in

55
the House of Commons. He said, on April 7:—
"If a provisional promise were given by a former Minister of Agriculture in this House, to the effect that something would be done in the interests of the people affected, there is not the least doubt that he had in mind the farmers in that part of the country. But it is perfectly plain now that the people who are really meant are the middlemen and the distributors, and, if any concession is going to be given at all by way of excluding them from the operation of this Resolution and the Bill, the benefit given under that concessian will not inure to the farmer but simply to the middleman who, I am advised, made a very considerable profit during the time this regulation was in force. There can be nothing on the merits of the case, as regards that dairy company."
Later, he said:
"The truth is, no doubt, that a former Minister of Agriculture did indicate a concession."
I think there is no doubt that it was indicated generally that the Minister of Agriculture for the time being was ready to see that justice should be done in this matter. No doubt he had satisfied himself from the Report of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House that an injustice had been done to the farmers in the four Western counties. That seems to be clear from the contention of the Ministry at that time.
What is the present position? The position under the Bill is very complicated because, owing to the way the Money Resolution was worded, an Amendment moved by the representative of the National Farmers' Union, Mr. Lamb, was ruled out of order. He attempted to move this Amendment on May 21:
"Clause 1, page 2, line 37, after ' milk,' insert which shall, so far as such charges relate to charges in respect of licences to purchase milk in the counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and Somerset, be applied proportionately in payment to the various persons in those counties who sold milk to such licensees by way of increase in the price of the milk sold over and above the maximum price fixed by the Food Controller by the Milk (Summer Prices) Order, 1919. for milk in the said counties.' "
That Amendment, I am told, would have been carried in the House of Commons if it had not been ruled out of order. In consequence of that ruling, it had been my intention to ask your Lordships to allow me, in Committee, to move a similar Amendment, but I find I am precluded
56
owing to what occurred on the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill.
I moved Amendments there with which your Lordships entirely agreed. The Government did not venture to divide against them. All they said was that they were out of order; they were privilege Amendments. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord President of the Council, said this:
" How far that can be considered at the present time under a privilege Amendment I do not know, but I hope the noble Lord, after this discussion, will withdraw his Amendment."
He indicated that as it was a privilege Amendment there was nothing gained by putting it forward. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, at once said:—
" I really think that the obiter dictum of the Lord President of the Council was a most unfortunate one. … I confess that, if there was any ground for believing that your Lordships would be precluded from carrying such an Amendment, I should be inclined to vote with the noble Lord. Lord Strachie, against the Second Reading of the Bill, but I think we must not allow ourselves to be placed in such an absurd position as that. But I agree with the noble Earl. Lord Beauchamp, that there is really no ground of privilege involved at all."
To that the noble and learned Lord said, "Hear, hear," and the Marquess of Salisbury then went on to say:—
"I gather that the noble and learned Lord agrees with that."
To that Lord Parmoor said:—
"To put matters straight, may I say that I thought it may duty to call the attention of the House to what might be a possible difficulty, but personally I do not believe there would be a breach of privilege."
That seemed satisfactory; but what happened after that? On the Committee stage I moved an Amendment, and the Lord Chancellor at once intervened and said:—
"When we discussed this Bill upon the Second Reading I think the House took the question of privilege more lightly than it should. I have since looked into the question, and I think it is clear that this Amendment is a breach of privilege."
Then, at the end of his speech he said:—
". … it seems to me a breach of privilege as plain as language can be, and I suggest to the House that it will not be wise to proceed with this Amendment."
Notwithstanding this, the Amendment was proceeded with and put into the Bill.

57
Then, it having been intimated that the question of privilege would be taken in another place, Lord Beauchamp, on my behalf, re-stated the case. He pointed out that it would be a serious thing indeed if your Lordships' House were not allowed to move Amendments which were only technically matters of privilege, and that the question of privilege was frequently waived in the other place. Noble Lords are well aware that Ministers have constantly moved in the House of Commons that the House do not insist when it is a case of a privilege Amendment: and the Amendment goes through, But in the case of the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill not one word was said by the Government.
If it had not been for the attitude taken on this Bill—and it must be remembered that the whole House was unanimously in favour of the Amendment—I should have contented myself by moving an Amendment in Committee. But I am now placed in this position: that if I do not lake exception to the Second Reading of this Bill I shall be unable to move Amendments in Committee, as the Government will at once shelter themselves behind the question of privilege. It seems to me to be a very dangerous state of things if your Lordships are to be told, when it is a question of an Amendment which the Government do not like, that they are not going to waive the question of privilege. Now that the Government is only one of sufferance it would be easy for Ministers to waive the right of privilege in order that the House of Commons may decide the question for itself.
LORD PARMOOR: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I never suggested for a moment that I should take the question of privilege on this Bill.
LORD STRACHIE: The noble and learned Lord does not seem to understand. It is quite easy for the Government to take the same attitude as they took on the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill and kill an Amendment on the ground of privilege which otherwise would pass in the House of Commons. As regards myself, I have no option at all but to press my Amendment to a Division, unless the Government are prepared to undertake to ask the House of Commons, if your
58
Lordships should see fit to pass the Amendments, to waive the question of privilege in order that the other House may have a chance to decide the question entirely unhampered by any question of privilege.
Why are the Government not prepared to give any pledge to your Lordships that they will ask the House of Commons not to insist on its privilege so that Members may be able to give an open vote as to whether the producer is to have this two-pence paid to him or not? I think I have convinced your Lordships that on this particular question great injustice has been done. That is proved by the Report of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House, and in fairness we ought to take this opportunity of seeing that the twopence should be paid to the men who ought to have it. Under the Bill as it now stands the middleman will get this sum of money to which he has no right at all: and the Courts have decided that the Government have no right to it. That is a decision of the House of Lords as a judicial body. We are not sitting here as a Court of Law we are sitting here as a legislative Assembly to do justice to men to whom justice should be done. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all words after ("That") and insert ("this House declines to give a Second Reading to this Bill unless an assurance is forthcoming from the Government that legislation will be simultaneously enacted to provide that the sums which accrued from the non-validated milk licence charge shall be passed by the licensees to their suppliers."—(Lord Strachie.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In order to safeguard the Amendment standing in the name of Lord Kylsant I will put the Question in a modified form. I will put it in this way— that the words "That this Bill be," stand part of the Motion.
LORD KYLSANT LORD KYLSANT had given notice of an Amendment—That the Bill be read a second time this day six months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have been requested, as President of the London Chamber of Commerce, to draw your attention to what is proposed by this Bill. During, and for some time after, the war certain Government Departments levied upon firms and individuals charges—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The course taken by the noble Lord in proceeding with his Amendment before we have disposed of the previous question is very inconvenient. I do not think we can get on unless we dispose of Lord Strachie's Amendment before we come to the noble Lord's.
LORD PARMOOR: May I say one word in answer to the noble Lord? I am not going into the general question. He referred to the matter of privilege. I carefully avoided any reference to that topic, because it is entirely a matter for the Speaker and the other House. No Government can give any undertaking on such a point. I am sure that the question cannot in any way be prejudiced by any statement that I made, but I want to make the point clear, because it was said on a former occasion that my statement might possibly have some influence. I abstained altogether, however, from mentioning the question, because, as the noble Lord, with his experience of the other House, knows very well, the matter does not rest with us, but is entirely a question for the Speaker and the other House.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, may I rise to a point of order? I am not quite clear as to the exact Motion which the House is now supposed to be discussing. I understood the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack to desire to put the Question in such a shape that the noble Lord, Lord Kylsant, might put his point of view; and, indeed, as the noble and learned Viscount knows, it is not unusual in this House, when there are two Amendments on the Paper, that, for the general convenience of the House, they should both be discussed at the same time. I hope I understand rightly that it is still within the power of the noble Lord, Lord Kylsant, to put his point of view upon the Question now under discussion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord, Lord Kylsant, may certainly put his point of view upon the Question which we are now discussing. I put the words in the form in which I did put them in order that we might first discuss Lord Strachie's Amendment, and that Lord Kylsant should then be free to put his wider Motion. Lord Kylsant can, of course, discuss Lord Strachie's Question
60
if he pleases. The Question now before the House is that the words "That this Rill be" stand part of the Motion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it is clear that my noble friend, Lord Kylsant, is entitled to speak on the Question which the noble and learned Viscount has put from the Woolsack, though I do not know what Lord Kylsant is going to say until he makes his speech.
LORD KYLSANT: My Lords. I propose to deal with the general question before the House, and I am not dealing with any special matter, as I think the Lord President of the Council assumed. He did not hear my speech, though I listened with great interest to his. I have been requested, as President of the London Chamber of Commerce and not as a shipowner, to put the general question before your Lordships. For some time after the war certain Government Departments levied upon firms and individuals charges not authorised by Parliament and amounting to illegal extortion. Judgments of the Courts have been obtained that such charges were illegal, and claims lodged for the return of sums thus exacted have in many cases resulted in reparation. The intention of the Bill, as I understand it is, in the first place, to deprive British subjects of the right to recover money illegally taken from them by Government Departments: and, in the second place, to compel them to refund the sums which they have succeeded in recovering from Government Departments. It would, therefore, not only prevent just claims being made against unauthorised taxation, but would override the judgments of the British Law Courts establishing the illegality of the charges and ordering the return of the sums so exacted.
The whole object of the Bill is, in my view, to vindicate past illegal acts, and it would create a dangerous precedent. Members of the Chamber of Commerce consider that the principle embodied in the Bill is both inherently unsound and unconstitutional. If this? Bill is to be passed at all. I submit that at least it should be amended in order that it should not operate retrospectively in cases which have been the subject of legal decision or in eases where a claim has been lodged against the Crown within the time limit specified by the Indemnity Act—namely, August 31, 1922. This Bill is more drastic

