Lords Sitting of 16 July 1924

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

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION BY THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I desire to make a short personal explanation to your Lordships as regards something that happened yesterday, and at the some time to offer an apology to my noble friend Lord Stuart of Wortley, who suffered considerable wrong at my hands. Your Lordships will remember that we gave a Third Reading yesterday to a Morecambe Corporation Bill. It was, so far as I am concerned, read a third time quite inadvertently. The circumstances are as follows. Early last week, or towards the end of the week before, my noble friend gave me notice that he desired to move an Amendment to the Bill on Third Reading. It was an Amendment to Clause 117, a clause which gives power to regulate omnibus routes. It is a clause against which a Petition was deposited in your Lordships' House in the usual form (this is a Second House Bill now), and the Committee did not hear the opposition to the Bill, throwing the Petitioners out on the basis of locus standi. I only say, in passing, that I think their decision was a correct one. Be that as it may, it does not affect the matter I now desire to bring to your Lordships' notice.
  My noble friend having given me notice that he desired to move an Amendment on Third Reading, I made a suggestion. The matter is, of course, an important one. I can only trace one precedent for the form of clause which is in this Bill now, and that was in a Bill of last year. I have looked up the proceedings on that Bill and I find that no precedent was quoted when Parliament authorised the clause last year. Therefore, your Lordships will understand that it is a matter which has not been at all discussed in Parliament in view of its importance. But I have noticed, as of course your

  597
  Lordships have done, that the matter is raised in Clause 6 of the London Traffic Bill. We are bound to have a discussion upon that Bill. No Amendments have so far been put down, but I assume that a clause of such an important character, as well as the whole Bill, will be discussed. I, therefore, suggested to my noble friend that we should hold back the Third Beading, and that the discussion should take place on the greater Bill—a discussion which, I believe, would probably be of value to us in discussing the minor point of the Morecambe Corporation Bill, which is not to be mentioned in the same breath as a Bill concerning the whole of London.
  Therefore, I took all the usual steps, as I thought, to prevent the Bill being read a third time. I need not go into what the formalities are. But, in spite of that fact, the Bill appeared on the Paper yesterday, and was read a third time, and passed. Many people, including myself, read the Order Paper, and I take myself very much to task for not noticing that the Bill was on the Order Paper. Your Lordships will realise that I do not carry in my head the contents of every Bill, for some of them embrace as many as a hundred clauses, or even more, but I ought to have noticed this Bill when we read it a third time. I did not do so, however, and a great many other people did not notice it. Nobody is to blame in this matter but myself. I take all the blame for the fact that the noble Lord and your Lordships' House have been wrongly treated, for discussion would have been of advantage from the point of view of legislation not only on this Bill but on a great many other Bills.
  I at once went into the question. It is not an unknown thing for your Lordships to discharge Orders that you have made, but there is, of course, no precedent whatever for discharging this one, and there ought not to be a precedent. Once your Lordships have passed a Motion that a Bill should pass, I think that you should not turn round and say it has not passed, and resume consideration of the Bill. Therefore I am not here to-day to suggest that course to your Lordships, although, technically, when I made the discovery which was a very few minutes after moving the Third Beading of the Bill, the Bill was still in your Lordships' possession and had not been returned to
  598
  the House of Commons; but I do not think that that in any way affects the position. I feel that I owe the deepest apology to your Lordships and, in particular, to my noble friend opposite for the very wrong way in which he has been treated. I can think of no such occurrence during the twelve or thirteen years that I have had the privilege of being your Lordships' Chairman of Committees.
  There is only one bright spot in the situation and that is the extremely fine manner in which the noble Lord himself has dealt with it. I thank him very much for what he said to me last night. I hope I am expressing his views correctly, but if not I am sure he will qualify anything that I say. I understand that the noble Lord's anxiety is not so much that Amendments should have been made in the Morecambe Corporation Bill, though, of course, they would have been from his point of view desirable. He is anxious that it should be distinctly understood that this clause has gone through Parliament undiscussed in your Lordships'. House, that there was a desire to discuss it, and, therefore, that it is of no value at all if other authorities come before your Lordships to as for the same power, unless, of course, they can show a case for it on the merits not based on the previous question.
  I should like to go a little further. After all, corporations come with more or less frequency to your Lordships' House with Private Bills. The Morecambe Corporation—I should make this clear in justice to the Morecambe Corporation themselves—are in no way to blame for what has happened. I am entirely to blame, and no one else. I think it ought to be understood that if the policy of Parliament on this subject of the regulation of traffic develops in a different direction to this clause, and if the Morecambe Corporation come back to Parliament some years hence, they should, at any rate, be called upon to show good reason why on that opportunity their code should not be brought into conformity with that of the rest of the country, if that code happens to disagree with any decision come to by both Houses of Parliament. That is all I desire to say, beyond Again expressing my sincere regret to my noble friend opposite for what has happened.
  LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, it is the sad truth that I emerge

  599
  as a supposed sufferer in this case, but it-is difficult to suppose that anybody really suffers at the hands of my noble friend the Lord Chairman, and what he has said has shown the House how entirely he has seen to it that anything that he did should be followed by consequences of a kind which are in conformity with those qualities and attributes which have made him so worthy an occupant of the great position he holds in this House. It is true that certain parties wanted, and that I wished on their behalf, to raise a point of substance on this Bill on the Third Heading. The Bill, as a matter of fact, has passed containing a clause which is a local alteration of the general law, and has done so at a time when it is proposed to make a similar alteration in the general law in a Bill which, without going further into its attributes, is a Public Bill and not a Private Bill. It is not only difficult, as the noble Lord Chairman said, to find a precedent for it, but it is the actual fact that a similar alteration of the general law was refused by another Committee of your Lordships' House in the present Session. I thank the noble Lord Chairman for having said what he has said, for I consider he has said enough to ensure that no precedent will be created by the reading of the Morecambe Corporation Bill a third time yesterday, and that that Bill will not be followed in the future as one which is a fully-considered Bill.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and to be printed.
TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a: and to be printed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 8) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 9) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

BRITISH FAMILIES IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether, as a result of the inquiries which they undertook to make they can take any action which will facilitate the acquisition of British nationality by the children of British parents born in foreign countries during the period of the war, 1914–18, or the removal of the disabilities from which such children would suffer if they became naturalised British subjects: and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, two months ago I asked a Question of a very similar character to that which now appears on the Paper. On that occasion the House adjourned for the Royal Commission, and many noble Lords, apparently, were under the impression that the business on the Paper subsequent to the Royal Commission would be adjourned to another date. The result is that I asked the Question in an extremely thin House, but I can claim that I was successful in obtaining the sympathy of every noble Lord who was present and, in saying that, I include also the noble Lords who replied on behalf of His Majesty's Government. They were, of course, careful not to bind themselves to any particular action in the ease, but I was able to feel that I had made out a very strong case for a revision of the Acts which deal with the naturalisation of British subjects. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord President of the Council, was good enough to say, at the end of the debate, that he would consider the matter and see whether anything could be done to meet my views.
This is my excuse for again bringing the matter before your Lordships. It is a question of great importance, and the

601
more it is ventilated the more likely it is to obtain support. I ask your Lord ships, therefore, to bear with me if, in order that you may understand the actual grievance of which I complain, I recapitulate some of the arguments I brought forward on the previous occasion. Most of your Lordships, in your travels abroad, have come across communities of British merchants in foreign towns, mostly in seaport towns, who carry on the best traditions of British commerce and do their best to increase the volume of British trade in different parts of the world. It is not necessary for me to go through a list of the towns, which will come readily to your mind—Bordeaux. Oporto, Buenos Aires, and Bio de Janeiro. In all these towns there are these communities of highly respected British merchants, living on friendly terms with their neighbours but keeping themselves to themselves, marrying English women, and sending their children home to be educated.
When these children grow up some of them engage in commerce, or a profession, in this country, while the elder ones probably return to the country of their parents' adoption and enter the business in which they are engaged. In due time they succeed to it, marry English women, and send their children home to this country to be educated. Thus the links which unite them with the Motherland are renewed and strengthened. This was the case up to the beginning of the war. It was impossible, however, that the children of the third generation should become British subjects and, consequently, it was the habit of the wives of these British merchants, when they found that an interesting event in the family was expected, to return to England so that their children should be born within the King's allegiance and become British subjects.
When the war broke out in 1914 there was a natural feeling of alarm as to the number of people who might claim British citizenship, and an Act was hurriedly-passed—not wrongly passed, because it was only natural in the circumstances—which limited British citizenship to the children of the first generation born abroad. This created much dissatisfaction, and it was felt that its terms must be relaxed. In 1918 another Act was passed, permitting children of the second
602
generation to be counted as British subjects if their father was engaged in the service of the Crown at the time of their birth. Again, this did not go far enough, and in 1922 a third Act was passed. This Act altered this particular clause in many respects, and enacted that all children of the second generation should be British subjects and that, in particular instances, it should be allowed even to the third generation. Therefore, any child born one year previously to the passing of that Act could be registered as a British subject. That is, all children born in 1921 and, in special cases with the consent of the Secretary of State, even those who were born two years before might be naturalised as British subjects. Thus the Act was, to a certain degree, retrospective.
I am going to quote a particular case of hardship, not because it is an isolated case—there are many like it—but because, I think one case in which I am able to mention names and give particulars will do n ore to prove my case than a great many statements as to what theoretically might have been the case. The particular instance is the case of Mr. Herbert Rawes, of Lisbon, a member of a firm which has been engaged in commerce for three generations. Many of your Lordships who have travelled by the Royal Mail Steamship line will probably know his name. This gentleman's firm carry cm business as shipping agents, agents for Lloyds, and representatives of the Royal Mail Steamship Company. They also conduct an information bureau for bankers. Both Mr. and Mrs. Rawes are British subjects, as were their parents and grandparents. In fact, there is not one drop of Portuguese blood in their veins. Although Mr. Herbert Rawes and his father were born in Portugal, after their marriage Mrs. Herbert Rawes made a point of returning to England for the birth of any of her children, thus ensuring that they should be born British subjects.
When the war broke out Mr. Rawes at once offered to enlist in the Army, although he was over military age. His offer was not accepted. If he had been accepted his child would have been a British subject because of that very fact, but the authorities refused to accept him saying that he was doing more useful

603
work where he was. His office, in fact, was taken over as an Intelligence Department by the British Government, and he remained there during the war. Three of his brothers joined the Army and one was killed. In the year 1916 Mrs. Rawes applied for a passport to return from Lisbon to Southampton as she was expecting the birth of a child. It was refused on the ground that women could not travel safely owing to the German submarines. It was a perfectly good reason for refusing a passport, but the application for it shows that both Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Rawes were anxious to do everything in their power to ensure that their child should be born a British subject.
I could mention the case of another lady, a relation of Mr. and Mrs. Rawes, who asked the advice of a member of the then British Cabinet. He advised her to go to Gibraltar for the birth of her child. She travelled by motor car, and the state of the Portuguese and Spanish roads was such that it was a narrow escape that the child was not born a subject of the King of Spain instead of the King of England. Mrs. Rawes decided to remain in Portugal and the child was born on January 17, 1017. Mr. Rawes applied to the British Consul for the child to be registered as a British subject. He refused, and that child, a boy, is now a Portuguese citizen, liable to conscription and to serve in the Portuguese Army in case of war. Let me call your Lordships' attention to this important fact, that if Mr. Rawes, instead of being a natural-born British subject, had been a naturalised British subject, then the child would have been a British subject. This is the case also of the children of a German who has become a naturalised Englishman.
It may be said that the proper remedy is for the child to be naturalised. There are a great many formalities to be gone through in regard to naturalisation. The child must reach a certain age before it can be naturalised. That could be done, but there are very grave disabilities arising in the case of a naturalised British subject, who is in a totally different position from a natural-born British subject. In the first place, if that child, having grown to manhood and being a naturalised subject, applies for a passport he is obliged to have stamped on his passport "Naturalised British subject."
604
That is not all. This is a younger member of a family and probably after he has been educated in England he will stay in this country. If he becomes a partner in any firm or a director of any company which is formed under the Companies Act, 1908—and this is a point upon which His Majesty's Government rather differed from me when I stated the case before—that firm will be obliged to insert on every sheet of paper belonging to the firm, and every communication that is sent out underneath the name of this man, the words "Originally of Portuguese nationality." I think that is a very serious disadvantage for any one of pure British birth. However much we may respect our oldest Ally, most people prefer to be English rather than is what is commonly known as a Dago.
His Majesty's Government, when I put this Question, seemed to think that my information on this point was wrong. I have since fortified myself by obtaining counsel's opinion and I will ask the noble Lord, the Lord President of the Council, to tell me when he replies whether he is still confident that I am not correct in the statement that I made? If I am correct, ought not some remedy to be found? These people, after all, are a much more numerous class than is generally supposed. They are spread all over the towns along the coast of the Atlantic, as well as in many other parts of the world, and they have nobody to represent them in this country. They are in a different position from people here who can have their Member put forward a case in the House of Commons. It is a mere chance meeting with a member of your Lordships' House which has resulted in this grievance being ventilated.
The first suggestion that I would make would be whether it would not be possible for His Majesty's Government to pass another Act making the measure of 1922 slightly more retrospective than it is. It goes back to 1920, and, if it were made sufficiently retrospective to allow people who, through no fault of their own but only owing to the war, are not British subjects, to be given the status of natural-born British subjects, the matter would be at once remedied. Another possibility which I put forward, and which I was told was impossible, was that a Private Bill should be passed naturalising these