61
in its proposals than the Bill of last Session, to which, on the grounds of equity and justice, there was considerable opposition, and for that reason I am opposed to it.
LORD JOICEY: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kylsant, has raised a very vital point. There have been many cases of property being taken possession of by various Departments without any compensation being given, so that the owners were obliged to appeal to the Courts for justice. I am glad to say that, though you cannot get justice in these matters from Government Departments or from the Government, you can get it from our High Courts. The object of this Bill seems to be to prevent that justice being obtained. I know a case where the Government took possession of part of a farm for an aerodrome. The land, taken for a year or two, was so important to the tenant farmer that he was unable to pay his rent. Application has been made again and again to the Government Department to give some compensation, but no compensation has been given.
I believe there are many such cases as that, and I want to ask the noble Lord opposite whether these cases are dealt with by this Bill. If they are, then I say that the Bill ought to be amended on the lines which have been recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Kylsant. This is, I think, a far more vital Bill than many of your Lordships realise. We do not know how far it goes, but it seems to me that it is just an attempt to obtain powers to wipe out many just claims i which are made by British subjects. I hope that your Lordships will not pass this Bill unless some important alteration is made in it to protect British subjects in such cases as I have mentioned.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, the object of this Bill, as I understand it, is to overrule the decisions of the highest Court in the Realm. That is to say, the Government having done an illegal act and having gone to the highest Court in the Realm and that Court having decided against them, the Government then come down and say: "We do not care two-pence for your decision; we are going to pass a Bill which will become an Act of Parliament
62
and so override your decision.'' I am sorry to say that I have noticed in the last five or six years a growing tendency on the part of officials to do illegal acts on the understanding that if a Court overrides them they can then come down and bring in a Bill to override the decision of the Court. I do not know whether they got that example from the trade unions who, as your Lordships know, did the very same thing in the famous Taff Vale case, but, wherever they got it from, it is, I think, a bad principle, and whatever Government brought it in, whether a Government composed of my leaders or a Government composed of my opponents, I should equally oppose it.
The noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, gave as one of his arguments that both Front Benches were agreed. When I first went into the House of Commons I was always warned: "Now watch ! If both Front Benches are agreed, you may then be quite sure that something wrong is going on," and I have always followed that precept. I think I may say that I have invariably found that the advice then given to me was right. I do not, for a moment say that the question of the amount involved has anything to do with it. It is the question of right or wrong. It is the question of whether we are going to abrogate the right of Parliament to impose taxation—a right for which our forefathers fought. I do not think the amount has anything to do with it, but I understand the noble Lord to state that the amount is £18,500,000.
LORD PARMOOR: I stated that that was the possible total of the claims.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The same statement was made in the debate in the House of Commons on May 5, and it was then pointed out by Mr. Leif Jones, a very vigilant member of the House of Commons, although I do not agree with him on many points, that this was a mistake and that the amount involved was not £18,000,000 but only something like £500,000. Mr. Sidney Webb, who was in charge of the Bill, admitted that the amount was not £18,000,000, but £1,000,000, and he gave as his reason for that figure the fact that the Indemnity Act, 1920, would exclude the balance of the claims. Therefore, as a matter of fact, we are dealing with a very small