605
children. That is an expensive process, but Mr. Rawes, although not a rich man, has told me that he is quite ready to incur that expense. I am told that this custom is falling into disuse, but I cannot see that that is any reason why it should not be revived. It is not reactionary, and I do not think that even the strongest Socialist could object to it on that ground. The remedies which I have suggested would be gladly welcomed by a large number of His Majesty's subjects who do very good work for this country in distant parts of the world. I hope that the Lord President of the Council will be able to tell me, in consequence of the inquiries which he was good enough to say that he would make, that he finds himself able to hold out some promise that this grievous wrong will be remedied.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, the noble Lord has asked a very important Question and, at the same time, a very technical one. I must apologise for the fact that when the Question was asked last I was not fully cognisant of all the matters which he has now mentioned. The noble Lord wrote to me afterwards and I made inquiries, and I think that we are both now agreed as to what the position really is. There are one or two words that I should like to say upon the matter, in order to show how complicated it is and what are the principles involved, before I answer the Question in a manner which I hope may be satisfactory to the noble Lord.
Section 3 of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, states that a naturalised subject shall have all the rights and privileges of a natural born British subject. That is the general principle, but, as the noble Lord has pointed out, there are apparently two exceptions with which he thinks we might deal, and with which, perhaps, we ought to deal, by special legislation. Before I come to those two cases I ought to point out that the complications have arisen somewhat in this manner. By the Common Law of England nationality depends upon jus soli, that is, upon the place where a child is born. It was a Statute Law which commenced in 1730 and went on down to 1772, which gave nationality upon another footing also, known as jus sanguinis and under that Statute
606
Law, as it stood until the year 1914, children of British parents would have British nationality in the full form, and it would not be necessary to naturalise them, even to the second generation. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that an alteration was made in the year 1914 which limited nationality by birth to the children of British parents abroad, excluding grandchildren, that is the children of the second generation born abroad.
The particular point to which the noble Lord has called attention is this. He says that at the present time, if the person who holds a passport is a naturalised British subject as distinct from a natural born British subject, that fact is stated on the face of the passport. It is clear that no one would desire to have that fact specially mentioned on the face of a passport if it could be avoided. But the noble Lord also points to a greater difficulty which arises under the Act passed in 1916. Under that Act, as he has pointed out, if a naturalised subject is engaged in business, or is a director, he has to state upon the face of his business documents, or it has to be pointed out in the registry of Somerset House, that he is a naturalised, as distinct from a natural born British subject. That again is, of course, a great disadvantage.
We all know that the distinction has been raised fairly often since the war between a naturalised subject and one who is a national from birth. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that those two special difficulties do arise under the Acts as they stand now, and do affect—if I may refer to the terms of his Question—" children of British parents born in foreign countries during the period of the war, 1914–1918." It is only within those years that the difficulty arises. It is one of those difficulties of our complicated war legislation which, I think, undoubtedly ought to be put right.
I will now deal with the question of the business man who has to call himself a naturalised subject instead of an ordinary British national. I have made inquiries at the Home Office, before which questions of this kind come, and I can say that the Home Secretary is sympathetic to the views expressed by the noble Lord. If I may express my own views, I think it is a hardship that this should be allowed to go on. It is a relic of war time which might now be

607
removed. It is not a very easy matter for legislation, because we can hardly deal only with ladies who may have desired to come over here on account of interesting events but wore unable to do so during the war time. If you deal with this matter at all, I think you must apply it more generally. That is one of the difficulties which the Home Office feel. Moreover, it is not a matter upon which I can give any certain information until the Cabinet have considered it.
If special legislation is required it is, of course, quite impossible that there would be such legislation at the present moment, but I suggest to the noble Lord that it can be looked into with a desire to deal with it in the autumn, if we can. But if he, on his part, were to introduce a Bill and get it read a first time in this House, it would be of great advantage to myself and to the Government. We should see exactly what it is that he requires, and in what form he thinks it ought to be formulated. I suggest that to him, because if we could know exactly what be considers to be the remedy for the evils which he has pointed out, it would assist us in realising what the point is, and also in formulating a Bill by which the remedy might be carried out, or we might carry on the Bill which he himself has introduced. I must not, however, be thought to be going too far at this stage. As the noble Lord knows, I have been specially to the Home Secretary, and we are sympathetic. We think the matter might be put right, if it can be put right, but, of course, legislation is impossible before the Recess.
The other point to which the noble Lord refers is the question of the passport. What is said by the Foreign Office with regard to the passport is that you must put true conditions upon the face of the passport, and therefore if a man is a naturalised subject, and not a natural born British subject, you must indicate that upon the face of the passport. In certain directions, no doubt, it makes a difference to the position in which he stands in certain countries, and also to the conditions under which he is entitled to assistance in certain cases. This is not a hardship which can be put right by way of an alteration of the form of the passport. It would have to be done by legislation such as the noble Lord has suggested—legislation making the subject in question a natural born and not a
608
naturalised subject. You must go to the root of the matter in order to put it right.
There is one other suggestion which I have to make to the noble Lord, and it is a suggestion in connection with the trade point—that is to say, a man who is a director carrying on business has to show that he is naturalised as distinct from a natural born subject. Under the Companies (Particulars as to Directors) Act of 1917 there is a discretion in the Board of Trade which enables them to remit the obligations in certain cases. That would, of course, imply an application to the Board of Trade, and it might also imply, in certain circumstances, a refusal of the application when made. That is one way in which the grievance may be remedied as the law stands at the present time, and therefore I indicate it to the noble Lord as a course which might be followed by one feeling the immediate result of the disabilities to which the noble Lord has referred.
I do not suggest that it is a perfect remedy, but this is the note which I have upon it:
" Under Section 26 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908. every company has to make an annual return to the Registrar of Companies including inter alia the names and addresses of the persons who at the date of the return are the directors of the company.
" The Companies (Particulars as to Directors) Act, 1917, provides that in addition to the names and addresses of the directors ' there shall be included such particulars with respect to those persons as would require to he furnished with respect to them under the Registration of Business Names Act. 1916, if they were partners in a firm required ' "—
therefore, you have to go back to the Act of 1916 to see what the obligation is—
" ' to be registered under that Act,' and Section 18 of that Act requires the nationality of origin, if not British, to be stated."
When we go back to the Act of 1916 we find that there is power in the Board of Trade to allow remission.
I think that is all I can say in answer to the Question. Certainly, I am one of those who desire that these relics of the exceptional war legislation should not affect persons harshly, and it seems particularly hard that certain individuals should lose their nationality because, owing to the conditions of the submarine

609
warfare, their mothers were unable to come to this country at the time of their births.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend will be able to avail himself of the suggestion of the Lord President of the Council and prepare a Bill to remedy this mischief, I hope he will find it possible to do so, and I should like to say one word in support of my noble friend in the suggestion he has made to the Government. As regards the Foreign Office point, as to the necessity of stating upon the face of the passport the exact condition of the holder of the passport—whether he is natural born or naturalised—I confess I do not quite follow the argument of the Lord President of the Council. For my part, I think that the days of the passport have gone by. I do not see that it serves any useful purpose whatever, and I should be glad if the. Government would consider whether the conditions might not be further relaxed, even beyond the point to which they have been relaxed in the last few years.
As regards the main question of relieving these eases to which my noble friend has referred, and other cases, there is really no reason why the Government should not undertake legislation on the subject. The grievance covers, as the Lord President has explained, only four years, and therefore although the hardship on a number of individuals, such as the lady to whom my noble friend referred, is very great, yet the precedent which may be set is hardly likely to be of a formidable kind. H only requires a very short Act of Parliament to do what is suggested—namely, not only to relieve the particular lady and her son, but also the other persons to whom the Lord President referred. I think he might, therefore, suggest to his colleagues that a short Act should be passed. There is only one reason why these short Acts, which are obviously reasonable and just, are not passed. That is, that it is thought that there would be difficulty in another place and that would take up Government time, I cannot conceive that that would be so in this case, but I think that every Member of Parliament would desire to do justice. I believe that the noble Lord will find that so far as the Party with which I am associated is concerned no difficulty
610
will be placed in the way of the Government in passing this legislation.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, I rise only to thank the Lord President of the Council for his very sympathetic reply. It gives great satisfaction to me to know that the Government think that this grievance should be relieved. I certainly will, if I can, act upon the suggestion of the Lord President and present a Bill. I rather gather from what the Lord President said that he will do all in his power to secure the passage of the Bill, if unopposed, which I agree with Lord Salisbury is almost certain to be the case. The noble and learned Lord suggested that there was another way out if the difficulty, and that was that the Board of Trade have discretion to dispense with the printing of these particulars as to the nationality of directors on the various notepaper and other documents belonging to companies and partnerships. I am afraid, however, from what I have gathered from that source, that it is extremely unlikely that this discretion would be exercised, except m the case where all the partners were natural born British subjects, and it is extremely unlikely to be exercised in the case of one who is a naturalised subject. As I have said, I hope to present a Bill for the First Reading, and I trust that the sympathy with which the noble Lord has supported me in this case will be extended to that Bill, so that it may not only be passed in this House, but that facilities may be given to it in another place.
LORD PARMOOR: I forgot to mention that in the case of a Bill of this kind the Dominion" would have to be consulted. That will be a necessary step, and, of course, it will take a little time.

DAMAGE TO PROPERTY, ETC., IN IRELAND.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE had the following Notice on the Paper:—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will state—
1. The total amount which has been paid by the Free State Government to British subjects in respect of awards for injury done to property before 11th July, 1921, and the amount still due by them in respect of such awards.
2. The total amount which has been paid by the British Government in respect of claims for injury done to property by British Forces before 11th July, 1921.
3. The number of claims made against the Free State Government for compensation payable by them for injury done to property and person respectively since 11th July, 1921, the amount awarded in respect of such injury, the amounts paid and still unpaid respectively in respect of such awards, and the number of such claims still outstanding.
4. The number of claims made against the Free State Government for loss arising out of theft, looting, and requisitions since 11th July, 1921, the amount awarded or recommended in respect of such loss, the amounts paid and still unpaid respectively in respect of such awards or recommendations, and the number of such claims still outstanding.
5. The number of cases in which claims made against the Free State Government were disallowed on the ground that, being due to theft or looting, they did not fall within the scope of the Act of 1923; and to move for Papers.
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I think no apology or excuse is needed in again referring to the unhappy subject of compensation for damage and for injury to persons in Ireland. This period of the Session is now drawing to a conclusion, and a considerable time must elapse before we are able to ask for any further information on these points. I hope that the Government will recognise that my noble friends on this side of the House have exercised a very considerable measure of restraint in not unduly pressing the Government for information at an earlier date. It is true that at an earlier period of the Session, on March 5 and March 26, we had two debates on this subject, but I think it is only right that before this portion of the Session closes we should ask the Government if they have further information which they are able to give us under the various heads enumerated in the Question which I have placed on the Paper.
That series of Questions has been put down after consultation with noble
612
friends of mine, and we are anxious, as far as we possibly can, to avoid doing or saying anything which will in any way add to the difficulties, either of His Majesty's Government or of the Government of the Irish Free State. But I hope that the Government will realise that, while we are adopting that attitude, and while we have not pressed for information before now, they must not imagine for a moment that our anxieties are relieved, or that we shall allow this very important question to drop. The Questions which I have placed on the Paper follow in the main the lines with which your Lordships, I am afraid, are only too familiar. It has become a matter of convenience, in asking for information on these points, to follow a form for which, I think, I was almost responsible in the first instance—the form of a division between pre-truce and post-truce cases, and between cases of injury to person and damage to property. I have, therefore, in these Questions, substantially followed the lines which have been adopted on previous occasions.
It is not necessary for me to say much as to the pre-truce period. On the occasion of one of the earlier debates a noble Lord opposite was able to give us a considerable amount of information up to the end of February of the current year. I hope it will be possible for him still further to add to that information. I do not know if he will be able to do so, but if he can give any indication as to when the Wood-Renton Commission will conclude its work I am sure your Lordships will be glad to have it. I quite sympathise with the noble Lord when he mentioned in the course of his speech on a former occasion that post-truce cases were considerably more difficult to deal with. The Free State Government is responsible for the payment of compensation for injury both to persons and to property. For that purpose, when the Irish Free State Government was established, a Commission was set up to deal with cases of injury to persons, and an Act of the Irish Parliament was passed to create machinery for dealing with damage to property. It was only reasonable that a certain amount of time should be given, especially considering the conditions that prevailed in Ireland, to set up this machinery and to get it into working order. A considerable amount