63
amount, although I admit that that is not an argument in favour of, or against, the Bill.
The noble and learned Lord was kind enough to allude to me. I am not certain whether I caught everything he said, but he did say, I think, that I had been rather vigilant in days gone by. In another place Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame apparently founded his support of the Bill on the fact that the National Expenditure Committee, of which I had the honour to be Chairman, had sanctioned one of these particular charges, and I think he went so far as to say—if not in actual words, to imply—that anything I had sanctioned must of necessity be right. I am very much obliged to him for the very excellent opinion which, apparently, he entertains of my judgment, but he was mistaken in thinking that the Committee ever went into the question of the imposition of taxation. I have taken the trouble to look up our terms of reference and they were:—
"To examine the current expenditure defrayed out of monies provided by Parliament, and to report what, if any, economies, consistent with the execution of policy decided by the Government, might be effected therein, and to make recommendations in relation to proceedings in regard to Supply Appropriations, so as to secure more effective control by Parliament over public expenditure."
The Committee had nothing whatever to do with the raising of money, but only to examine how money was spent.
I have looked up our Reports. All I can find is that, in our Report on the Wheat Commission, we stated that we understood an application had been made to the Treasury by the wholesale biscuit makers, who had been charged a higher price for flour than the ordinary baker, to reduce that price, and we said that as that would have been a loss to the Treasury of £2,500,000, and the bread subsidy was costing £40,000,000 a year, we thought it was not advisable that that should be done. I do not see how that can be turned into supporting illegal levies made by the Government. Even supposing we had done that, we had no authority to bind Parliament. We could only recommend certain things to the House, and, so far as I can remember, our Report was not considered by the House itself that year. In any case, we had no power to impose taxation nor did we attempt to do so.
64
The noble Lord also said that the costs were to be paid—I presume as a consolation. But what an admission ! Here is a Government anxious, I presume, to do the right thing. It goes to the highest Court in the Realm, loses its case, and then says to the people who have won their case: "You take your costs and drop the whole matter."
LORD PARMOOR: May I correct the noble Lord there? So far as the case which came to this House is concerned, this Bill does not affect it at all. Whatever may be the rights so far as that judgment goes, they are not touched in any way by this Bill.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am only alluding to the argument of the noble and learned Lord. I understood him to say, and to advance it as a reason why this Bill should pass, that the Government were prepared to give to the successful litigants not the rights which they had won in the Law Courts, but merely their costs.
LORD PARMOOR: I am anxious that the matter should be made quite clear. That is true of other litigation, but it is not true of the case which came to your Lordships' House, which is exempted altogether from the provisions of this Bill.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am only showing that, apparently, the noble and learned Lord is under the impression that he had made a good point for the Bill by saying that he was prepared, although defeated in the Law Courts, to pay the costs of the litigants who had defeated him, and who in the ordinary course would not only, I suppose, have got their costs but the amount which they claimed, and to which they were held entitled.
The noble and learned Lord went on to give instances with regard to ships. I think that is a very dangerous thing to do. I am not a shipowner—I wish I were, or rather I wish I had been—but surely it is a very dangerous thing to say that because my noble friend happened to have a ship which had not cost him very much, and out of which he had got a good profit, and was able to sell it to the foreigner at a good price, a portion of that price should go to the Government. If you are going to do that in the

65
case of ships, where are you going to stop? It reminds me of a certain Eastern potentate who went about taking from the wealth of his subjects. The result was that the money which was left was hidden in the ground, and the prosperity of the nation naturally declined. I cannot support Lord Strachie's Amendment, because he is apparently willing to consent to the Courts of Law being overridden if his friends get something. My object is to see that the Courts of Law are not over-ridden; that when a decision in a Court of Law is given against the Government they should accept that decision and not come down to Parliament and endeavour to over-ride it, merely because they have a majority which enables them to do so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I feel a little daunted by my noble friend, because he has anticipated what might be said from this Bench by saying that if we do happen to agree with the Front Bench opposite there must be some mischief brewing. I agree that it is a misfortune in which I find myself that, to some extent, I do agree with the Front Bench opposite on this occasion. My noble friend has spoken of the constitutional outrage involved by this Bill. I feel inclined to remind him of an observation which used very often to be made a few years back. Will he remember that there was a war on? Of course, unconstitutional things were done during the war. The whole Parliament was occupied in doing unconstitutional things, but they luckily do not sot a precedent, because we are not, I hope, within many generations going to have any war of that kind again. Therefore, I do not think my noble friend need be afraid that we are setting dangerous precedents which might be followed. The whole situation was absolutely abnormal, and the fact that certain remedies had to be applied after the war was over must not be considered to deprive us of any of our claim to constitutional purity.
But I think there were certain misapprehensions as to the actual scope of the Bill. Lord Joicey seemed to think that it covered the case of an indemnity for the Government where they took or hired land without paying for it. I am informed that this Bill has nothing to do with matters of that kind. I am much obliged to the noble Lord for calling
66
attention to it, but I think we may eliminate the argument he drew from it. Then there is the argument of my noble friend Lord Kylsant. I am sure he will forgive me for saying that, whatever sympathy I may rave with any noble Lord who argues in favour of a rigid interpretation of constitutional rights, I have not a very great deal of sympathy with the financial exigencies of ship-owners during the war.
LORD KYLSANT: I was not raising the matter for shipowners. Personally, I am not in the least interested, and I am speaking to-day especially at the request of the London Chamber of Commerce, of which I happen to be President.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have known my noble friend for many years, and I did not for a moment think that he was speaking in his own interests. That would be absolutely foreign to his character. At the same time, there were a very large number of shipowners who made large fortunes out of the war. The fact that they had to pay certain licence duties was a very small deprivation, and I do not think they can ask for any expression of great pity from other people on account of their financial fate during the war. Prima facie, therefore, one would be inclined to pass this Bill. Here is a ease where certain charges were made during the war which did not throw any real grievance upon the parties who paid them. It was not known that they were illegal at the time, and it does not seem unreasonable that, now that the war is over, a mistake which was made should be set right, so long as we do not do any injustice to individuals. That appears to be the broad case for the Bill. That was the case which impressed not only this Government, but the late Government, and both the Governments which preceded it. I think at least three or four Governments have been responsible for a Bill on some such lines as these.
I said just now that the condition is that it does not do any injustice to individuals. Now, here comes my noble friend, Lord Strachie, who says: "Yes, it does a great injustice to the farmers in the West of England." I have some sympathy with his argument. The person who, according to him, was really in fault was the Food Controller of the day. He