613
of time, however, has elapsed, and I hope it will be possible for the noble Lord opposite, in his reply, to give us some information as to the cases which have been already concluded, the compensation which has been awarded, and the prospects of the pace with which the remaining cases can be dealt with.
I should also like to ask whether the noble Lord is able to give us any information as to the method and means by which this compensation is to be paid. So far as I am aware, it was the proposal of the Irish Government that bonds should be issued, and that a portion at any rate—I think the greater portion—of the compensation which becomes payable should be paid in these bonds. I am not aware that any such bonds have yet been issued, and I am anxious that the noble Lord should tell us whether it is still the intention of the Government to make this payment by means of bonds, and, if so, when an issue is likely to be made. I have no special information myself as to any of these post-truce eases which have either been investigated or taken before one of the tribunals set up for the purpose. But I am bound to say that I have heard eases of complaint, especially in relation to injury to persons. Although I am unwilling personally to bring those cases to the attention of the Government, I hope it may be possible for the Government to give us some information, and to be able to reassure us on this point. No doubt, during the course of the debate this afternoon, special cases will be raised, and even if the noble Lord opposite is unable to give us the information in reference to those cases now, I hope it may be possible for him, whether in the form of a White Paper or otherwise, to supply us with the information subsequently.
At this point I should like to revert to a matter which was discussed in a previous debate. In the first speech which the noble Lord made on this question on March 5 he associated himself in the most clear and categorical manner, on behalf of the Government of which he is a member, with the policy which Mr. Winston Churchill laid down in July. 1922. I should like again to read to your Lordships the statement which appeared in Command Paper No. 1736:
" While, however, the responsibility for meeting these claims to compensation must
614
rest upon the Irish Government, His Majesty's Government cannot divest themselves of a duty to see that such claims are met equitably, and as promptly as inevitable difficulties allow."
On more than one occasion, speaking as the representative of the late Government, I accepted that policy without any qualification. I am glad that the noble Lord opposite on the first occasion on which he spoke—I think on the suggestion of my noble friend, Lord Lansdowne—readily assented to that policy; but my excuse for reverting to this point is that in the course of a second speech which the noble Lord made, I think in reply to a Question by Lord Danesfort on March 26, he used one or two phrases of a rather ambiguous character. I hope, however, that he will give us a full reassurance this afternoon that the policy which he announced in his first speech is still the policy of His Majesty's Government and that it has been modified in no sense whatever.
In the Questions which I placed upon the Paper I have added another to the usual series which have come before your Lordships House. This additional Question refers to the vexed questions of theft and looting. I am informed that the law, as it stands, is clear, and that a distinction is drawn between loss of property by destruction and loss of property by theft. It may be advisable and desirable that such a distinction should be drawn, but I venture respectfully to hope that His Majesty's Government will take a wider and more sympathetic view than is dictated by the mere legal obligations by which they are bound. I am hopeful that this may be the case.
Your Lordships will recall that in one of the earlier debates the noble Lord opposite gave a sympathetic assurance in reference to a suggestion contained in the Second Interim Report, I think it was, of the Irish Grants Committee. I wish to recall that recommendation to your Lordships' recollection—
" It must be remembered that owing to the somewhat peculiar provisions of Irish law on this subject there are large categories of damage in respect to which the sufferer has never had any legal claim against the Government or the local authority. This state of the law has given rise to many anomalies and in a number of cases has caused hardship of a kind which we feel cannot be ignored. We, therefore, recommend that the desirability of making final grants or loans and providing annuities

615
should He taken into account in training the Estimates for the coming financial year."
During the first debate in your Lordships' House this year the noble Lord opposite was sympathetic and was willing to consider this as part of the Government policy. I am afraid the facts are only too familiar to your Lordships' House and that, whatever may be desirable in normal times, it is obviously impossible to draw that distinction between the damage which an individual may suffer when the conditions which prevail in Ireland are taken into consideration—whether that destruction is due to the burning of a man's house and property, or whether, in the general confusion which prevailed, various articles of furniture or anything else were removed from the house and although not destroyed, rendered, so fat-as the owner is concerned, completely useless and unavailable.
I have framed these Questions after consultation with certain of my noble friends, and I say again that they are not asked with the wish to add to the many difficulties with which I know both Governments have to contend. But we are under a debt of obligation to many who are placed in such a position that they cannot help themselves, and I feel sure it is the duty of your Lordships House to see that efforts are made from time to time to see that something can be done to relieve those unfortunate people of the ills and sufferings which they have undergone.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will take any steps to assist loyalists in Southern Ireland who have no claim for compensation under existing legislation, but who have suffered damage to person or property as a result of boycott, intimidation or violence since 11th July, 1921. The noble Duke said: My Lords, I have on the Paper a Question which deals with the subject of relief to Irish loyalists and, if the House will permit me, I will say a few words now on this subject instead of later on. I have ascertained that this course will be agreeable to His Majesty's Government and that it will enable them to deal with the whole subject comprehensively, as a whole, and not piecemeal.
In considering this question it seems to be very necessary to bear clearly in mind the obligations which the British
616
Government have undertaken to the Southern Irish loyalists. I am not going to refer to any verbal pledges which may have been given and which may be interpreted in various ways. There were, of course, no provisions or safeguards for the Southern Irish loyalists included in the Treaty. But such provisions and safeguards were provided for in the Agreement which was concluded on January 24, 1922, between the representatives of our Government and of the Free State Government. Clause 3 of that Agreement is as follows:—
" That the principle should be admitted that fair compensation is paid in respect of injuries which were the subject of compensation under the enactments relating to criminal injuries."
The meaning of this clause was defined in a letter dated July 26, 1922 (the same year), from the Cabinet Committee to the Free State Government. That letter contains the following passage—
" It was also agreed in January that claims in respect of malicious injuries, whether to persons or property, sustained after July 11. 1921. should be dealt with in the usual way by the county courts and discharged by the local authorities."
That Agreement was understood by the Irish loyalists, and, indeed, I think by everybody else who read it, as meaning that compensation would be assessed according to the terms of the old Malicious Injuries Acts.
Instead of that, the Free State introduced a Bill last year called the Damage to property (Compensation) Act which provided for compensation on an entirely new basis altogether. This subject has been thrashed out frequently in your Lordships' House and I am not going into details on the points of difference between the Damage to Property Act and the old Malicious Injuries Acts. Suffice it to say that the most important points of difference are these. Compensation was given merely for the actual damage to the property, instead of compensation for the loss suffered by the individual. Compensation for consequential damage was abandoned altogether. There was no compensation for the loss of the use of the damaged property. What is, perhaps, more important than any of these, the right to compensation for personal injuries was taken away altogether, and the sufferers had no further right to any such compensation.
A Committee was set up, however, which was to report on these eases to the Free State Government and that Government might, if it wished, give an ex gratia grant to those who had suffered personal injuries. Although this Act was in direct contravention of the engagements which the Free State Government had undertaken to our Government, that Act was accepted by the British Government. I fin not blaming the British Government for accepting it because, apparently, they could not help doing so. Their legal advisers said that it came within the four corners of the Treaty and, therefore, they could not object to it. None the less the obligation on our Government remains the same. It demanded that the Free State Government should give compensation on a certain basis. The Free State Government evaded that understanding. The obligation, therefore, now falls upon the British Government. It gave the loyalists in Southern Ireland to understand quite clearly that they were going to get compensation on a certain basis, and if they cannot get it from the Free State Government they ought to be able to get it from the British Government.
If there was any element of doubt about the Government's obligation under that clause, there can be no doubt about its obligation under Clause 8 of the Agreement of January, 1922. Under Clause 8 the Irish Government undertook "to protect from molestation or victimisation by all means at their disposal the persons, property and interests of all those who are thought to have sided or sympathised with the forces of the Crown." Let us inquire how these obligations have, in point of fact, been carried out. Let me give your Lordships, in the first place, a few instances of personal injuries and the way in which they have been treated.
The first case which I have here is that of a lady whose husband, an ex-officer, was kidnapped and murdered in May, 1922. On June 12, of this year, this lady was awarded £250 in compensation, and £2 a month for her child till the child has reached the age of sixteen. Two hundred and fifty pounds for a murdered husband would appear to be doing things on the cheap. I will take another case: This gentleman was an agent and steward for a landowner in County Kerry. He was kidnapped in 1922 and eventually released. Last year he was ambushed at night near the house, severely wounded,
618
and left for dead. He received sixty-seven pellets in his body, and his eyesight was seriously injured. Be was in hospital for nine months, and subsequently at sea for two months to recuperate. He returned to his employment and was warned to leave. He applied to the Free State for compensation, and was awarded £230, only on production of the bills for the expenses of his illness. This gentleman then had to leave Ireland for reasons of personal safety, and had nothing left to live on except his Army pension of £87 per annum. He had been receiving a salary of £400 a year in Ireland. He has now emigrated as an agricultural labourer to New Zealand.
I have any number of these cases that I could read to your Lordships, but I do not wish to take up the time of the House, so I will only read one or two more. There was another man, an ex-British soldier, who was shot in the streets of a town in County Tipperary in May, 1922. He left a widow and six small children His widow has been definitely refused compensation by the Free State Government for the murder of her husband on the ground that she suffered no financial loss by her husband's death. His pension of 15s. a week died with him. He was only a casual labourer. The Compensation (Ireland) Commission have recently awarded her the sum of 25s. a month for each child until it reaches the age of fifteen years. This was payable upon the first day of April, 1923. For the previous eleven months this woman had been awarded nothing for her children, and no allowance was made for costs and expenses in connection with the prosecution of her claim.
I will rend one other case. It is that of a young man who was murdered last September in the streets of Dublin while walking with his brother, who had a good view of the murderer. With another brother he identified the murderer outside the mortuary the next day where he had been to identify his brother's body. He gave the murderer into custody, but the man was released the same evening. Subsequently, the two brothers were shadowed wherever they went, and were unable to go to their own home. They received private information to the effect that their lives were in extreme danger, and subsequently they left Dublin in a great hurry and came to London. The

619
father of these youngmen is still in Dublin, and has not made a claim for compensation against the Free State Government. He has been warned not to do so as the result would probably be serious for him. The reason for this crime is supposed to be that the murdered youth had helped to identify the authors of another outrage. I should like to ask the Government whether they really consider that people who are being treated in this way are being dealt with according to the Agreement of January, 1922, and whether they are really, in the opinion of the Government, being protected from molestation or victimisation.
Now we come to the subject of those who have no claims for compensation under existing legislation and who are suffering from various forms of persecution, boycott, or actual violence. It must be remembered that no compensation is payable to these people at all unless they are ill-treated, or have their houses burnt down, and unless they suffer at the hands of the Republican Forces. But: what we are faced with at this moment in Ireland is not an organised insurrection, not damage effected by bands which are under discipline and control, but by armed hands of marauders who rove about the country and commit every sort of act of violence and outrage. This is a letter which I received to-day. It deals with the ease of a man who had his house burnt down in 1921. He tried to return to Ireland and to live there, but found the conditions quite impossible. This year, therefore, he decided to offer the demesne for sale.
The writer of the letter says:—
" … a gang of men, two hundred strong, marched into the place at night, and fired volleys over the farm to terrorise the steward, and the place was placarded with notices to say that I must pack my bag, as the land was wanted for the landless men. This took place in the early part of May, 1024. As there were many men most anxious to purchase the divisions of the land, and willing to pay a lair price for same on July 3, 1924, one of the lodges which would have been the house of one of the divisions to be sold, was burned down a plain threat to anyone to leave the land alone. This is the plan adopted everywhere. You are not allowed to farm the land yourself, nor are you allowed to sell, so that the land is left derelict. The parties who commit those outrages are well-known. They hold regular meetings and they are well armed."
That is from a landowner in County Clare.
620
Two or three days ago I received another letter from a small landowner in the same county. He writes:—
" Things are hot here. On Tuesday night three houses—two farmers' houses and that of my herd—were fired into. On Wednesday another farmer's house was fired into. On Thursday, which was a holiday, they had sports at——. A party of civic guards attended thinking. I suppose, that they could keep order. They were set upon and beaten by the crowd, and if some respectable fanners had not interfered they would have been killed. Last week three men were beaten and sever, houses raided. You might see some of these reported in the Connaught Tribune, but the Press is so intimidated that they publish nothing."
Of course, when the forces of the Free state are being treated in that way. I suppose it is a little difficult for the Free State to protect the loyalists from victimisation and molestation as they have promised to do.
We have heard a great deal in this House and elsewhere on the subject of compensation. I do not wish for one moment to minimise the importance of the question of compensation, or the very inadequate way in which those who have claims for compensation have been treated. But at any rate, they are likely to save something from the wreck. But what of the thousands of humble and defenceless people in Ireland who have no claim for compensation? They were given to understand by the British Government that they would be protected from persecution; but they have been given no protection at all. I could give you hundreds of eases of people who have been driven from their homes, who have been unable to return to their farms for several months, and who, when they have returned, have found their houses destroyed and their cattle driven away. If it had not been for the grant given by the Association over which I have the honour to preside, those people would have starved long ago.
The question arises: What have the Government done to fulfil their obligations to those who have claims for compensation and to those who have none? They have set up the Irish Grants Committee, and nobody realises better than I do the excellent work that Committee has done. It has gone as far as it possibly can, it has treated in the most generous manner those who have suffered and has stretched its terms of reference to the utmost in

621
order to do so. But, when the Government say so much about the work which this Irish Grants Committee has done, it must be remembered that, after all, it is only advancing money on claims for compensation which may not yet have been heard, which in many cases have been pending for a long time and may not be settled for years. Some of these people have been waiting for two and three years without anything at all. They have had nothing to live on. They have received nothing in rents or income, and they have had to live on these advances, which should be capital. They are really living on their capital.
One of the most important points is this—What steps are the Government taking to bring pressure to bear on the Free State Government to pay these claims. I would also point out, with regard to those who have no claims, that the Irish Grants Committee is giving a great deal of help to those who are refugees, to Irish loyalists who are driven out of Ireland and come here. But the people who really want help are the people who have remained in Ireland and who are trying to live there under almost impossible conditions. There is only one other ease that I wish to bring before your Lord-ships' attention this afternoon, and that is the case of the ex-soldier—strictly speaking I do not know how far one can describe the ex-Service man a" a loyalist. Many of them, of course, are not loyalists. But the mere fact that they have served in His Majesty's Forces is sufficient to ensure that they are unable to get any employment.
This is a letter dated June 28—quite recent, therefore—from a gentleman in County Tipperary as to what is happening to ex-Service men:—
" From almost every quarter and almost hourly report come; in of wholesale dismissals of ex-British Service men who were not in the Irish Free State Army to make room for ex-Free Staters. There is much and increasing suffering and the new organisation formed amongst the ex-Free Staters is aggressive and hostile, closely watching lest any mere Britisher should escape. Within lees than two hundred yards from where I write there is a stone quarry where thirty to thirty-five men are employed, and I see this going on. I understand three men have been dismissed on these grounds and an official of the organisation I have mentioned pays daily visit" to see no mere Britisher is employed whilst I am told his men are instructed not to work beside one. One man who certainly
622
until recently, and I believe still enjoys a British disability pension of 100 per cent. and has a wife and three children, is a:, present employed at quarry work there, he having served in Free State forces, while men without pensions are starving."
Any number of cases have been brought to the notice of our Association in which ex-Service men are actually destitute and starving and unable to clothe their children who are going about in rags. I have brought this situation to the notice of Earl Haig, who presides over the United Services Fund, and I am informed that they can do nothing as under their terms of reference they can only help men and their families if they are ill or suffering from any distress of that kind. Illness, so far as I can make out, is the only reason, for granting them relief. In any case they cannot be helped merely because they are out of employment.
That is a situation which calls most: earnestly for the attention of His Majesty's Government. The remarks I have made have been in no way intended as any criticism of His Majesty's Government. We all realise the difficult and embarrassing situation in which the Government have been placed. If one might be allowed to criticise at all it would be that they have been somewhat tardy in making up their mind what steps they are going to take to deal with this situation, but I do not wish to press such a point as that now because I have every confidence that we shall hear that His Majesty's Government are going to take such steps as will reassure your Lordships' House.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I think the House will be very grateful to the noble Duke for having called attention, not for the first time, to events which have left a black stain upon English honour. I refer to the almost intolerable sufferings from which loyal men and women and children in the South of Ireland have laboured during the last few years, and especially since the date of the so-called truce. I trust that His Majesty's Government will give immediate and urgent attention to this matter and see that the Irish Free State is encouraged, invited, and pressed to carry out the obligations it has undertaken. I do not propose to say anything more than a word or two about the pre-truce cases. The only question is this. The noble

623
Lord, the other day, gave me some figures showing that the Wood-Renton Commission had made awards for injury to property to the extent of £5,877,000, and it appears that up to the present—July 1—only £4,630,000 has been paid. Perhaps he will tell me why the Irish Free State Government who have undertaken to make these payments, subject to adjustments, are in arrears to the extent of £1,250,000. And it must be remembered that these are for injuries which occurred more than three years ago. In many cases the sufferers are poor men, and if it had not been for the benevolent activities of such societies as that over which the noble Duke presides they would have literally starved. I hope there will be no further delay.
The real gravamen of the case against the Free State Government is their action in regard to post-truce cases. Consider what they have done in regard to injuries to persons which have occurred since the truce. Under British law at the time of the truce full compensation was payable for these injuries, but compensation ".vas to be assessed by a competent person, by a Judge, with an appeal in certain cases to Assizes. Last year an Act was passed by the State by which all awards to which these our fellow subjects in Ireland were entitled under British ACTS were cancelled, and the Acts of the British Government which dealt with these matters were repealed. The new legislation of the Free State Government denied compensation as of right altogether, except in certain special cases. What happens under the legislation of last year is that claims may be put in and brought before a Committee of three men—I think a County Court Judge and two doesors—which was set up by the Free State. This Committee may, or may not, in their absolute discretion, recommend a payment, but the applicant has no legal right at all to demand anything. Even when the Committee have met and made a recommendation, the Free State is in no respect bound to pay one farthing. The effect of that is that a loyalist may be murdered or outraged, or have his property destroyed, and by the Free State legislation be or his relatives cannot demand, as of right, one farthing for the intolerable outrages or injustice from which he has suffered
I should like a statement from the noble Lord who is going to reply as to
624
whether this legislation is really in accordance with constitutional usage. In this country when a man's rights have once vested and accrued tinder British Statutes it is certainly not customary, so far as my knowledge goes, to pass ex post facto legislation in order to deprive him of those vested rights, and I venture to say that if such legislation were brought into either House of Parliament here it would be at once condemned as being contrary to our practice. If it is contrary to our practice in this country, why should we permit it in Southern Ireland? Southern Ireland exists only by virtue of legislation by this Parliament, and if the British Parliament could not pass an Act sweeping away all vested rights from people who have become entitled to them, why should the Irish Parliament do so? I hope that the noble Lord will answer that question. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack also, if he has an opportunity, may explain the matter
It is no use telling these unfortunate victims that they can go through some desperately expensive process of law—I do not know if there is any, or what it is—and then that, perhaps, they will find that some of this legislation is unconstitutional. That is of no use to persons who have been victimised and deprived of their property and their rights. But even if this legislation cannot fall under the head of being contrary to constitutional usage, it appears to me to be flagrantly unjust, and all the more so on account of the obligations into which the Free State Government entered, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland, mentioned, and aft r the undertaking to see those obligations carried out which has been given by the British Government.
May I give one or, at most, two illustrations to show how compensation has been paid in respect of injury to property since the truce? The noble Duke referred to the case of a woman whose husband was murdered in Tipperary in May, 1922, for no other reason than that he had served the British Crown in South Africa and in the great war. The widow and six children were left absolutely destitute for some time. They were literally living on bread and water, and, had it not been for some small measure of Poor Law relief

625
which they received, they would undoubtedly have starved. Yet for two years they did not get one farthing from the Free State Government, with the exception of £20 which, by the way, the Free State Government has since demanded and insisted upon being repaid. At the end of two years the widow gets nothing and the children, as the noble Duke said, get £1 5s. per month. It is idle to say that the man was not in regular employment. The reason why he was not in regular employment was that he was a British soldier living in a disloyal part of Ireland. If he had migrated to Northern Ireland, or possibly to England, he would have been able to support his wife and six children. I say that the compensation granted to him was a scandal.
Let me give your Lordships one other case—that of Brigadier-General Higginson, a full report of whose case appeared in The Times of May 25, 1922. On the previous day there was an attempt to murder him just outside the town of Tipperary. He was badly wounded in three places, arrived home insensible, was weak and incapacitated for months, and had to leave Ireland and give up the business in which he had invested money. He claimed £2,000—not an exaggerated sum. What does he get? After wailing two years, which appears to be the usual time allotted, he received £400—£300 for the loss of his business and £100 for the serious injury which he sustained to his health and his person.
So much for injuries to person. May I say just a word or two about damage to property which has occurred since the truce? When this matter was before us last, the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, seemed to minimise these cases of injuries to property and, acting, I have no doubt, under instructions from the Free State, he made use of a most remarkable expression. He said:—
" In the large majority of caser; the question of post-truce damage is one purely domestic to the Free State."
I have taken some trouble to find out-some of the damage to property, at any rate, which has been inflicted upon loyalists since the truce. Some 212 large houses in the South of Ireland have been burnt to the ground, Protestant churches, school houses and rectories have been burnt, and the damage for that alone
626
has been estimated at something like £30,000,000 or £40,000,000. That seems to me hardly to come under the description of a matter purely domestic to the Free State. But when we asked, on March 26 last, for some particulars of the awards or payments made, my noble friend said that he really could not put the Free State to the trouble of getting such information, that they were too busy, or that, for some reason or other, they did not like to give it. At any rate, the noble Lord gave us no information. I hope that he will not give a similar excuse to-day.
May I give two illustrations of damage to property since he truce, and of the manner in which it has been treated? I take the case of Mr. Talbot Crosby, and I mention his name because his case was fully reported in the Cork newspapers of May last. What happened was this. His house, Ardfert Abbey, was burnt to the ground at the end of 1922, or the beginning of 1923. In May, 1924, his case came before the County Court Judge. It was, I venture to think, a most astounding case. It was admitted that if, at or shortly before the time when the house was burnt, Mr. Talbot Crosby had been in residence, he would have been entitled, I think, to a sum of something like £21,000 compensation. But the counsel or solicitor who appeared for the Free State at that hearing raised this extraordinary defence. He pointed to a section in the Act of 1923 to the effect that if the house was not at the time of the damage maintained as a residence by the applicant, the applicant should only get what they called market value. Then he went on to argue that Mr. Talbot Crosby had been driven out of his house by threats of violence some few months before; therefore, his compensation, which would otherwise be £21,000, should be reduced to £2,250.
Did ever such a travesty of justice come before the Court of any civilised country in the world? It comes to this, that if there is a ruffianly body in Ireland desirous of getting rid of a man, turning him out of his house and country and destroying his property, all it has to do is to terrorise him, shoot at him, turn him out of Ireland, and having allowed a few weeks, or whatever time this Court thinks necessary, to elapse after he has left Ireland, then to burn his house down and otherwise destroy his property. Then, when he comes to ask for compensation,

627
he only gets one-tenth of what he would otherwise receive. I hope the noble Lord will see the gravity of a ease of that sort. I have already given him particulars of it, and I trust he has applied to the Free State and is able to give me the explanation that they offer.
The next is the last ease with which I propose to trouble your Lordships. It is the case of a member of this House, Lord Dunalley, whose family have lived for generations in Ireland. In May, 1922—I should add that I think I am right in saying that, neither Lord nor Lady Dunalley has taken any active part in politics, but, on the contrary, both have lived in peace and amity with all their neighbours—Lord and Lady Dunalley were fired at and hit while walking in their own domain. A month later they were fired at on their own doorstep, and shortly after they had, for the protection of their lives, to become refugees in England. No sooner had they left Ireland than in August, 1922, a series of outrages to property commenced. Their house with its furniture was burnt to the ground. The buildings, stables, farmyard and many houses on the estate, were burnt. The woods were destroyed and the farm instruments, cattle, etc. were stolen and raided. Lord Dunalley sent in a number of claims. Some of the claims for raiding, looting, carrying off the cattle, etc., have been heard, and the Judge said: "This is not a matter in which any compensation is paid." Although it is the result of organised robbery and conspiracy, no compensation is payable, and the man does not get, a farthing for that class of claim. An award of something like £9,000 was made for furniture, but I do not think any other claims have been met. I know that with the exception of £11 16 s. 9d. the costs of an award of £52, he has not had one shilling for all this loss inflicted upon him. As to this award of the relatively small sum of £52 and costs, he got the costs but not the £52. I suppose that is the way the Free State does business.
I think your Lordships will agree that this is not the way in which British subjects should be treated. The matter appears to me to have reached an intolerable position. British subjects in Southern Ireland are, and have been, the victims of outrages which would not be tolerated if they occurred in any other part of the world. Supposing they had
628
occurred in some foreign country, and had been inflicted upon the subjects of a foreign country, do you think the country of which those persons were subjects would allow their subjects to be violated and outraged in such a manner? Again, supposing English subjects in, let us say, Mexico, or some remote part of the world, were subjected to the intolerable hardships to which loyal British subjects have been subjected in Southern Ireland, do you think there would not be diplomatic correspondence, followed, it may be, by stronger action? Do you think that in such circumstances the British Government would not insist upon reparation being made to their own subjects?
If that is so with regard to foreign Governments, is there any reason that cm be urged why, when the victims of these outrages are men living within a few miles of our shores, and are our own subjects, and the outrages are done in what is at least part of the British Empire, these matters should not be brought to the attention of the Government under which these men live, and an attempt made to rectify what is a deplorable state of things? I do not believe that the British people as a whole have the remotest idea of what has been going on in Ireland. If they had I think there would have been a clamant demand that justice should be done. I am sure that your Lordships will be playing a great part if you are able to insist that reparation shall be made without delay by the Irish Free State Government, and so remove a great stain which lies upon our honour.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD ARNOLD): My Lords, the Questions of the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, afford His, Majesty's Government an opportunity of bringing up to date, or near to date, the information regarding compensation in Ireland which has at previous times been given to your Lordships. I hope that in the course of what I shall say I shall, in addition to giving all the information which I have at my disposal, he able to touch upon some of the principal points, at any rate, brought forward by the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland, and by Lord Danesfort. This is the third debate on these matters which has taken place in your Lordships' House during the present Session. On the occasion of the first of