67
forbade the farmers in the West of England to charge the same high controlled price as the milk suppliers in the rest of England. We cannot put that right. He does not suggest that we should. We cannot go back to the period of the war and say that the farmers who were not allowed to earn the maximum price for milk during the war are to be reimbursed. He does not suggest that we can. What he suggests is that with regard to particular portions of the milk they sold—namely, that which they sold outside the confines of the West of England—the loss should be set right. He does not propose that the Government should pay it. What he proposes is that the middleman who has made this money, in consequence of the decision of your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity, should hand on that money to the farmer.
LORD STRACHIE: Also, where the Government have in their hands a large sum of money at the present moment which they have got from the middlemen, I propose that they should hand it back to the farmers, instead of handing it over to the middlemen.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I certainly gathered from my noble friend's speech that the middleman was not really entitled to the profits which he made out of the House of Lords' decision, and that they ought to be given to the farmer.
LORD STRACHIE: Under the decision of the House of Lords the Government have to re-pay the middleman what they have taken from him.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It really is a matter as between the middleman and the farmer. The question is whether what my noble friend proposes is a feasible plan, and I confess it is rather difficult to discuss that until we have seen the Amendment which he would move in Committee. It seems to me an extremely difficult Amendment to frame, but to be asked to reject altogether the Bill—which I think on the whole is a good Bill—because the noble Lord would like to propose an Amendment in Committee, seems to me a most Gilbertian thing to do. Why not go into Committee if the noble Lord wants to propose an Amendment? We shall then see how far it is a practicable proposal.
68
My noble friend says he will not do that because the Government behaved so badly about privilege. There I agree with him. I do think that the Government, in respect to a certain Bill to which he referred, treated us rather badly. I do not mean the Government—I suppose I ought to say another place, only I always desire to speak of another place with great respect. But I do think that the very strong view which your Lordships' House took ought to have been received with much greater attention in another place than, apparently, it did receive. I attribute that to the unfortunate circumstance that this particular Order was reached very late at night. However that may be, I agree with my noble friend that it is a very regrettable circumstance. Still, I cannot see that that would justify us in throwing out this Bill altogether.
If this Bill is a good Bill in itself, in its main outlines—and I think it is—then, upon the possibility that my noble friend might have been able to produce an Amendment in Committee which would have been practicable and in order, to reject the whole Bill seems to me to be going to a length to which I should hardly like to advise your Lordships to go. I think, if I may say so, that we ought to proceed upon the ordinary course. If your Lordships agree to the main principle of this Bill, as I hope you will, we ought, I think, to agree to the Second Reading. If my noble friend can frame an Amendment on the lines which he suggests, your Lordships will, no doubt, consider it when the Committee stage is reached. I do not think it would be consistent for your Lordships to take any other course, and I venture to hope that you will not take any other.
LORD JOICEY: May I ask the noble Lord, the Lord President, whether I am to understand that this Bill is entirely confined to the things mentioned in the Schedule, or does it go beyond them?
LORD PARMOOR: It is entirely confined to what is mentioned in the Schedule, and does not go beyond that in any way. There is no reference whatever to the cases to which the noble Lord referred.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, if there was any validity in the argument addressed to your Lordships by the noble

69
Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, that, when two Front Benches get together they are always to be distrusted, there is certainly more validity for the argument that when throe Front Benches get together they are to be voted against. On this occasion it is the fact that the Front Bench of this Government, the Front Bench of the late Government, and the Front Bench of the Government before that have got together, and I hope that your Lordships will act upon the advice which was given by the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam.
This measure ought surely to have been introduced at the time when the illegality was committed. There is no reason in the world why, instead of proceeding by bureaucratic decree from the Food Controller's Department, a Bill should not have been introduced at that time into this House. The course which was adopted was illegal, and the Government were warned that it was illegal. The Dairy Companies concerned appealed, I understand, to Lord Carson and Sir John Simon, obtained their opinion and forwarded it to the. Government Department. In spite of that the Food Controller's Department went on with this course of action and insisted upon proceeding by decree, although they had been warned. The Government now ask this House, by this measure of retrospective action, to justify the Department in what they did.
I do not propose to go into the various cases which have been mentioned. There was the case of beer, there was the case of hides, and there was the ease of meat. Not all of the cases were in war time, as was suggested by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. One or two of them certainly occurred in the year 1919, and it is not unfair to say that this was a case in which the Department—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Broadly it is true, I think.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: It was true in a great many cases. They levied taxes without the authority of Parliament. That is really the offence of which we complain, and I shall venture to read to your Lordships a few sentences from the judgment of Lord Justice Atkin. The learned Lord Justice said—
"In view of the historic struggle of the Legislature to secure for itself the sole
70
power to levy money upon the subject, its complete success in that struggle, and the elaborate means adopted by the representative House to control the amount, the conditions and the purpose of the levy, the circumstances would be remarkable, indeed, which would induce the Court to believe that the Legislature had sacrificed all the well-known checks and precautions, and, not in expressed words bat merely by implication, had entrusted a Minister of the Crown with undefined and unlimited powers of imposing charges upon the subject for purposes connected with his Department. I am clearly of opinion that no such powers, and, indeed, no powers at all, for imposing any such charge are given to the Minister of Food by the statutory provision on which he relies. I have no doubt as to the good faith of the Food Controller, and his intentions in making this charge may have been excellent, but he adopted methods which, in my opinion, are unconstitutional and contrary to law, and his agreements cannot be enforced."
We realise that we are not dealing with all the various cases that have been mentioned this afternoon. We are only dealing with the oases mentioned in the Schedule. But it is a matter of very real importance. It is the greatest hardship on subjects of the Crown that they should be obliged to prosecute a case from the lowest Court to the highest and then to find that legislation is introduced into both Houses of Parliament to deprive them of the result of the case when they have managed to win it.
LORD PARMOOR: May I interrupt the noble Earl? I have said so often that that case is not touched by this Bill at all.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am afraid the noble Lord did not hear what I said in the sentence which preceded his interruption. What I said was that we were only dealing with the cases mentioned in the Schedule, and that it was the greatest hardship on the subject that after he had won his case in the Courts he should be treated in this way. I venture to suggest that the noble Lord's interruption was hardly justified.
In this case it is perfectly clear that the House is in a very real difficulty. We have reason to suppose, in view of what has happened before that if any Amendment is presented to your Lordships' House dealing with the actual burden of who is or is not to pay, the Government will treat it in the same summary manner as they dealt with the Amendments to

71
the Bill to which reference has already been made. The question, therefore, is what shall be done by your Lordships' House. In view of the impossibility of amending this Bill, I confess that I think the best thing that can be done is to agree with the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Strachie or with that of the noble Lord, Lord Kylsant. If my noble friend behind me will forgive me for saying so, I prefer the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kylsant, and if the House proceeds to a Division my vote will certainly be given in its favour.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, desire to persist in his Amendment?
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I gather from what has been said that it is the general desire of the House to deal with the issue entirely upon the question as to whether this measure shall be read a second time or not, and not upon my reasoned Amendment. I am ready, therefore, to withdraw my Amendment in favour of that moved by the noble Lord behind me.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Cave, V.

Emmott, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Ernle, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Chelmsford, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L. [Teller.]

Novar, V.

Pentland, L.

Salisbury, M.

Riddell, L.

Arnold, L.

Ruthven of Gowrie, L.

Bradford, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Sempill, L.

Clarendon, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Stuart of Wortley, L.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Thomson, L.

Onslow, E.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bathurst E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Beauchamp, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu. L.

Buxton, E.

O'Hagan, L.

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

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Midleton, E.

Clwyd, L.

Raglan, L.

Morton, E.

Denman, L.

St. Audries, L.

Powis, E.

Hindlip, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Westmeath, E.

Islington, L.

Shandon, L.

Joicey, L.

Stanmore, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

Wharton, L.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The original Question was: "That this Bill be now read a second time," to which an Amendment has been moved to leave out the word "now" in order to add at the end "this day six months."
LORD KYLSANT: My Lords, I did not move my Amendment. I put it on the Paper in order to have an opportunity of explaining the matter to this House. I promised to air this matter in this House and having done so, and having made my speech as I wanted to do, I am satisfied.
LORD STRACHIE: In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Kylsant, has said, I beg now to move that the Bill be read this day six months.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Strachie.)
On Question, Whether the word "now" stand part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, -28.
On Question, Amendment agreed to: Bill to be read 2a this day six months accordingly.

IMPERIAL INSTITUTE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on re-commitment of the Bill.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LOUD ARNOLD): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. I wish to take this opportunity of saying two or three words on the present position of the Bill and the Amendments. Your Lordships may recollect that on the Second Reading of the Bill various points were brought up by noble Lords which, in their opinion, required amendment. All those matters have been most seriously considered by the Government with a view to arriving at some agreement and meeting the views of noble Lords as far as possible. Various negotiations have taken place, and I think I may say that on the main points a large measure of agreement has been arrived at. There are one or two points not perhaps of a major character in regard to which the Government have not been able to meet the representations which have been made, broadly because to do so would run the risk of upsetting what I think I may call an agreed scheme.
This Bill is really the outcome of an agreement which was reached at the Imperial Conference last autumn after prolonged discussions and delicate negotiations, and, therefore, there are certain amendments which the Government have felt they could not accept because to do so might, in their opinion, jeopardise that settlement. I would venture to suggest to your Lordships—I will not say more now—that in the discussions on these Amendments no real danger should be run of upsetting the settlement which was arrived at with so much trouble after such prolonged discussions last autumn.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Arnold.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, before the House goes into Committee perhaps your Lordships would permit me to draw attention to three small points which, for obvious reasons, I do not want to raise in Committee myself. At the same time, I should like
74
the points considered, and I would appeal to the noble Lord, the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, to be good enough to consider them between now and Report. They are, I am sure, points which could not possibly upset any agreed settlement, the importance of which your Lordships will all realise. I will merely detain your Lordships by mentioning what those points are. The first is really only one of form. Clause 1 repeals a previous Act, and Clause 2 proceeds to say that for certain purposes that Act is not repealed. That seems to be rather a clumsy way of doing things, and, as other people besides trained lawyers will probably have to understand this Bill, I think it is desirable to make the matter clear in some alternative form.
The second point that I would like to draw attention to is Clause 7 of the Bull. That takes power to amend this measure in the future by Order in Council. I think these Orders in Council ought to be presented to Parliament. I do not ask that there should be an affirmative Resolution, or anything so strong as that, because the purposes for which the Orders in Council can be made are carefully laid down in the Bill, but I think Parliament ought to be cognisant of what is done. The other point arises on Clause 9. Under that Clause it is possible for the Government to defer bringing this Bill into operation for a century, and I am certain that that is the very opposite of the intention of the Government. I suggest it is not a very nice Parliamentary form. At the same time I am certain that an Amendment there is not really necessary. I think if the Government would tell us that they do intend to bring the Bill into operation as soon as they possibly can under these powers, the necessities of the ease would be met.
LORD ARNOLD: May I say, in regard t) the various points which have been brought to my notice by the Lord Chairman, that the Government will, of course, take them into most careful consideration. I should like, if I may, to have the opportunity of doing that, and of making a further statement about them on the Report stage.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Amendments made by the Select Committee agreed to.
Preamble:
WHEREAS by the Imperial Institute (Transfer) Act, 1902 (hereinafter called the Act of 1902), as amended by the Imperial Institute (Management) Act, 1916 (hereinafter called the Act of 1916), the management of the Imperial Institute is carried on under the Secretary of State for the Colonies by an Executive Council constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1916 for the purposes mentioned in the Act of 1902, and such other similar purposes as the Secretary of State for the Colonies may determine having regard to the commercial, industrial, and educational interests of the Empire:
And whereas the Imperial Institute Building and the Endowment Fund mentioned in the Act of 1902 are vested in a body of trustees called the Imperial Institute Trustees, and the income of the said fund is payable by the said trustees to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the Imperial Institute Building is under his management:
And whereas various other property, rights, obligations, debts or liabilities in connection with the Imperial Institute have become the property, rights, obligations, debts or liabilities of the Secretary of State for the Colonies:
And whereas by Royal Charter dated the twelfth day of June, nineteen hundred and nineteen, a body was incorporated by the name of the Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau for the purposes mentioned in the Charter:
And whereas the future of the Imperial Institute and of the Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau was discussed at an Imperial Economic Conference held in London in the year nineteen hundred and twenty-three:
And whereas certain resolutions were adopted at that Conference recommending to the Governments represented thereon the amalgamation of the above bodies, the making of further arrangements in regard to the management of the amalgamated body, and annual contributions to its maintenance for a period of five years out of moneys provided by Parliament of nine thousand pounds, by the Governments of the self-governing Dominions and India of eight thousand pounds and by the Governments of the Colonies and Protectorates of eight thousand pounds:
And whereas it is desirable to empower the governing body hereinafter constituted of the Imperial Institute, in co-operation with the Governments represented at that Conference, or such of them as for the time being may be making contributions for the purpose, to maintain galleries for the exhibition of Empire products; and to accept
76
and expend such additional contributions towards the maintenance of such galleries as may be provided by Parliament, and the other Governments as aforesaid:
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved, in the paragraph beginning, "And whereas certain resolutions," to leave out "to its maintenance," and insert "towards the expenses of the Imperial Institute." The noble Lord said: This is really little more than a drafting Amendment but it brings the Preamble more in conformity with the main body of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, leave out ("to its maintenance") and insert ("towards the expenses of the Imperial Institute ").—(Lord Arnold.)
LORD ISLINGTON LORD ISLINGTON moved, in the paragraph beginning, "And whereas certain resolutions," to leave out "of nine thousand pounds." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to avoid having two separate funds in support of the Imperial Institute. I understand that this specific figure was placed in the Bill at a time when it was not contemplated that the exhibition galleries would continue as part of the Imperial Institute. I am glad to say that, largely owing to the public spirit of Lord Cowdray, they are to become a permanent part of the Imperial Institute, and it would be more convenient that the sum of money that is to be granted whether by the Exchequer in this country or by the Dominions, Colonies and Protectorates, should be a lump sum towards the maintenance of the Institute as a whole, including, of course, the maintenance of the galleries. There is no doubt that the Dominions and Colonies will not separate their grant and give one portion for the executive operations of the Institute and the other for the maintenance of the galleries. They will give one sum, and it appears to me that it will be for the future administrative convenience of the Institute that one sum should be mentioned, whatever the sum may be, and that it should not be separated into two. That refers equally, of course, to a subsequent Amendment which I have on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 11 and 12, leave out ("of nine thousand pounds ").—(Lord Islington.)
LORD ARNOLD: This is an Amendment which the Government feel obliged to resist, because it would strike at the root of the settlement which has been arrived at. The figures in the Preamble are really an historical fact and a record of what happened at the Imperial Economic Conference last autumn. It establishes the proportion in which the expenses of the Institute are to be borne amongst the three parties. Take India, for instance. She made a condition that the whole of her contribution must be spent on the Institute and not on the galleries. South Africa also made a similar condition, and if these words are deleted and the other Amendment to which the noble Lord has referred is accepted on Clause 6, the arrangement which has been arrived at would be upset. This Bill has been circulated to the Dominions and any substantial alteration of this sort would raise, I think, questions in the mind of Dominion Ministers. I hope your Lordships will not support the Amendment. It is one which the Government, for these reasons, feel should not be accepted.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment. I do not think he considers it a very important one. He does not propose to ask the Dominions not to subscribe these sums of money in portions. All he wants is that it should be differently stated. I feel that to alter the form of the Preamble now, after it has been circulated to the Dominions, will have the appearance that you are desirous of going behind the decision of the Imperial Conference and, as it were, releasing the Dominions from the pledge they have given to subscribe these particular sums of money. That would be most unfortunate. There is also the other point to which the noble Lord has referred, that it will not do to put all these sums of money against the galleries, because some of the Dominions will not have anything to do with the galleries. I think the noble Lord will realise that he is suggesting all sorts of difficulties if he persists in his Amendment. This was a very delicate matter, very nicely adjusted, and it was only with great difficulty, in the Committee over which I had the honour to preside, that we persuaded everybody to come into line. I do not say that the
78
Amendments of the noble Lord would necessarily upset the balance, but there will always be a little risk, and I should be very sorry, unless it is very substantial, that the question should be pressed.
LORD ISLINGTON: I have no desire to press the Amendment. I do not regard it as so important as the other Amendments which have been so generously met by the noble Lord opposite. I only moved it in order to emphasise the entirety of the Imperial Institute and the fact that the operations of the Institute and the exhibition galleries are in the future to be one. It is clear that as some of the Dominions are going to add to their contribution, this sum of money for the Institute is somewhat misleading. I understand the difficulties which might arise, and I do not therefore press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved, in the paragraph beginning "And whereas it is desirable," to leave out "galleries for the exhibition of Empire products and" and insert "in the exhibition galleries of the Imperial Institute exhibitions illustrative of the resources and development of the Empire." The noble Lord said: This Amendment, and the others which follow, incorporate the proposals which have been put forward by Lord Islington. The Amendment makes it quite clear, I think, that the galleries referred to are the galleries of the Imperial Institute. This point was raised on the Second Reading by several noble Lords— by Lord Cowdray, by Lord Shandon and also by the noble Lord who has put down an Amendment in the same sense. The latter part of the Amendment is, as I have explained before in connection with another Amendment, designed to bring the Preamble rather more into conformity with a paragraph which comes later in the Schedule. The Amendments which follow are drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 21 and 22, leave out ("galleries for the exhibition of Empire products and") and insert ("in the exhibition galleries of the Imperial Institute exhibitions illustrative of the resources and development of the Empire ").—(Lord Arnold.)
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 22, leave out ("such") and insert ("any ")
Page 2, line 23, leave out ("as") and insert ("and exhibitions which ")
Page 2, line 24, leave out ("as'')
Page 2, line 25, at end insert ("for that purpose, and where practicable to organise from time to time temporary exhibitions of a similar nature elsewhere ").—(Lord Arnold.)
Preamble, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Imperial Institute Trustees.
2.—(1) The repeal of the Act of 1902 shall not affect the incorporation of powers of the Imperial Institute Trustees, but that body shall hereafter consist of the persons who for the time being are Lord President of the Council, the First Commissioner of His Majesty's Treasury, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Secretary of State for India, the President of the Board of Trade, and the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade (Development and Intelligence).
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Lord President of the Council." The noble Lord said: The last thing I would desire would be to do anything to endanger this Rill. I do not propose this Amendment in any feeling of hostility to the Bill, but because I think it would make a general improvement in it. The Imperial Institute was erected and endowed many years ago by public subscriptions which came from individuals in all parts of the Empire. Tie present Bill places the building and endowments in the hands of trustees, all of whom are Ministers. There is no unofficial representation. I think that it is desirable that among the trustees there should be somebody representing other parts of the Empire than the United Kingdom. I think it is desirable that somebody like the noble Viscount, Lord Cowdray, who is doing so much for the Imperial Institute, should be made a trustee. This Amendment and those which follow it in my name on the Paper stand or fall together. I am proposing to leave out the Lord President, not in the least because I object to him as a trustee, but because he has nothing whatever to do with the Institute.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg your pardon.
LORD EMMOTT: What did the noble Marquess say?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I only respectfully demurred to that statement of my noble friend.
LORD EMMOTT: Hitherto, the Lord President of the Council has never been specially interested in the Institute, nor has he had anything particular to do with it. I suggest the omission of a name or two simply because I want to see unofficial trustees appointed, and not because I have any objection to the holders of these particular offices. I suggest the omission of the President of the Board of Trade, because the responsible Minister is to be the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade, and I do not see why it should be necessary to have the President of the Board of Trade as well. Instead of the two names the omission of which I am proposing, I desire to suggest that "three other persons having colonial, financial or commercial experience who are to be appointed by the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade, who should, for this purpose, take into consultation the governor of the Bank of England and the President of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce" should be appointed in their place. I do not know what line the Government intend to take, but I think I have made clear the purpose of my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 43 to page 3, line 1, leave out ("Lord President of the Council ").—(Lord Emmott.)
LORD ARNOLD: I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. The position is that these trustees are really holding trustees, and are not concerned with the management of the Institute. As a matter of convenience, it is a great advantage, when anything requires to be done, to have trustees who are easily accessible. I believe there was an instance of that some time ago, when the question arose of a transfer of stock or something of that sort. It may create difficulties if various gentlemen who are not easily accessible all at one time are trustees. I think that point itself is one of considerable substance. The trustees