629
these debates, which took place on March 5 upon a Motion of Lord Muskerry, I reviewed at length the whole history of pre-truce compensation, and as regards the Wood-Renton Commission I paid a tribute to Sir Alexander Wood-Renton and his colleagues, for the speed and efficiency with which they were performing their heavy and responsible task. I also gave grounds for the view that the work of the Wood-Renton Commission had given general satisfaction. That statement was widely circulated and I think it may be assumed that it was well founded in view of the fact that scarcely any complaints to the contrary have since been received by His Majesty's Government.
I now come to the Questions of the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, the first two of which relate to compensation in respect of injuries arising prior to the truce. Such injuries—I am, of course, referring only to injuries to property—are dealt with by the Wood-Renton Commission. The awards of that Commission are paid by the Free State Government; but at the end of each quarter the Commission reports to both Governments the total of the awards made by it during that quarter and the proportion in which, in their judgment, liabilities for those awards should be shared between the two Governments. Your Lordships will understand therefore that, inasmuch as the Commission does not specify which of its awards are against the British Government and which are against the Free State Government, but only in what proportion the total of its awards is to be divided between the two Governments, I cannot give the information asked for in exactly the form desired by the noble Duke, but I trust that the information which I am in a position to give will be sufficient for your Lordships. I must further add that the figures which I am about to give only go down to March 31 last. As I have already stated, the Commission reports quarterly the proportion in which its awards are divisable between the two Governments, and the Report for the quarter ending June 30 has not yet been received. When that Report is received—and I expect to receive it within the next few weeks, for naturally a little time must elapse before all these statistics can be prepared and forwarded—I shall be happy to supply the
630
figures to any of your Lordships who may be interested in the matter.
Up to March 31 last, then, the Com mission had issued 10,176 awards, the total amount awarded being £5,704,781 with £172,651 costs. The proportion of these awards payable by the British Government has, of course, varied from quarter to quarter and is as follows:—For the first quarter, 16/23rds; for the second quarter, 27/56ths or almost exactly one-half; for the third quarter, 14/29ths, again almost exactly one-half; for the fourth quarter, 18/31ets, rather more than one-half; and for the fifth quarter, 16/35ths, or rather less than one-half. Of the sum of £5,704,781 awarded by the Commission, the Free State Government had, down to March 31 last, paid £4,630,561, and of this sum £2,560,430 had, in accordance with the arrangement to which I have referred, been refunded to them by the British Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, asked for some explanation of the reason for the disparity between the amount of the awards and the amount which had actually been paid. Substantially there are two reasons, and I think they should be regarded as satisfactory reasons. The first one is that about £1,000,000—I think over £1,000,000—has been awarded subject to rebuilding, and is only payable as and when rebuilding is done. Secondly, it is necessary to advertise prospective payments in order to obtain information as to charges, and so on. Hence the average delay between award and payment must be a few weeks—I think approximately five weeks. As regards the sixth quarter, it will not be possible to say accurately in what proportions the unpaid balance will be divisible between the two Governments until the next quarterly account is received from the Government of the Free State, as, of course, the balance includes a certain number of awards issued in previous quarters, and subject, therefore, to a different ratio; but it may, I think, be assumed that the proportion recoverable from the British Government will closely correspond to the proportion which I have already given for the fifth quarter, namely 16/35ths.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, asked if I could say how long it would be before the Wood-Renton Commission completes its labours. The position is this. The Wood-Renton Commission has finished approximately

631
eighty per cent. of its work. The remaining twenty per cent. of the cases are to a large extent either claims in respect of damage done to Government property, or claims in respect to which various difficulties have arisen. I am afraid I could not say how soon this residue of cases will be completed, but I think it will be clear to your Lordships that much the larger portion of the work has already been finished. I venture with confidence to submit that the record of the two Governments concerned up to date in the matter of pre-truce compensation is one which should be regarded as satisfactory. Indeed, I would go further and say that, taking into consideration the number of the claims and the amounts involved, probably no similar problem has ever been dealt with with so much expedition, and, having regard to the great number of cases, with so few justifiable complaints. I should like to take this opportunity of again expressing to Sir Alexander Wood-Renton and his colleagues the thanks of His Majesty's Government for the manner in which they have performed the heavy task which was entrusted to them.
LORD CARSON: You do not give any thanks to the Irish loyalists.
LORD ARNOLD: That is a different point. I now come to the remaining three, parts of the noble Duke's Question, which relate to post-truce compensation. Your Lordships will remember that in the course of the debate which took place on March 26 last, I pointed out that the statistics relating to post-truce compensation were in the main not the concern of this country, inasmuch as the great majority of claimants were not, if I may use the term, loyalists. In view of the noble Duke's Question, however, my right hon. friend the Secretary of State thought it right to explain to the Government of the Irish Free State the great interest which is naturally taken on this side in this matter, and to ask whether they were in a position to afford material which would enable His Majesty's Government to reply as fully as possible to the Questions which the noble Duke had put down. My right hon. friend has received a courteous reply from the Governor-General to this request in which certain information which I shall give to your Lordships is contained. I desire to express to the Government of the Free
632
State the thanks of His Majesty's Government for the particulars which they have been good enough to furnish.
His Excellency explains, on behalf of the Free State Government, that the preparation of the statistics required would, as I foreshadowed in my speech on March 26 (and obviously it is so), involve a great deal of time and labour, and that as the Courts and the State Solicitors, who are the officers of the Free State Government responsible for dealing with this matter, are working under very heavy pressure, it is not possible to give all the details asked for by the noble Duke. A considerable number of cases arising under the Act of 1923 has, however, been dealt with by the Courts and the payments in respect of post-truce damage to property—it is the payments I am speaking of—made under that Act by the Government of the Irish Free State to date amount approximately to £300,000.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Can the noble Lord give us the number of the payments?
LORD ARNOLD: I am afraid I cannot; I have not that information.
LORD CARSON: Is this payments or awards?
LORD ARNOLD: It is payments, I emphasised that—while the ex gratia payments made in respect of injury to the person amount to £268,000.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Does that £300,000 include the City of Dublin?
LORD ARNOLD: I have no further details. I am making the broad statement that the payments in respect of post-truce damage to property under the Act of last year by the Government of the Irish Free State to date amount approximately to £.300,000. Those are payments. His Excellency adds, on behalf of his Ministers, that the satisfactory working of the Act of 1923 is shown by the fewness of the appeals lodged by applicants against the decrees for compensation awarded by the Courts.
LORD CARSON: The noble Lord has told us that £300,000 has been paid. Can be tell us the amount of the claims, because that is important?
LORD ARNOLD: I have not that information.
LORD CARSON: Is it not £15,000,000 or £16,000,000?
LORD ARNOLD: I have not that information, but I remember that on a previous occasion when that question was asked in regard to the pre-truce claims, various considerations were put forward which tended Co show that the figure which would be compiled, if one could be compiled, would not be altogether reliable because there was, at any rate in regard to pre-truce compensation—I am speaking from memory—a certain number of claims which were duplicates. Whether that is so in regard to post-truce cases I cannot say, but at any rate I have not the definite details.
I now come to the cases of post-truce injury to property quoted by Lord Danesfort. It is, of course, difficult for me to discuss individual cases arising in a Dominion and I am sure your Lordships will appreciate (his point. As regards the case of Mr. Crosby, I am informed that he has not appealed. That is my information. I can only say that it he is dissatisfied with the award given by the county court it is, of course, open to him to appeal, unless the time for doing so has already expired; and I do not understand on what grounds he asked through the noble Lord for the intervention of His Majesty's Government before he has exercised, or without having exercised, the legal rights open to him.
LORD DANESFORT: Is there an appeal in a case of this sort? If so, does it go to the House of Lords, or where? Does the noble Lord suggest that a man whose property is burned can always afford to appeal?
LORD ARNOLD: I will tell the noble Lord exactly what the position is. I understand that this is a case under the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act of 1923, the main Act which we are discussing. There is an appeal from that to the Circuit Court.
LORD CARSON: What is the section of the Act?
LORD ARNOLD: I have not the section, but there is an appeal to the Circuit Court. I am informed that this right of
634
appeal has not been exercised. Now, as regards the case of Lord Dunalley, the noble Lord was courteous enough to send me some particulars of the case in advance. I understood that the complaint was that some of the noble Lord's claims had not been heard and that in other cases the awards which had been granted had not yet been paid. That is what I understood from the particulars sent to mc. But in the particulars with which he was good enough to supply me privately, the noble Lord did not state the date of the decrees, so that I was unable to judge whether the delay in payment appeared to be excessive or not. But I have no reason to suppose that there has been any unreasonable delay in the payments by the Free State Government in respect of the decrees hitherto awarded by the Court under the Act of 1923. As regards the claims which have not yet been heard, I can only remind your Lordships that the cases arising under the Act are exceedingly numerous and that a certain delay must necessarily intervene before they can all be heard. I have no doubt that these claims will be heard as soon as the Courts concerned have disposed of the claims prior to them on their lists.
In addition to the cases of post-truce injury to property referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, he referred also to certain cases of post-truce injury be person. It is true that the noble Duke's Question relates only to injury to property, but I have already given to your Lordships the figures relating to injury to the person supplied to His Majesty's Government by the Free State Government, from which it will be remembered that the Government of the Free State have already expended more than a quarter of a million pounds in payment, of ex gratia awards made by the Personal Injuries Commission established by them. This amount is, of course, in addition to the compensation paid by them on the award of two members of the Wood-Renton Commission in cases in which members of the Crown Forces were killed or injured in breach of the truce.
Prior to the Treaty Ireland stood, I believe, alone in that statutory compensation was provided by the community for personal injuries of this kind. I am not aware that such compensation is provided in any other country. After the establishment of the Free State, the Free State Government decided to bring themselves.

635
into line with other countries in this matter. They repealed the Statutes providing compensation for personal injuries. This was done not in the lifetime of the present Government. It was done during last year when the late Government was in power. That is when it was done. In view, however, of the circumstances then existing in parts of Ireland the Free State Government set up a Commission for the purpose of awarding ex gratia compensation in cases of personal injuries, but in the terms of reference to that Commission it was provided that the compensation to be awarded was to be such a sum as ought, in reason and fairness, to be paid, regard being had to the actual earning capacity of the injured person prior to the injury and to the impairment of earning capacity attributable to the injury.
This principle of assessment has without doubt meant that less compensation is paid in respect of post-truce personal injury than probably would have been awarded by the Courts under the old Acts: but here again His Majesty's Government can see no ground on which they would be entitled to protest against the adoption of a principle which, in itself, cannot be said to be unreasonable. I was not aware of the precise nature of General Higginson's injuries. The noble Lord spoke of his case, but I have no reason to doubt that the principle to which I have referred has been fairly applied in his case, and that the result of the Committee's award is to place him in the same financial position after the injury that he was in before. I have dealt as fully as I can with the Questions of the noble Duke.
LORD CARSON: Will the noble Lord answer the fifth Question?
LORD ARNOLD: I have answered that as fully as I can with the information that I have. As regards looting, about which questions have been asked, the position is broadly this. Under the old Acts there were a number of cases decided by the Courts to the effect that loss by theft or looting did not afford ground for compensation. During the period when local authorities declined to defend claims a certain number of undefended awards included compensation for loss by loot, but after the truce two such cases were taken to the Court of Appeal, and the Court reversed the decisions and
636
restored the former practice. That, broadly, is the position in regard to looting—what used to be the case, and how-it now stands after the decisions to which I have referred. The Act of 1923 does contain the provision to which reference has been made, but that has been explained already.
I wish, before I sit down, to speak upon the Question of the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland, but before I come to that there are a few general considerations arising out of the question of post-truce compensation which I should wish to lay before your Lordships. First, I would once more remind your Lordships—I repeat this in view of certain observations of the noble Duke—that this Government has in no way departed from the policy laid down by its predecessors, but on the contrary have developed that policy as circumstances demanded. Secondly, the Treaty is now just two and a-half years old; and during a considerable portion of that period the Free State has been distracted and torn by civil strife. I do not believe that any of your Lordships will seriously maintain that during that time the Free State Government has in any respect been faithless to any of its obligations under the Treaty. But it is obvious that these civil disturbances have inevitably greatly hampered and delayed the settlement of the problems left over by the conflict which preceded the Treaty, and have in their turn created new problems. Of what I may call the pre-Treaty problems, that of compensation for pre-truce injuries was not the least; and, as I have already indicated to your Lordships, the two Governments who are jointly responsible for the settlement of that problem have gone far towards the completion. But the Free State Government, which is alone responsible for the settlement of post-truce compensation, is now in the very midst of dealing with that problem, and is in addition by no means free from the many difficulties and even dangers which a new State, born in conflict, has to meet.
I would like to add one or two further considerations before I come to the speech of the noble Duke who spoke second. I would, for instance, with great respect submit that your Lordships' House is not the most appropriate place for a detailed