81
are tied down by the Act. They really have no discretion, but are simply holding trustees.
There is another point to which, I think, perhaps the noble Lord has not given sufficient weight, and that is that in the Second Schedule the unofficial element, if I may use that term, in the governing body has been very considerably increased, and I suggest that the objects which the noble Lord has in view will really be met in this way, and met much better for his purpose, because the governing body will, of course, have powers in connection with the Institute, and will be much more than merely holding trastees. It seems to me, if I may say so with respect, that the noble Lord has provided no sufficient reason for his Amendment, having regard to all the circumstances. Elaborate machinery is here set up, and I hope very much that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I cannot pretend for a moment that the passage of this Amendment will prejudice this Bill in the eyes of the Dominions. That would be absurd. But I rather regret, I must confess, that my noble friend should think that the Lord President of the Council has nothing to do with the Imperial Institute. He probably has not realised that a great Department of Research has grown up in the Council Office. It really is becoming one of the most important offices in the State, and all the research work of the Government, to whatever Department it belongs, is gradually crystallising around the Council Office. I need not say that the future work of the Imperial Institute will consist very largely of research, or of activities allied to research, and therefore it is appropriate that the Lord President of the Council should be a trustee.
But the noble Lord opposite is quite correct in saying that it does not very much matter who the trustees are. The governors are the people who are going to run the show, and the trustees will not have anything to do with it. The trustees will, I believe, be very little more than persons having a legal existence, whose signature, or the signatures of a certain number of them, will be required in certain cases. For my part, if I were sitting in the place of the
82
noble Lord opposite, I should make a concession to my noble friend on this Amendment. I should be much better pleased if he did not press the case of the Lord President. I have been both President of the Board of Trade and Lord President of the Council, and consequently I know both offices.
I would certainly have surrendered the President of the Board of Trade—whom it is proposed by another Amendment on the Paper to omit—because I think he is sufficiently represented by the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade, but I would venture to suggest to the noble Lord, even if the point is not pressed now but is considered between now and the Report stage, that there can be no objection to adding the three extra persons to whom the noble Lord refers in a later Amendment, without cutting out the Lord President. I do not think that they will do any good, but I do not think that they will do any harm, and if my noble friend, who is such an authority on these matters, thought it of any use, and if I were sitting in the noble Lord's place, I should make a concession and, at any rate, consider between now and Report whether it would not be possible to insert these extra gentlemen to whom the noble Lord refers.
LORD ISLINGTON: May I say one word of appeal to the noble Lord to consider whether this Amendment cannot be brought up again, I hope in an amended form, on Report? It is a very large body of officials to be trustees in an Institute of this character, which, if it is to be successful in the future, must be freed from the trammels of too much bureaucratic control—an evil of which undoubtedly it has had too much experience in the past to be of effective use, as I can speak from ten long years of experience. If it is to be in the future really an effective force for the Empire, in the direction we want it to be, it must have the full advantage of outside vision. In practice, these officials will advise the governing body as to what course they will take, and I can see very important questions arising with regard to the future of the Institute, especially under that clause which gives, by Order in Council, plenary powers of every sort to the Government. I can conceive very important decisions being come to which may vary the future of the Institute

83
either one way or the other, and I think it certainly would be an advantage to the Institute, in every way, that there should be that outside element represented on the board of trustees, instead of the official element as it is now being universally represented. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord seriously to consider the matter, with a view to meeting my noble friend's very reasonable request.
LORD EMMOTT: Before the noble Lord answers, perhaps I may say that I entirely accept Lord Salisbury's suggestion as to retaining the Lord President of the Council. I certainly had forgotten how much the Lord President of the Council now has to do with certain work. I accept that, but I would press on Lord Arnold to consider this matter. If the noble Lord does not want to settle the matter tonight, I will put my Amendment down again on Report in the form suggested by Lord Salisbury, if he will promise to take it into serious consideration and not merely promise to consider it with a view of saying "No" next time.
LORD ARNOLD: In view of the speeches made, and the words of the noble Marquess, I certainly will take the matter into serious consideration and not merely with a view of giving a negative reply next time, but I am sure that your Lordships do not expect me to settle the matter now, because there are a great many matters to be considered with regard to this particular proposal.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Savings.
8. Nothing in this Act or in any such Order in Council shall affect—

(1) any existing rights of the University of London in or to any part of the Imperial Institute building;

(2) any provision which may have been made in pursuance of Section five of the Act of 1902 for giving to life members of the corporation dissolved by that Act privileges similar to those enjoyed by them under the Charter revoked by that Act.

LORD CLWYD LORD CLWYD moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new paragraph:
84
" (3) Any privileges granted by the existing agreement (of 1922) made by the Imperial Institute with the Northbrook Society, in pursuance of the intention of subsection (3) of Section six of the Act of 1902, to use certain rooms in the Imperial Institute building provided from Indian revenues or the use of such rooms for any other appropriate Indian purpose."
The noble Lord said: I will very shortly state the ground on which I move this Amendment. The object of it is to safeguard any privileges already granted through the existing agreement with the Northbrook Society, in regard to space allotted to India at the Institute. It is not necessary for me to point out the direct interest of India, but I do not think it is sufficiently realised that the interest of India in the Institute rests upon very special consideration, for, apart from the natural interest which India takes in the Institute, the princes and people of India have made very large contributions towards the Institute. I may mention the fact that the princes and people of India have contributed, in various sums, a total of not less than £114,000, of which £80,000 has been spent upon the buildings, and £34,000 invested in the endowment fund. In addition to this sum, about £33,000 was at a later date contributed for the India Pavilion, erected with a further contribution of £17,000 given by the Maharajah of Bhaunuger, supplemented by gifts from other distinguished friends of India.
I base the case for my Amendment upon that fact that these very large contributions, coming not from official but from private sources, have been made to the Institute, and that they have been made for the specific purpose of providing accommodation within the Institute for Indian purposes. I feel sure that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will have every sympathy with the Indian interest in the Imperial Institute, but it is possible that, on behalf of the Government, he may suggest that the governing body to be set up under this Bill will do what is right in the matter. A further point may be taken that the agreement with the Northbrook Society to which I have referred, though capable of being terminated in two years' time, is not likely to be terminated, and the view may be taken that upon the whole this House and Parliament may safely leave the matter in the hands of the governing

85
body responsible for the working of the Act when it is passed.
I venture to express a strong opinion that the interest of India in the Institute, measured as it is by the very special considerations of finance to which I have referred, does give India a right to special treatment in the matter. The two things that have to be remembered are that these contributions have been made from India, and that certain space accommodation in the Institute has for many years been allotted for Indian purposes. It seems to me on all grounds desirable, if in any way possible, having regard to these facts, that some words should be inserted in the Bill which will make it impossible for the arrangements which now exist to be interfered with in the future by any development that may take place. Having regard to these facts, I hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will be able to give the principle at any rate of my Amendment favourable consideration, and may be able to make some statement which will at all events safeguard the essential interests of India.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 19, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Clwyd.)
LORD ARNOLD: This Amendment presents many difficulties. The noble Lord himself suggested that it might be argued that the Amendment was unnecessary, and in a certain sense I think that is true. The position is that the Northbrook Society has an agreement at the present time which has about two years to run, and its various privileges are, as I understand, safeguarded under that agreement. Therefore, under the clauses of this Bill as it stands—Clause 3, for instance—the Northbrook Society is protected, at any rate during that time. The noble Lord desires that words shall be inserted which will practically ensure to the Northbrook Society rooms in the Imperial Institute in perpetuity, or, if he does not go quite so far as that, at any rate that some kind of special recognition along these lines shall be made of the very handsome contributions which in the past were given towards the Institute from Indian sources.
I should like to take the same course with this Amendment that was taken with the Amendment moved by Lord Emmott, and that is to have time to
86
consider the matter, although I am bound to say I think it is a very difficult one. There is one point I should like to put to the House, which I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate. If you give this exceptional treatment to this Society, it might create difficulties in regard to other arrangements at the present time. That is a point of some substance. However, I will consider the matter between now and the Report stage, and see whether anything can be done, if not going the whole way, at any rate going part of the way, to meet the views of the noble Lord.
LORD CLWYD: In view of the statement of the noble Lord, I will, of course, withdraw my Amendment. I feel sure the noble Lord will give adequate consideration to the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.
Purposes of the Imperial Institute.
1. To collect and disseminate—

(a) information relating to possible uses of and markets for new raw materials or semi-manufactured products;

(b) information relating to new uses of and markets for already known raw materials or semi-manufactured products;

(c) information relating to sources production, supplies, cost, consumption and requirements of raw materials and semi-manufactured products, and legislation relating thereto;

(d) information relating to the best means of increasing supplies, or of creating new sources of supplies, of such materials and products within the Empire;

(e) information relating to the best means of treating such materials and products and of preparing them for marketing;

(f) technical and scientific information bearing upon the industries of the British Empire.