637
discussion of individual cases. Again and again it has been found in the past that seemingly hard oases have, on examination, been explained. Indeed, the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, when he was in office, was able, I think, on more than one occasion to satisfy your Lordships that cases which had been sent to him proved, on investigation, to have no strong ground for compliant. In any case, I would submit that you cannot indict a whole system because of a certain number of cases where claimants are dissatisfied. It must be recognised that under any system there are, and always will be, a certain number of exceptional cases. I, however, feel strongly that these matters should be viewed as a whole.
As general evidence bearing on the position as a whole, I have already, on the authority of the Governor-General, called attention to the fewness of the appeals under the Act of 1023. Further, I think we can learn much from the analogy of what has happened in regard to pre-truce compensation which can now he regarded as a whole, or nearly as a whole. Bui your Lordships will remember that, while we were still in the midst of that question, the answers which His Majesty's Government was able to give in this House to questions addressed to them by your Lordships were by no means so complete or so satisfactory as they are now. I hope and believe that the same will be found to be true of post-truce compensation; and that when the Free State Courts and the Free State Government have wholly or nearly completed their task, including the appeals, so that the problem can be viewed as a whole, and not only in part, it will be found that a reasonable measure of justice has been done.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland, before he came to the Question in his name upon the Paper, submitted particulars of certain cases. One of them was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort. I will broadly give the facts. The unfortunate man referred to, before his death, was in receipt of a pension of 15 s. a week—that is £39 a year. I am informed that he had for a considerable period been unemployed prior to his death, and I think that at the best it is true to say that he was only more or less casually employed. There was a certain delay, to which reference has been
638
made. I have not got the precise details about that, though I confess that from my knowledge of the case I could not quite follow all that; was said. However, I will not for a moment speak of that. But when the decision came the widow of this unfortunate man was awarded £1 5s. per month for each child until the children reached the age of sixteen. There are, I believe, six children at the present time below the age of sixteen, and £7 10 s per month would bring the income of the widow up to £90 per year, or thereabouts. It is clear that, financially, she is probably in a better position than she was for some time prior to the death of her husband.
If you ask me whether I am entirely satisfied with this I say, no, I am not entirely satisfied with it, but at the same time I do submit, having regard to the facts which I have put before your Lordships, that at any rate until the children grow up and presumably will be able to help, this unfortunate widow might have been treated with greater harshness. I scarcely feel in all the circumstances that it is a case in which His Majesty's Government should make special representation. I have gone into the matter and tried to find out the actual position and how this particular amount was arrived at by those who were assessing the future income of the widow.
In regard to the speech of the noble Duke I do not intend to minimise the troubles experienced by the persons on whose behalf he has spoken, those who, in the words of the Question, "have suffered damage to person or property as the result of boycott, intimidation or violence," since the truce and who have no claim for compensation under the existing legislation. The information which has already reached me, both through the Association of which the noble Duke is President and otherwise, indicates that particularly in the South and West of the Irish Free State, and generally in isolated districts, cases of boycotting and intimidation, attended sometimes by actual injury to person or property still occur, and I feel sure that this fact is deplored by the Free State Government as much as it is by His Majesty's Government I can assure your Lordships that when individual cases are brought to the notice of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State,

639
or myself, and where it seems that any useful purpose can be served by making representations to Free State Ministers, such representations are made without delay, and are dealt with, I feel sure, as sympathetically as may be possible. I have already reminded your Lordships that only two years ago the Free State was in the throes of civil strife which left it crippled and weak in its infancy. It has on the whole shown marvellous power of recuperation, but the process of recovery is necessarily slow and is not yet complete. We all look forward to the time when the troubles to which the noble Duke has drawn attention will die down, but, as I have said, I certainly have no desire in the meantime to minimise their immediate effect upon the individual sufferers.
But what is it the noble Duke asks His Majesty's Government to do? Of the hardships and persecutions recounted by him, a considerable portion are of a kind for which no provision has been made, or can be made, by the law, and are moreover evils which during the period when His Majesty's Government was responsible for law and order in Ireland flourished unchecked, because they could not be checked, to a greater extent even than my information leads me to suppose that they flourish at present. No Government can ensure that, in the matter of employment, for example, discrimination shall not be exercised against certain classes of the population. The only remedy, in fact, for evils of this kind lies in the abatement of unrest and the strengthening of public security, objects which, I may safely say, are never absent from minds ambitious for the future of the country and responsible for its Government.
But there are other forms of persecution to which the noble Duke has referred which can be remedied by a strict enforcement of the law—apart from eases of personal injury with which I have dealt, as fully as I can in replying to the Duke of Devonshire. I refer to cases where men are dispossessed of their property and the whole class of what were formerly known as "agrarian" cases. It is, I think, within the knowledge of some of your Lordships that for some time past the Free State Government has detailed troops to deal with cases of this kind and
640
that in a very large number of cases in which, during the civil strife, farms had been seized and stocked, the cattle have been driven off and sold and the property restored to its owners. In such cases, if it should appear that the facts have not been brought fully to the notice of the Free State Government, His Majesty's Government will gladly undertake to see that this is done.
I am, I should perhaps explain, only dealing with people who, in spite of hardship suffered in one or other of the forms mentioned in the terms of the Question, have been able to remain in their houses. Your Lordships are well aware that many who have been forced to leave the Free State have been assisted by a Committee set up for that purpose with the full agreement of the Free State Government. The money expended by this Committee, the Irish Grants Committee, up to last week in grants alone, by way of relief and by way of resettlement, and irrespective of the advances made on statutory claims, amounted to nearly £50,000, a considerable proportion of which is recoverable from the Free State Government under the Agreement made with them when the Committee was setup. Such people we can help, but where the individual concerned has not become a refugee, I am afraid it must be realised that His Majesty's Government cannot directly intervene.
In addition to what I have said about the relief granted by the Irish Grants Committee, I should like to make it clear that when an aggrieved person, whether a refugee or not, has any statutory claim against the Free State Government, His Majesty's Government are still willing to make advances on the security of that claim. They have up to the present time made advances amounting in all to over £300,000 and have thus, I know, relieved much temporary hardship and distress.
LORD CARSON: Amongst how many people?
LORD ARNOLD: I could not say without reference.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I freely acknowledge that the noble Lord always tries to meet applications for information to the best of his ability, and I should also like to acknowledge the truth of what he said, that the difficulties under which we labour are not the creation of

641
the present Government but are a legacy left by the last two Governments. But having acknowledged so much, it does not relieve the situation in the slightest degree. It is no use pretending that pledges and promises have been carried out when it can be demonstrably shown that they have been absolutely broken and neglected. I will deal with that in a few moments, but lest I forget, let me entirely dispute the statement which the noble Lord has made, and made more than once, of the complete satisfaction that has been felt with the Wood-Renton Commission.
That statement was put forward and sent by the Secretary of State for the Colonies two or three days ago to the Committee which receives these claims from Ireland, and here is the answer returned to him yesterday, of which I have a copy. It does not express that great admiration and I will tell the noble Lord why in a moment—that he would lead the House to believe they feel for this particular Commission. The Committee say that:—
" They would like to point out in reply to paragraph 2 "—
that is the paragraph of a laudatory character regarding the Wood-Renton
Commission—
" that the appreciatory remarks made about the Wood-Renton Commission did not extend to those inspectors, whom presumably the Commissioners are unable to control, and who are using the pressure of threatened building conditions to compel loyalist" who cannot rebuild in Ireland to accept perhaps one-third of the sum which the investigators themselves admit it would cost to rebuild."
Let me explain to your Lordships what that means, and what is the method of the Wood-Kenton Commission.
The Wood-Renton Commission was appointed to investigate all the pre-truce claims in respect of property. They even had authority to overrule awards that had been made by British Courts. The noble Lords says that they got through a good deal of work, and that they are now practically winding up. How did they do it? I will tell your Lordships. They sent to every unfortunate claimant, whether he held a decree or not, these inspectors, who used the most tyrannical methods towards these people to make them come to a suggested agreement. I may remind your Lordships that, out of the thousands of cases that were put forward, this great Wood-Renton Commission heard only
642
about 500 altogether. The House will easily see that was the effect of the methods they adopted in sending inspectors down to intimidate these people.
What is the meaning of the passage regarding building conditions? I will tell your Lordships. This is one of the greatest travesties of justice that has ever been brought before this House. It means—and I have cases here to prove what I say—that the inspectors went to these men whose houses had been burned down and whose property had been destroyed, and said—I give this as an actual case—" If you will take £4,000 to settle you can have it. Admittedly your property is worth £20,000, but if you insist on going on and getting the value of your property, we will put a condition upon you that you must rebuild." That has been done in hundreds of cases. What does it mean? Let us look at it as men of the world, and not in this humbugging spirit of pretending you are doing justice, which makes it worse, because it is only an absolute sham. Their suggestion really means this: "You have been driven out of Ireland, your house has been burnt, your furniture has been destroyed, you have probably been shot at and your wife and family have been in danger. You must come back and rebuild your house and live amongst the people who threw you out." Am I right in describing that as a farce? That is the way in which these pro-truce cases have been dealt with, and that is the way in which this large number of claims has been disposed of.
Yet, with all this, the amount paid, as I understand the figures—they were the only figures given by the noble Lord—amounted to about £5,704,000, and out of that the British Government paid nearly one half. What does that mean? For damage done in what they call the war by the British Forces the British Government have paid one half of all that has been paid for that long series of outrages which the Wood-Renton Commission has dealt with. When I give your Lordships the facts of one case that was put forward and has been postponed for hearing, you will see, what the British Government is paying for. This was the ease of a man who kept a bomb factory in premises at the rear of a certain house in one of the squares in Dublin for the purpose of making bombs to attack the

643
Crown Forces. His premises were raided by the Crown Forces and considerably knocked about. He has lodged a claim for £800. Whatever is allowed on that claim will be paid by the British taxpayer.
I would press upon the noble Lord that he might put a little persuasion upon the Free State Government in this matter. Is it any wonder that the Free State Government have not sent to the British Government any details of the claims for which they were called upon to pay? As I understand the noble Lord's statement, the British Government have accepted the Bill for the damage done by their own Forces, and have paid it just as it was presented to them, without any inquiry whatsoever. I do not wonder, if they were paying for bomb factories which were brought into existence for the purpose of blowing up British soldiers. All that has been paid in hard cash for all the damage that has been done by these people during those years before the truce, after you have reversed judgments of your own Courts over there, is somewhere about half the sum which has been paid by the British taxpayer, who has not even been allowed to know what he paid it for. Whether it ever reached the claimants I do not know. There is no evidence to that effect.
I turn to one other matter to which the noble Lord referred. He spoke of the case of Mr. Talbot Crosby, of Ardfert, whose beautiful and historic place, an old abbey, was burnt down. The agreed figure in relation to it was £21,000; this was agreed by the Crown and the claimant as its value. But they said: "You were not in residence, and therefore you can only get £2,000." The noble Lord asked why he did not appeal. May I ask the noble Lord what would be the good of appealing in a case of that kind, if the Statute said that, as he was not in residence, they can put the compensation at what they call the "market value"? What may be the market value of anything of that kind in Ireland, it would, of course, be impossible to decide, for there could not be any market value. What are you to appeal about? He was not in residence, and therefore he came under the section. Why was he not in residence? Because he was driven out of Ireland by force, and because the British Government left him no protection, but
644
handed him over to the Free State, who refused to protect him. And then, in consequence of this sequence of facts, he is told that the value of his place is £21,000, but that he ought to be very thankful to get £2,000. So much for the matters to which reference has been made.
The noble Lord, I am sorry to say, and I am not blaming him for it, has answered very few of the Questions put upon the Paper. Indeed, I think he has only-answered the first one; but let me, before I come to that, say this. He very properly asks: "What do you suggest: what is the purport of your suggestion!" It was the British Government which gave a free hand to the Free State to do what they liked. I am not speaking of verbal promises. It was the British Government which withdrew all protection from their loyal supporters in Ireland. It was the British Government which gave the Free State the authority to revoke judgments given in His Majesty's Courts in Ireland, which was, I venture to think, a matter unprecedented in the history of this or any other civilised country. It was the British Government which gave them the power to abolish the claims for consequential damage, and claims for personal injuries, which they did by the Act of 1923. When the British Government did that, they said: "We must recognise our obligations to these people, and, recognising our obligations, we must first try to get the Free State to pay, and if they do not pay we must undertake the responsibility ourselves." I say that that is the duty of any Government in the circumstances disclosed here, and that can be disclosed.
The noble Lord asks: How can you deal with individual cases? If he will stay here I can go on giving him individual cases till midnight, but, of course, you cannot deal with individual cases here. Let the Government, however, set up a Commission, of their own appointment, to discover who has suffered from the action of the British Government in abandoning these people and giving this liberty to the Free State. Then we will bring cases, and they can be sifted. Let the British Government then take care that the money shall be forthcoming for the payment of compensation to these men, whose only crime was that they were loyal to the end—men whom we used in our campaign for two years before the truce, and whom, for