2. To advise on the development of the resources of the Empire in raw materials, in order that such resources may be made available for the purposes of industry and commerce and of Imperial defence.
3. To conduct preliminary investigations of raw materials and, when it may be

87
deemed advisable, to arrange for more detailed investigation by appropriate scientific or technical institutions.
4. To collect samples of raw materials having a definite value in industry and commerce.
5. To co-operate with other agencies within the Empire formed for similar purposes.
6. To organise, so far as practicable, exhibitions of Empire products.
7. To do anything incidental to or conducive to carrying into effect all or any of the foregoing purposes.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved, at the beginning of the Schedule, to insert the following new paragraph:
" 1. To promote the commercial, industrial and educational interests of the British Empire."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment really incorporates the first part of the Amendment of Lord Islington. He was good enough to give the Government plenty of opportunity to consider his view on these matters, and I am happy to think that we have been able to meet him, because, in one way or another, practically the whole of his Amendment is now incorporated in this Schedule. The first part of the Amendment is really a general definition of the purposes of the Institute. It is a wider definition than was in the Bill before, and I consider that the Government is indebted to the noble Lord, because the Amendment which I am now moving, founded upon his, is, in my opinion, an improvement on the Bill as originally drafted. This Amendment and the others which follow on these lines, incorporating down the various paragraphs of this Schedule the original Amendment of the noble Lord, will make quite clear, I think, on broad lines what the purposes of the Institute are. I think there is now agreement in regard to this matter.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 3, at end insert the said new paragraph,-—(Lord Arnold.)
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved, in paragraph 3, after "conduct" to insert "in the laboratories of the Institute."
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 27, after ("conduct") insert the said words.—(Lord Arnold.)
Amendment moved—
Page 6, lines 35 and 36, leave out paragraph 6 and insert:
(" 7. To maintain for public information and instruction in the exhibition galleries of the imperial Institute exhibitions illustrative of the resources and development of the Empire and of its scenery, life and progress, and, where practicable, to organise from time to time temporary exhibitions of a similar nature elsewhere ").—(Lord Arnold.)
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule:

SECOND SCHEDULE.
Constitution and Proceedings of the Board of Governors.
(1) The Board of Governors shall consist of the responsible Minister (who shall be President) and the following other governors:—

One appointed by the Government of the Dominion of Canada;

One appointed by the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia;

One appointed by the Government of the Dominion of New Zealand;

One appointed by the Government of the Union of South Africa;

One appointed by the Government of the Irish Free State;

One appointed by the Government of Newfoundland;

One appointed by the Government of India;

One appointed by the Treasury:

Two one of whom shall be in respect of mines appointed by the Board of Trade;

One appointed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies;

One appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries;

One appointed by the responsible Minister;

One representative of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research appointed by the Lord President of the Council;

Not more than ten representatives of scientific and commercial interests, of whom one shall be a representative of the Royal Society, appointed by the responsible Minister after consultation with such bodies representative of those interests as he may think fit.
EARL BUXTON EARL BUXTON had on the Paper an Amendment to leave out "one" ["appointed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies"] and to insert "two.'' The noble Earl said: My object is merely that the Crown Colonies and

89
Dependencies should have representation. They seem to be altogether ignored, though they contribute a considerable amount towards the upkeep of the Institute. My noble friend has been good enough to consider the matter with me, and the Amendment he has on the Paper goes a little further than mine. Therefore, I do not propose to move, but I will see what is the effect of the Amendment which he proposes.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved to leave out "one" ["appointed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies"] and to insert "three." The noble Lord said: I had hoped, and still am hopeful, that the Government have met the views of the noble Earl so far as his first Amendment is concerned. The Government proposes to go further than he would have gone, and the effect will be that on the governing body, instead of there being one representative appointed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, there will be three. The noble Earl, in view of his distinguished record, has a special interest in our African colonies, and, although it would not be set down in the Bill, I think it would almost certainly come about that one of the additional representatives would be a gentleman who was intimately acquainted with the affairs and interests of our Possessions in tropical Africa.
I should hope that the noble Earl would not, on consideration, find it necessary to proceed along the lines of his last Amendment, which appears on the Paper (proposing four representatives of Crown Colonies and Protectorates), because, were he to do that, it would really be making a very drastic change in the position of the governing body. If your Lordships look closely at the details of this Schedule you will see that, whereas there were to be ten representatives of scientific and commercial interests, that number is in a sense cut down to six owing to the subsequent provisions. The new governing body is composed on rather different lines from those which prevailed in the past. The Council, in the past, was to some extent constructed on a geographical basis, and this possessed certain advantages, but it is thought for various reasons that the arrangement was not altogether successful, and, having regard to what passed at the Conference last autumn, I very
90
much hope that the remainder of the Schedule, as it is in the Bill at present, may be allowed to remain, because that will permit the recommendation for the Council of men selected on the basis of scientific, technical, and commercial knowledge, with a view to helping the work of the Institute. I think there is very good reason to suppose that one or more of those representatives would meet the purposes which the noble Earl has in view. Taking all these facts into consideration my hope is that when we reach the Report stage he will allow the Bill to pass as now proposed— that is, that the one representative shall be three and that the remainder of the Schedule shall stand as it is now.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 21, leave out ("one") and insert ("three ").—(Lord Arnold.)
EARL BUXTON: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I assure him that I will give the matter my serious consideration.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I under stand that the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, does not move the remaining Amendments which stand in his name.
EARL BUXTON: That is so.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I am proposing, and I hope it will be agreeable to your Lordships, to put the Report stage down for Monday next. I think that will give sufficient time. The Bill is rather urgently required.
[From Minutes of June 30.]
The Lord Trevor—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (DOCK CHARGES, SCOTLAND) 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.
HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
MALVERN HILLS BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
RHYMNEY AND ABER GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

MORECAMBE CORPORATION BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with
92
the consideration of the Bill; the Committee having found that the petitioners had no locus standi before them; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 14th and the 27th of May last discharged, and Bill committed.

WEST THURROCK WHARF AND RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee that it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
CLYDE VALLEY ELECTRICAL POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

COMPANIES AMENDMENT (CO-PARTNERSHIP) BILL. [H.L.]
House to be in Committee on Tuesday, July 15 next.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.