645
political reasons, we finally abandoned. Is not that a fair suggestion? Quotations have already been made from Mr. Winston Churchill. The late Government made exactly the same promises, and the noble Lord said that the present Government did not wish to go back upon anything that they had said. Then I ask this question: When does the obligation of the British Government to see justice done commence: I pray you commence now.
When I heard the noble Lord justifying the acts of the Free State—because, after all. he is merely a gramophone for the Free State—the one thing which he never thought of war, the burning anxiety and miseries caused by the delays in these cases. The noble Lord talked of the pre-truce cases being practically satisfied at the present moment. I have here—and, of course, they are only a few of those sent to the association—ease after ease of decrees, now two years old, under which not a penny has been paid. Do not let: us get away with that idea that we are only dealing with big cases. It is the small cases which cause the greatest hardship. Here is one—it is no use mentioning names—Lost eon, in the militia, burning so and so, August 27, 1920, lodged a claim for £500, decree for £200, but only received £75. Here is another one:—May 12, had barracks burnt in certain place, received a decree for £800, nut paid. On June 6, 1921, three trees cut down, house, unoccupied, looted, broken open and destroyed, not paid a penny either under the decree or in respect of the other matters. I have heard of many cases of a similar character where decrees were given.
There is one to which I would like to draw attention. It is that of a man who had certain licensed premises burnt down on March 17, 1921, by the British Crown Forces—it is a case in which he should get something from Great Britain—and the stables, livestock and other property were destroyed. The family of five young children had to flee from the house early in the morning. The case was before the County Court Judge in January, 1922, and £3,072 and costs were awarded. The case was reviewed by the Wood-Benton Commission, who awarded £3,600—they had to cut down something. The man is in desperate circumstances owing to the loss of his business, but he
646
has not been paid. I am talking of the small man—the poor devil, if I may so call him. Then there is a case which I brought before the Irish Grants Committee, and let me say, with regard to that, I believe Lord Eustace Percy and Colonel Jamieson are doing their best, within their limited reference and their limited resources. I may say, in passing, that the amount of business they do could be extended to bring great relief to many of these people.
Here is a letter from a man who wrote to me during the month from Birmingham. He says he is one of the unfortunate ex-R.1.C. men compelled to flee from Ireland owing to having served in the Constabulary for twenty-eight years, although he had retired on a pension fourteen years before his house was raided. He says it is not a case of politics but simply of revenge and of coveting his position and land, which were worth to him over £7 per week. He lodged a claim for £3,500—namely, £3,000 for office and land, and £500 for the destruction of his furniture. That was over two years ago. After two years the case came on and he was awarded £250. He writes saying he has a boy who is dying, with no hope of recovery. This boy was cruelly ill-treated by the raiders, the I.R.A. men, taken out of his warm bed three nights in succession after the raid on his father's house, without any clothes or boots, and marched up and down the town for three or four hours. Now and again he was put standing against a wall, and orders were given to the firing party to execute him if he would not divulge the whereabouts of his father and brother, whom they were determined to assassinate.
"Luckily for myself," writes my correspondent, "I made good my escape, unnoticed, in the morning of May 6, 1922, and came on direct to Birmingham," where he has never been able since, though trying hard to do so, to get any work—because everybody knows the state of employment in this country. He brought to the notice of the Commission that he had not a shilling at the time, and that he had a son on his deathbed, yet, after two years, he only got £250 awarded for the loss of everything he had in the world. The Commission advanced him £100 on his decree, the letter he got from them saying that their means did not allow them to offer him anything

647
more. He has written over and over again to be paid the balance of his £250, and he has not even got an answer from the authorities in Dublin. I suggest that, the least the Government might do, when decrees are made, is to pay the amount of the decree, and then get the money themselves from the Free State. After all, you are the people who trust the Free State; you have just said so. You say they are managing splendidly, and that there is no unnecessary delay. Very well, pay the money to these martyrs to their loyalty to you, and then get it back from the Free State. But is not that an intolerable case after two years? I hope that man will go about in Birmingham, now that he is over here, and tell the people he meets what the British Government really is when it wants to make a surrender in politics.
There is another matter. It is said that there are inquiries going on over there. Many cases have been given to you. I have been looking through a number of cases; I get so many of them that I am hardly able to acknowledge all. I send on a few, because, if I sent them all, the Colonial Office would have nothing else to do but answer. Most extraordinary judgments are sometimes come to, and every sort of expedient, is adopted for escaping liability, even under the Act of Parliament. If gangs of these ruffians come up and destroy your house, and take away all your things, and you claim compensation, you may get compensation for your house on the principle that I have told you of—namely, that you go back there and build a house—but, as regards the goods that are taken away, you get no compensation, because they say that is common loot.
Let me give you instances. The mansion house belonging to a certain family was bodily carried off. This is the description that I have received of this incident:
" It was unoccupied at the time. The natives descended on it, pullea the structure to pieces, and carried off everything, including the roof, which they put up for auction, and the walls. There is nothing now left to show that there ever was a house. The claim for compensation was disallowed as loot."
A gentleman in the County of Cork had an enormous quantity of electrical instruments, scientific instruments, taken by the I.R.A. He obtained decrees under the
648
British Courts for sums considerably exceeding £1,00(). His awards were subsequently disallowed by the Wood-Renton Commission as loot.
I have a case here of a rev. gentleman who was a Chaplain to the Forces. I always notice that we never have any Bishops present when the cases of these, loyalists are brought up in this House; if they had been here they might have had some sympathy with this rev. gentleman. His things were taken away in a raid—even his chaplain's outfit, and all his cattle. He was a poor man. I have here the three decrees that he got in the County Courts, amounting to £300 or £400. This is what he says:
" During 1920 and 1921 I was raided eleven times, and many persona) articles were taken, while much damage was done to Church property."
The Bishops might note that. In January, 1920, he was awarded £37 and £23 costs, making in all £60 in respect of cattle driven from his land. On January 21, 1921, he was awarded £130 and £14 11 s. 3d. costs in respect of other goods taken away in a raid. His wife, on June 21, was awarded £17 and costs, and he states that certain of the Irregulars admitted having taken the goods, while certain Free State officers admitted having used them. His decrees were reopened by the Wood-Renton Commission and the claims were disallowed as loot. He gets no redress, and now what is the result of his having won his cases in British Courts? He gets paid nothing, and this poor clergyman has had to pay his solicitor £41 8s. 3d. for costs, and he owes another solicitor £20 2s. for costs in connection with certain other claims. And that is justice!
I have already called attention to the way in which they get rid of the claims by putting in this building condition. I have another case here, where there was a claim for £39,000, a claim by Captain Somerset Maxwell, cousin of a member of this House, and he proved the damage. But his counsel made this very remarkable statement, which I take from a newspaper:
" Mr. Dockrell said, having regard to what had happened, neither Captain Maxwell nor his mother intended to resume residence in the country, so that the question of restoration did not arise."
I should add that his mother was an old lady who had a charge of £500 a year

649
upon this property. I suppose they were rather influenced by his stating in the course of the evidence that he was the owner of 2,000 or 3,000 acres of land and two houses, but he was reduced to leaving Ireland. As he was getting no rents from has estates he organised an orchestra in London to maintain himself and his relatives. I suppose that means that he is playing in a band somewhere or other. As he was an officer in the Army I am sure that some of your Lordships at all events may think it a hard fate for a man who had all this property, that because he refuses to go back to the place where his property was burned, he is awarded 124 as compensation for damage proved to amount to something like £35,000.
There are other cases of a different character. I am sorry to detain the House so long, but your Lordships know that what the British Government would like is that these matters should lie in abeyance. There is nothing that England likes better than forgetting. It is easy to forget, particularly if it costs nothing. In connection with the next case that I desire to bring before your Lordships I want to say something complimentary about the present Government. This case is an illustration of the way in which compensation is awarded. This is the case of a man who would not risk his life,—for reasons I will give you in a moment—by going before a Cabinet Committee to prosecute his claim for compensation amounting to £37,237. His furniture was destroyed at a railway station on the night of April 20, 1922. He lost several good appointments which he held and by which he was making £2,000 or £3,000 a year. He was compelled to quit Ireland and he claimed for consequential losses.
What had happened was this. Twenty of the Free State troops raided his house. I have here a quotation from a letter from General O'Duffy, who says that: "The raid on the house was carried out by mutinous troops who were disloyal to headquarters." They went up to the house while this gentleman and his son were alone in it. They demanded admission, no doubt to burn the house. He and his son refused to allow them to enter and stayed in the hall. When the raiders came in they shot them one after another until they had shot six. That
650
man, of course, will never again be able to show his face in Ireland for daring to protect himself when no Government would protect him. Your Lordships will be amazed to hear the amount of compensation that he got for the loss of about £2,000 a year and for being driven out of the country. The Judge gave him a decree for £80 in respect of damage done to the furniture at the railway station. His Honour said that he could not give him anything for his having to leave the country nor for the consequential losses sustained by reason of his not being protected. I will say this, however, and it is right and fair that I should say it because I happen to know this gentleman myself. It is entirely to the credit of the present Government that, while no other Government would do anything for this man, they have tried to obtain and I believe have obtained employment for him. If they recognise the case from my description (I mention no names) I can assure them they have got a man of first-rate business capacity who is revered and respected throughout the whole of the North of Ireland.
I do not know that it is necessary to pursue this matter further. We have got much further in the matter of information. The noble Lord has told us that £300,000 has been paid in respect of post-truce claims. It was officially stated that the damage done since the truce was estimated at between £40,000,000 and £50,000,000. You might as well say that sixpence has been paid as that £300,000 has been paid. What is to happen while this delay continues? What are these people to do? If they are able to be paid let them be paid now and give them the hope of a chance of some sort, of new life. I have found nobody but myself who has been paid at all in any of these cases that have happened since the truce. There may be such cases, but I have not been able to find them. There are several members of your Lordships' House who have been awarded large sums but have not been paid. I would point out to the noble Lord that to say that £300,000 has been paid out of £40,000,000 or £50,000,000—that may be an estimate, and I dare say by various means they will get it down to £14,000,000 or £15,000,000 or something of the sort—after three years, is really making the whole thing absolutely hopeless and helpless for the people who are hoping to get a new start.

651
There is one other matter to which I would like to direct your Lordships' attention. In regard to many of these claims which have been proved after a great deal of trouble and in which awards have been made, it is said:—" We cannot pay the award because we must estimate what Income Tax you ought to have paid during the last three years." Just fancy estimating Income Tax in such cases ! What do you pay Income Tax for? I always thought it was for benefits received from the Government. You do not pay Income Tax to have your house burned down, your property looted, your children driven up and down the street, and all the rest of the things I have described. But they say: "You owe. Income Tax." I know of a case of a resident of this country who has discharged his Income Tax and Super-Tax and has paid every penny over here. He was awarded a sum of money in compensation and he has been told: "You must furnish us with an account of your property, whether it is in Ireland or England, and whether you have paid taxes upon it or whether you have not. We cannot pay the award until Income Tax has been assessed." I have accounts of several cases in which people have been awarded small amounts and, after waiting for a long time, have been told: "Well, so much was awarded to you, but the authorities advise us that you ought to have been paying Income Tax and, therefore, we will take the sum awarded and apply it to that purpose."
Here is a case as to which the man himself makes a statement in a letter. This man was agent of a noble Lord who is a member of this House. He had a free house, salary and commission and he was agent for one of the shipping lines as well. On the night of November 4, 1922, his house was attacked by armed men and he was shot and badly wounded. The attack was made purely because of his loyalty to the Crown, he being an ex-officer and his employer a Unionist Peer. He lodged a claim for £2,000 compensation for personal injuries due to his being shot and badly wounded. The case was heard on October 10, 1923, and the Judge awarded him £40. Oh, generous justice ! In March, 1924, the Minister of Finance in Dublin informed him that his claim had now been considered and they gave him an ex gratia grant of £40, but as he owed
652
this amount to the Revenue Commissioners they had sent a cheque for £40 to the Revenue Commissioners in discharge of that liability. There is the case of a man who, having been driven out of Ireland and having given up every one of his appointments, goes before what is called a Court and is awarded £40. He is living over here, and is deprived of every source of income because he did not get the ordinary protection that the Income Tax payer ought to have.
This Government sometimes are movable in these things, and I willingly acknowledge that since they came into power I have had more kind things done for some of these poor people whose cases I have brought before them than I ever got before from either of the two preceding Governments. I urge the Government to set up some sort of tribunal. Let them choose it themselves, and suggest such limitations as they like, but let it be a tribunal before which men can bring these, injustices. Do not let this great stain remain on England's honour and on England's fairness.

GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

PUBLIC HEALTH (SMOKE ABATEMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I will not venture to take up very much of your time to-night on this Bill, because in all its essentials it is the Bill that your Lordships have already given a Second Reading to twice before. I hope that those who are interested in this subject will believe me when I say that that is the reason for my brevity and not any disrespect for the great cause for which they have fought, or because I do not really appreciate the importance of the subject. To-night, I think it would be sufficient if I reminded your Lordships very briefly of the salient points of the Bill. Firstly, the colour distinction is removed. Secondly, the Minister is empowered to add to the list of noxious gases. Thirdly, the Minister does not

653
alter the body which is to operate this Act. The power is left in the hands of the sanitary authorities. The Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, suggested that the power should be transferred to county councils. The Ministry, however, consider that the sanitary authorities, being on the spot, are the best bodies to deal with the matter, at any rate at first, and that they are more likely to have nuisances brought under their notice. But the Ministry have met this point by giving the county councils power to act in default, and, further, they are giving the Minister power to act in default.
When this Bill was read a second time some little time ago the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman, raised one objection. He said that this was an example, and a bad example, of legislation by reference. I am, however, in a position to satisfy that criticism. The Ministry quite agree with his point, and they have authorised me to say that at the present moment the officials of the Ministry are engaged in consolidating the whole of the Public Health Acts, and that when that is done, if this Bill goes through, it will duly be incorporated in its right form. I may also add that the Minister would be very pleased to consider any Amendments that are likely to improve the Bill. He is also willing to consider Amendments which, I understand, are likely to be put down by certain shipping interests. He will, however, have to keep in mind that this Bill is only likely to get through in the near future if we are able to maintain that very general measure of agreement that hitherto has been attained. On a subject of this importance the Government, of course, expect a number of Amendments, and, as I said, the Minister will be very pleased to consider them.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I do not want in any way to oppose the Bill, but there are two points to which my attention has been called by industry, and I desire at once to bring them to the notice of the Government. One is a purely administrative point. The other is a point of some substance. Under Clause 3 the whole of the metal industry is practically immune, I understand, from prosecution under the Smoke Abatement Acts for a
654
definite period of five years, and afterwards until they are excluded from protection by a Provisional Order. There are, however, in industry new processes which it might be desirable to include in the protective clause.
There is also, I understand, in the pottery district a glazing process in connection with the finishing of pottery which requires, at the present time, a very heavy smoke charged atmosphere, and if this process of glazing is not completed this particular industry would leave this country, because of the impossibility of securing the same finish to the goods without it as could be put upon them by competitors in other countries who would not be subjected to this limitation. The point I want the Government to consider before the Committee stage is whether they would include in the power of the Minister not only the power of exclusion, but also the power to include processes which require protection. There may be new processes, or there may be processes already in operation, which really require protection under the clauses of this Bill. I will put down an Amendment dealing with that point, and I hope it may receive the favourable consideration of the Government. It is merely an empowering Amendment, and gives to the Minister, if he is satisfied that inclusion is required, the same power as he will have to exclude under the provisions of the Smoke Abatement Acts.
My other point is one which I think will be acceptable to the Government without much consideration. In an industry smoke frequently occurs through careless firing of boilers, and complaint naturally is made. In many cases notice is at once given of the complaint to the perpetrator and action is taken by the industry to abate the nuisance which is being caused. But there is no obligation in law for any such notice to be given, and I am seeking to make it obligatory on the part of the inspector, who alleges the offence, to give notice at once to the individual so that there may be no delay in dealing with it. If it is left to the ordinary course of procedure then the inspector reports to the sub-committee, and the sub-committee has to wait until the council meeting is called. Then a resolution has to be passed by the council and the town clerk, or the clerk of the authority, has

655
to communicate with the firm. Sometimes weeks pass without notice being given of the complaint, and my object is, by a simple administrative process, to give notice at once to the alleged defaulter. Industries at the moment are doing all they can by research work to reduce the smoke nuisance, and many processes have already been discovered by which it is possible to take advantage of the waste products which smoke contains. I hope these two points will receive the favourable consideration of the Government.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I should like to offer a word of congratulation to my noble friend opposite on bringing in a Bill which is exactly the same as that which I had the honour to submit to your Lordsips' House. This is the third Smoke Abatement Bill laid before Parliament during the last three years.
LORD NEWTON: The fourth.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It is the third with which I have had any connection. The first was introduced by the Coalition Government, the second by the Conservative Government, and now we have this Bill introduced by the present Government. I may fairly claim, therefore, that this is an absolutely non-Party matter; that all Parties are united in endeavouring to do something to abate the smoke nuisance. I trust that the efforts of three Governments may result, before long, in something tangible being done. Last year when I introduced a Smoke Abatement Bill, I suggested that there, should be some interval between the Second Reading and the Committee stage, but really that interval has been rather more prolonged than I anticipated, and as the present Bill is practically the same as the Bill introduced last year, and to which your Lordships gave a Second Beading, I hope my noble friend will proceed with the Committee stage as soon as he can. One thing which he said gave me considerable pleasure. The objection which was raised last year to my Bill by the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, was that it was the worst example of legislation by reference he had ever seen, and my noble friend said that this was to be met by including this Bill in a Public Health Consolidation Bill. I am glad to sec that my noble friend has again followed the excellent example of the late Government.
656
One word on the Bill itself. There are a few changes from the previous measure. For instance: I hope the noble Lord will give me some indication as to what the subsection in Clause 2, relating to the London County Council, actually means. Then there was an omission in the Bill of last year in regard to the confirmation of by-laws by the Ministry of Health. It may have again been inadvertently omitted. The other alteration is only slight; the provisions with regard to black smoke have been made a trifle stronger. We have heard from Lord Gainford that he proposes to move Amendments in Committee, and I trust that other noble Lords who are interested in the question will also move Amendments so that the whole question may be thoroughly thrashed out and that we may arrive at some conclusion on the subject.
VISCOUNT INCHCAPE: My Lords, I hope when this Bill comes before us in Committee that some Amendment will be accepted by the Government. No device has yet been invented which will enable steamers to consume their own smoke. I only wish we could get some such device, it would save us many thousands of pounds a year. But if this Bill goes through as it is, and shipping is included, I am afraid there will be great danger of ships being held up in the ports of London, Liverpool, Bristol, and elsewhere, which will cause serious inconvenience. I feel sure that His Majesty's Government will take care to consider this point very carefully in Committee.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this is not the third Bill which has been introduced on this subject; it is the fourth. I introduced one myself, and three Bills have been introduced by successive Governments. I observe that some slight progress has been made on each occasion, and this Bill is described as a Public Health Bill, which shows that the Government recognise some of the objections to smoke. It is a novel experience for me to find anybody in this House besides myself who has anything to say on a Bill of this kind. I welcome the contributions of noble Lords, but up to now they do not appear to be quite so friendly to the principle of the Bill as I should like.
I congratulate the Government on one thing, and that is that in framing this Bill they consulted not only the various associations

657
with whom I act but also the representatives of the Federation of British Industries, and I observe that this very important and influential body has got something very substantial out of the Government. In Clause 2, in addition to the advantages they have hitherto enjoyed in the way of exemption, they are going to get still further exemptions. In this I trace the hand of Sheffield. There is no noble Lord present just now who is interested in Sheffield, but probably, if one were present, he would be very indignant with me when I say that Sheffield is one of the smokiest towns in the country. I am informed, on the authority of the Air Ministry, that airmen, when they rise from London on a clear day, can at once distinguish the smoke of Sheffield in the far distance, and can direct their course to it without the need of compasses or anything else, just as the Israelites were able to proceed by means of the pillar of cloud thousands of years ago.
While congratulating the Government upon some slight improvements in the Bill, there are certain matters regarding which I, as well as the noble Lords who have spoken, propose to offer Amendments. I observe that many of the recommendations which we made have been conspicuously ignored. I notice, for instance, that in the clause which deals with what are termed standards the penalties apply only to black smoke. I should have thought that everybody would realise, by this time that smoke is equally objectionable in whatever form it may appear. Green, yellow or brown smoke is every bit as objectionable as black smoke. Then again I observe, much to my surprise—because I look upon it as an act of extraordinary coolness, not to say impudence, on the part of the Government—that they propose to exempt their own establishments. They propose to fine private manufacturers if they emit smoke, but they are going carefully to exempt their own manufactures from anything of the kind.
As regards administration, I regret that the Government have been unable to accept our recommendations. We wanted to make the county councils and the boroughs responsible for the administration of this Act. That would have reduced the number of authorities who would have had to administer the Act from 1800 to something like 140, which,
658
in itself, would have been a very considerable gain. But my chief objection to the Bill—and I hope that, for once in a way, it is a groundless objection—is that it is brought in at such a late period of the Session that there is not much hope of its passing into law. I have frequently deplored the apathy of successive Governments with regard to this important question. I regard it as one of the most pressing social questions that exist, and I will go so far as to say that it has a very important political aspect as well. It is not by a mere coincidence that the most revolutionary and disturbing influences in politics proceed from the districts which are most afflicted with smoke. There is a very good reason for it. A short time ago we were talking a great deal about "homes for heroes," though we do not hear so much of that kind of talk now. The hero's home is not ideal if, as happens in many parts of the country, he is unable to open his windows on account of the state of the atmosphere.
The great difficulty with this Government—and I am rather surprised at it, though it has also been the great difficulty with other Governments—is that you cannot get them to believe that there are any votes to be got out of this Bill. I know perfectly well, and everybody else knows, that no Government will take up any Bill unless it thinks that there are votes to be got out of it, and we find it very difficult to persuade even this Government that there are votes to be got by legislation of this character. I believe that to be a profound illusion. I believe that there are far more people, and intelligent people too, who feel deeply upon this subject than is commonly realised, and that if any satisfactory legislation is ever passed the Minister responsible for it will have conferred inestimable benefit upon his fellow-citizens.
There is, at all events, one hopeful feature about this most important question, and that is that it has been taken out of the hands of private individuals, people like myself and societies who have been perpetually urging legislation of this character. I am only too glad to think that, now that successive Governments have accepted the responsibility of

659
dealing with this most important question, it will, I take it, be impossible for almost any Government to evade it in future, and, if we exercise sufficient patience, I suppose we shall some day get, if not everything we want, at least a large measure of it.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, for his congratulations, and I only hope that the Labour Government will continue bringing to fruition those works which other Governments are apparently unable to achieve. I will certainly bring the Amendments suggested by noble Lords to the notice of the Minister.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made.

HOUSING BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, there is an Amendment on the Paper in my name which is merely a verbal correction. I beg to move that it be agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Clause 108, page 75, line 41, after the first (" the ") insert (" streets or ").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RE-ORGANISATION OF OFFICES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 9:
Secretary for Scotland may make orders relating to Register of Deeds., etc.
(2) It shall be lawful for the Secretary for Scotland, after consultation as aforesaid, by order to direct that the office of Director of Chancery shall be discontinued, and to provide for the performance of any powers and duties of the said Director by the Keeper of the Records, the Keeper of the General Register of Sasines, the Keeper of the Register of Deeds, the Principal Extractor of the Court of Session, the Sheriff Clerk of Chancery, or the sheriff clerks of counties in such manner as may seem expedient.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I have an Amendment upon the Paper which is consequential upon that which was done on the last stage. I beg to move that it be agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Clause 9, page 3, line 41, leave out (" as aforesaid ") and insert (" with the Lord President of the Court of Session").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE LATE SIR HUGH LANE'S PICTURES.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, before the House adjourns I desire to take the opportunity of making a similar announcement to one made to-day in another place with reference to the composition of the Committee which, as I stated on Monday, will be set up to inquire into the intentions of the late Sir Hugh Lane as to the disposition of his French pictures. The right hon. J. W. Wilson has consented to act as Chairman of the Committee, and the other members will be the right hon. George Barnes and Mr. J. W. Hills.
House adjourned at half-past seven o'clock.